Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jariel 2069 days ago
It's obviously a bad sign if they are even thinking of resorting to this ... the 'second wave lockdowns' are a failure of leadership in most of the West.

The '1st wave' was understandable - crude measures in an emergency, fair enough.

But should have a much more nuanced understanding of the situation by now, and be able to focus on smart but clear policies.

There was a 'sweet spot' coming out of the lockdowns that would work well, but we moved past it, and how we're playing a game of 'back and forth'.

For example, we probably don't need lockdowns or curfews at all, they are a little totalitarian and probably do nothing but get people super mad.

We probably need to stop social gatherings of all kinds, limit social bubbles to nuclear units.

On TikTok I see way, way too much intermingling among especially young people who are unambiguously driving the second wave.

We also probably need to support our local businesses as we can and 'keep things moving' i.e. 'Remember to Get Takeout'.

In Canada Unis opened up, there were house parties, dorm parties, bars with drunk student what the goddam hell were they thinking? How about: nobody in your house/dorm unless they live there, 'outdoor beer gardens' only, limit 2 beers. Have a 'dance party' in a big open parking lot to break the social malaise. Otherwise threaten expel students who break the established rules for putting other people's lives at risk.

We have almost stopped talking about 'isolation' and we have no support for it. In Taiwan, they send you home, show up at your door with masks, call you every day to check up on you. That kind of 'nudging' would be hugely impactful, it's also a form of tracing.

3 comments

> In Canada Unis opened up, there were house parties, dorm parties, bars with drunk student what the goddam hell were they thinking? How about: nobody in your house/dorm unless they live there, 'outdoor beer gardens' only, limit 2 beers. Have a 'dance party' in a big open parking lot to break the social malaise. Otherwise threaten expel students who break the established rules for putting other people's lives at risk.

They were thinking "My risk from COVID is exceptionally low, as is the risk of everyone I live with." I don't understand why this seems crazy to anyone. More college students die from suicide every year than would die if they all got COVID (in the US, assuming that current mortality rates hold). Many colleges are even self-contained, in a way, because they're a "college town" wherein everything revolves around the college.

If there were a single group of people that I would say were in a good demographic to be out of quarantine, it would be college students. They're unlikely to die from the disease, they're far less likely to live with someone in a risky group, and they're old enough to make a decision on whether they want to quarantine or not. They're also unlikely to overwhelm medical services, given the rate that they're asymptomatic at.

"I don't understand why this seems crazy to anyone. "

? Because it's contagious and when cut loose cases literally widespread death, massive economic peril and joblessness ?

Why is that so hard to understand?

Do people not feel any responsibility for others they infect with potentially deadly pathogens that spread to large numbers of people?

We're not that hugely concerned about 'other people taking small risks' - the issue is the externalization.

Frat Houses can drink '24 beers' and visit the hospital, okay, 'it's their body' ... but the issue with COVID is mostly systematic.

We don't care that you as an individual want to bring 'Deadly Asian Wasps' into North America, it's not a big deal, but by introducing them, you'll cause calamity as they spread through the region causing mayhem. Or like setting a 'small fire' in a dry forest.

I'm struggling to understand how people think a their contagion is a 'personal choice'.

People who think about 'personal choice and living with the consequences' may want to contemplate the liability in such a situation: you hit someone's car - you owe them the repairs. Imagine if you had to pay for someone's healthcare if you were to 'infect them'. Instead of passing 'mask laws' maybe liability laws could be passed -> you infect someone, they sue you for $50-500K. We'd literally have to buy insurance for that, and one of the criteria for insurance would be 'mask wearing' - if you 'wear a mask' your 'infection liability insurance' premiums would be 1/2. It's obviously not going to work, point being it illustrates the systematic issue here, it's not 'personal risk taking'.

> The '1st wave' was understandable - crude measures in an emergency, fair enough.

The US is largely still in a rolling first wave; the separate nation-wide peaks are the result of the fact that not everywhere got hit at the same time, so, e.g., New York had hit it's first peak and bent things downward before much of the country had even noticeably been hit at all. There's some places that are in genuine second waves, but much of the country is still experience it's first wave (often in a post-lockdown climb after a lockdown-generated plateau.)

That's a great point - US overall looks like it's in a '3rd wave' but really, the 2cnd blip was due to different states hitting at different times.

However - if you break down by state - it looks fairly clearly that we are in a '2cnd wave' of a totally different kind: it's younger people driving the infections, and the case fatality rate is a lot lower.

yeah, second wave is hitting here in France and it seems the hospital are even less prepared this time around.