A case for ending lockdown • Hacker News Board

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#311

Post by dang » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 4:58 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #113

dang wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have also been many articles by experts. I'd be careful about making general conclusions based on what you remember, because most of us are far more likely to notice and remember the things we disliked ( https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... ). More importantly, though, there may be a misunderstanding about what HN is. It's an internet watercooler, the purpose of which is gratifying cu…

> It's an internet watercooler, the purpose of which is gratifying curiosity and having curious conversation. Alternatively: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzOv14fA-BI "I don't know anything about zoology, biology, geology, geography, marine biology, crypto zoology, evolutionary theory, evolutionary biology, meteorology, limnology, history, hepatology, palaeontology, or archaeology, but I think ..."

That's funny, but not because other people are idiots. It's that we all do it.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#312

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 4:59 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #297

TeMPOraL wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the probability that my guess is going to be right? I did some little thinking and modelling of my own late Feb, and reached the correct conclusions by following a simple exponential model, having very basic understanding of epidemiology, and being mindful of error bars (mostly ones created by me being a layman in the field). On the other hand, I trusted WHO and CDC on masks around February; even posted thing…

What did you get right in late Feb that the WHO and such were still wrong about? I feel like by that time it was already fairly clear from their communications that this was going global and heavily affect everyone.

Where WHO and others were mistaken in their communication was where they were discouraging use of facial covering. And I meant only that here. AFAIR, they were very correct about the severity of the disease. Unlike ECDC[0]; I read their reports too, and AFAIR, they were still only predicting moderate risk for Europe as late as second week of March.

--

[0] - https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#313

Post by mistermann » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 5:00 PM UTC

__s wrote: post #299

mistermann wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Basically we need to moderate both opinions which effectively work together: the "there's no problem to begin with" group feels validated by the "the world is ending" group being way off the mark. I agree. Do you have any idea what approach could be taken to accomplish this though, even where dealing with a single, otherwise logical person?

I have a fair share of interactions with the apocalyptic crowd, so this is based on interactions with that side I tend to try to demonstrate napkin math with pessimistic numbers to show that they're out of bound. Napkin math is particularly useful math because it allows one to play with parameters & abstracts/aggregates complicated bits. So we can also show how pessimistic things would have to be for them to be right…

That will work in some cases, but how might one best approach examples like we see in this thread, where numerous people seem to exhibit signs of allowing their heuristic biases to interfere with basic logical thinking, committing the very same logical errors that they accuse others of, in the same comment?

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#314

Post by sershe » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 5:14 PM UTC

ashtonkem wrote: post #264

sershe wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That only applies to a small subset, like WFHing techies who are not significantly affected. Economically, regardless of the moral implications of this, people who are impacted are much more likely to go back to work (to take an extreme example, in the developing world the choices for some are already COVID or starvation). Recreation wise, I've seen lockdowns rolled out in WA. Whatever they didn't close immediately b…

It’s absolutely true that as a tech worker, I’m blessed that I can work from home. I’m thankful for that. But you’re missing the point. Sending back my barista to Starbucks isn’t going to help said barista if I am unwilling to go to said coffee shop and spend money. The economy cannot start back up again until people start spending money again; my barista won’t spend money until they’re financially secure, and I won’…

The point is that I was trying to make is that while you may not, I'm going to go out and order that coffee (I'm in the same WFH techie demographic); so will many others if the overcrowding of the trails and park in violation of the stay at home order and with media dialing COVID reporting up to 11 (and not just media, actually; we have signs on the highways all over the place saying stay home) is any indication.

Also, I suspect that the utility of economic activity at this level is kinda like utility of money, i.e. logarithmic - going from 0% to 50% is much more significant, especially for individuals, than going from 50% to 100%.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#315

Post by josefx » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 5:17 PM UTC

Minor49er wrote: post #236

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.

> was written off for not being a professional, then was proven right a year later.

He was sued for using the title "engineer" while not being registered as a professional engineer in the state. He still had an engineering degree and the education that came with it. He was only written of since traffic light cameras were a money maker and the times were intentionally short to keep the money flowing. Basically he could have been Einstein himself and would have faced the same road blocks, because the people responsible did not want to hear the truth, their money depended on not hearing the truth.

A better comparison for this case would be the story of amateur mathematician Goodwin in Indiana. Whose attempts to revolutionize math were ultimately blocked by a university professor abusing his position as authority figure to coach legislators against redefining PI. Actually it is a nice reversal: Goodwin was a doctor first and self taught mathematician second, and he was in direct opposition to the educated authority on math of his time. Meanwhile now we have a computer scientist and self educated expert on virology contradicting almost every practicing medical professional alive.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#316

Post by Nasrudith » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 5:23 PM UTC

pinkfoot wrote: post #293

xienze wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why, after lockdowns were in place, did we build all those field hospitals and ventilators that never got used? I suspect it’s because we expected the “with-lockdown” numbers to be far worse than they actually ended up being. In other words, there was an overreaction, only the degree to which we overreacted is in debate.

This question has an answer: Hospitals and other resources take a finite time to construct and they can only be constructed in linear time. That is to say, the number of new hospitals is not a function of the number of existing hospitals. Now, in contrast the virus grows exponentially and is further aided by a period before symptoms appear and by asymptomatic carriers. As such, when it overwhelms you there is very li…

Yeah that is something about modern war which people don't get - Blitzkrieg is downright sluggish in comparison. Manufacturing doesn't matter. Training time doesn't matter as the war is already decided by then. As tempting as non-standing armies are conceptually for being "non-corrupting" (in the when you have a hammer lots of things look like nails sense) too late even with a draft.

At the same time the occupation is still a long slog and there are nuclear deterrants and occasional non-nuclear ones like North Korea's mass of concealed artillery aimed at Seoul.

Chances are that if current manufacturing capabilities instead of stockpiles matter both sides should probably truce because both will lose. But if they both had sense they wouldn't be at war.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#317

Post by watwut » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 5:23 PM UTC

np_tedious wrote: post #265

watwut wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The imperial college recommended interminnent lockdowns - lock, release, lock, release and so on depending on how you keep it under control. Does that count? Germany is having this discussion and Czech republic too. In both cases, epidemiologist recommend slight release of rules (not a big one, but still lowering lockdown).

Yeah, that's absolutely what I'm looking for! Any particular articles or other links you'd recommend?

I dont have link at hand, but I came across it on this https://www.coursera.org/learn/covid-19/ course. It is linked somewhere withing first 3 weeks I think.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#318

Post by ashtonkem » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 5:45 PM UTC

sershe wrote: post #314

ashtonkem wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s absolutely true that as a tech worker, I’m blessed that I can work from home. I’m thankful for that. But you’re missing the point. Sending back my barista to Starbucks isn’t going to help said barista if I am unwilling to go to said coffee shop and spend money. The economy cannot start back up again until people start spending money again; my barista won’t spend money until they’re financially secure, and I won’…

The point is that I was trying to make is that while you may not, I'm going to go out and order that coffee (I'm in the same WFH techie demographic); so will many others if the overcrowding of the trails and park in violation of the stay at home order and with media dialing COVID reporting up to 11 (and not just media, actually; we have signs on the highways all over the place saying stay home) is any indication. Als…

On the former; I believe you’d be in the clear minority. About 12% of Americans currently think that the lockdowns go too far, the vast majority are more worried about loosening up too quickly. This implies, but does not prove, that most Americans would stay home until they feel safe.

On the latter, this is only true for individuals. Businesses have more variable expenses. If there isn’t enough economic activity to cover the cost of at least staff and electricity, businesses will rationally decide to lay-off or furlough workers to slow down their burn rate. Thus going from 0 to 50 might make literally no difference, depending on the underlying costs. This is particularly problematic for restaurants, with famously thin margins during the best of times.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#319

Post by shkkmo » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 6:00 PM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #269

shkkmo wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

Absolutely wrong. Analysis done by informed laymen is essential in breaking intellectual logjams in established fields. These situations happen over and over again in history. It's increasingly looking like we have one of these logjams in public health right now. Ideas need to be evaluated on their merits in all cases, especially in times of controversy.

> Analysis done by informed laymen is essential in breaking intellectual logjams in established fields.

Which is why it is important that people with the expertise evaluate those ideas on their merits.

What doesn't help is when less informed laymen think they can accurately judge the validity of ideas put forward by slightly more informed laymen.

What active hurts is when those less informed laymen start spreading their half-balked ideas and trying to impact policy without making an effort to get their ideas validated by people with the experience to find the simple, obvious errors they are making.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#320

Post by areyousure » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 6:01 PM UTC

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #298

areyousure wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is some data on travel and transit in New York: https://visitdata.org/bydatesel/New%20York/New%20York/Travel... Can you detect the lockdown, which took effect at 8PM on Sunday, March 22?

How are you defining lockdown? Schools were cancelled on March 15, but that was after days of pressure. Many private schools had already closed at that point, and many workplaces had switched to WFH already. The official statewide lockdown started later, but authorities and businesses had been gradually locking down for weeks prior to that.

In the context of this discussion (ending lockdown), it seems that the relevant definition of "lockdown" is action specifically from the authorities.

The New York state governor announced the statewide lockdown on March 20 (to begin two days later, as indicated above). The statewide lockdown is not causally responsible for social distancing before then.

The same is true for the announcement of closing New York City public schools, which came on March 15. If private schools closed before then, the closure of public schools later cannot "take credit" for it.

This distinction is important for causal modeling, both of the past as well as the future, if/when orders from authorities are lifted. The effectiveness of the lockdown order is measured against a world without the lockdown order, which is still a world with a lot of social distancing.