Comment by dm319 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dm319 | Hacker News Reader

Something strange was happening in the UK rates in the last few weeks. Despite a second lockdown, cases in London started increasing again, and areas in 'Tier 3' (highest tier restrictions) also started increasing cases post-lockdown. This was despite other areas continuing to drop cases despite having the same measures. Apparently the areas that had started rising were correlated with percentage prevalence of this new strain, which at the moment is known to be present in the UK, but might have come from abroad, or travelled already.

As a result of this, I can see the vaccination programme getting a huge rocket, as it looks like lockdown and highest restrictions aren't decreasing cases - which is potentially disastrous for containing the virus, and stopping the hospitals get overwhelmed at a time when they normally operate at full capacity.

Christmas relaxation rules have been cancelled in the UK, which has caused much disappointment to my family and friends. Understandable, but no less disappointing.

> as it looks like lockdown and highest restrictions aren't decreasing cases

This has been apparent since the beginning. It's a highly contagious seasonal virus.

When it declined in the northeast of the US as the spring led into summer, people proclaimed their expert advice was successful...ignoring that it's seasonal virus.

Cuomo wrote even wrote a freaking book about his success.

No that has not been apparent. The first lockdown got cases down to very low levels (10s/million/day). It turned around a sky-rocketing increase in cases - it's not like the seasons changed between April and May. The second lockdown in the UK was a tiered approach, and has managed the levels (at least up to 3 weeks ago) better than France, Belgium or Spain. Not quite as good as Germany or Italy, and nowhere near the Scandinavian countries (excluding Sweden).

Are you really trying to tell me that the variation in COVID rates is only down to seasons?

Largely yes

If it’s a seasonal virus why have states like Texas had multiple spikes in the same year?

You should be smart enough to know that a respiratory virus could be seasonal but still spread throughout the year.

And the further complexity of being presented with this huge US graph, which in reality is the aggregated result of so many communities with varying levels of prevalence/previous exposure.

Hope-Simpson studied this with flu, fig. 2 on pg. 5 shows some recognizable trends that line up with latitude: https://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC2134...

So not seasonal then?

Seasons vary geographically?

It spiked in Texas in Summer and Fall. It will presumably continue to spread through winter. How is that seasonal?

Did you see the Hope-Simpson figure? Texas is roughly 36N to 26N. That puts it close/within the tropical zone.

That zone has a relatively diffuse outbreak curve, seems like there's some type of subtle signal though, whereas the higher latitudes get walloped in the winter months and there's not much going on the rest of the year.

Surely you understand that seasons vary geographically? What's winter in Texas at best? 50F?

New York, California And Pacific Northwest also had summer spikes. Now they are experiencing winter spikes. Any seasonality that may exist naturally is made irrelevant by pandemic fatigue. People simply start ignoring the guidance after a few months. Cases go up until things get ‘scary bad’ and then people stay home again. That is why your suggestion that we all ‘self regulate’ is not a good one. It will just lead to endless, ‘weak’ lockdowns.

I'm around NYC, was in the city, and haven't seen anything even remotely severe in the summer. Hence Cuomo acting like he conquered it with masks.

Cases in my city were in the single digits, and then like clockwork started a steady rise in the fall to where they are now.

Correlation, not causation. It’s also known that people simply congregated outside their homes more during the NYC summer.

This is the problem with self-regulation. Not everyone is a doctor, so many people will incorrectly gauge their own risk of severe infection and/or transmission.

Just think about it, self regulation is the easiest government intervention (basically no intervention required). If that strategy worked, we would have seen at least 1 success by now. Sweden and Brazil had few (if any) restrictions and some of the highest death rates in their regions. Developing countries with poor governance and zero public health infrastructure are also struggling.

> If that strategy worked, we would have seen at least 1 success by now.

No one “wins” against things like death, disease, etc.

The world is full of unwinnable things that can used to justify authoritarianism and deprivation of individual rights.

Yes, but look at the data. There are industrialized countries with less than 1/3 the per capita death rate of the US. Maybe you can’t ‘win’ but clearly you can do a better job than others. It’s a stretch and arguably fear-mongering to equate sensible policy to reduce death with authoritarianism.

> There are industrialized countries with less than 1/3 the per capita death rate of the US.

Are we reducing a multivariate phenomenon to public policy?

Clearly the US is horrifically unhealthy, could have different age demographics, etc.

At the end of the day, no I don't think I have the right to tell someone who's possibly struggling already they cannot work.

This is all a massive bet ignoring the massive costs that everyone else in society have to bear.

And sadly none of the supposed smart people making these decisions will bear the cost (and we know they never make bad decisions /s).

Luckily you are not in a position to decide public health policy, and a majority of voters seem to disagree with you.

Poor people around the world have been devastated by the majority position in public health policy.

A majority of people and the health establishment thought ventilators were a good idea; it turns out mortality dropped 30% during the time period that their use was stopped.

The people deciding things have very little gauge of the disastrous costs that they themselves do not have to suffer. Their social class precludes it by nature!

Are you an essential worker? Is that below you? The least advantaged are forced to risk their lives and are bearing the brunt of all these decisions.

The Pajama Class is waging class war, convinced they're right - when in fact they've blundered their way through this - shaming everyone who disagrees with them.

Make no mistake - the public policy decisions you're advocating favor the well-off.

Clearly it's a spectrum, not a binary. I doubt you'd say we shouldn't impose more precautions during an Ebola outbreak than we would during a normal winter cold & flu season.

Precautions are generally proportional to the risks involved. Personal responsibility ceases to be the only determining factor in what precautions to take when an irresponsible person imposes the consequences of their poorly judged actions on other people. Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Punching me in the nose isn't justifiable simply because I will, at some point, die regardless of your actions.

That said, it is a spectrum. Which means, if you want to avoid absurd extremes then you must draw a line somewhere on that spectrum. Assuming you don't espouse political anarchism or anarcho-capitalism, approaching me & swinging your fist at my nose while we're both walking down the street is would be on the wrong side of the line for pretty much everyone. If I approach you and tell you I'll stab you if you don't hand over your wallet then swinging your fist at my nose is on the other side of that line.

COVID is clearly more complicated because in addition to the above spectrum, there is the spectrum of a probability distribution that dictates the likelihood of spreading the virus if infected, and the likelihood of serious illness or death if infected by someone spreading the virus. Drawing the line between acceptable imposition of precautions is therefore much more complicated, and absent absurd extremes is necessarily going to be drawn somewhere that some subset believes is authoritarian, and others believe is too permissive & intrudes on their own freedom from the negative consequences of other people's choices.

In all cases though, if your concept of "No one “wins” against things like death, disease, etc." were to be the guiding force behind societal decisions, then literally any action is permissible.

> then literally any action is permissible

What's permissible now is whatever doesn't harm or constrain upper classes.

We've decided that essential workers should work and the higher classes should be sheltered and they can dispatch the expendables to sustain themselves.

Your moral analysis is pretty much in support of whatever the Pajama Class decides is right.

Then you are reading too much into my analysis.

My post was simply a discussion on the process of determining precautions, absent going to an extreme. It was not advocacy for the specific place on the spectrum where the line should be drawn. It was, in response to your comment, an observation that no matter where the line is drawn, there will be some who view it violates their freedom as too authoritarian, and others who believe it violates their freedom by allowing irresponsible decisions by others to impact them.

I won't go into the particulars of my own opinion on where the lines should be drawn except to say that I think some decisions have been bad, some have been okay, but that in general this is not a situation that lends itself to easy answers.

NYC is a prime example of also having non-seasonal factors: Through the early Fall, there was significant opportunity for true outdoor dining. As the weather got colder, that "outdoor" dining often took on the form of fully-enclosed tents that are nearly indistinguishable from dining indoors. Even with similar social-distancing requirements handed down by the state, even assuming people did not relax their guard, following the guidelines would still result in a different models of social behavior, more in-door gatherings that still met distancing guidelines, etc.

Not quite: you're correct about seasonality but seasonality is an issue to begin with because people are spending more time inside, in closed air systems. (Other factors as well). But that still requires people to mix about with each other. Things like eating in fully enclosed "outdoor" tents instead of true outdoor settings, family get togethers like Thanksgiving, etc. If people weren't going out & seeing each other, the virus wouldn't just appear in closed social networks.

You're also ignoring the Summer spike that occured as precautions were relaxed, at the same time that it gradually began making its way off of the coasts and into land-locked states, especially those that were generally skeptical of taking precautions to begin with, so decreases & spikes are not solely attributable to seasonal factors.

Yes I just watched Boris Johnson's announcement. I know there's a lot of criticism about his leadership, but I'm still glad they are following the science.

He's had a lot of criticism, but I don't think he has done too badly. And that's coming from someone who is normally left-leaning, and not a fan of him. There were definite mistakes at the beginning, and a blase attitude resulted in a bad first wave for the UK. It's still not completely clear why the death rate was so high - may be related to the way the coronavirus ripped through care homes early on, or simply because the UK could have locked down a week or two earlier. Not to mention the mess up with ventilators and PPE.

But since then, the UK has handled the second wave reasonably well. People aren't talking about the crazy high rates in France and Spain which were exceeding the US for much for time, and with a corresponding high death rate too. I don't know what's going on with Germany, but their previously pristine record looks like it's being shattered at the moment...

I think something changed after Boris went to hospital.

Except for the government's advisers recommending a lockdown in September and being ignored.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54518002

Yes, he's definitely not been great. We're talking B- here, not A+. Maybe C++.

There are definitely worse!

Well, C is not always worse than C++

I will see myself out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com