He is responding to your comment about the New York scenario. The original justification for the shutdown was that we would run out of hospital capacity.
New York always had ample capacity in hospitals, and the USNS comfort and Javits center hospital were almost empty. Governor projected a lack of capacity which certainly caused fear, but it’s a very different thing.
In terms on NYC deaths there has been many stories of incompetence and mismanagement. Almost all that died had other serious health conditions, so it’s a question if lack of proper care for a non covid preexisting condition or they not seeking care out of fear is often the true cause of death.
Normally death cause is well investigated. However, CDC issued highly unusual guidelines that said doctors should classify all deaths as covid if they have been diagnosed to have covid instead of doing doing the normal extensive look into each case. This may mask people dying from other serious health conditions due to lockdown.
It's still unrelated to my comment. In fact, to the extent that you're trying to tie them together, it proves the opposite of the claims you're making.
My original parent was contrasting the two states, with the following:
>New York is such an outlier in terms of death rates that it should be a totally separate conversation.
My point was that NY shouldn't be a "totally different conversation", but that we should look to NY as a cautionary tale WRT potential outcomes without sufficient mitigation. The fact that hospital capacity was not overrun in either state underscores the validity of the comparison.
>many stories of incompetence and mismanagement...it’s a question if lack of proper care for a non covid preexisting condition...not seeking care out of fear is often the true cause of death".
This and the rest of your comment are, frankly, pure conjecture that seems to start with your conclusion. However, we know the virus is deadly and that COVID would likely be a serious contributing factor to deaths, even in the presence of pre-existing conditions. It's no secret that pre-existing conditions are a prime COVID risk factor and, as it happens, this country has a high incidence of pre-existing conditions. This was an openly stated primary force in our mitigation efforts. But, here you seem to be presenting it as some previously hidden revelation over which we should dismiss these deaths.
In sum, it's disingenuous to parse out all of the knowns and unknowns into an overall conclusion that lockdowns were somehow unnecessary. We know enough to know that stopping the spread of the virus prevents large numbers of unnecessary deaths--even (and especially) among at-risk populations.
> The fact that hospital capacity was not overrun in either state underscores the validity of the comparison.
Just a tidbit: One UCSF doctor that went to help out in New York reported the hospital he was in converted their cafeteria to a ventilator ward.
And New York was relying on a lot of doctors and nurses from other parts of the country. Not to mention pressing doctors and nurses from other specialties.
I just say this because the covid19 deniers are trying hard to normalize things like what happened in New York.
Agreed. These people aren't really interested in the facts or science. They have a conclusion. Everything else is a pseudoscientific veneer that gets them back to that conclusion.
Further down on this thread (after much goalpost moving and mischaracterization of facts), asabjorn has all but completely abandoned his/her initial assertions: that he/she opposed lockdowns because they are ineffective. It's now about "freedom, 1A and 2A".
Old asabjorn: >most states are now open or are reopening. We are not seeing spikes in coronavirus cases
New asabjorn: >I never claimed no reopened state will see some increases in covid cases, some do and some don't
I had to push really hard through all of his/her contortions to extract this and other concessions.
But, remarkably, this person just kept right on moving as if his/her entire argument wasn't based on the effectiveness of the lockdown. Then, went on to talk about tyranny and fighting for our freedom.
> My point was that NY shouldn't be a "totally different conversation", but that we should look to NY as a cautionary tale WRT potential outcomes without sufficient mitigation. The fact that hospital capacity was not overrun in either state underscores the validity of the comparison.
We definitely agree there. However, why do you think NYC is not an example of lockdowns not working and that we should instead isolate the vulnerable populations? Its both the most severe lockdowned place and the place with the highest coronavirus death rate.
Also, most states are now open or are reopening. We are not seeing spikes in coronavirus cases or deaths, and we are instead seeing huge drops in deaths per week directly undermining the heavy handed lockdowns [3]. Also, despite each worker of Wallmart, Target, Whole Foods, Safeways, Wallgreens etc being exposed to thousands a day not a single store was closed due to covid outbreaks. How come that is the case?
Locking down non-vulnerable populations is what I think is unjustified, and the evidence I present show that the heavy handed lockdown doesn't reliably reduce deaths and that targeted isolations of vulnerable populations does reliably reduce deaths. One shared component of sweden and NYC [1,2] is that they didn't properly mitigate for vulnerable populations. Sweden is mitigating by isolating vulnerable populations while NYC isn't [1]. However, NYC somehow managed to have the most severe lockdown and by far the highest death rate.
TLDR; If you have to isolate the vulnerable to significantly reduce deaths in both lockdown and non-lockdown, and lockdown doesn't reliably make a difference. Why not just go with the more effective targeted mitigations and drop the ineffective isolation of all?
Foremost, it's far too early to make the call on the effects of "re-opening".
Another misleading assertion is the idea that our "re-opened" state is anything like the state of affairs pre-lockdown. That is, many, many people are still virtually locked down--voluntarily.
Yet another issue your analysis overlooks is the measures we actually did take prior to full lockdown, wherein we in fact suggested that vulnerable populations self-isolate. This was not effective in slowing the spread; hence, the lockdown escalation.
Still another issue is your somewhat facile assessment of Walmart and other retail scenarios. The relevant metric here would not be closure of stores but transmission of the virus, as many people would be asymptomatic including, likely, workers. Yet, they may still have transmitted the virus.
But the real problem is that you omit the fact that measures we took to limit store hours, numbers of concurrent shoppers, in-store distancing, etc. and the resulting behavior changes (including fewer trips) meant bodies per store were dramatically reduced, helping to undercut transmission. And, the point there is that accommodations for essential trips to the store under such prescribed conditions were provided as part of the lockdown. So, you are trying to use the lockdown design itself as proof that the lockdown was unnecessary.
TLDR; This is frequently the story with these anti-lockdown claims: a revisionist look back at why the lockdown was "unnecessary", using precisely the design and benefits of the lockdown itself to make the case.
Your criticism does not make sense at all. I wish you addressed my questions and criticisms of your argument instead of bringing up new points, but I'll address your new points as well.
> Another misleading assertion is the idea that our "re-opened" state is anything like the state of affairs pre-lockdown
You have a faulty assumption that spread factor was reduced due to lockdown. 7 states did not close down (Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming), and many states that locked down has been open for weeks now [1]. We have not see a spike in neither of these scenarios relative to the still locked down states.
Again: there is no correlation between being locked down and reduced spread factor. Quite to the contrary NYC and other places under heavy lock-down has been the worst affected.
> Still another issue is your somewhat facile assessment of Walmart and other retail scenarios. The relevant metric here would not be closure of stores but transmission of the virus, as many people would be asymptomatic including, likely, workers. Yet, they may still have transmitted the virus.
You honestly that all those workers are symptomatic in a high exposure scenario at a lower rate than the general population?
And you honestly claiming that a highly contagious virus that you claim has such a high likelihood of hospitalization and death that we all need to be on lockdown, somehow doesn't have this effect to the same degree on grocery workers that are exposed more than anyone? All ages work in grocery stores [3].
Grocery store workers are heroes, but I didn't know they were superheroes.
> But the real problem is that you omit the fact that measures we took to limit store hours, numbers of concurrent shoppers, in-store distancing
That doesn't make sense if the desire is to reduce peak traffic. Limiting store hours with a similar amount of shoppers increase people per hour of shopping, and limiting concurrent shoppers cause huge lines outside. Arguably this may increase virus exposure.
In-store-distancing: covid is transmitted on and can stay alive on metals, plastics as well as other inside surfaces for an extended period. Up to a day on cardboard.
* scientific facts on ineffectiveness of major lockdown measures
N95 masks work: mask to filter out 95% of particles larger than 0.3 microns. Coronavirus is between 0.06 and 0.14 microns.
Social distancing doesn't stop you from being exposed by:
- virus suspended in droplets smaller than five micrometers can stay suspended for about a half-hour
- virus stays alive up to a day on everything in a grocery store (or any other store or delivery container); cardboard, plastics, metals
Wearing gloves: virus actually lives longer on plastic gloves and gloves in general worsens spread [2]
TLDR; Only highly targeted and managed approaches has worked in limiting deaths, such as isolating the vulnerable. The lockdown measures and protective gear people wear are not stopping the virus spread due to virus size as well as how it spreads, but it is an excellent signal of obedience to nonsense measures.
Again, your comment is riddled with errors, and you draw conclusions from data that cannot be drawn. I have directly addressed your comments and the thrust of your argument, but I cannot address each and every error and misstatement. So I just choose some of the most egregious and deconstruct them as examples.
Much of what you say simply does not comport with reality. Anyone who's been to a grocery store in a lock down state can tell you that the stores became much sparser. A big part of this is because most people simply go less frequently. Also people don't tend to linger. In general, people make adjustments that all but completely mitigate the imaginary issues you're raising. You can rail on about a bunch of hypotheticals, but that doesn't overturn observable reality.
Likewise, all of your assertions about gloves and the virus living on surfaces, etc. It has not been proven that lingering detectable particles on items are a significant mode of transmission vs direct contact with people. And, in fact, super spreader events are linked directly to people in close proximity: funerals, church services, sporting events, parties and social gatherings, etc. Actively respired particles while in close proximity to other humans transmits the virus. Full stop. It is absolutely ludicrous to assert otherwise.
You also cannot draw the conclusion that masks are completely ineffective due purely to micron size. No, they are not a perfect shield, but they can reduce transmission in that clearly not every particle will fit neatly through a space and make a beeline from one person's mucous membranes to another's. This is just silliness. And, when all parties wear masks, it reduces viral contact even further. Reduction of contact with viable virus particles reduces transmission. Clearly.
These are truly facile statements you are making, and it's asinine to expect that someone will word for word deconstruct them. You take a bunch of random facts, misinterpret them, and suggest that you've made some sort of argument. You then go on to make sweeping statements without any basis in fact.
The other technique you are using is to cherry pick information and draw conclusions without regard to the factors that plainly contradict your points, and you equate correlation with causation. Some of those points I made to you in my last comment, but you chose not to address them.
For instance, I addressed your assertion that reopening states haven't experienced spikes by pointing out that there hasn't been enough time to measure. Additionally, many people are still under voluntary lockdown and most states are only partially reopened in any case. Crickets.
But, then you link out to some NBC news report that actually shows spikes in some states since their re-opening, directly contradicting your claims and supporting my assertion that we have not had enough time to draw conclusions. Did you think I wouldn't read it?
New York always had ample capacity in hospitals, and the USNS comfort and Javits center hospital were almost empty. Governor projected a lack of capacity which certainly caused fear, but it’s a very different thing.
In terms on NYC deaths there has been many stories of incompetence and mismanagement. Almost all that died had other serious health conditions, so it’s a question if lack of proper care for a non covid preexisting condition or they not seeking care out of fear is often the true cause of death.
Normally death cause is well investigated. However, CDC issued highly unusual guidelines that said doctors should classify all deaths as covid if they have been diagnosed to have covid instead of doing doing the normal extensive look into each case. This may mask people dying from other serious health conditions due to lockdown.