| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Land of the Free |
| Do Lockdowns Save Many Lives? In Most Places, the Data Say No |
| 2020-04-29 |
| Posted by:Bright Pebbles |
| #6 Lockdowns have almost zero correlation with fatality rates. The lockdown in Ground Zero, San Fran/San Mateo/Santa Clara, only happened 3+ months after the disease had been circulating throughout these counties thanks to more than 50,000 travelers arriving in the area from China. Tally in SF/SM/SC Counties as of this am: 175, out of total population = 3.5 million. The real culprit in the death rate is almost certainly bad / unsanitary practices in and around nursing homes and other areas where the elderly come into close contact with people carrying the virus e.g. crowded urban tenements housing multi-generation households that don't practice good hygiene/safe distancing. The lockdown is almost completely irrelevant to outcomes for the general population of healthy people under the age of 70. |
| Posted by: Lex 2020-04-29 19:03 |
| #5 And it worked Not sure this necessarily follows. Disaster didn't happen. It's not clear that the lock down is why. Antibody tests coming out now are showing something between 20-30% of NY and CA have had the virus. If that's even within a couple of standard deviations of accurate, then this thing has already blown through the population. The lock down didn't stop it, or even slow it down much. And keep in mind that the lock down was never intended to stop the virus, just slow it down. The virus will be with us 10 years from now. Stopping it was never a possibility. Instead there was (justified) concern about overwhelming medical resources. OK. Now here we are with empty ER's, furloughed doctors and ventilators being given away for free. Medical facilities are not overwhelmed, and they aren't going to be. And people with chronic conditions are dying because they can't access routine medical care. So I'd like to think my personal response is a little more nuanced than the driver's in your story. I think the lock down made sense 2 months ago, and I think it's way overdue time to lift it. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2020-04-29 18:54 |
| #4 #3 And it worked - except in states where Governors overdid it. And even there, deaths were limited because docs must've used HCQ contrary to expert opinion. You know what you all remind me of? I once escorted a military track dragging a Hawk launcher from Sharm - A- Sheikh back to base in central Israel. Every f*cking time we'd come to "slow down - dangerous curve ahead", the driver would slow down, negotiate the curve, and then start cursing the stupid government road signs. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2020-04-29 16:05 |
| #3 But people claimed a) everyone would eventually get it. b) so we need everyone inside so we slow everyone getting it enough to have sufficient resources to cope with a peak. Now the story has changed, but the MSM is incurious. I smell bullshit when this happens. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2020-04-29 15:48 |
| #2 ^It's not obvious to me now. Just imagine a scenario where infected Manhattans flee to their summer houses all over the country. If you look at the rest of the world, countries what initiated lockdown early did considerably better than these that did not. It's all about not overstraining one's medical resources. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2020-04-29 14:14 |
| #1 This was not obvious 2 months ago. Now that it is obvious it's remarkable how many refuse to accept the new data. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2020-04-29 13:17 |