Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A case for ending lockdown

ryankemper.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 381 posts

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#251

Post by docdeek »

rootusrootus wrote: post #245
docdeek wrote: post #128

> Encourage at-risk groups to self quarantine, and utilize testing to protect them...Those with obesity and COPD Author suggests self-quarantine for the obese instead of quarantine/lockdown for everyone. The CDC suggests that +42% of the US adult population is obese [0]. Are we really going to isolate or quarantine 4 out of 10 US adults and imagine the economy can get back on track? [0]: https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/d…

> The CDC suggests that +42% of the US adult population is obese For what it's worth, this is the same CDC that suggests that the level of obesity that increases COVID risk is BMI 40+ [0], which is more like 6-7% of the US population. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precaut...

That's a good point. The OP didn't specify a BMI, just obesity.

Still an enormous number of people but far lower than 40ish percent.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#252

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

lkrubner wrote: post #223
kaolti wrote: post #205

Going back to the basics on this one. Has any government presented a cost benefit analysis of all the available options to address this situation? Like most things in life this isn't black and white, so where is the analysis of the pros and cons, worst case projections, etc of not doing anything / going into lockdown / other alternatives. I for one have not seen it. Shouldn't such an analysis be the basis of any deci…

" Shouldn't such an analysis be the basis of any decisions we make? " No. We can decided to make decisions based purely on the morality of the decision. Given a death rate somewhere between 1% and 3% the question becomes whether we will accept that many deaths, without taking action. There is no need for a cost/benefit analysis, as we can decide the issue entirely on a moral basis.

Nobody argues that we should take no action. The question is what specific actions we should take.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#253

Post by logicchains »

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…

>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.

The average scientist or medical organisation has no more economic knowledge than a layman. The costs of the lockdown are primarily economic. We couldn't possibly make the best decisions by listening to people who are only in a position to identify the benefits of the lockdown (medical) and not the costs (economic). In that regard, some random blogger is just as qualified to assess the economic costs as some random doctor or epidemiologist.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#254

Post by xienze »

rootusrootus wrote: post #245
docdeek wrote: post #128

> Encourage at-risk groups to self quarantine, and utilize testing to protect them...Those with obesity and COPD Author suggests self-quarantine for the obese instead of quarantine/lockdown for everyone. The CDC suggests that +42% of the US adult population is obese [0]. Are we really going to isolate or quarantine 4 out of 10 US adults and imagine the economy can get back on track? [0]: https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/d…

> The CDC suggests that +42% of the US adult population is obese For what it's worth, this is the same CDC that suggests that the level of obesity that increases COVID risk is BMI 40+ [0], which is more like 6-7% of the US population. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precaut...

Exactly. “Obese” is a very broad term that could mean anything from 10 pounds overweight to “fused to your couch because you can’t stand up.”

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#255

Post by JeremyNT »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #234
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

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…

It certainly should have been more focused and surgical. There are so many ways it could have been handled better. But, simply nobody made preparations for any of them in advance.

By the time NYC locked down, the virus had likely already been spreading unimpeded for weeks. The only possible short term solution was the population-wide lockdown, which "fixed" the issue in that it stopped the immediate disaster from becoming even worse. In nursing homes already infected, it was simply too late at that time.

The fact that the lockdown was required is evidence of a colossal failure on the part of our society. Our infrastructure should have been able to target this more precisely and we (the US) specifically squandered a huge advantage we had in that we had time to clearly see the progress of the virus overseas before it arrived, but did nothing useful with that time.

Even after all of this, few steps have been made to make the transition from "shut it all down" to a strategy that involves broad testing and targeted protection of vulnerable populations. It seems people are resigned to keeping the daily death rate steady and eventually just letting all vulnerable members of the population contract the virus and die.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#256

Post by lbeltrame »

ryankemper wrote: post #23
postpawl wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.” From WHO a few days ago: https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-p...

This statement was the source of widespread criticism and I in fact criticized it myself in the writeup. I considered going for a deeper debunking but held off for the initial draft. I might circle back if people feel it's valuable. Let me take a quick stab though: When we talk about immunity we need to realize the term is used imprecisely by laypeople (btw I'm totally a layman if it's not already clear). I think of…

> it stands to reason that the same mechanism that provides medium-term immunity is the mechanism responsible for recovery.

New tests for neutralizing antibodies like proposed by some groups[1] will make sure the antibodies not only are there, but that they actually work.

[1] https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-24574/v1

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#257

Post by sojournerc »

ashtonkem wrote: post #194
hkai wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems to be classical ad hominem. For example, I also don't have medical education, yet I am entitled to analyze information and insist that homeopathy, Chinese medicine and chlorine necklaces absolutely do not help against the virus, unlike the educated medical professionals who disagree with me.

“You have no credentials or expertise to make public health recommendations” is not an ad hominem.

That's exactly ad-homimem. Instead of arguing against his points directly, they are dismissed because of who thre author is...

Whether the author is a health official who has authority to do something is irrelevant to the substance of their opinion.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#258

Post by skdjsjkhfkdsjh »

A quick google search of "ashtonkem" indicates that people of that username like to weigh in on a very wide range of subjects.

The one on HN has weighed in on software, team management, human physiology, human psychology, economics, to name a few.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#259

Post by shkkmo »

ryankemper wrote: post #20
ohlookabird wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, will definitely read it, but on a first glance I couldn't see any information on your background or experience in the field of epidemiology or a related science. It would definitely help to put your thoughts into context and if you have a background in this field it would give your collection of thoughts more weight. With all the misinformation going around I resorted to mainly listen to scientists in the rel…

I have no directly relevant credentials whatsoever and don't claim to. (I actually considered saying as such in the writeup but it's already so verbose that I felt it wasn't worth it). I'm just a dude that likes to read research papers. As an aside, there is totally an archetype of the software engineer that thinks they're equipped to dive into unrelated fields, and I definitely match that trope. I will say in my def…

When have some expertise, you should absolutely evaluate ideas on their merits.

When you lack the expertise to do that effectively, you should listen to the experts (ideally those that demonstrate that they are evaluating ideas based on their merits).

The trick is determine which questions you have the expertise to evaluate for yourself and which you are better of relying on experts to evaluate.

Unfortunately, this is an area where a large number of non-experts vastly overestimate the difficulty of the material vs their own level of knowledge. This leads to the increasing proliferation of misinformation and misleading analysis like yours.

Credentials are not the only way to acquire or demonstrate expertise. You say you are a "dude that likes to read research papers", how many epidemiological research papers have you read? How much time have you spent discussing those papers with epidemiological experts? Did you reach out to any of those experts to have them take a first pass as fixing any mistakes you made before you decided to post it publicly

Instead you decided to broadcast your ignorance with confidence about an area already ripe with misinformation that is costing people their lives.

You are being irresponsible.

Post reply on HN