Lockdowns don't work.

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Ideally, just stay away from people for a while.
I agree emphatically.

Paradoxically, forced lockdowns remove many locations from availability, in particular such locations where we need to obtain supplies. These locations then see increased traffic by people from a wider area where people must go and be in contact with fomites.

Lockdowns make it harder to have your space.
 

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
The fact that I'm not exposed to 1000's of people daily, and only have to go out once or twice a week for essential items is certainly drastically decreasing the chance that I get covid-19 and/or bring it home to my family. Shelter In Place for the win!
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
The fact that I'm not exposed to 1000's of people daily, and only have to go out once or twice a week for essential items is certainly drastically decreasing the chance that I get covid-19 and/or bring it home to my family. Shelter In Place for the win!
The fact that the people who have are tested and traced and not visiting the one or two grocery stores you can go to is why you haven't caught it. If asymptomatic spreaders go to those few places you're permitted to go, you'll catch it, despite your lockdown, just like Rome and NYC.

Show me a flattened curve and I'll show you why a lockdown didn't have anything to do with it.

I never said people should just be all sorts of out and not practicing social distancing. My arguments regard lockdowns and forcing businesses and public places to close.
 

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
All of those could as easily be explained by two other factors. Travel restrictions and the fact that all of those most susceptible having been infected. China's just lying.

The most successful cases, South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan implemented no such lockdowns. A higher percentage of South Korea has been infected than that of the US. No lockdowns, businesses open, schools open.

Strict lockdowns in Rome, NYC, cases continued skyrocketting for well over a month.
mmm no, travel restrictions don't explain the death rates dropping off like they have. Populations were already seeded before travel restrictions were put in place. Once the virus is in the community exponential growth in infections with death rates lagging by a few weeks is all one needs to explain those early growth rates. The claim is that by locking down the population, the community managed to reduce case rates followed by drops in death rates. This part of the theory that we talked about last night.

Simulations showing how lockdowns affect those curves is shown here:


Here's an article about Seattle and how it used social distancing as well as testing to flatten the curve. It's not as if I'm saying anything novel or surprising. Nor was what Hong Kong or Korea did much different. Social distancing, shelter in place, etc are crude tools but effective.


"One thing that stands out in terms of blunting the velocity of the virus is how quickly in the Seattle area . . . they were able to institute social distancing," said Lee Riley, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley and chair of the university's Division of Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology. "That's probably the big factor in all of this. In Hong Kong, Singapore, Taipei, Korea and other places where they saw early success, you saw the same thing."

The message I'm getting from all of this is, social distancing, lockdowns, isolating sick and potentially infected people works. What works best and has the smallest footprint on the community is doing that quickly and in targeted intelligent actions, before very many people are infected and spread it widely. NY and NOLA didn't act soon enough.

A US-wide lockdown is IMO opinion not necessary. Vigilance and where the virus flares up, quick action to enact social distancing measures, is how we will be able to come back out and enjoy ourselves again.
 
Last edited:

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
mmm no, travel restrictions don't explain the death rates dropping off like they have. Populations were already seeded before travel restrictions were put in place. Once the virus is in the community exponential growth in infections with death rates lagging by a few weeks is all one needs to explain those early growth rates. The claim is that by locking down the population, the community managed to reduce case rates followed by drops in death rates. This part of the theory that we talked about last night.

Simulations showing how lockdowns affect those curves is shown here:


Here's an article about Seattle and how it used social distancing as well as testing to flatten the curve. It's not as if I'm saying anything novel or surprising. Nor was what Hong Kong or Korea did much different. Social distancing, shelter in place, etc are crude tools but effective.


"One thing that stands out in terms of blunting the velocity of the virus is how quickly in the Seattle area . . . they were able to institute social distancing," said Lee Riley, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley and chair of the university's Division of Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology. "That's probably the big factor in all of this. In Hong Kong, Singapore, Taipei, Korea and other places where they saw early success, you saw the same thing."

The message I'm getting from all of this is, social distancing, lockdowns, isolating sick and potentially infected people works. What works best and has the smallest footprint on the community is doing that quickly and in targeted intelligent actions, before very many people are infected and spread it widely. NY and NOLA didn't act soon enough.

A US-wide lockdown is IMO opinion not necessary. Vigilance and where the virus flares up, quick action to enact social distancing measures, is how we will be able to come back out and enjoy ourselves again.
It says "social distancing". It doesn't say that forcing the economy to completely halt flattened the curve. I have not for a second contradicted this. In fact, I have argued that strict lockdowns actually reduce the amount of space available for social distancing and force people to seek supplies in fewer places, increasing the chances they will come into contact with fomites. In other words, these LOCKDOWNS turn grocery stores into the same risky environment as hospitals. You're not arguing against what I am saying at all.

Once the virus is in the community exponential growth in infections with death rates lagging by a few weeks is all one needs to explain those early growth rates.
But that's not the whole picture. What we're seeing is that CASES continue to skyrocket after LOCKDOWNS are implemented, for weeks.
 

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
It says "social distancing". It doesn't say that forcing the economy to completely halt flattened the curve. I have not for a second contradicted this. In fact, I have argued that strict lockdowns actually reduce the amount of space available for social distancing and force people to seek supplies in fewer places, increasing the chances they will come into contact with fomites. In other words, these LOCKDOWNS turn grocery stores into the same risky environment as hospitals. You're not arguing against what I am saying at all.
Perhaps you need to define the term "lockdown" then, and point to where exactly they are occurring and not working. If you can't go to the beach or public park, is that a "lockdown" or "social distancing"? If you drive two counties over to have some fun, and get a $1000 ticket due to a shelter in place order, is that social distancing, or lockdown? Asking for a friend.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Perhaps you need to define the term "lockdown" then, and point to where exactly they are occurring and not working. If you can't go to the beach or public park, is that a "lockdown" or "social distancing"? If you drive two counties over to have some fun, and get a $1000 ticket due to a shelter in place order, is that social distancing, or lockdown? Asking for a friend.
All businesses and schools and public places being closed and people being ordered to stay indoors is a lockdown. Such lockdowns do not correlate with flattened curves as those can be explained by the other factors.

The most successful regions have proven that flattened curves are achievable without such lockdowns. While NYC and Rome have seen cases sky rocket since early March, when they became ghost towns. In other words, lockdowns don't flatten curves because they don't actually achieve effective social distancing. They simply force you into fewer places where you're even more likely to come into contact with fomites while flattening the economy.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
It says "social distancing". It doesn't say that forcing the economy to completely halt flattened the curve. I have not for a second contradicted this. In fact, I have argued that strict lockdowns actually reduce the amount of space available for social distancing and force people to seek supplies in fewer places, increasing the chances they will come into contact with fomites. In other words, these LOCKDOWNS turn grocery stores into the same risky environment as hospitals. You're not arguing against what I am saying at all.



But that's not the whole picture. What we're seeing is that CASES continue to skyrocket after LOCKDOWNS are implemented, for weeks.
I don't disagree with you when you say that draconian and absolute lockdowns of the population are not necessary and do more harm than good.
 

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
Show me a flattened curve and I'll show you why a lockdown didn't have anything to do with it.


All businesses and schools and public places being closed and people being ordered to stay indoors is a lockdown. Such lockdowns do not correlate with flattened curves as those can be explained by the other factors.
I offered you an example of a flattened curve, with "lockdown" (in my own county). Now explain.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
I offered you an example of a flattened curve, with "lockdown" (in my own county). Now explain.
Santa Cruz had its first "confirmed case" on March 7. California implemented the "stay at home order" on March 20. There are now 91 confirmed cases in Santa Cruz County. This is slightly better than average for California counties. Nonetheless, the virus has continued to spread and has doubled every 8 days. This doubling time is a reduction from the 6 day doubling time recorded in regions with no such measures in place.

I would certainly argue that this was most definitely achieved as a result of travel restrictions in and out of cities and not because businesses were forced to close. Furthermore, lacking accurate testing and diagnoses, which Santa Cruz County indeed is, it can't even be correctly claimed that cases haven't doubled at the normal rate. It is straightforward to deduce that asymptomatic and presymptomatic human to human transimssion continues there despite the lockdowns while perceived mitigation can easily be explained by the difficulty of coming and going in and out of the county.

Anyway, if lockdowns worked at all, cases would not continue to double every 8 days. That's still exponential growth and a very high reproductive rate. It is still transmitting human to human and authorities are still unable to trace it. Despite all that trouble, you very well still may catch it and it's a huge amount of trouble indeed, the only curve that has flattened is the economic. You're still headed for an explosion of cases.

Sincerely, I wish you good luck.
 

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
Santa Cruz had its first "confirmed case" on March 7. California implemented the "stay at home order" on March 20. There are now 91 confirmed cases in Santa Cruz County. This is slightly better than average for California counties. Nonetheless, the virus has continued to spread and has doubled every 8 days. This doubling time is a reduction from the 6 day doubling time recorded in regions with no such measures in place.

I would certainly argue that this was most definitely achieved as a result of travel restrictions in and out of cities and not because businesses were forced to close. Furthermore, lacking accurate testing and diagnoses, which Santa Cruz County indeed is, it can't even be correctly claimed that cases haven't doubled at the normal rate. It is straightforward to deduce that asymptomatic and presymptomatic human to human transimssion continues there despite the lockdowns while perceived mitigation can easily be explained by the difficulty of coming and going in and out of the county.

Anyway, if lockdowns worked at all, cases would not continue to double every 8 days. That's still exponential growth and a very high reproductive rate. It is still transmitting human to human and authorities are still unable to trace it. Despite all that trouble, you very well still may catch it and it's a huge amount of trouble indeed, the only curve that has flattened is the economic. You're still headed for an explosion of cases.

Sincerely, I wish you good luck.
Travel restrictions? What travel restrictions? Shelter In Place, means stay where you are unless you stay where you are unless you need to go out to get essential items. When people follow shelter in place orders, travel restrictions are not necessary.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Travel restrictions? What travel restrictions? Shelter In Place, means stay where you are unless you stay where you are unless you need to go out to get essential items. When people follow shelter in place orders, travel restrictions are not necessary.
California's stay at home order isn't just a lockdown on the economy. You can't travel between cities without going through a checkpoint and having your license scanned. If you're from out of state, you're "ordered to self-quarantine for two weeks".

This part of the stay at home order explains the very minor decrease in the rate of spread in your county. It's still spreading too fast for the authorities to trace it. Closing businesses and public places has had no effect. It's still doubling every 8 days there and you're headed for an explosion of cases unless a change in strategy is not implemented. The economic impact will become unsustainable before the disease is brought under control because the measure has not brought the R0 down significantly. Those most susceptible to infection will still become infected and those properly implementing social-distancing on a personal level will be safe longer, regardless of the lockdown.
 
Last edited:

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
California's stay at home order isn't just a lockdown on the economy. You can't travel between cities without going through a checkpoint and having your license scanned.
Not true. I've traveled in and out of 3 cities within my county multiple times since the beginning of the lockdown for essential items, no problem, no checkpoints, no ID scans.
 

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
This is a good graph for my point. The counties less visited have less infected.
If you "Shelter In Place" there's nowhere to travel to unless you need to get essential items.

Under normal circumstances many people live in Santa Cruz, and work in the Silicon Valley (San Jose or Santa Clara Counties), but the shelter in place means we are not swapping germs between counties as much as normal.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Santa Cruz is pretty close to San Fransisco. I wonder when they stopped allowing international flights to land without screening entries...
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Not true. I've traveled in and out of 3 cities within my county multiple times since the beginning of the lockdown for essential items, no problem, no checkpoints, no ID scans.
Splitting hairs. Not all counties have been able to fully implement it and what you describe is little more than going a few kilometers out of your way from one suburb to the next. The fact remains that very few people from outside of your region have been in to your region since the "stay at home order" and that accounts for the very minor slowing in the rate of spread which is still not sufficient to prevent the rate from increasing beyond the ability of the authorities to trace and test. It's still growing exponentially, doubling every 8 days through human to human spread, despite the lockdown.
 
Top