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

In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021)

aier.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 312 posts

Re: In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021)

#151

Post by nicoburns »

TeeMassive wrote: post #131
mabbo wrote: post #111

> Whereas lockdowns in the Covid-19 case might have contributed to a lengthening of the crisis by delaying herd immunity The point of the lockdown was not to entirely stop the spread- that was obviously not happening. It was to slow the spread to avoid overwhelming hospitals. It allowed us to reduce the lethality of COVID-19 by having more resources per sick person.

[flagged]

No, but an infectious disease is also limiting on people's freedoms, so it's equally not obvious that those rights override the rights of people to be protected from infectious diseases.

Re: In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021)

#152

Post by whoisthemachine »

TeeMassive wrote: post #131
mabbo wrote: post #111

> Whereas lockdowns in the Covid-19 case might have contributed to a lengthening of the crisis by delaying herd immunity The point of the lockdown was not to entirely stop the spread- that was obviously not happening. It was to slow the spread to avoid overwhelming hospitals. It allowed us to reduce the lethality of COVID-19 by having more resources per sick person.

[flagged]

Are rights like habeas corpus and free and informed consent overridden in a time of war?

Re: In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021)

#153

Post by nicoburns »

TeeMassive wrote: post #136
dyates wrote: post #64

I think the lockdown concept as implemented in 2020 was a great illustration of the problem of scale. It's trivially true that if you as an individual avoid all contact with others during a flu season, you won't catch the flu. You can probably extend that to your family, maybe a bit further, but at a certain scale it just becomes impossible (and undesirable) because of individual variations in occupation, lifestyle,…

Similar things happened in Québec. There was a curfew, unless you had to walk the dog. You couldn't buy certain products, but the stores were as much as crowded. If it was that deadly and every knew someone who died, they wouldn't go outside.

> If it was that deadly and every knew someone who died, they wouldn't go outside.

It's not quite that simple. Some people might be forced to for work or similar. Which the law can provide protection against.

Re: In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021)

#154

Post by felixgallo »

TeeMassive wrote: post #131
mabbo wrote: post #111

> Whereas lockdowns in the Covid-19 case might have contributed to a lengthening of the crisis by delaying herd immunity The point of the lockdown was not to entirely stop the spread- that was obviously not happening. It was to slow the spread to avoid overwhelming hospitals. It allowed us to reduce the lethality of COVID-19 by having more resources per sick person.

[flagged]

that is just total word salad. Please look up what habeas corpus means. It's right there in wikipedia or any other reference work of your choice. Informed consent is not a right. Those are enumerated also in reference works. Medicine in the united states is essentially the opposite of socialized. Good lord.

Re: In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021)

#155

Post by [deleted] »

marcinzm wrote: post #144
abduhl wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This mindset is a comfortable position for people to retreat to when they don't want to discuss a situation rationally based on information known at the time but rather want to retroactively push a personal agenda.

[deleted]

Re: In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021)

#156

Post by abduhl »

onlypositive wrote: post #132
saiya-jin wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but there were and are nasty side effects to this, covering literally hundreds of millions or rather billions of people in some form. Missed social interaction is super important for child development, but how do you want to measure that, how many harm points do you assign to this versus some old or frail person dying. And look at ie India, delaying the height of infection didn't help them at all, estimated numb…

> We fucked up economy pretty badly and still seeing the results of it, Still? We've only just begun dealing with this fallout. It will be effecting us for a generation.

Between the unprecedented amount of money that was injected into the economy, the PPP loans, and the low interest rates, we’ve seen one of the largest transfers of wealth ever. The coming inflation will certainly cement the growing class divide. Hopefully nobody reading this is poor because the reality is that you’re most likely going to continue being poor throughout your lifetime, and you’ll probably become much poorer relatively compared to those who were able to capitalize on COVID policies.

Re: In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021)

#157

Post by DrThunder »

mabbo wrote: post #111

> Whereas lockdowns in the Covid-19 case might have contributed to a lengthening of the crisis by delaying herd immunity The point of the lockdown was not to entirely stop the spread- that was obviously not happening. It was to slow the spread to avoid overwhelming hospitals. It allowed us to reduce the lethality of COVID-19 by having more resources per sick person.

Except the hospitals really couldn't do anything to help these people anyway and in some cases actually sped up their death with use of ventilators. Even more frustrating, they could have been giving things like monoclonal antibodies right away but they didn't.

Additionally, hospitals had years to figure out a better way of expanding their ICU's for emergency use. They also tend to operate on lowest required beds to save costs and began to quickly get overwhelmed due to their unpreparedness.

"It allowed us to reduce the lethality of COVID-19 by having more resources per sick person. "

This is false and there's no data backing this claim up.

Re: In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021)

#158

Post by hiatus »

causi wrote: post #134
dyates wrote: post #64

I think the lockdown concept as implemented in 2020 was a great illustration of the problem of scale. It's trivially true that if you as an individual avoid all contact with others during a flu season, you won't catch the flu. You can probably extend that to your family, maybe a bit further, but at a certain scale it just becomes impossible (and undesirable) because of individual variations in occupation, lifestyle,…

I think the lockdown concept as implemented in 2020 was a great illustration of the problem of scale. This is not a popular opinion but I think the fundamental mistake of lockdowns, at least in North America, was starting from a top-down approach instead of bottom-up. People are going to act like selfish assholes. We ordered them not to. I think instead of threats, we should have aligned their selfish interests with…

How much easier could it be? It's my understanding that you can sue anyone at any time for almost anything in the US.

Re: In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021)

#159

Post by throwaway72762 »

China did actual lockdowns. The US? Not so much.

Herd immunity? Never happened because infection isn't preventing reinfection with a different strain.

If there had been actual, effective lockdowns early enough they might have worked but by March 2020 the cat was out of the bag. Japan's model of universal masking, testing, and outdoor interaction without lockdowns is the best model for the future.

Re: In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021)

#160

Post by [deleted] »

unethical_ban wrote: post #128
gizmo wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lockdowns were sold to the people as something that would stop the spread. If you can get every infected person to infect less than one other person on average, you can stop the spread of an infectious disease completely. At least in theory. There are two variables here. How infectious the disease is and which percentage of the population can isolate themselves at home without society breaking down. If everybody stay…

Your very first sentence is wrong. It was to slow the spread. It was as the parent comment said - to slow the rate of hospitalization so the medical system wouldn't collapse and have needless excess death from lack of capacity.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN