Lockdowns don't work.

Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
There's a nuance to what I'm saying.

Exploding case numbers correlate with two things and neither is about whether or not cities have implemented house arrest orders. The exploding case numbers correlate first with how many people were going in and out of those cities and from where and from when and secondly, with testing.

Lockdowns have a very slight effect on the R0 of SARS-CoV-2 that is extremely difficult to prove. The cost of that very slight R0 adjustment is too high. It's starvation, a loss of other medical services and unsustainable social unrest and economic apocalypse. To say that lockdowns are saving lives is completely wrong, especially since you can still isolate yourself with no lockdown.

Then you add in the element of herd immunity arising from recoveries. It's a nuanced argument, try to follow.
Click to expand...
What lockdowns do is slow the rate at which an infected person can spread the virus.

You make a sweeping statement about cost. The virus loose in a large urban population with no immunity and nothing to prevent contact with infected people isn't something society can afford.

One solution is to get to the point where there is enough herd immunity without a mass die-off in a short period of time that overwhelms the healthcare system. That's what lockdowns do. Not saying lockdowns are something that can be tolerated forever either. A better solution would be to keep the virus in check until a vaccine is developed. It's a nuanced argument, try to follow.
 
ANC

ANC

Well-Known Member
doublejj said:
Yeah poor trump......
Coronavirus: Trump retweets threat to fire Dr Fauci who said US response cost lives

Dr Anthony Fauci said fewer people would have died if Trump administration had announced isolation measures earlier
www.scmp.com

Trump retweets call to fire Fauci who said US virus response cost lives

It’s not clear whether retweet was a vague threat, but Donald Trump has fired several prominent public servants over the last few weeks.
www.scmp.com www.scmp.com
Click to expand...
3500.jpg
Donald Trump answers a question about hospitals and frontline healthcare workers reporting shortages of masks and coronavirus tests. Photograph: Yuri Gripas/Reuters
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
What lockdowns do is slow the rate at which an infected person can spread the virus.

You make a sweeping statement about cost. The virus loose in a large urban population with no immunity and nothing to prevent contact with infected people isn't something society can afford.

One solution is to get to the point where there is enough herd immunity without a mass die-off in a short period of time that overwhelms the healthcare system. That's what lockdowns do. Not saying lockdowns are something that can be tolerated forever either. A better solution would be to keep the virus in check until a vaccine is developed. It's a nuanced argument, try to follow.
Click to expand...
Lockdowns are intended to reduce the R0. If you follow the argument, you would see that I have already acknowledged this. In fact, while I believe this is true to a very miniscule extent, it can't be proven numerically. What is demonstrable, is that several countries where such sweeping lockdowns have never been implemented have been far more successful. They have also spent far less per capita.

I continue to believe the cost of the lockdowns is too high and may indeed hasten the economic downfall of the republic, taking the healthcare system with it. The cost right now is that all other priorities have been rescinded. Overall, deaths have not decreased due to the lockdowns even accounting for the virus. Non-related deaths have increased and it is very hard to say if fewer would have died just because of the virus and other causes if a different approach had been taken.

Furthermore, nobody would remove anyone's right to isolate.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
That's not at all what South Korea has done though. In South Korea you can go to a restaurant. Colleges are open for class. Employment hasn't suffered drastically. I agree that those 3 cities are emergencies but they got that way because they did not screen visitors when they knew there was a pandemic. New Orleans had tens of thousands of international travelers for Mardi Gras. New York had international travelers coming in at full speed until 3 weeks ago. I'm honestly not that informed about Seattle so I won't comment on it. Now that they are disaster sites, they can't function and therefore have no choice but to lock down. Even so, it can't really be proven numerically that the curve is flattening due to the lockdowns and small businesses being shut and people being on house arrest.
Click to expand...
South Korea has draconian tracing steps in place, even taking cell phones to tell where people have been and they publicize where people might have been exposed. The only way they can keep schools and restaurants open is through a fairly rigorous containment strategy.

The theory behind the lockdown isn't particularly new. If the vector doesn't make contact with others the disease cannot be transmitted. Washington was the first state to implement a lockdown and it most certainly has shown reduced numbers of deaths once the backlog of existing infected people either got better or died. It's taken weeks to get there. California most certainly looked to be the next disaster and locking down the SF Bay Area is showing reduction in the number of daily deaths. Still early. New York, New Orleans are in agony right now but the theory still applies.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Lockdowns are intended to reduce the R0. If you follow the argument, you would see that I have already acknowledged this. In fact, while I believe this is true to a very miniscule extent, it can't be proven numerically. What is demonstrable, is that several countries where such sweeping lockdowns have never been implemented have been far more successful. They have also spent far less per capita.

I continue to believe the cost of the lockdowns is too high and may indeed hasten the economic downfall of the republic, taking the healthcare system with it. The cost right now is that all other priorities have been rescinded. Overall, deaths have not decreased due to the lockdowns even accounting for the virus. Non-related deaths have increased and it is very hard to say if fewer would have died just because of the virus and other causes if a different approach had been taken.

Furthermore, nobody would remove anyone's right to isolate.
Click to expand...
Just to ensure we are using the same terms,

1586761713456.png

R0 is the number of cases, on average, an infected person will cause during their infectious period. In the diagram above, R0 is two. If those two people had not come into contact with the infected person none of the others would have gotten sick.

Isolating an infected person from those who are susceptible will definitely reduce the number of people they can infect. I don't know how you can even say otherwise.

labblog.uofmhealth.org

How Scientists Quantify the Intensity of an Outbreak Like COVID-19

An epidemiologist explains the term "R0" and how many people one person can infect if they have the coronavirus.
labblog.uofmhealth.org labblog.uofmhealth.org
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
South Korea has draconian tracing steps in place, even taking cell phones to tell where people have been and they publicize where people might have been exposed. The only way they can keep schools and restaurants open is through a fairly rigorous containment strategy.
Click to expand...
I don't see a problem with this. People are still allowed to buy and sell things and make a livelihood. You're already being spied on too. This strategy is less expensive per capita than the lockdown strategy. Most people there volunteer for it. They can still have one night stands too. I'd love to go to a restaurant and would gladly let a policeman publish my browser history, including my porn searches in order to eat a fresh grilled fucking burger.

You have sold me on the idea as easy as that.
Fogdog said:
The theory behind the lockdown isn't particularly new.
Click to expand...
Go ahead and assume that I understand the lockdown theory. I think my arguments have assumed a deep enough understanding of it. I do appreciate your effort here, but I'm not hectoring you. I'm arguing.
Fogdog said:
New York, New Orleans are in agony right now but the theory still applies.
Click to expand...
Washington also has been isolated since then and has vigorously investigated and tested vectors. Same with California.
Fogdog said:
New York, New Orleans are in agony right now but the theory still applies.
Click to expand...
Same retort applies here too. New Orleans had tens of thousands of visitors from many countries for mardi Gras and didn't isolate until very recently. Numbers have continued to increase during the lockdown. New York had even more international visitors and even more recently.
 
tangerinegreen555

tangerinegreen555

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Just to ensure we are using the same terms,

View attachment 4532111

R0 is the number of cases, on average, an infected person will cause during their infectious period. In the diagram above, R0 is two. If those two people had not come into contact with the infected person none of the others would have gotten sick.

Isolating an infected person from those who are susceptible will definitely reduce the number of people they can infect. I don't know how you can even say otherwise.
Click to expand...
Originally they were saying 1.5 to 2.5 R0. Now they say as high as 6.

And it's still a lot of guessing, but 6? That's explosive.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Just to ensure we are using the same terms,

View attachment 4532111

R0 is the number of cases, on average, an infected person will cause during their infectious period. In the diagram above, R0 is two. If those two people had not come into contact with the infected person none of the others would have gotten sick.

Isolating an infected person from those who are susceptible will definitely reduce the number of people they can infect. I don't know how you can even say otherwise.

labblog.uofmhealth.org

How Scientists Quantify the Intensity of an Outbreak Like COVID-19

An epidemiologist explains the term "R0" and how many people one person can infect if they have the coronavirus.
labblog.uofmhealth.org labblog.uofmhealth.org
Click to expand...
We're using isolation differently. When I have mentioned isolating a city, I'm referring to travel restrictions in and out as opposed to closing businesses. However, I do understand that lockdowns have been implemented in places that have restricted travel.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
I don't see a problem with this. People are still allowed to buy and sell things and make a livelihood. You're already being spied on too. This strategy is less expensive per capita than the lockdown strategy. Most people there volunteer for it. They can still have one night stands too. I'd love to go to a restaurant and would gladly let a policeman publish my browser history, including my porn searches in order to eat a fresh grilled fucking burger.

You have sold me on the idea as easy as that.

Go ahead and assume that I understand the lockdown theory. I think my arguments have assumed a deep enough understanding of it. I do appreciate your effort here, but I'm not hectoring you. I'm arguing.


Washington also has been isolated since then and has vigorously investigated and tested vectors. Same with California.

Same retort applies here too. New Orleans had tens of thousands of visitors from many countries for mardi Gras and didn't isolate until very recently. Numbers have continued to increase during the lockdown. New York had even more international visitors and even more recently.
Click to expand...
So, I'm outraged and stunned by the way Trump and Republicans behaved in January and early Feb. There is no good reason why we didn't learn from South Korea and implement their strategy. The main mistake the Republican administration made was to decide against using the test already available through WHO. Instead, the US developed its own tests then botched the roll out. We STILL have not put in place anything like what S Korea did.

Lockdowns weren't meant to be permanent, they were necessary to damp down the rate at which the number of people that were being hospitalized so that hospitals could continue to function. Without a containment strategy in place, ending lockdowns or avoiding them where they haven't been needed yet, just sets us up for a new wave of sick people heading to ICUs. The only way we can come out of lockdown and avoid mass die-offs, is if we have good response teams to isolate each and every new case, then trace who has been exposed and isolate them. I don't know what else we can do without a tested, safe, reliable and available vaccine.

Oh, and fuck antivaxxers.
 
mustbetribbin

mustbetribbin

Well-Known Member
tangerinegreen555 said:
Originally they were saying 1.5 to 2.5 R0. Now they say as high as 6.

And it's still a lot of guessing, but 6? That's explosive.
Click to expand...
Why did doctor Fauci first say it had a transmission rate of 0.9 when this first began, but now they're saying 3.9 is the latest number, sounds like a BIG LIE (think Hitler mein kampf) to me.

Thanks Bill Gates for our C.ertificates o.f V.acinnation ID's we love our C.o.V.ID's such great certificates to have and hold. Yay
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top