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

Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 381 posts

Re: Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

#261

Post by efficax »

thehappypm wrote: post #91

I really don't think lockdowns have helped a ton in the US. Look at Florida's winter wave of Covid cases vs Massachusetts. The curves are basically identical, despite vastly different pandemic policies. In other countries yes, but in the USA, are there any real data points that can argue that states with strong lockdowns did better than states without? https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/massachusetts-co... h…

There hasn't been a genuine 'lockdown' anywhere in the united states with the possible exception of NYC in the first month of the pandemic. Otherwise we've basically done the bare minimum and even in places with strict policies you have people working retail, no real travel restrictions, etc.

Re: Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

#262

Post by acdha »

jdminhbg wrote: post #244
acdha wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US hasn’t tried anything like a strict lockdown anywhere in the country – we came close for a few weeks last spring but relaxed several weeks too soon – so I think what we’re showing is that this works as well as cutting a course of antibiotics early. In particular, we didn’t have a good economic plan for people who couldn’t work from home. Absent some alternative, economic necessity will force people to leave th…

At this rate, the No True Scotsman fallacy is going to be renamed to No True Lockdown.

I’m sorry that you haven’t followed the topic carefully but it’s hardly a logical fallacy to say that not doing what epidemiologists recommended doesn’t mean following their advice wouldn’t have worked, especially when you can look at countries like Australia which did a harder lockdown and have seen the predicted benefits.

Re: Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

#263

Post by jhayward »

cwhiz wrote: post #83
alfiedotwtf wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAICS this isn’t talked about enough! If lockdowns were taken seriously from the start, it would had prevented going wild and risking new strains. But here we are

Lockdowns were never going to work, and any strategy that relied on them was doomed to fail. A strategy that involves convincing every country, and every little province, to destroy their local economies, all at the same time. I can’t believe it didn’t work! Maybe if we just keep trying.

They were always going to work, but only if they were used in their proper context: to knock down the size of the epidemic so that less intrusive, more efficient means of infection control can happen: universal, repeated testing; universal contact tracing; and rapid isolation of contacts.

The people who complain about lockdowns are also the people who refuse to do the alternative, and then claim "nothing works".

I am really tired of the "we tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" political party. Get out of the way and let people who are capable of handling things get to work.

Re: Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

#264

Post by acdha »

sparrish wrote: post #259
acdha wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Influenza? The one which kills thousands of people every year despite widespread vaccination?

Except for 2020 where it's not even going to reach 100. https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/fluview/mortality.html

Exactly: that’s not because we suddenly hit herd immunity globally but because isolation masks are effective ways to stop respiratory illnesses.

Re: Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

#265

Post by user-the-name »

aww_dang wrote: post #254
user-the-name wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a good example of why "ad hominem" is one of the worst arguments you can try to use against something. In actual human discussion, pointing out that someone is making claims about something they don't know anything about is the very basis of common sense. Trying to make this out to be a logical fallacy only shows how useless that label is.

The problem becomes how you quantify your opponent's knowledge from a subjective position. How can you prove that they don't know what they are talking about without disputing the points they have made? You must attack the argument, not the person.

No, you really don't. This isn't a mathematical proof. This isn't a formal debate. This is regular, common-sense discussion.

Pointing out that a guy who is not an expert in a field is making claims that go against the actual experts in that field is a perfectly reasonable argument, and ignoring it is intentionally blinding yourself.

Re: Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

#266

Post by dragonwriter »

danaliv wrote: post #162
dragonwriter wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguing against someone's position by simply stating (truthfully or not) that they are not an expert is textbook ad hominem .

Come on. Evaluating the merit of a source is critical thinking 101.

As, and “X is not an expert in Y” is a valid response to an argument resting on X’s authority, but not otherwise a counterargument.

Re: Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

#267

Post by acdha »

maxerickson wrote: post #221
acdha wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Influenza? The one which kills thousands of people every year despite widespread vaccination?

Why would you respond like this without accounting for the rest of my very short comment?

Because it shows that herd immunity is not a given. Influenza is not only not there but will never be due to the nature of the virus being unusually prone to mutating.

Re: Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

#268

Post by ArkanExplorer »

We are already at some level of community immunity now - from natural immunity and vaccinations - enough that hospitals will not be overwhelmed. What is the justification for continued lockdown and closure of schools? Surely voluntary measures are sufficient at this point?

Re: Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

#269

Post by jdminhbg »

acdha wrote: post #262
jdminhbg wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this rate, the No True Scotsman fallacy is going to be renamed to No True Lockdown.

I’m sorry that you haven’t followed the topic carefully but it’s hardly a logical fallacy to say that not doing what epidemiologists recommended doesn’t mean following their advice wouldn’t have worked, especially when you can look at countries like Australia which did a harder lockdown and have seen the predicted benefits.

So in that case, you're willing to say that under current conditions in the US, mask wearing and restrictions on things like dining are pointless, right? If "lockdown" can only be expected to produce results in its strongest form and we can't do that, that seems like the logical conclusion.

Re: Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

#270

Post by zuminator »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #205
anoonmoose wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're acting like there were parts of the US in 100% lockdown vs 0% lockdown, when the difference is a lot more like 20% (max) vs 10%, and it's a lot harder to suss out any difference in result when the difference in practice is that small.

If lockdown explains most of the variance between Australia's 1k deaths and America's 500k deaths, then the difference between 10% and 20% lockdown should still be very visible.

That doesn't follow. Imagine the effective spread ("Re") of a disease averages 1.5. Certain external factors, such as climate, population density, access to medicine, diet, etc. can cause a 0.2 plus or minus variance in Re. So, 1.3-1.7 range. Each 10% of lockdown will cause a 10% reduction in that amount. So if Florida does a 10% lockdown, its Re will be somewhere in the 1.3-1.7 range reduced by 10% or 1.17-1.53. If California does a 20% lockdown, its Re will be in the 1.04-1.36 range. California, if "unlucky" can still have a worse Re (1.36) than Florida if "lucky" (1.17). Meanwhile Australia at a say 70% lockdown would see numbers in the 0.39-0.51 range, well below sustained transmission levels even if "unlucky."
Post reply on HN