Conversation

astralcodexten.substack.com/p/lockdown-eff TL;DR: 1) lockdowns saved lives, probably 2) the $ cost per life saved was in-line with replacements, not clearly good or bad 3) if you include non-immediate-GDP impacts (e.g. it sucks), maybe lockdowns were very net bad 4) huge error bars and uncertainty

astralcodexten.substack.com

Lockdown Effectiveness: Much More Than You Wanted To Know

...

9:55 PM · Jul 7, 2021Twitter Web App

Replying to

and

Hey Sam ! Which vaccine did you get ?

Replying to

and

Those teeth are clean af!

Replying to

and

If lockdowns probably saved a “large” number of lives, regardless of what the numbers around the economics say today, it was the right move.

Replying to

and

Have you calculated the economic cost? Most of the lives 'saved' are over 70. The global population grew in what was supposed to be a pandemic. 🤦‍♂️Next lets ban all moving vehicles to save lives.

Show replies

This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more

Replying to

and

maybe bc the whole thing was a joke

Replying to

and

IMO the worst impacts are: 1. Delayed procedures = long term health consequences 2. +1yr of sub par education 3. ⬆️ mental health issues 4. ⬆️ substance abuse 5. ⬆️ physical abuse in the home The above will take years to show the full negative impact on society/people's lives.

01123581321345589

Replying to

and

Quarantine works with the sick, not the healthy.

Phrenology Understander

Replying to

and

That's a weird photo of a gain of function research lab...

Replying to

and

With the amount of suicides. Lockdown most definitely did not save lives.

Replying to

and

Oh you mean people being paid by the government to stay home from work for a while and read books and get exercise outside and be alone with their own thoughts? These people offed themselves because of the horror of this experience?

Show replies