A case for ending lockdown
ryankemper.io
A case for ending lockdown
1–10 of 381 posts
Re: A case for ending lockdown
#2If it's not obvious, I wrote this.
The intent is to be a fairly comprehensive coverage of what we know about COVID-19 and what it means for our policy. Note that the article is written from a US-based perspective although I suspect it's relevant to a broader audience.
In general, I believe that the case against lockdown has been highly stigmatized and thus many people have not been exposed to a convincing argument of why some of us feel that our response has actually made things worse.
I encourage any pull requests (see the very final section).
If you're short on time, I'd recommend at least reading https://www.ryankemper.io/post/2020-04-29-the_case_for_endin..., which has a readability score (Flesch-Kincaid, etc) of around a middle school level and is extremely brief and to the point.
For those who have a bit more time but still not enough for the whole article, I'd recommend at least reading https://www.ryankemper.io/post/2020-04-29-the_case_for_endin.... In particular understanding the age-stratified risk distribution, and how it differs from Influenza, is super important. Finally I'd also recommend checking out the proposal, which ironically is the shortest section: https://www.ryankemper.io/post/2020-04-29-the_case_for_endin...
Thanks for any feedback.
Re: A case for ending lockdown
#3Everyone is an epidemiologist in a pandemic.
Re: A case for ending lockdown
#4If it's not obvious, I wrote this. The intent is to be a fairly comprehensive coverage of what we know about COVID-19 and what it means for our policy. Note that the article is written from a US-based perspective although I suspect it's relevant to a broader audience. In general, I believe that the case against lockdown has been highly stigmatized and thus many people have not been exposed to a convincing argument of…
I'm a bit confused by the Gitlab logo on your site. Do you work for Gitlab? Is Gitlab endorsing your article?
Re: A case for ending lockdown
#5If it's not obvious, I wrote this. The intent is to be a fairly comprehensive coverage of what we know about COVID-19 and what it means for our policy. Note that the article is written from a US-based perspective although I suspect it's relevant to a broader audience. In general, I believe that the case against lockdown has been highly stigmatized and thus many people have not been exposed to a convincing argument of…
Having, as you suggested, skipped just to the TL;DR, this bit jumped out at me as something that we very much don't know is true, and that it's dangerous to assume is true without proof:
> Once you get sick, you can’t get sick again for a long time. Eventually you might be able to get sick again, but it will not be very bad. When enough people have gotten sick and then gotten better, the sickness can’t spread any more.
(Incidentally, at one point you leave out the 'z' from "hospitalization".)
Re: A case for ending lockdown
#6If it's not obvious, I wrote this. The intent is to be a fairly comprehensive coverage of what we know about COVID-19 and what it means for our policy. Note that the article is written from a US-based perspective although I suspect it's relevant to a broader audience. In general, I believe that the case against lockdown has been highly stigmatized and thus many people have not been exposed to a convincing argument of…
I see a lot of good points here. Thanks for creating this.
Re: A case for ending lockdown
#7If it's not obvious, I wrote this. The intent is to be a fairly comprehensive coverage of what we know about COVID-19 and what it means for our policy. Note that the article is written from a US-based perspective although I suspect it's relevant to a broader audience. In general, I believe that the case against lockdown has been highly stigmatized and thus many people have not been exposed to a convincing argument of…
I wish you the best. This debate has taken on all the fervor of a holy war, and putting out an contrarian position has been hugely unpopular.
One thing I'd add: employment and health insurance are tied together in the US. The lock down dramatically increased unemployment, the majority of whom will not pay expensive Cobra costs, and will soon be uninsured. The opposite of what was intended may happen: we are now less prepared to deal with an increase in demands on healthcare than we were a month ago, as uninsured people tend to avoid hospitals until they're absolutely necessary.
Re: A case for ending lockdown
#8Everyone is an epidemiologist in a pandemic.
The article is more about policy than epidemiology.
Re: A case for ending lockdown
#9If it's not obvious, I wrote this. The intent is to be a fairly comprehensive coverage of what we know about COVID-19 and what it means for our policy. Note that the article is written from a US-based perspective although I suspect it's relevant to a broader audience. In general, I believe that the case against lockdown has been highly stigmatized and thus many people have not been exposed to a convincing argument of…
Having, as you suggested, skipped just to the TL;DR, this bit jumped out at me as something that we very much don't know is true, and that it's dangerous to assume is true without proof: > Once you get sick, you can’t get sick again for a long time. Eventually you might be able to get sick again, but it will not be very bad. When enough people have gotten sick and then gotten better, the sickness can’t spread any mor…
That’s a popular point with the talking heads on the media but I’d encourage you to read up on it. Best estimates look like 1-4 years of immunity [1]
1. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
Re: A case for ending lockdown
#10If it's not obvious, I wrote this. The intent is to be a fairly comprehensive coverage of what we know about COVID-19 and what it means for our policy. Note that the article is written from a US-based perspective although I suspect it's relevant to a broader audience. In general, I believe that the case against lockdown has been highly stigmatized and thus many people have not been exposed to a convincing argument of…
> This is a living document and we encourage contributions in the form of pull requests.
Who is "we"? I understand your use of "we" to speak from the perspective of us as a society through most of the article, but this makes it sound like there's more than one author.