> They just implemented authoritarian measures such as lockdowns that had little to no effect, but simply served those politicians' own self-serving purposes
Had all states had restrictions/"lockdowns" in 2020-2022 that were as strict as the strictest state's mitigation measures, we would have saved ~360k more lives[1].
Maybe. That's far from certain, though. What's more, this would have come at a tremendous cost - and not just in the strict economic sense of the word. Lockdowns and other restrictions do have severe side effects.
You moved the goal posts. Your claim was that "lockdowns" did little or nothing, and I provided a study that shows that simply isn't true. You're now disagreeing (without any evidence) but have shifted to arguing they have side effects that you find too severe.
That's a completely different argument, and one that really can't be objectively measured (e.g., how do you value a life saved?). But lockdowns were effective at saving lives in 2020, and since we knew nothing about SAR-CoV-2 and had limited treatment options there was basically no other option. Nobody (other than you) has mentioned reinstating lockdowns.
> Your claim was that "lockdowns" did little or nothing
I still stand by that claim. Compared with alternative, less restrictive measures, lockdowns achieve very little, especially when considering the massive downside they come with.
Like you said, lockdowns were justified in early 2020 when we knew very little about COVID-19. Later, though, they amounted to nothing more than authoritarian virtue signalling.
> Nobody (other than you) has mentioned reinstating lockdowns.
Not explicitly. More often than not that's what people mean when they're saying that politicians have given up on fighting Covid.
Multiple citations needed here, but your response suggests science isn't driving your beliefs here, so I'll just point out one thing and then will leave this thread:
> More often than not that's what people mean when they're saying that politicians have given up on fighting Covid.
I know a lot of people in public health and disability spaces, and every person I know that talks about the failure of public health around the covid pandemic is referring to the dismantling of surveillance (e.g., testing), the lack of investment in next generation vaccines and treatments, the failure to upgrade ventilation and filtration, and removing mask mandates in targeted places (like emergency rooms). I haven't heard anybody in the US discuss lockdowns in years. I haven't even heard people talk about broad (i.e., outside healthcare) mask mandates in over a year. You need to get "mitigations = lockdowns" out of your head, that's not what people are "implying" when they discuss fighting covid.
> but your response suggests science isn't driving your beliefs here
I find this kind of argument - which indeed seems to have become quite fashionable during the pandemic - to imply that dissenting opinions aren't supported by science to be pretty offensive, particularly when recent revelations (e.g., in Germany, since that country has been mentioned in this thread) have shown that quite often mandates were driven by politics rather than being supported by science.
> targeted places (like emergency rooms).
While ERs aren't the first places that come to mind, because for the most part they don't treat patients with communicable diseases, there's nothing that keeps hospitals from implementing such mandates. I'd welcome that, because as should have become obvious from this this thread I'm very much in favour of wearing masks.
> that's not what people are "implying" when they discuss fighting covid.
While they don't have any actual expertise on the matter, there still is a small but very vocal #ZeroCovid bubble (e.g., on the social network formerly known as Twitter) that quite literally implies that - and little else - for fighting COVID-19 today.
> to imply that dissenting opinions aren't supported by science to be pretty offensive
Unless I missed something, you have yet to share the science that supports your view. I'm not bowing out of discussing this because we have different opinions, I'm bowing out because I shared a study (and could provide more) and you responded by shifting goal posts and standing by your claim, not by responding in kind with similar studies or different interpretations of the data. There's not much discussion to be had if we're not working from a shared understanding of data and facts, and those data and facts aren't driving our opinions and beliefs. Anyway, best of luck out there!
> Anyway, what do you suggest? Lockdowns and civil rights restrictions forever?
I literally wrote what I suggested and what you're asking: mandate air purifiers (and ventilation/AC in general...) for public and educational buildings. Additionally to that and specially for the US: introduce unlimited paid sick time, just like every other Western country already has.
And maaaaybe introduce by law a ban on knowingly sending sick kids to kindergarten/schools. It's utterly insane to watch every year how the weeks after major holidays are filled with "colleague X is out sick, caught a bug from their kids". If there is one thing every parent in my social circle is cursing about, it is all the tons of bugs their kids bring home from school because other parents can't be arsed to let their kid spend a few days at home watching TV - and it's not just covid. Lice, ordinary flu, hand-foot-mouth or whatever it's called in English, measles, ordinary fever, vomit/diarrhea...
> For trying to avoid an illness at all costs that not only wasn't particularly dangerous to begin with for the general population
In the US alone, 1.2 million people died of COVID. That's far from "wasn't particularly dangerous".
> but also is very much manageable today, particularly considering that most people are vaccinated now (or at least have the opportunity to get vaccinated).
Vaccines aren't perfect, even including them about 3-5% of the infected have a risk for debilitating long-covid (i.e. ME/CFS). It's not a gamble I want to take part in.
I'm very much in favour of using (or even mandating) air purifiers and dissuading (or banning) people from going to work or sending their kids to school with a communicable disease (including any respiratory illness, not just COVID-19; people seem to think "It's not Covid. So, it doesn't matter.").
Implementing such highly useful measures hasn't been tried, though, at least not at any meaningful scale. Everything politicians tried was about more restrictions and ever more severe lockdowns.
> Vaccines aren't perfect, even including them about 3-5% of the infected have a risk for debilitating long-covid (i.e. ME/CFS). It's not a gamble I want to take part in.
Again, I'm totally fine with that. I'm myself still getting vaccinated once a year with an updated vaccine and I occasionally still wear masks depending in the setting (cramped indoor spaces, particularly during cold season).
If people personally want to avoid that risk that's perfectly ok. Demanding others behave in a certain way (e.g., by enforcing restrictions on their freedom of movement) is not, though.
> Implementing such highly useful measures hasn't been tried, though, at least not at any meaningful scale. Everything politicians tried was about more restrictions and ever more severe lockdowns.
Oh it has been tried, at least here in Germany the federal government gave financial aids to schools and kindergartens. And public offices like parliaments have had them ever since... but in schools? Parents demanded they be taken offline as "the pandemic ended", or schools bought the loud-ass versions...
> If there is one thing every parent in my social circle is cursing about, it is all the tons of bugs their kids bring home from school because other parents can't be arsed to let their kid spend a few days at home watching TV
Viruses spread prior to any indication of infection. By the time any kid in daycare has a fever, the class is already infected and spreading to others. A huge proportion of viral infections just result in runny noses.
One of my kids’ classes got hand foot mouth a few months ago, and I don’t think even a single kid had a fever, or even any painful spots. Just some red spots for a few days, but otherwise unaffected. Not to say that it should intentionally be spread or ignored, but just providing perspective on how non problematic the vast, vast majority of viral infections could be, especially relative to the cost of preventing them.
Also, schools serve as daycare taking on the legal liability for handling kids, allowing parents to work. The changes you seek would crater the economy of any developed country, and especially so with aging demographics. And I don’t think any country offers unlimited paid sick time. Not to mention that efforts to prevent abuse of this unlimited paid sick time would be another huge resource sink.
It doesn’t sound like a country wide universal benefit (at least as of 2013).
> Florence currently provides support to about 2,000 working families in 23 wards and four cities in Tokyo, Kawasaki, and Yokohama cities in Kanagawa Prefecture, and Urayasu and Ichikawa cities in Chiba Prefecture.
I have read tons of articles on these types of benefits, but never seen them successfully implemented on a national, universal level. The main problem being voters not wanting to prioritize spending on kids, or at least prioritizing spending on older population groups rather than kids (since that is who the voters are).
> Viruses spread prior to any indication of infection. By the time any kid in daycare has a fever, the class is already infected and spreading to others.
Sure but pretty much any daycare worker you ask can tell you stories about a kid barely able to stand that just got dumped on their front door, or ones that have been obviously given quite the hefty dose of medication and "suddenly" get worse in a matter of 2-3 hours once the medication wore off.
And that is frankly anti-social behavior, for me it would be grounds to yeet the parents from the daycare effective immediately.
> Also, schools serve as daycare taking on the legal liability for handling kids, allowing parents to work.
In Germany we have "Kinderkrankentage" - sick days for your child that you as a parent take to care for your kids.
> Not to mention that efforts to prevent abuse of this unlimited paid sick time would be another huge resource sink.
EVERY Western country has such a policy and survives just fine. If the US fears it being abused, well, maybe do the decent thing and give them a similar amount of vacation PTO?!
This wikipedia article is out of date ("There is no federal or state statutory minimum paid vacation or paid public holidays. Paid leave is at the discretion of the employers to their employees."). Illinois law now mandates paid leave: https://labor.illinois.gov/faqs/paidleavefaq.html
So, the ground is shifting on this in the USA, at least at the state level.
Ppp would have been a perfect time and mechanism to employ mandatory universal sick time; only forgive the loans if employers could post a "bond" showing they had accounted for sick time per employee.
It couldn't, structurally not. In the EU a lot is already harmonized by EU law, but in the US? Congress has been gridlocked for decades now thanks to (predominantly Republican) obstructionism and the states can't be arsed to work on constitutional amendments either.
Damn, which countries offer that? And do they actually, in reality, and not just on paper? I live in Europe and while theoretically you can have paid sick time, in reality your employer will just fire you (sometimes), you literally cannot be sick without such dire consequences (so I have heard from the mouth of employers).
Germany, for one. Your employer pays the first 90 days, after that the health insurance takes over (IIRC) 70% of your wage, and many employers that value their employees pay the remaining 30%.
Firing someone is very hard in Germany unless it's about closing up shop or intentional action against the employer (shit like theft or vandalism).
