Little Raven wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 12:21 am
Everyone uses not-lockdowns to flatten the curve. And they do that. But that's all they do.
People seem to feel like
our not-lockdown....failed, somehow? But it didn't. It did exactly what it was supposed to do. We flattened the curve and kept the ERs from being overrun. (at tremendous cost, of course) That's success.
I find your definition of success to be pretty generous. Heck it almost seems framed to classify a response that by the numbers is incredibly poor as a success. The facts are stark. We have some of the highest case rates and death rates against other
major economies. It's hard to rate us amidst the ongoing crisis but our 'not lockdown' looks like it was instead very poor at best. From the article above:
CIDRAP wrote:Likely were due to a poor pandemic response rather than an early surge of coronavirus cases before virus prevention and treatment methods were improved.
"Compared with other countries, the US experienced high COVID-19–associated mortality and excess all-cause mortality into September 2020," the authors wrote. "After the first peak in early spring, US death rates from COVID-19 and from all causes remained higher than even countries with high COVID-19 mortality. This may have been a result of several factors, including weak public health infrastructure and a decentralized, inconsistent US response to the pandemic."
Hardly a ringing endorsement. It's not hard to believe that by the end of the year that statement will just be crossed out to say December instead of September. In the end, avoiding a catastrophe -- the healthcare system collapsing -- is a poor bar for success.
The virus was never going to just go away because people stayed home for a while. IF that ever happens, it won't happen until we get herd immunity, preferably from a vaccine. It certainly won't happen because of not-lockdowns.
You seem to be oversimplifying this. No one is saying that the only "one" goal is to stamp out the virus. Some would like to achieve that but that is of course difficult. Especially with our open societies. However, by many measures we did horrible because our response was inconsistent, politicized, and our President egged on non-compliance with simple, effective controls. It didn't need to be lockdown to save potentially tens of thousands of lives. Our peers had more stringent controls and better response than us in the Spring. They had a mostly normal summer. Now that the virus is expanding again they are re-imposing some controls. That sounds to me to be a heck of a better approach to me. Even the most famous country that tried voluntary controls (Sweden) is now re-thinking their response. Social distancing controls and other voluntary measures on their own don't work universally. Doubly so here when portions of the political class are borderline malicious.
In any case, the point of my post was to show that our peer economies are imposing more controls now. Call them not lockdowns if you want but in the face of a 2nd/3rd wave they are taking action. And so far we are sort of just pressing down on the gas without a plan. We are almost certainly heading for much higher case counts than the summer numbers. And it gets us no nearer to being done with this thing. We are trading lives for little measurable positive outcome. That's my definition of a failure.