COVID-19: A bloody battle or a long war?

[antaeus]

I think we need to make clear something about locking down as a preventative measure.

Unless 60% of your population is infected... there is no "too late" to lock down.

Italy has 120k confirmed cases. Which probably means closer to 5 or 6 times that. Which is still 1% of their population. Locking down 3 weeks ago saved potentially hundreds of thousands of people.

In the United States there are 300k confirmed cases. Which might equate to a real count in the low millions. Once again less than 1% of the population. Lock down now, even this far in and you literally save millions of lives. But most of the US locked down a week or 2 ago.

Locking down pauses the spread from the point of lock down. It takes 3 weeks to show in the count, but it stops from the moment of lockdown.

[EmperorBatman999]

Just pondering here, but I wonder if there could have been a different path to take to get the same effect as a legally-enforced lockdown. It would have to be something that gets people off the street without making them feel like they are having their rights violated or that their options for movement are being forcibly limited.

For example, I really think that the voluntary lockdown did a very effective job in my city, Washington, DC. Businesses closed, people stopped going out on the street, and when doing so, they behaved more carefully, all of this two or three weeks before the lockdown was actually imposed. Across those three weeks, cases remained remarkably low for the rate of spread elsewhere, and especially low for it being an urban center. I understand some of that, to be academically honest here, had to do with a lot of people going back to their home states once businesses and universities began closing or transitioning to teleworking - even there, there is something to learn; Washingtonians were remarkably reactive to the situation and took their own measures, and it shows, all before the mayor ordered a lockdown four days ago.

Why can't more places be like Washington, D.C.? In this case, soft pressure worked out really well. There should've been a stronger social urge on all fronts to get people to remain at home. Perhaps some wealthier governments could even throw in financially or taxational incentives for people who choose to stay home and can document their compliance? Or something akin to the "white feather" campaign from WW1 Britain that uses light social shaming for people who remain outdoors? The biggest thing is that I am really averse to the use of force in this regard, and I really believe there are voluntary ways to get people to remain indoors.

[Gaidin]

Washington DC can't really do anything like a lockdown unless it has the cooperation of Maryland and Virginia. Note the timing of Maryland and Virginia's lockdown orders with DC's. Also, Virginia's major population centers can't do much with a lockdown unless the federal agencies want to play along with rolling out non-essential workers to telework and only bringing in essential workers to the office. Which you'll note they did. Same for Montgomery and Prince George's County Maryland. While the states can kind of handle the schools and businesses how they want, key states that interact have to coordinate when the lockdown comes or it's futile. There was a lot of in-tandem stepping between New York and New Jersey for the lockdown. There was a lot of coordination between Maryland, Virginia, and DC for the lockdown. You can probably look for similar examples across the country if you want to.

[antaeus]

As per Gaidin...

With lockdowns, they only work if people are locked down. Movement is at least 80% halted. It's very difficult to lock down if the next suburb is not. It's very difficult to lock down if the next state is not. This really isn't the time or place for voluntary measures, because there will always be people who do to not comply through work or family or other excuses and reaching 80% won't happen.

Instead of worrying about the loss of individual freedoms for a few months, concentrate on promoting checks and balances so that the temporary loss of freedom doesn't become permanent. Some countries have established extra-parliamentary bipartisan committees that act as a check in lieu of actual parliaments. Others have enacted limited parliaments with defined quorum rules. Ensure freedom of press and transparency amongst leaders etc.

Most of all... don't let politicians or partisan media try define political opposition as un-patriotic. I'm looking at you Fox News. This is a time where checks like opposition or free press are more essential than ever.

[Spyrith]

This whole thread is making me envious of the Singapore and South Korea response to the virus.

They have neither the economic pain nor the deaths and infections that the West has.

Looking back, the best times to fully lockdown was when a virus had just been spotted in a city. Total lockdown, no entering or leaving until it's clear. Army and police in the streets to enforce it if necessary.

Because of the momentary softness, the disease spread through the globe in just a few months.

[sumskilz]

This whole thread is making me envious of the Singapore and South Korea response to the virus.

They have neither the economic pain nor the deaths and infections that the West has.

They had experience with SARS, and they didn't like it.

For the the same reason, they undoubtedly know that the case fatality rate doesn't describe the whole picture regarding human cost. It is likely that severe cases of COVID-19 will end up with many of the same type of long term effects as SARS survivors, chronic fatigue, permanent lung damage, neurological damage, chronic pain and/or numbness, etc. There will be a subsequent economic cost for this as well.

Regarding all this talk about ventilators, one issue is being left out, the success rate isn't very high. The ICNARC study in the UK found that of those who received invasive mechanical ventilation for COVID-19, 66% died. Two separate studies from China found that 86-97% of those who who received invasive mechanical ventilation died. Presumably the difference can be accounted for by differences in the state of the respective healthcare systems, but it's safe to assume that as western healthcare systems come under stress, positive outcomes are likely to decrease. The logical choice then will be a triage that focuses efforts on only those who are most likely to survive.

In Israel, there is a 22-year-old guy who was infected with COVID-19 in Florida. He was healthy with no preexisting conditions, yet now he's sedated and intubated and it looks like he may not survive since his condition continues to deteriorate. So while not statistically as likely, it's a situation that happens. Maybe he had some other yet unknown risk factor, maybe genetic? It would be preferable if there was more time to figure out that sort of information.

[PointOfViewGun]

You guys might enjoy this pandemic simulation break down:

[EmperorBatman999]

As per Gaidin...

With lockdowns, they only work if people are locked down. Movement is at least 80% halted. It's very difficult to lock down if the next suburb is not. It's very difficult to lock down if the next state is not. This really isn't the time or place for voluntary measures, because there will always be people who do to not comply through work or family or other excuses and reaching 80% won't happen.

Instead of worrying about the loss of individual freedoms for a few months, concentrate on promoting checks and balances so that the temporary loss of freedom doesn't become permanent. Some countries have established extra-parliamentary bipartisan committees that act as a check in lieu of actual parliaments. Others have enacted limited parliaments with defined quorum rules. Ensure freedom of press and transparency amongst leaders etc.

Most of all... don't let politicians or partisan media try define political opposition as un-patriotic. I'm looking at you Fox News. This is a time where checks like opposition or free press are more essential than ever.

Except that a voluntary quarantine did work, and I can say this because I saw this first-hand as a resident in the American capitol. Public morale remained high and the number of sickness cases remained extraordinarily low for an urban center. I'd like to highlight public morale especially, as maintaining an optimistic, mentally healthy, and energized populace are also all good measures to stave off susceptibility to illness as well as economic downturn.

I really think that D.C. ordered a lockdown because it had to do so as a linchpin for the transit system between all three polities, but it did not itself need a mandatory lockdown because D.C. residents were already gladly practicing social distancing very early on. The people that really remained out of their homes were essential workers, and the homeless, the latter of whom have otherwise no other place to go. Frankly, I'm disappointed with how the homeless have been addressed in this crisis; speaking with some myself in my neighborhood, it seems they have had all their services cut with the (voluntary) social distancing measures, including VA clinics. I've seen more fighting and shouting matches between the homeless as they run out of medications, food, and rest spaces. Yet, they are an incredibly vulnerable group and tend to be vectors for disease outbreaks such as this, and they have been utterly abandoned by non-profit and public services. Forced lockdowns won't get them off the street and indoors. They are one group that in a voluntary or forced scenario, either way, cannot be taken out of the model parabola for social distancing measures. Similarly, you cannot take doctors, police, garbage men, or food service workers out of the equation either, even if just about everyone else is indoors. John the Barber closed his shop a few weeks ago for the sake of his customers and employees, Jane the Think-Tanker went home to telework, they already took themselves out of the public-space equation before being told to do so. In Washington, the vast majority of whoever is left are unmoveable; sorry about your model, CDC and the WHO.

We have to remember that the point is to get people out of the public and reducing physical contact. If we can persuade and overwhelming majority of people to comply WITHOUT forcing them, all the better from the standpoint of public morale, personal psychology, and political principles. I believe that humans in an educated and democratic society can be convinced without the threat of legal punishment to do something like this for their society. The lockdowns are a solution for political leaders who are uncreative, lazy, or careless about the consequences it has for public morale or the people it screws over.

[Gaidin]

Except that a voluntary quarantine did work, --- *snip*

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...ns-after-mayor

Voluntary my ass. Your mayor had to threaten certain restaurant groups of the full force of local health agencies to get them to follow local orders. Care to rephrase your post?

[EmperorBatman999]

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...ns-after-mayor

Voluntary my ass. Your mayor had to threaten certain restaurant groups of the full force of local health agencies to get them to follow local orders. Care to rephrase your post?

Most restaurants and bars were already closed in my neighborhood and shifted to online ordering long before that.

[antaeus]

We have to remember that the point is to get people out of the public and reducing physical contact. If we can persuade and overwhelming majority of people to comply WITHOUT forcing them, all the better from the standpoint of public morale, personal psychology, and political principles. I believe that humans in an educated and democratic society can be convinced without the threat of legal punishment to do something like this for their society. The lockdowns are a solution for political leaders who are uncreative, lazy, or careless about the consequences it has for public morale or the people it screws over.

I think you'll find that the lockdowns are a solution for individuals who are uncreative, lazy, or careless about the consequences it has for public morale or the people it screws over. We don't need to revisit all the stories from around the world of people who don't care doing everything they can to unintentionally spread virus. E.g. Spring Break. 80% is a difficult number to reach - at that point you're trying to convince those in our society with lower than average empathy that doing things for other people is a good idea. A casual browse through this thread should show you all you need to know about different responses of individuals to crisis being problematic for solving it using libertarian principles.

[Gaidin]

Most restaurants and bars were already closed in my neighborhood and shifted to online ordering long before that.

Except the orders weren't for 'most restaurants and bars' to shut down their dining rooms and do carry out only. The orders were for 'all restaurants and bars' to shut down their dining rooms and do carry out only. This ain't about the most that are cooperating. This is about the uncooperative jerkoffs who want to keep doing business as usual and potentially be a spreading point when asymptomatic.

[Common Soldier]

Do you really know whether lock downs are not effective? Absolutely not. While it is safe to assume that they're slowing down the spread for sure, as they eliminate paths of transmission all together, you have absolutely no data to suggest that they're not providing even a substantial effect.

You don't know for certain that lockdowns are having any significant benefit or are significantly slowing thr spread of the diseae. You are assuming it is working, but you have no real scientific data to back that assumption up.

The huge economic damage of thr lockdown is very real, the benefits are merely speculatve. Thr burden is on you to show the lockdown has any real benefit and works, not me to show it doesn't work.

The idea is not to lock everything down at the first sight of a case. There should obviously be a cut off. We can debate at what point that should be, however, we're likely past that point already. Perhaps the first death could be a sufficient cut off.

So what is the cutoff point? In Michigan's case, the first 2 identified cases in the state were on March 16, by March 16 all the restaurants, bars, theaters had been shutdown, and the schools, libraries and museums before then, just a week later or less than thr frst cases in the state were positively identified. Tell me when the lockdown should have been implemented, 2 days after the first cases were identified?

No, corona virus is not some T-virus from a Resident Evil movie. Just because people live in the same apartment in condos doesn't mean all of them are guaranteed to get it. It primarily transmits through touch, not air. Flu doesn't just transmit better during times when the weather is bad. Flu prefers cold and dry weather, plus winter is when people go spend time indoors at work, then come home to spend more time at their house. Your analysis at every point in this post is extremely simplistic and misses the real facts of the matter.

Coronavirus like regular flu, can be spread by air, that is one of the reasons face mask are worn by medical workers. And yes, ir you confine people in the same area breating the same air, as in an apartment building, younwill greatly increase their chances of catching the disease.

You make it appear as if Michigan initiated widespread shut downs more than two weeks ago before it rose to state with third most cases. The shelter in place order was given on 23rd of March. Any data you look at gives you how it was two weeks ago. You will see whether those shut downs were effective in a week or two, assuming that the shut downs were widely implemented and people took warnings seriously. So, no, you're not seeing anywhere that the virus spread more rapidly after wide spread lock downs were initiated. It defies simple logic to suggest that.

You make it appear that shut down actions were only implemented March 23, which is si.ply not true. All the restaurants, bars and theater had been shutdown a week eaelier, and the churches, schools, libraries more than a week earlier. By the time the shelter in place.order was given on March 23 most people had been home already for a week or more, since there was no place to go. You are not being very honest.

From March 17, it has been more than 2 weeks and there is no inidication the spread of coronavirusnis abating. After more than han 2 weeks of shools, theaters, restaurants being closed, younwould expect to see some slackening in the rise of coronavirus cases if the lockdowns were having a significant effect but you don't. The actual results indicate the lockdowns ate not having a major effect, which means we are suffering a lot of major social and economic adverrse for no real gain. We are seeig more cases spread daily after the lockdown than before it, and whwn Michigan began its lockdowns it was not third in the nation, but it is now.

The fact is, by arguing against total lock downs, you're effectively lengthening the pandemic and hurting business in a manner that they can't plan through. I'm guaranteeing mild but manageable loss, while you're risking everything without a real way to plan through it.

The people intiating the lockdowns openly admit they are just flattening the curve, so the medical facilities can keep up. Flattening the curve means you are lengthening the pandemic not shortening it. You are guaranteeing a much greater loss. If you allowed the disease ro run its course, the duration of thr pandemic would be shorter, and the he economic losses possibly no less, but more lives would be lost.

No one but you is saying that these lockdowns are going to shorten the pandemic, that is not their purpose. The lockdowns are to flatten the curve, which will help our hospitals, bu also ensure the pandemic will last longer. If the lockdowns could have been implemented before the disease had spread, then maybe they could have shortened the pandemic. But I haven't seen any time where thst is the caee, and I have explained why. Because of the long time between infection and first symptoms, up to 3 weeks, by the time the first symptoms appear and you intiate a lockdown, it may be already too late to prevent the spread of the disease with a lockdown. The disease might have spread of the disease before even the first symptoms appeared.

So, Michigan and Texas. How well is testing being done in both states? How many infected people entered either state from outside sources? Those states have quite different cultures. How do people of those states adhere to social distancing and personal hygiene rules? The fact is timeline have been extended enough to see the effects of this virus in average for these states.

No of these questions alters they fact that if the lockdowns were really effective, shouldn't Michigan be far better off than Texas? Texas first case showed up before Michigan, yet Michigan is far worse off. It is possible that Michigan is testing more.

Note, Sweden has also not jumped on the coronavirus lockdown band wagon, and so far it hasn't become Spain, Italy or Michigan ( population of Sweden about the same as Michigan.).

[antaeus]

You don't know for certain that lockdowns are having any significant benefit or are significantly slowing thr spread of the diseae. You are assuming it is working, but you have no real scientific data to back that assumption up.

From March 17, it has been more than 2 weeks and there is no inidication the spread of coronavirusnis abating.

Yes. There is plenty of evidence. And you saying "there is no evidence" does not mean there is none. Germany has flattened it's curve to the point where they are able to provide medical assistance to France and Italy. Australia has seen a steady decline in new cases for about a week now. Both have been through extensive testing and tight lockdowns, and both have kept their death rates lower through not exceeding their ICU capacity.

No one but you is saying that these lockdowns are going to shorten the pandemic, that is not their purpose. The lockdowns are to flatten the curve, which will help our hospitals, bu also ensure the pandemic will last longer. If the lockdowns could have been implemented before the disease had spread, then maybe they could have shortened the pandemic. But I haven't seen any time where thst is the caee, and I have explained why. Because of the long time between infection and first symptoms, up to 3 weeks, by the time the first symptoms appear and you intiate a lockdown, it may be already too late to prevent the spread of the disease with a lockdown. The disease might have spread of the disease before even the first symptoms appeared.

As I said earlier...

I think we need to make clear something about locking down as a preventative measure.

Unless 60% of your population is infected... there is no "too late" to lock down.

Italy has 120k confirmed cases. Which probably means closer to 5 or 6 times that. Which is still 1% of their population. Locking down 3 weeks ago saved potentially hundreds of thousands of people.

In the United States there are 300k confirmed cases. Which might equate to a real count in the low millions. Once again less than 1% of the population. Lock down now, even this far in and you literally save millions of lives. But most of the US locked down a week or 2 ago.

Locking down pauses the spread from the point of lock down. It takes 3 weeks to show in the count, but it stops from the moment of lockdown.

[PointOfViewGun]

Anyone who argues against lock downs in favor of business gains that doesn't realistically exist are indirectly advocating killing people. A lot of the deaths we are seeing today were completely avoidable.

You don't know for certain that lockdowns are having any significant benefit or are significantly slowing thr spread of the diseae. You are assuming it is working, but you have no real scientific data to back that assumption up.

The huge economic damage of thr lockdown is very real, the benefits are merely speculatve. Thr burden is on you to show the lockdown has any real benefit and works, not me to show it doesn't work.

So what is the cutoff point? In Michigan's case, the first 2 identified cases in the state were on March 16, by March 16 all the restaurants, bars, theaters had been shutdown, and the schools, libraries and museums before then, just a week later or less than thr frst cases in the state were positively identified. Tell me when the lockdown should have been implemented, 2 days after the first cases were identified?

Coronavirus like regular flu, can be spread by air, that is one of the reasons face mask are worn by medical workers. And yes, ir you confine people in the same area breating the same air, as in an apartment building, younwill greatly increase their chances of catching the disease.

You make it appear that shut down actions were only implemented March 23, which is si.ply not true. All the restaurants, bars and theater had been shutdown a week eaelier, and the churches, schools, libraries more than a week earlier. By the time the shelter in place.order was given on March 23 most people had been home already for a week or more, since there was no place to go. You are not being very honest.

From March 17, it has been more than 2 weeks and there is no inidication the spread of coronavirusnis abating. After more than han 2 weeks of shools, theaters, restaurants being closed, younwould expect to see some slackening in the rise of coronavirus cases if the lockdowns were having a significant effect but you don't. The actual results indicate the lockdowns ate not having a major effect, which means we are suffering a lot of major social and economic adverrse for no real gain. We are seeig more cases spread daily after the lockdown than before it, and whwn Michigan began its lockdowns it was not third in the nation, but it is now.

The people intiating the lockdowns openly admit they are just flattening the curve, so the medical facilities can keep up. Flattening the curve means you are lengthening the pandemic not shortening it. You are guaranteeing a much greater loss. If you allowed the disease ro run its course, the duration of thr pandemic would be shorter, and the he economic losses possibly no less, but more lives would be lost.

No one but you is saying that these lockdowns are going to shorten the pandemic, that is not their purpose. The lockdowns are to flatten the curve, which will help our hospitals, bu also ensure the pandemic will last longer. If the lockdowns could have been implemented before the disease had spread, then maybe they could have shortened the pandemic. But I haven't seen any time where thst is the caee, and I have explained why. Because of the long time between infection and first symptoms, up to 3 weeks, by the time the first symptoms appear and you intiate a lockdown, it may be already too late to prevent the spread of the disease with a lockdown. The disease might have spread of the disease before even the first symptoms appeared.

No of these questions alters they fact that if the lockdowns were really effective, shouldn't Michigan be far better off than Texas? Texas first case showed up before Michigan, yet Michigan is far worse off. It is possible that Michigan is testing more.

Note, Sweden has also not jumped on the coronavirus lockdown band wagon, and so far it hasn't become Spain, Italy or Michigan ( population of Sweden about the same as Michigan.).

The burden is actually on you as well since you claimed that the lock downs are not working. In fact, you even tried to claim that they were making things worse. You're defying logic and common sense without providing actual data.

When the cut off should be? Perhaps when new cases starts to exceed 25% of the previous day, or when the first death occurs. For many countries they could initiate it even much earlier since there have been China and Italy cases on full force already. There is no excuse.

Once again, corona virus is not some Resident Evil T-virus. It's not airborne in that sense. Just by breathing the same doesn't get you infected. The droplets needs to be transmitted to you which requires you to be in close contact with an infected person. Face masks are worn to keep droplets out as medical workers come close contacts with infected people.

You don't get to accuse me of not being honest and go about lying what was shut down and what was not. Churches are exempt from the shelter in place orders in Michigan. They remain to be open to this day. As I said, widespread shut downs, which I indicated as the shelter in place order, was given on March 23rd. That's public record. I was not being dishonest about it there. Shutting down schools or theaters while keeping malls and work spaces open doesn't exactly help much. Without a shelter in place order kids may not be going to school but they're still going out to play with friends.

No, just because the rate of case findings are not going down after some measures of shut down were initiated doesn't mean the shut down is not working. That's a very ignorant analysis as there are many factors. You don't know even now the real number of cases. You only know discovered cases which is incredibly based on how much testing is done. Even at a time when new real cases decline if the state ramps up testing a lot you would still get more daily cases.

You keep conflating my support for limited time total lock downs with gradual lock downs. If you can't make that distinction it makes it pointless to respond to your posts. Clearly, you wanna base your analysis in a highly simplistic fashion that provides little value.

[Infidel144]

Is the coronavirus airborne? Experts can’t agree
The World Health Organization says the evidence is not compelling, but scientists warn that gathering sufficient data could take years and cost lives.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00974-w

[Gaidin]

Anyone who argues against lock downs in favor of business gains that doesn't realistically exist are indirectly advocating killing people. A lot of the deaths we are seeing today were completely avoidable.



The burden is actually on you as well since you claimed that the lock downs are not working. In fact, you even tried to claim that they were making things worse. You're defying logic and common sense without providing actual data.

I'd like to repost this for Common Soldier's benefit:

So your solution is to spread it more? I can just point to two states to make this case. Kentucky and Tennessee have relatively similar rural and urban centers and cultures. Kentucky was about three weeks ahead of Tennessee in every decision made from when to shut schools down to when to shut non-essential businesses down to when to order(not advise) people to stay home. Kentucky has 755 cases and Tennessee has 2,869. Kentucky isn't going to just give that relatively low number up. Kentucky Legislature was plotting to cut Andy Beshear's legs out from under him much the same way Wisconsin cut Tony Evers' out from under him and are literally forcing them to have a primary in the middle of this mess. But no. Their republican legislature love the way they have a low CV count and how he declared an emergency early and literally declared price gouging a state crime and has been working with their republican Attorney General to keep that kind of stuff from happening in the middle of this mess.

Kentucky could've been Tennessee if it wanted to. But you know what. It isn't.

Mind you...

You don't get to accuse me of not being honest and go about lying what was shut down and what was not. Churches are exempt from the shelter in place orders in Michigan. They remain to be open to this day. As I said, widespread shut downs, which I indicated as the shelter in place order, was given on March 23rd. That's public record. I was not being dishonest about it there. Shutting down schools or theaters while keeping malls and work spaces open doesn't exactly help much. Without a shelter in place order kids may not be going to school but they're still going out to play with friends.

Kentucky shut down the churches where Michigan didn't. Churches tried to clamor, but within days they shifted to virtual services.

[Diamat]

May I remind everyone that South Korea managed to contain the virus and flatten the curve without the drastic economic measures that have occurred in so many other places around the world. I was living in South Korea when the outbreak started. Businesses were not forced to close or limit their activities and life continued in a relatively normal way. Yes, people were encouraged to work from home, but restaurants and social life continued. People were still drinking with others after work, albeit less than before, and restaurants and bars were not forced to shut down unless one of their customers had corona. All businesses that were visited by an infected person were shut down. Yet I could still play Magic the Gathering with people in the shop, there was no government-mandated distance between people in public spaces, and people could gather in large groups. Then I arrived in Germany and it was a totally different world. I can't do anything. After having seen South Korea deal with the crisis in a prudent and efficient way, I can't quite understand the drastic measures being taken in Germany. It seems one step too far, perhaps two. Surely we don't need to shut everything down. It seems like every country is dealing with the current crisis in their own arbitrary way, just guessing what may help contain the spread, relying on an arbitrary selection of scientists while ignoring others, and creating policies without an exit strategy. Even when you talk to average people, everyone has different opinions about the virus, how to combat it, and how the government is doing. That's because the media has been spreading all sorts of contradictory information and because scientists themselves are not agreed. I have no idea where all of this is heading, but I hope it has a happy ending and teaches us a good lesson in the process.

[mishkin]

Find hard to believe what you say about south korea.

[Diamat]

I'm really not making stuff up and this is not simply anecdotal. Just did a quick google search for some news articles which can corroborate what I said:

https://www.businessinsider.com/coro...20-3?r=DE&IR=T

You can also check out youtube videos from the time of the crisis, when there were thousands of new cases each day. You can observe a pretty normal (when compared to Europe) social life.