What you seem to be getting at is that Rt would have to be high for a mild disease for lockdowns to appreciably change Rt in comparison to how people would choose to adapt but since the cost to a lockdown is high you're going to end up with a wasteful lockdown or a pointless one
-
-
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @soncharm
The only thing that can change is if you could actually get Rt below 1 - then you could eliminate the virus entirely but people won't comply unless the virus is really scary or you're willing to act like China did.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon
Think I’d add: the difficulty of sustaining Rt<<1 via ‘lockdowns’ isn’t merely that ‘people won’t comply’ out of stubbornness. People *can’t* comply w/full ‘lockdown’; they would literally die. For better or worse we have a way of life leveraged to an interconnected society.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @soncharm @CovfefeAnon
Lockdown defenders might then say: oh c’mon we don’t mean FULL lockdown, we’ll allow ‘essential’ stuff. Ok then, bye bye R<<1. Self-nullifying
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @soncharm
That's an empirical question but the evidence is all in favor of it not working to get Rt < 1.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon
Just to clarify, it’s not enough to ‘get Rt<1’ once, like you’re trying to hit a charity-drive target. You’d have to keep it there long enough for the exponential decay to suppress prevalence to controllable/surveillable levels. In tiny NZ i gather this took 4 months.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @soncharm @CovfefeAnon
you either believe in individual rights or you don’t. arguing about these measurements means you’ve already lost. rights exist for a reason independent of circumstantial outcomes.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @trustfundcowboi @CovfefeAnon
Rights are harder to sort out when negative-externalities are in play & an infectious disease is nothing if not a monster case of that. So I don’t think appealing to ‘rights’ is a winner argument.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @soncharm @CovfefeAnon
history proves your point but i think societies belief/disbelief also rises in waves. this episode will have its own impact on younger ppl, that is if the narrative changes towards actual data. may be naive but think it will
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
and rights are rights. there’s a lot of philosophical rigor that i know is currently null and void but smart ppl thought a lot about all of this. i just don’t think we’re in a french revolution type moment and pendulum will start swinging other way
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Society that discussed "rights" still had Lazarettos
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.