Coronavirus Sars-CoV-2/Covid-19 Megathread

[Grey Fox]

Georgia overreacted, probably influenced from the NYC situation.

I think in most of the Western world, governments locked down harder because they have to manage hospital loads. When US states do that, it just looks like an overreaction.

[Valmy]

Georgia overreacted, probably influenced from the NYC situation.

I think in most of the Western world, governments locked down harder because they have to manage hospital loads. When US states do that, it just looks like an overreaction.

I figured it was to try and see if we could avoid infection altogether. When that did not work than we needed to end the lockdowns and adopt something else. It was not like we could really lock down in an effective sense for longer than a week or so.

[Tamas]

Has Sweden been helped by allowing hiking during the first wave?

[The Brain]

Has Sweden been helped by allowing hiking during the first wave?

Yes. Not doing insane bans helps society to function.

[Threviel]

+1

[mongers]

What's not been established so far is if immunity conferred by getting the infection or by the vaccines, helps prevent the transmission of the disease to others; it's perfectly possible that the corona-virus can establish colonies in the airways and lungs of these immune individual and then have them continue to the spread the virus to others.

It's possible we'll need a 2nd generation vaccine that'll confer a local 'immunity' to the airways and might have to be delivered in a nasal inhaler form.   

[Tamas]

What Dorsey and co. seem to be doing now is looking at a pretty severe second wave and concluding the first round lockdowns were for nothing.

However, we are not seeing a second wave after a lax/ignored first wave. We are seeing a second wave that hit not only while most countries still had some restrictions in place, but also nations that already had months to learn to live under the new normal. Yet it has hit this hard.

How hard would it have been if people thought it was fine to just go about their business? I mean, if more thought so than now?

And this is just ignoring the fact that saying "the first wave had a strict lockdown and the hospitals weren't overloaded so a strict lockdown was not necessary" is iffy logics at best.

[alfred russel]

What Dorsey and co. seem to be doing now is looking at a pretty severe second wave and concluding the first round lockdowns were for nothing.

However, we are not seeing a second wave after a lax/ignored first wave. We are seeing a second wave that hit not only while most countries still had some restrictions in place, but also nations that already had months to learn to live under the new normal. Yet it has hit this hard.

How hard would it have been if people thought it was fine to just go about their business? I mean, if more thought so than now?

And this is just ignoring the fact that saying "the first wave had a strict lockdown and the hospitals weren't overloaded so a strict lockdown was not necessary" is iffy logics at best.

That last sentence is a ridiculous strawman.

In my case I certainly wasn't making the argument after the fact--I was saying this back in March/April. The initial lockdown included excesses that both were unsustainable for a year+ and seemed unlikely to slow the spread of the disease. For example, I don't think it made sense to close public parks -- and use police tape to ensure no one got on playground equipment - but closing remote hiking trails with police stationed at trailheads was silly. I was put under a stay at home order stating that if I left home for non essential reasons I could be jailed for up to a year. That was a bit much.

Virtually all the restrictions were removed, and our biggest spike in cases was not March/April or now: it was over the summer. Hospitals were not overwhelmed. But more to the point: there is virulent opposition to any restrictions now. There was a reserve of public patience that was depleted on highly disruptive rules that produced almost no positive effects.

[viper37]

What Dorsey and co. seem to be doing now is looking at a pretty severe second wave and concluding the first round lockdowns were for nothing.

However, we are not seeing a second wave after a lax/ignored first wave. We are seeing a second wave that hit not only while most countries still had some restrictions in place, but also nations that already had months to learn to live under the new normal. Yet it has hit this hard.

How hard would it have been if people thought it was fine to just go about their business? I mean, if more thought so than now?

And this is just ignoring the fact that saying "the first wave had a strict lockdown and the hospitals weren't overloaded so a strict lockdown was not necessary" is iffy logics at best.

in my area, police had to, again, stop two distinct private indoor gatherings.

people don't listen to simple instructions, then they whine we are heading to a lockdown.

[DGuller]

I think this forum has been creaking a little lately, so maybe to save some bandwidth we should assign numbers to all these arguments in debates with AR and just use them instead of copy/pasting endlessly.  Let's assign some numbers to the points AR is making, and a couple of more numbers for missing AR's point or gratuitously insulting him.  I don't think there is a need to assign numbers to arguments addressing any of AR's points, that's definitely not what's hogging the bandwidth.

[The Minsky Moment]

rules that produced almost no positive effects.

See this is why your argument gets attacked.  You start making an argument based on nuance, then conclude with to an easily attacked categorical statement.

[alfred russel]

rules that produced almost no positive effects.

See this is why your argument gets attacked.  You start making an argument based on nuance, then conclude with to an easily attacked categorical statement.

"Rules that produced almost no positive effects" does not include the entire universe of rules.

[The Minsky Moment]

rules that produced almost no positive effects.

See this is why your argument gets attacked.  You start making an argument based on nuance, then conclude with to an easily attacked categorical statement.

"Rules that produced almost no positive effects" does not include the entire universe of rules.

That's having it both ways.  The evaluation of the negative effects of the lockdown is based on the lockdown as a whole, the measurement of positive effects is being based on on a small but unenumerated subset of rules within the whole.  You can argue that blocking people from accessing remote trailheads had little effect, but the problem with that argument is that it wasn't restrictions on remote trailheads that got 99% of people upset or caused any material economic harm.

The reality is that it's all part of a piece: the March/April order prioritized simplicity of messaging and enforcement over surgical precision.  It's true that tiny groups hiking remote trails in itself wasn't likely to increase COVD rates, but people going into indoor stores to pick up their camping supplies, or park officials having to man aid stations, etc. is all part of activity that taken as a whole could increase spread risk.  The idea was to crush down spread rates to buy time to put in place an effective test and contact tracing regime.  Some other nations did this and there second waves have been less severe.  the US failed in this regard and that is why we are where we are today, a cautionary tale to much of the world.

[alfred russel]

That's having it both ways.  The evaluation of the negative effects of the lockdown is based on the lockdown as a whole, the measurement of positive effects is being based on on a small but unenumerated subset of rules within the whole.  You can argue that blocking people from accessing remote trailheads had little effect, but the problem with that argument is that it wasn't restrictions on remote trailheads that got 99% of people upset or caused any material economic harm.

The reality is that it's all part of a piece: the March/April order prioritized simplicity of messaging and enforcement over surgical precision.  It's true that tiny groups hiking remote trails in itself wasn't likely to increase COVD rates, but people going into indoor stores to pick up their camping supplies, or park officials having to man aid stations, etc. is all part of activity that taken as a whole could increase spread risk.  The idea was to crush down spread rates to buy time to put in place an effective test and contact tracing regime.  Some other nations did this and there second waves have been less severe.  the US failed in this regard and that is why we are where we are today, a cautionary tale to much of the world.

You live in NYC so relatively harsh March / April orders made sense in terms of disease progression, and you also were facing a nearly overwhelmed medical system.

For most of the country, it was definitely not the case. Our major wave was in the summer--July and August. Everything was open then, but it was shut down in March / April. What sense does that make?

I don't see the concern of buying rice to cook at home versus off a trail somewhere in the back country. You can make arguments to defend any rule--but right now even high traffic national parks are open and this is arguably our worst moment. Either we realized that closing outdoor areas was a mistake or we've just lost the resolve to see the closures through. In either case, shutting them down in March and April was the wrong call.

[Tamas]

I think this forum has been creaking a little lately, so maybe to save some bandwidth we should assign numbers to all these arguments in debates with AR and just use them instead of copy/pasting endlessly.  Let's assign some numbers to the points AR is making, and a couple of more numbers for missing AR's point or gratuitously insulting him.  I don't think there is a need to assign numbers to arguments addressing any of AR's points, that's definitely not what's hogging the bandwidth.

Maybe DGuller could attempt to better explain what D's point is because since March he has not been able to move past his hurt dignity over hiking. Every argument of his seems to stem from the insult received on having to adjust his life due to a pandemic.