@champagnois didn't make a reference to "the US", you did. Other countries have tried lockdowns and mandates.
Off the top of my head, Australia would be a great data source; They have tried territory-wide lockdowns, mandates, and even involuntary removal to quarantine facilities. Don't know what the outcomes would be in regard to cases and deaths per capita adjusted for comorbidity prevalence, etc. but it would be worth digging into.
Unfortunately many of the related articles and studies I've found present and defend conclusions with such vigor that there is no room for necessary discussion; they seem more focused on supporting one preordained conclusion or another. That having been said, I've seen equally qualified and credentialed researchers land on either side, providing good arguments for and against all that's mentioned above.
The science many want me to "believe in", often turns out to be political "science", not the process of science. Editing to add: I believe that "believe in the science", for most that repeat this phrase, actually means "believe in the outcome I support".
Edit again: Ugh. I was just asked "so what's your point?". So: @champagnois hasn't supported his statement, and neither have you. I was trying to say why not take the data that should exist for, say, Australia, and take a step closer to actually finding out if lockdowns, masking, mandates had statistically significant effects on mortality and morbidity? For extra credit, try to include concomitant adverse events occurring as a result of these measures? (The AE count would be a SWAG, but you could at least get an idea for the magnitude).
>> Vaccines have failed to end the pandemic. Mask mandates and lockdowns have also failed to end the pandemic.
> 1. We have never had a lockdown in the US 2. We have never had a mask mandate in the US 3. We have never had a vaccine mandate in the US
> You can't claim they didn't work when we haven't tried yet.
Exactly. Also China actually did manage to end it's local epidemic with only lockdowns and mask mandates. If they'd been earlier or the rest of the world just got it done instead of bickering stupidly, the pandemic would be over by now.
Instead we continue to bicker stupidly and as a result now have variants that neutralize many of our tactics.
China's pandemic is not over. They are still having outbreaks. Many of my family members spent the past several weeks and months in quarantine prisons, by force.
I, like many others, refrain from speaking on the subject because commentary is illegal and my family could be persecuted for my discussing it.
I will instead say that I believe your view is incredibly naive and you are fortunate to have your naivety be legal to voice.
Read between the lines here and understand that I believe there is a lot to say that cannot be said.
> China's pandemic is not over. They are still having outbreaks. Many of my family members spent the past several weeks and months in quarantine prisons, by force.
I understand that, and their strategy is no longer tenable with Omicron.
However, I think it's also proof that lockdowns and masks could have ended the pandemic before Omicron or Delta variants developed, if they had been implemented rigorously and early enough. So it's only correct to claim that "half-ass mask mandates and lockdowns failed to end the pandemic."
One of the irritating things is that a lot of people who now claim mask mandates and lockdowns don't work were also the people who were sabotaging them, and they failed in large part because of that sabotage.
>>It was proof that lockdowns and masks could have ended the pandemic
Research in January of 2020 indicated that the virus was known to species hop with ease.
Research also indicated there was ample evidence of animal population reservoirs of virus.
Thus, any lockdown of human populations, even quarantining us to different planets, would be irrelevant. Animal populations would function as reservoirs that will bring the virus back to a stage of infecting us as soon as we come out of hiding.
>>if they had been implemented rigorously and early enough.
This is a completely bonkers view point (as it has no basis in science) and it is sadly the view of many people who have been conditioned to believe authority figures are infallible.
>> irritating things is that a lot of people who now claim mask mandates and lockdowns don't work were also the people who were sabotaging them, and they failed in large part because of that sabotage.
The virus is airborne. It travels between 27-42 feet in the air. Proper PPE in the quantities needed does not exist.
Social distancing at 6 feet? Pseudoscientific recommendation coming from pre-covid infection control practices designed to prevent the spread of influenza droplets (which are known to travel less than six feet).
Paper masks? Cloth masks? Pseudoscientific recommendation coming from a government wanting to be percieved as doing something. Every professional knows none of that gear is rated or known to stop viral transmission. Even a properly used N95 has a very short lifespan proportionate to the electric charge on the cloth material (which can fade after minutes of use, at which point, when the charged sides of the mask lose their charge, the filtration of viral particles ends despite the masks bulkier size).
>>Locking people in their homes, welding them into prisons, shooting people who violate curfew? etc??
Draconian, pseudoscientific shit that has no place in any society or civilization. It also didn't work.
In all societies, regardless of these pseudoscientific measures being implemented or not, the virus still spread.
I guess you can use the virus as fuel for your hatred of some political adversary and scapegoat them for the virus. Apes and authoritarians have been doing that for all of human history with many different viruses.
>> About me?
Come from a family of doctors. Ran a team at a viral research lab in a very relevant country. Have done graduate study in virology. Have attended various infection control and pandemic response seminars prior to the pandemic. Have dealt with SARS and MERS in person prior to covid.
I, like many others, have had these positions since January 2020. Educated professionals who talk of facts are constantly silenced or bullied or threatened by authoritarian systems.
I do not matter and my background does not give my comments merit. The comments more or less stand on their own.
I disagree. And even if it couldn't 100% eradicate the virus, those strategies certainly seemed capable enough to limit it until vaccines could be brought strongly to bear. However, that runs into another area where many people seem to be more interested in sabotaging things in order to be "proven" right.
> Research in January of 2020 indicated that the virus was known to species hop with ease.
> Research also indicated there was ample evidence of animal population reservoirs of virus.
So, for quite some time China (and several other countries), had locally eradicated the virus in the human population. Is there any evidence that those animal reservoirs were a source of reinfection in those places?
> Come from a family of doctors. Ran a team at a viral research lab in a very relevant country. Have done graduate study in virology. Have attended various infection control and pandemic response seminars prior to the pandemic. Have dealt with SARS and MERS in person prior to covid.
And I get the strong impression your views are mostly derived from political beliefs rather than professional ones, dispute the credential dropping and appeals to "science." You're basically disputing every virus control measure proposed, despite the glaring evidence that they worked for quite some time in some areas.
By the way, have you participated in a video where they collect anyone they can manage with a shred of a medical of scientific credential to read some statement about how "masks don't work", "vaccines are dangerous", etc.? I've seen a bunch of those claiming all kinds of things.
> I do not matter and my background does not give my comments merit.
>>disputing every virus control measure proposed, despite the glaring evidence that they worked
Not only did the measures not work, they were doomed to fail from the start and could not have possibly worked.
You've provided little more than your own disagreement, but no supporting arguments as to why.
Political leaders and authorities knew this, but acted in the ways that they did for their own reasons. My position here puts me at odds with political partisans, but not scientists.
>> disputing every virus control measure proposed, despite the glaring evidence that they worked
> Not only did the measures not work, they were doomed to fail from the start and could not have possibly worked.
From mid-2020 to mid-2021, what were the average case counts in Australia or China vs. the US? That's proof there were measures that worked. If every country performed as well, or if China had acted as it did but earlier, it's quite possible that COVID would have gone extinct by now from that alone.
If we were doomed to fail, it was because of the perennial problems of human stupidity and selfishness.
> You've provided little more than your own disagreement, but no supporting arguments as to why.
I have: counterexamples. The bulk of your augment consists of adjectives and counterfactual assertions that things that did work well in places, couldn't work. My argument is if the rest of the world did as well as they actually did, then every place would have done even better, because "imported" cases wouldn't be a thing.
You brought up animal reservoirs, but that seems to be pure speculation, since I've seen nothing to indicate they've played a role, let alone an important one (excluding the initial human case). The counterexample countries seem like they'd be good natural experiments to actually provide data about how significant animal reservoirs actually are.
> My position here puts me at odds with political partisans
Only with some partisans, you're in quite good alignment with others.
>> what were the average case counts in Australia or China vs. the US?
Unknowable in the case of China. I say this not as a critic, but as a matter of fact: Policy in authoritarian states is to lie. Policy is also to arrest and intimidate people who tell the truth on such matters. To illustrate this another way, I put myself and my family at risk by merely discussing this honestly.
>> That's proof there were measures that worked.
As we are on the 4th calendar year of this pandemic, I suppose you need to specify your definition of worked. I suspect we have very different definitions of what the goals would be and how we would define success of an intervention method.
For example, the intervention of wearing a cloth mask in a crowded supermarket. One would think the goal is to prevent infection, but the article of clothing does no such thing as it is not capable of that. It is a fantastic intervention when dealing with influenza, but it is not a sufficient intervention for that particular goal of preventing infection in the case of the covid virus from 2019.
>> If every country performed as well, or if China had acted as it did but earlier, it's quite possible that COVID would have gone extinct by now from that alone.
You are praising something that you have neither understood nor experienced. Please, stop. I really should not be having this conversation because it could get me into trouble. For example, I know people who have been abducted by the government for these conversations. You have no idea and it is evident that you've not researched this at all. I cannot get into details, you should do that on your own.
>> If we were doomed to fail,
Doomed to fail were the experimental interventions that had no scientific merit.
We are now suffering deaths of despair (I know of multiple youthful suicides this past year) and in a global economic meltdown the likes of which will be written about for centuries.
In the coming year, many people around us will be saying no one could have known or seen these things coming or that these interventions would be failing, but these people will be wrong.
It does not require a 200 IQ to know that cloth masks do not work. This was known before and during the pandemic. Every* (it is certainly hyperbole for me to say _every_) pandemic conference that discussed big pandemics has noted that these interventions (notably mask mandates, etc of the nature we see in countries today) are equivalent to tinfoil hats... This science didn't change during the pandemic -- what changed was neo-propaganda and misinformation procured by the government.
Maybe I am just a relic from an age where humanity was a little less authoritarian and didn't view leaders as infallible. That is very possible.
>>it was because of the perennial problems of human stupidity and selfishness.
Your disgust for humanity is noted. I, for one, view humanity as a wonderful group. We succeed together. We suffer together. We advance together. I harbor no ill feelings for any group of humans, though we are all different and have different ways in which we can contribute to the joy and wonder of life.
>> Meta
My comment on your disgust for humanity was unfair. I take it back. I preserve the comment so that you can at least read it and know what my gut reaction was at the time of writing.
I am sure that you are a good person. I believe in you. I believe, upon reflection, over the coming years, your views will shift a little as more information becomes clear to you. I also believe the same is true of myself, my views too will shift. That is to say we are not static characters, we are not political mascots of some ideology, but instead we are dynamic characters in the wonderful story of life.
We have a lot in common. We are both on HN. I appreciate you, your time, and your contribution to this dialogue. I think we have both said much of what can be said on these topics.
We should digest each other's points of view over the next year and reflect on it.
>> Politics
Its part of your discussion with me, so I'll just disclose. Direct messages are not possible here.
I acknowledge you may be too partisan to hear or digest my reasoning here, but I'll share it anyways.
In the 1980s and 1990s, it appeared to me that the GOP became sick with a dependence on radical religious voters as a pillar of their electoral strategy. Too much of what was used to define the GOP boiled down to religion.
In the 2020s, it seems that the DNC is now sick with a similar dependence on a different radical religion that is equally anti-fact. The DNC is now comprised of both moderates (who I love) and extremists (who flirt with authoritarianism).
I will likely vote how I've always voted -- I vote against extremism and against authoritarianism. I will likely vote for the GOP in the coming mid term election. It will be the second time in my life that I've voted for GOP candidates. I've never voted for a GOP Presidential candidate, though I will always respect the winner of the vote.
You can't claim they didn't work when we haven't tried yet.