A case for ending lockdown • Hacker News Board

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#231

Post by drunkpotato » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 1:22 PM UTC

stupidcar wrote: post #121

What about the situation in northern Italy? In the absence of a lockdown, the healthcare system did collapse, or came very close to doing so and this was only averted when the government implemented draconian quarantine policies. The article claims that the survival of the healthcare system in places that implemented a lockdown has nothing to do with the lockdown, but then gives no evidence at all to back up that ass…

For some reason I feel compelled to point out that a blog post is not an "article," and in this case it's just one random techie's extremely stupid and ill-informed opinion. It's shameful that this garbage made it to the front page of HN.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#232

Post by mumblemumble » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 1:23 PM UTC

grumple wrote: post #165

The premise of this post is extremely flawed: > Weeks and months later, facts on the ground show that the purported collapse of the healthcare system did not occur. Yes, because we locked down population centers quickly. That's the whole point. ICUs have still been over capacity though. Without the lockdowns, it's obvious we'd have a lot more dead people the past month. > Moreover, this was not due to success in seri…

I would add an anecdote to that: While the healthcare system may not have collapsed in a way that is apparent in any published statistics, it's still not business as usual. People I know who work in intensive care are still breaking down into tears randomly and suddenly during conversations.

While the camel's back may remain structurally intact, I'm not certain that means we can just assume it can bear an arbitrary number of additional straws.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#233

Post by UncleSlacky » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 1:28 PM UTC

hkai wrote: post #201

ryankemper wrote: post #2

If 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've read the whole thing and I have these comments: - I think the part about the freedoms is unnecessary because I feel the vast majority of the pro-lockdown people do not share your enthusiasm for freedom and public discourse. While your main argument may shift their opinion, the part about liberty may cause them to stop reading and discard your other arguments. - I think some claims would sound more persuasive if…

I laughed at this:

> Other countries do not even have the concept of freedom of speech/assembly embedded into their founding documents.

as it was clear that the author hadn't done any research on this - many countries explicitly or implictly have these in their founding documents.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#234

Post by chiefalchemist » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 1:33 PM UTC

ausbah wrote: post #183

grumple wrote: post #165

The premise of this post is extremely flawed: > Weeks and months later, facts on the ground show that the purported collapse of the healthcare system did not occur. Yes, because we locked down population centers quickly. That's the whole point. ICUs have still been over capacity though. Without the lockdowns, it's obvious we'd have a lot more dead people the past month. > Moreover, this was not due to success in seri…

this is a good example of people saying the response was overblown, because the response had its intended effect

Some people are saying that. Others are asking if the response could have been more focused and surgical.

For example, in New Jersey (USA), where I live, 40% of deaths are of people at extended care facilities (i.e., retirement homes). We locked down everything and everybody (i.e., no focus) and those deaths still happened; because we failed to "harden" the sites (and people) most in danger. If this is a war, that's not how you win a war. Furthermore, "flare ups" at such facilities continue to happen. That is, where is the lockdown win?

Now imagine taking 40% of the deaths off the table. Did the lockdown work? Probably. Just the same, the dynamic of the conversation changes when you look at how C19 hits - or doesn't - the general healthy population.

Finally, how many lives will be lost to the economic fall out? If the lockdown did save lives then the "side effects" of the lockdown must be considered as well.

Taking the data in aggregate and declaring lockdown a win is an oversimplification.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#235

Post by eythian » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 1:34 PM UTC

ausbah wrote: post #183

grumple wrote: post #165

The premise of this post is extremely flawed: > Weeks and months later, facts on the ground show that the purported collapse of the healthcare system did not occur. Yes, because we locked down population centers quickly. That's the whole point. ICUs have still been over capacity though. Without the lockdowns, it's obvious we'd have a lot more dead people the past month. > Moreover, this was not due to success in seri…

this is a good example of people saying the response was overblown, because the response had its intended effect

Yeah, it's similar to (what I'll call because I don't know a real name) the security guard paradox. If a security guard is doing their job well, then they shouldn't really be noticed and so seem unimportant. They'll only really be noticed if they fail in their job (or don't exist at all.)

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#236

Post by Minor49er » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 1:34 PM UTC

wheelerwj wrote: post #176

> I’m a software / site reliability engineer okay, thanks. Seriously, the list of scientist and medical organizations advising through this period is so long, I don't know why anyone who isn't at equally experienced tries to counter-claim their insights. I'm not saying we shouldn't do our own research and arrive at our own conclusion, but if you arrive at a different conclusion, you're almost certainly the one whose…

This attitude reminds me of the story of Mats Järlström who presented a case about Oregon traffic lights being flawed, was written off for not being a professional, then was proven right a year later.

Appeals to authority are never good to do blindly. If different conclusions are reached from two parties, then the conversations must continue if they are legitimately grounded.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#237

Post by wlll » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 1:35 PM UTC

grumple wrote: post #165

The premise of this post is extremely flawed: > Weeks and months later, facts on the ground show that the purported collapse of the healthcare system did not occur. Yes, because we locked down population centers quickly. That's the whole point. ICUs have still been over capacity though. Without the lockdowns, it's obvious we'd have a lot more dead people the past month. > Moreover, this was not due to success in seri…

"I don't understand it, I surrounded my house with sandbags and the flood waters didn't get in, clearly sandbags do nothing"

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#238

Post by fluffything » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 1:35 PM UTC

gbrown wrote: post #218

grumple wrote: post #165

The premise of this post is extremely flawed: > Weeks and months later, facts on the ground show that the purported collapse of the healthcare system did not occur. Yes, because we locked down population centers quickly. That's the whole point. ICUs have still been over capacity though. Without the lockdowns, it's obvious we'd have a lot more dead people the past month. > Moreover, this was not due to success in seri…

Yeah, if you model New York with an appropriate epidemiological model using just mortality (which is more reliable than cases), the lockdown event is massive and trivial to detect. Anyone who claims otherwise is either dishonest or foolish.

In the EU there are graphs showing the "daily deaths / day" over the last 2 years.

One can pretty easily see the impact of COVID-19 there, even on countries that are not testing and therefore not reporting any cases...

Unfortunately I haven't been able to find that data for the US.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#239

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 1:36 PM UTC

eythian wrote: post #235

ausbah wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is a good example of people saying the response was overblown, because the response had its intended effect

Yeah, it's similar to (what I'll call because I don't know a real name) the security guard paradox. If a security guard is doing their job well, then they shouldn't really be noticed and so seem unimportant. They'll only really be noticed if they fail in their job (or don't exist at all.)

[deleted]

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#240

Post by nocitrek » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 1:36 PM UTC

mumblemumble wrote: post #232

grumple wrote: post #165

The premise of this post is extremely flawed: > Weeks and months later, facts on the ground show that the purported collapse of the healthcare system did not occur. Yes, because we locked down population centers quickly. That's the whole point. ICUs have still been over capacity though. Without the lockdowns, it's obvious we'd have a lot more dead people the past month. > Moreover, this was not due to success in seri…

I would add an anecdote to that: While the healthcare system may not have collapsed in a way that is apparent in any published statistics, it's still not business as usual. People I know who work in intensive care are still breaking down into tears randomly and suddenly during conversations. While the camel's back may remain structurally intact, I'm not certain that means we can just assume it can bear an arbitrary n…

Yeah, and on the other hand internet is full of TikTok videos of nurses dancing and having fun during this lockdown.