Hacker News Reader

Comment by KarlKemp | Hacker News Reader

I believe it’s very much expected to see some resurgence and to adjust measures accordingly. Over time, it might become easier to measure which interventions are most effective and to focus on those.

Schools are certainly a risky gamble, but their closing is also among the most expensive measures. Many people are staying at home because they have no options for their children, including many doctors and nurses.

View on HN

In Austria they closed the schools but at the same time offer care in the school buildings for children whose parents have to work.

Doesn't this defeat the purpose?

Some reduction is better than no reduction.

No, because that’s a fraction of the kids.

It works really well. Austrias R0 dropped down to 0.7 after lockdown

You might be right. I wished they'd publish what exactly they aim for and what the plan for different outcomes of this experiment is.

For now they seem to aim at R = 1, which means waiting for the vaccine with whatever is possible to keep it at 1. (Probably not much more than barbers and very few school classes.)

Isn't more important to take decisions instead of holding everyone upfront accountable for any mistake?

It's important to make the right decisions, and that won't happen without some concrete plan for what the decisions are meant to accomplish.

love how people casually say "oops" and "we'll adjust"

those "oops" are painful suffering deaths that could have been avoided

everything has been reduced to numbers we mindlessly argue when we are talking about deaths that could have been avoided

even people who recover, this does long term lung and maybe heart damage

all could have been avoided with a true two week lockdown to let the virus die off, but nope, trade two weeks for months more of "resurgence and adjust measures"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronaviru...

this is also why I get upset at "just let everyone get infected for herd immunity" arguments - this isn't a cold, it does -damage-

It's astonishing how virulently your very sensible post is getting downvoted. By bots? Or actual HN real people? Either possibility is very very bad for humanity.

> even people who recover, this does long term lung and maybe heart damage

The problematic ACE2 receptor sites are also in the brain, intestines and liver and have seen damage. The brain one is the most alarming one from a survival perspective. We survive, but with irreparable permanent brain damage. We're no longer ourselves, we have a different personality, and we are incapable of doing our previous jobs. Is death preferable?

I doubt it's bots. It's just a polarizing topic.

everything has been reduced to numbers we mindlessly argue when we are talking about deaths that could have been avoided

What is mindless is refusing to consider any action that might conceivably increase the number of deaths without considering tradeoffs. Or should we shut down the country during every flu season and universally limit cars to 20mph?

this isn't a cold, it does -damage-

Lockdowns also do damage; not just economic and psychological but also medical. We've stopped "elective" procedures like cancer screenings, which is guaranteed to result in worse outcomes for some patients. I agree that as of right now it's best to maintain the lockdown, but in order to make that determination we really do have to use numbers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com