[forgotmylogin2]

+1.

Continuing a lockdown of this severity makes no sense. San Francisco has only had 22 Covid deaths. A city the size of SF would be expected to see 5x as many cancer deaths as that in a normal month [1] and 7x as many heart disease deaths [2]. Instead, we're maintaining a policy that discourages people from seeking preventative treatment for these diseases on the basis that we don't want them contracting a less deadly disease.

The lockdown has proven to be excessive. The doomsday predictions have not come to pass, and we're entering a time of year that is known to be correlated with reduced rates of viral spread (Flu infection rates are 30x higher in the winter than the summer [3]). We need to get people back to work now. Social distancing should still be maintained where feasible but a blanket lockdown will cause way more harm than good.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/research/articles/cancer_202... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm [3] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm

[atourgates]

> The lockdown has proven to be excessive. The doomsday predictions have not come to pass

Alternate interpretation: the lockdown worked.

I fully agree that continual lockdown without a concrete plan for what its achievable goals are, and how and when we'll reopen is excessive. Some kind of targeted, data-driven reopening in stages is the right way to be headed.

[nickv]

This reminds me of a quote going around a few weeks ago: "If we have done a good job, everyone will say we over-reacted."

As a counter point, NYC did _not_ do a good job and at it's peak COVID-19 killed more people than heart disease and cancer during the month of March [1].

[1]: https://www.newsweek.com/coronavirus-becomes-number-one-caus... (This is a national number but its even worse when you consider the vast majority of cases are in NYC/NYS)

[choward]

> A city the size of SF would be expected to see 5x as many cancer deaths as that in a normal month [1] and 7x as many heart disease deaths

This comparison is irrelevant. Cancer and heart disease aren't contagious and don't spread exponentially.

Let's say there were 0 deaths from Covid-19 because there are enough beds and they got lucky enough to save everyone. Would you say that an infinite number of more people die from lightning strikes?

> The lockdown has proven to be excessive.

Because not enough people are dying? I honestly don't understand your logic.

[fzeroracer]

I'm starting to see these arguments take startling similarity with the anti-vaccine arguments.

Which is that vaccines aren't necessary because people are no longer dying from said vaccinated diseases. Perhaps it's important to consider that one of the reasons why the doomsday predictions haven't came true is because places took action early.