South Korean researchers: No evidence of COVID19 reinfections

[BenG 19,908]

Governments should be intervening to help tide people over and not let them be worried about money. Central banks need to slash interest rates to unprecedented levels and governments need to spend or invest massively to kickstart the economy again. Monetary and fiscal policies (for most countries) are the way to go to alleviate economic problems caused by lockdowns. Wait till the number of active cases go sufficiently low, then gradually re-open the economy in phases to ensure R0 remains below 1. Nobody is saying that lockdowns should be imposed till a vaccine is found. We needed this band-aid to quickly stop transmissions, while we figure out ways to increase healthcare capacities and also the combination of measures (e.g. screenings at airports, face coverings, social distancing) that would keep R0 below 1. 

[BenG 19,908]

Also, be cautious when bringing up herd immunity. Herd immunity should not be a goal but just a consequence.

[Bt1 5,213]

26 minutes ago, BenG said:

1. A curve will always exists whether there is a lockdown or not. The gradient of the curve is not the only measure of effectiveness of a lockdown because the natural reproduction number varies from country to country. Sweden has had a low R0 since the beginning, whereas other countries had way higher R0's. Without lockdowns, most countries would have many, many more cases, given that the spread is exponential. This would have overwhelmed the healthcare system.

2. Firstly, COVID-19 is novel. We combat various viruses with different measures. The most basic methods are prevention (vaccines, condoms, handwashing etc.) and treatment/cure. COVID-19 does not have a vaccine, nor a disease-specific treatment/cure. Secondly, the SARS-CoV-2 virus has a very high R0, unlike the common cold. Let's look back at the closest thing we had, which was SARS, and a vaccine was developed to combat the virus. However, it was successfully contained and eventually died off. The difference is that it was easier to contain because transmission was only by patients who were already showing symptoms, making it much easier to track and isolate patients. Just look at the difference in number of deaths. This is unprecedented, hence lockdowns being imposed for the first time.

1. A curve should look different in a country with lockdown than in a country with no lockdown  R0 should be affected by the lockdown and simply change the curve. That didnt happened until now. 

2. Because it is novel, I understood the precautions. But we arent talking here about a virus who cant be eliminated anymore. From what we know lockdowns arent effective for viruses that cant be eliminated. Yes, we can do that with every virus and see some sort of decline, but it's not effective. It costs too much in money, mental health impact and collateral damages, which we already started to see. Imagine some of the effects that will start to show up later. 

Btw, I want to make clear that the end of lockdowns doesnt and shouldn't mean the end of other measures, because I've saw some people that think that I agree with some extreme protests. 

[BenG 19,908]

1 minute ago, Florin said:

1. A curve should look different in a country with lockdown than in a country with no lockdown  R0 should be affected by the lockdown and simply change the curve. That didnt happened until now. 

2. Because it is novel, I understood the precautions. But we arent talking here about a virus who cant be eliminated anymore. From what we know lockdowns arent effective for viruses that cant be eliminated. Yes, we can do that with every virus and see some sort of decline, but it's not effective. It costs too much in money, mental health impact and collateral damages, which already we know. Imagine some of the effects that will start to show up later. 

Btw, I want to make clear that the end of lockdowns doesnt and shouldn't mean the end of other measures, because I've saw some people that think that I agree with some extreme protests. 

1. We need to be very cautious when comparing curves.
a) Not all countries have the same natural R0, and hence artificial R0. However, it is safe to assume that the peak has been pushed down and further with a lockdown. Countries like Sweden managed to flatten the curve too because they do not require strict measures to hit an R0 below 1.
b) The number of recorded cases is a function of both the number of actual cases and the number of tests carried out.
c) There is no way we can see the curve of a locked down country if there were no lockdown.

2. Yes, no one is arguing that lockdowns are the long-term solution. Our key to a true exit is via a vaccine or a cure, just like any other diseases that can't be eliminated. We had no choice but to impose a lockdown to quickly block transmission while we figure out the next steps, which will be different combinations of measures according to varying levels of number of active cases.

[Antichrist 9,818]

ggd: everyone needs to be heard, this world is so cruel, everyone different is scrutinized

 

ggd: scrutinize everyone that doesn't belong to the herd mentality

 

you people ****ing suck

[Bt1 5,213]

27 minutes ago, BenG said:

1. We need to be very cautious when comparing curves.
a) Not all countries have the same natural R0, and hence artificial R0. However, it is safe to assume that the peak has been pushed down and further with a lockdown. Countries like Sweden managed to flatten the curve too because they do not require strict measures to hit an R0 below 1.
b) The number of recorded cases is a function of both the number of actual cases and the number of tests carried out.
c) There is no way we can see the curve of a locked down country if there were no lockdown.

2. Yes, no one is arguing that lockdowns are the long-term solution. Our key to a true exit is via a vaccine or a cure, just like any other diseases that can't be eliminated. We had no choice but to impose a lockdown to quickly block transmission while we figure out the next steps, which will be different combinations of measures according to varying levels of number of active cases.

1. A.) How much lower? At what cost?  How do we know which country needs the lockdown or not? Try to tell to people from US here that the measures taken in New York dont make sense in other states and wait for their reactions. 

Look how hard is for some countries to find a way to end the lockdown. 

Ur points shouldn't be ignored, but they dont offer yet support for lockdown measures. U mention them like they would 100% affect Sweden in a positive way and the rest of the world in a negative way. Thats probably not the case. 

B. ) that's why I've talked about deaths. Even if countries count deaths in different ways, the curve is the best thing we have that can show us the evolution of covid in that country

C. ) some of the lockdowns were based on projections made by different "experts". Most of them were wrong and yet the lockdowns continued. 

2. Lockdowns were never based on scientific evidence. There are countries who didnt have lockdowns. We always had choices. The decision to start and end the lockdowns are political.  Scientists can make recommendations, but they didnt take the decision. 

 

[BenG 19,908]

3 minutes ago, Florin said:

How much lower? At what cost?  How do we know which country needs the lockdown or not?

Whether a country needs a lockdown or not depends on the current number of cases, R0 and its healthcare capacity. How much lower depends on the restrictions imposed and adherence of the public.

9 minutes ago, Florin said:

Try to tell to people from US here that the measures taken in New York dont make sense in other states and wait for their reactions.

I'm not familiar with the healthcare systems in the US, so I will refrain from making comments directly regarding the US. Nobody knows whether a blanket lockdown is more or less effective than something like Wuhan's. Yes, it may seem excessive to impose lockdowns on less affected areas, given the unnecessary toll on the economy. That said, there are definitely benefits to imposing a blanket lockdown, albeit less tangible. Patrolling becomes difficult as manpower is required to ensure no one crosses regions with different levels of restrictions. Mixed messaging becomes a problem when different places receive different guidance. Also, the sense of unity helps the mentality of "we're in this together", promoting better adherence.

16 minutes ago, Florin said:

U mention them like they would 100% affect Sweden in a positive way and the rest of the world in a negative way.

Can you please clarify what you mean here?

17 minutes ago, Florin said:

some of the lockdowns were based on projections made by different "experts". Most of them were wrong and yet the lockdowns continued. 

Projections will always carry uncertainty. Would you risk 100,000s of lives in the hopes that lockdowns somehow don't work? On the point of whether lockdowns work, see below.

14 minutes ago, Florin said:

Lockdowns were never based on scientific evidence.

It is heavily backed by empirical evidence. That was how SARS was contained and eradicated. We are now simply imposing isolation on a much larger scale, given that transmission can be carried out way before someone becomes symptomatic.

[Whispering 18,865]

2 hours ago, Florin said:

To this day, I haven't seen a single scientific evidence that the lockdowns were effective. 

Can you show me any study that shows that? 

https://www.vox.com/2020/4/20/21228406/coronavirus-covid-19-social-distancing-lockdown-end-research

https://www.politico.eu/article/coronavirus-europe-lockdown-effectiveness-graphics/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-spread/preliminary-study-finds-uk-lockdown-is-slowing-spread-of-covid-19-idUSKBN21J56W

https://ldi.upenn.edu/healthpolicysense/wuhan-lockdown-halted-spread-coronavirus-across-china

[BenG 19,908]

Let me just clear some things up.

Lockdowns DO work. Many places with R0=3 managed to slam it all the way down to 0.2 to 0.4.

On the question of whether lockdowns are necessary, there is no doubt it is a political decision. It is determined by weighing human lives against the economy. For many places, it was needed to decrease R0 so that healthcare systems are not overwhelmed, which would lead to unnecessary deaths.

Exiting a lockdown would need to be done by slowly easing restrictions. The gradual approach allows decision makers to observe whether R0 has become too close to 1 again. Till a vaccine or cure is found, we will have to live with the most lax restrictions that keep R0 comfortably below 1.

[Bt1 5,213]

20 minutes ago, BenG said:

Whether a country needs a lockdown or not depends on the current number of cases, R0 and its healthcare capacity. How much lower depends on the restrictions imposed and adherence of the public.

I'm not familiar with the healthcare systems in the US, so I will refrain from making comments directly regarding the US. Nobody knows whether a blanket lockdown is more or less effective than something like Wuhan's. Yes, it may seem excessive to impose lockdowns on less affected areas, given the unnecessary toll on the economy. That said, there are definitely benefits to imposing a blanket lockdown, albeit less tangible. Patrolling becomes difficult as manpower is required to ensure no one crosses regions with different levels of restrictions. Mixed messaging becomes a problem when different places receive different guidance. Also, the sense of unity helps the mentality of "we're in this together", promoting better adherence.

Can you please clarify what you mean here?

Projections will always carry uncertainty. Would you risk 100,000s of lives in the hopes that lockdowns somehow don't work? On the point of whether lockdowns work, see below.

It is heavily backed by empirical evidence. That was how SARS was contained and eradicated. We are now simply imposing isolation on a much larger scale, given that transmission can be carried out way before someone becomes symptomatic.

No many countries around the world or states in US decided to start a lockdown based on your criteria. 

"We're in this together" argument makes little sense when there isnt equality. I dont even want to think of some of the future effects of a bad economy. 

You have talked about artificial R0, healthcare system in Sweden. You assume that it helped Sweden fight the virus without a lockdown. U dont know how true is that. And we dont know the impact of other factors.  I can give one example : Sweden has bigger nursing homes. That had a huge negative impact on the number of deaths than countries with smaller nursing homes. 

I understand what a projection is, but when u based your lockdown on some false projection, u must take appropriate measures very fast to correct your / their mistake.

As I've said, we are past the point when u can compare this to other viruses who were eradicated. This cant happen with this virus. 

[BenG 19,908]

10 minutes ago, Florin said:

You have talked about artificial R0, healthcare system in Sweden. You assume that it helped Sweden fight the virus without a lockdown. U dont know how true is that.

The natural R0 in Sweden was lower than many countries and that's a fact. Hence, they didn't necessarily need a lockdown. Some kind of social distancing restriction was all they needed to push R0 below 1.

[Whispering 18,865]

2 hours ago, Florin said:

From what I've seen, Sweden with no lockdowns has a similar curve as a lot of countries with lockdowns, when we are talking about deaths. That, at least until now, shows that the efficiency of lockdowns isnt there. 

The fact that lockdowns stop the transmissions of viruses outside households is true with any virus. We didnt take such a measure until now for a reason. 

https://m.imgur.com/a/o4Ifl8r

Sweden is higher than US on per capital deaths.

 

We didn’t take such measures, because we weren’t in a global pandemic. When looking at current history, the threat of human lives lost and people being in the ICU or sick for weeks has not been so great as it is now.

[BenG 19,908]

12 minutes ago, Florin said:

As I've said, we are past the point when u can compare this to other viruses who were eradicated. This cant happen with this virus.

No one is comparing the long-term strategy for SARS-CoV-2 against eradicated viruses. However, lessons learned from the eradicated viruses can be applied as a stopgap measure for SARS-CoV-2.

[Bt1 5,213]

25 minutes ago, Whispering said:

https://www.vox.com/2020/4/20/21228406/coronavirus-covid-19-social-distancing-lockdown-end-research

https://www.politico.eu/article/coronavirus-europe-lockdown-effectiveness-graphics/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-spread/preliminary-study-finds-uk-lockdown-is-slowing-spread-of-covid-19-idUSKBN21J56W

https://ldi.upenn.edu/healthpolicysense/wuhan-lockdown-halted-spread-coronavirus-across-china

The fact that u put one article about social distancing measures show that u dont understand the difference between lockdowns and other measures?

The other articles show that after a lockdown was imposed, the number of cases go down. This isnt evidence. The same happens theoretically in Sweden right now, without a lockdown. 

 

[BenG 19,908]

14 minutes ago, Florin said:

I understand what a projection is, but when u based your lockdown on some false projection, u must take appropriate measures very fast to correct your / their mistake.

I don't understand what mistakes you are referring to. There is no doubt lockdowns saved lives. Its effectiveness cannot be measured, hence the need to slowly ease the restrictions imposed.