A case for ending lockdown • Hacker News Board

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#301

Post by chiefalchemist » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 4:33 PM UTC

JeremyNT wrote: post #255

chiefalchemist wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bec…

But NYC (and surrounding areas, including North NJ, Long Island, et al) is not the whole country. It's not every city. In fact, it's relatively fringe.

Lessons to be learned? You bet. Of course.

But we took a semi-effective - again, despite the lockdown nursing homes continue to be a significant contributor to deaths - and applied it _everywhere_. Certainly, it's now reasonable to look at other options. But that's not happening.

It as if the "cure" isn't going to lead to deaths as well. That's naive.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#302

Post by raziel2p » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 4:36 PM UTC

dxsh wrote: post #135

katktv wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also just have to point out that Sweden, the country that didn't implement lockdown, has 6 times higher amount of COVID-19 cases than other Scandinavian countries when adjusted. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/coronavirus-fatality-r...

Sweden has much larger nursing homes than, for example, Norway, and most deaths in Sweden are from nursing homes. The time integral of the curve over 1 year will tell the real story.

Do you have a source on that?

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#303

Post by bluGill » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 4:37 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #221

bluGill wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legally you won't be fired for not coming in. You might be laid off with no severance, but that is different legally. When someone asks they will not give a bad reference and you will be eligible for unemployment, both of which are useful. If the above is not true for you there are many lawyers who would love to talk to you, as it is an easy buck for both of you in court.

Still don't have a job, though.

I'm not meaning to imply things will be good. Things will be slightly better than the parent implies.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#304

Post by hackeraccount » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 4:38 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

This is exactly why the USA spending bazillion dollars on the military is a great thing. Think of all the wars its prevented.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#305

Post by dang » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 4:43 PM UTC

cjhopman wrote: post #117

cjhopman wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, the point of the bias towards noticing things that we dislike is interesting, and there's good research backing it. I don't think that it necessarily affects much the comparison of one community against another, though, as one wouldn't be particularly more susceptible to it than another. Still, it likely means that the negatives are not as pronounced as they are perceived to be. > The HN community doesn't think…

> But communities, including HN, do often tend to have particular inclinations and behavior as a group, even if there are many individual members who diverge. And I'd rather see people seriously discuss the groupthink of those communities rather than just dismiss it due to the fact that it isn't completely universal.

That's a good point about there being meaningful differences across different communities. It probably has to do with what it is that defined the community in the first place, which tends also to be what holds it together. I think you're on shakier ground here, though:

> I'd rather see people seriously discuss the groupthink of those communities

It's difficult to discuss that seriously because there's so little objective basis for the claims people make about it. Perceptions vary wildly, and the claims tend to be grand and dramatic. If you hear enough of them, it becomes unmistakeable that they're not really about HN; for one thing, they're so contradictory.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#306

Post by specialist » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 4:44 PM UTC

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #300

specialist wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ryan Kemper is attempting to construct a decision making framework. Right or wrong, I like that someones are trying. It now occurs to me that the experts (epidemiologists?) have already done this, which would be a pretty good starting point. If so, why aren't we now debating their plans? I want someone, anyone to state thresholds and benchmarks. Tell us the parameters and values. Then we can have a constructive debat…

Multiple groups of experts have released plans to reopen the country [1], and I'm assuming this is happening all over the globe. The reason some people are not debating them is that they find the options very unpalatable, so instead they turn to armchair experts who write authoritative-sounding treatises that tell us what we want to hear. 1. Examples: https://www.vox.com/2020/4/10/21215494/coronavirus-plans-soc...

Good stuff. Thanks.

Very quick response, because I will go back and read all the linked plans more thoroughly.

I want more of Center for American Progress's "Step #6: Targeted, gradual lifting of restrictions", done more concretely.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/news/2020...

Apologies, because I'm way more arm wavy than pedantic, so always struggle to explain myself:

I expect:

Concrete targets with concrete numbers, to be revised as necessary. Repeating from above "Downward trend for X days."

Explicit preconditions and assumptions. Like "3 day supply surplus of PPE, with excess mfg capacity to allow ramp up." and "Sufficient testing (per capita) with X hours turnaround with Automatic actions, consequences when targets & thresholds are reached. Like "Restore social isolation if trends are flat or increasing for X days."

Initially, best guess for targets and thresholds are just fine, then iterate as we mature.

PS- CAP omitted temperature screenings, which I currently think must be part of the overall strategy.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#307

Post by notahacker » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 4:46 PM UTC

pinkfoot wrote: post #294

logicchains wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Why is a intelligent, qualified, experienced team of epidemiologists "only in a position to identify the (medical) benefits of the lockdown and not the costs." After all, you were able to recognise both parameters?

Epidemiologists also talk to economists and other healthcare professionals, and are considerably more likely to be familiar with studies on short and long term health impacts of economic downturns, stress induced by disruption, cancellation of non-critical medical appointments etc than the average smart layman...

Not to mention the fact the core competency of an epidemiologist is statistical analysis and predicting human behaviour with mathematical models at a high level of abstraction, so it's not like the interdisciplinary understanding is a stretch for them

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#308

Post by blueadept111 » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 4:46 PM UTC

ashtonkem wrote: post #262

sojournerc wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The traditional ad hominem is a personal attack on the character, beliefs, motivations, or characteristics of the speaker, which is why they’re considered out of bounds in polite society. Discussing the experience and expertise that someone has in a subject when they’re making policy prescriptions is absolutely in bounds. While it sounds high minded to say that we should argue everything on the merits alone, the brut…

"Ad hominem" literally means "against the man", and it refers to the logical fallacy of attacking the attributes of the man rather than the logic of the man's argument. That's all there is to it, and you're simply wrong.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#309

Post by __blockcipher__ » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 4:54 PM UTC

legulere wrote: post #248

merpnderp wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYC, while under pretty extreme lockdowns still likely had 25% of its population infected as of over 2 weeks ago. If the serological surveys are correct, we know two things, it spreads rampantly even under harsh lockdowns and the IFR (infection fatality ratio) is likely I tend to think we should stay locked down to slow the spread if that's even still a thing given how fast it has spread in NYC. But on the bright sid…

How do you come to the conclusion of IFR likely <.5%? I’ve seen it consistently reported as 0.5-1.5%.

The general method is to estimate serological prevalence and then calculate implied IFR using the published death counts.

The key point being that the “confirmed cases” numbers are useless due to massive overcounting, so you need to instead rely on serology.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#310

Post by jedimastert » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 4:57 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #178

jedimastert wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Plus, why not have people choose themselves whether they're healthy enough to take chances and go out to work? Three reasons immediately spring to mind: 1. It's a very well established fact that C19 can transmitted by asymptomatic people. "Healthy enough" does not mean "safe" 2. Ignoring that fact, I know can personally name several people who would absolutely go to work sick. 3. I've have several employers who wou…

I think they're saying about "healthy enough to withstand the virus", not virus-free. (3) is still a valid concern. Government policy could help, but it'd be weird (and provoke a major public backlash, no doubt) if us fat people got a stipend for being fat.

> I think they're saying about "healthy enough to withstand the virus", not virus-free.

People who aren't virus-free shouldn't be in the general public. That's kinda the point.