[zozin]

The lock downs were premised upon preventing hospital systems from being overwhelmed. We accomplished that relatively easily, at least in the United States. However, politicians and bureaucrats, unwilling to let a good crisis go to waste, have moved the goalposts so much that now the unspoken policy seems to be that a single infection/death is anathema and that everything should be done to prevent it.

I don't remember giving my elected officials the authority to pursue such extreme policies, especially based on incomplete science. Scientists didn't realize the virus mutated until months after the mutated version was the predominantly spreading version. They waffled on masks and even know there's evidence to suggest that masks can cause more harm because people do not use them properly (they are not washed enough/at all, they are constantly fiddled with (i.e., people touch their face), etc.). Now the latest excuse to extend the lock downs indefinitely is maybe, just maybe a C-19 infection may have long-term negative health externalities.

Mind you, this is all being pushed by the privileged few who have home offices with webcams and fast Internet, food and groceries delivered on a whim, and a Peleton in their home gym. The whole situation is preposterous; it's like we're living in a Monty Python skit.

[_coveredInBees]

Your views seem completely detached from reality. The only reason hospital systems were not overwhelmed was due to the continued lockdown + social distancing policies. Every state that went ahead and tried to ignore reality and open up for business rapidly found itself facing the very same issue again with hospitals being near full and in some cases having to turn away patients.

Some sources:

https://www.azfamily.com/news/continuing_coverage/coronaviru...

https://www.newsweek.com/arizona-hits-record-high-hospital-c...

So no, the lockdown isn't some moving goalpost made by politicians gone wild. It is an unfortunate necessity given the abject failure of the federal administration and many states in managing a very serious public health crisis.

[base698]

^ that was more sensationalism after the death rate started to flatten. The ICU rate then declined after following the death rate. AZ never locked down like CA did.

https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1291552713004777476

^ Those charts so ICU rates dropping in TX which was supposed to be "Overwhelmed" just like AZ.

[_coveredInBees]

Erm... AZ and TX opened up in May. So not sure how that poorly cropped image with no source justifies your point in any case.

Just look through the data here for AZ:

https://azdhs.gov/preparedness/epidemiology-disease-control/...

Similarly for Texas:

https://www.tmc.edu/coronavirus-updates/total-tmc-covid-19-p...

And pretty much any way you slice it, opening up prematurely resulted in a huge ballooning of cases, deaths and hospital/ICU bed utilization by late June, early July. Perhaps you should look to getting your news from more reliable sources than some dude on twitter with a clear agenda...

It also doesn't help when the Governor of TX was actively hiding data related to hospital bed availability, etc to mask the complete failure of his head-in-the-sand approach to leadership in the time of a major public health emergency [1]

1 - https://www.texastribune.org/2020/07/02/texas-hospital-capac...

[patrick451]

This is not categorically true. E.g., South Dakota is doing fine and never locked down. Same with Wyoming.

Personally, I think the federal administration has done a fine job--most, if not all, of dealing with this situation should be up to the states, not the feds.

[_coveredInBees]

Not sure that those states are "doing fine". Per capita, they have a much higher number of cases and the number of cases are also rising in comparison with states like NY and NJ that had things worse but were aggressive in handling the situation [1].

I mean those states are nowhere near the front lines of where COVID would first strike or spread, but the complete apathy to the threat of COVID is going to have consequences. The numbers are already beginning to show that.

1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/national/corona...

[majormajor]

> However, politicians and bureaucrats, unwilling to let a good crisis go to waste, have moved the goalposts so much that now the unspoken policy seems to be that a single infection/death is anathema and that everything should be done to prevent it.

Why do you think politicians want to shut things down?

What worldview do you ascribe to people where the view is "wow, this is a great chance to kill off people going to bars and bankrupt our city/state, I've always wanted to do that!"???

[achenatx]

dems want to shut things down because trump wants to keep them open.

One of the most common arguments for schools staying closed is "so you are ok with kids dying".

We have reached a point where as the OP implied, we have become hysterical about any deaths and dems will use that to crucify trump.

[bigwavedave]

It's not strictly because "they want the opposite of what the other guy wants", it's more to drive enough of working class to such desperation that any form of UBI will be widely demanded and then celebrated.

[TeaDrunk]

We have over a thousand people a day dying of this thing. What is anyone doing about it? The only people I see doing something are dems.

[krotton]

There's no Trump and dem opposition in the rest of the world, yet lockdowns have still been applied. US internal politics really is not the only reason why things happen.

[noelsusman]

I genuinely don't understand what you're talking about. Preventing hospitals from being overwhelmed was not the only purpose of the lockdowns. The lockdowns have not continued indefinitely. A single infection/death is not anathema and nobody is doing everything to prevent it no matter the cost. If that were true then why has every stay-at-home order been lifted?