COVID-19 Megathread 6: Return of the Omicron

[MATTROSE94]

Day 1 of no restrictions here in Denmark. Feels great. Case numbers are extremely high - more than 40k a day (10 times more than the peak last winter)- but basically nobody gets seriously sick from Omicron here. The total number of people in intensive care is now a paltry 28 persons and is now the lowest since october, which was pre-Omicron. Basically, we have had record high infections throughout january while at the very same time the number of infected in intensive care has fallen by 60%. This is because basically everybody who needed intensive care from COVID had the Delta variant and now that we basically only have Omicron nobody needs intensive care anymore. The remaining 28 are mostly NOT there because of their Omicron infection, but just happen to have it. This is even more pronounced when you look at deaths, where pretty much everyone currently registrered as dying from COVID is actually dying WITH COVID instead, unlike earlier in the pandemic.  

I have supported restrictions and mandates since the beginning, but people need to start to realize that the Omicron variant really isn't very dangerous and that we have ALL the medical tools to combat this disease now in vaccines and therapeutics (most notably Paxlovid from Pfizer). I have no idea why other countries aren't doing like Denmark and the UK at this point. I imagine it has to be right around the corner.

Also, from a political perspective, democrats are gonna get killed if they insist on heavy restrictions way after they cease to be necessary.

EDIT: Forgot to mention that all restrictions were dropped by a united parliament. All parties/groups in parliament supported it, from the far left to the far right.

Our situation is complicated by higher numbers of deaths we’re seeing. It’s not clear whether this is because of lower vaccination numbers, stronger presence of comorbidities, or other things, but it’s giving our leaders pause.

I suspect it is coming in the next few weeks, though. We’ve already seen public health leaders giving the signals.

NY seems to be doubling down on restrictions despite the fact that Omicron peaked here three weeks ago, and now we are basically at the same case levels as we had when this mask mandate was put into effect, supposedly just to stop the holiday surge

I feel like we are in a world of phantom restrictions where no restrictions are ever actually imposed but anti-restriction people feel like they are being imposed anyway.

I think this is because of a couple of factors; many people have responded to the pandemic by adapting their behavior and cancelled social events like holiday parties; NYC restaurants reported mass cancellations of reservations in December. Also, firms (particularly hospitality) have responded to reduced demand and staffing shortages by cutting hours or shutting down. To anti-restriction people particularly here, even though the government didn't do anything, it still feels like a "lockdown" to them and thus they complain about it as if it were one. The big difference, and I've made this point before, is that they are no longer complaining about an overreaching government, but instead attacking their fellow citizens for taking the virus seriously, which is both deplorable and decidedly anti-freedom.

I would say that about 30% of the population will continue to follow very strict COVID precautions indefinitely and that certain states (California, Oregon, Hawaii, Washington, DC, New York, and Illinois) and institutions (colleges, private businesses, etc.) will keep their respective COVID NPIs in place for the long term.

It is really up to people to judge their risk calculus regarding COVID at this point. My risk calculus is less than others, though I still wear an N95 at my job and in certain settings. During the pandemic, I have travelled, attended mass events, and eaten out indoors, though I understand that for others, those activities represent a risk to them.

Same here. I wear masks when I am told and have gotten the booster the weekend before Thanksgiving. However, as soon as I was vaccinated, I stopped wearing masks.

Yeah. My job requires masks for its employees and some places I go to such as the Apple Store and pharmacies still require masks, so I wear my N95 there. When I got back to law school in August, I will start wearing the mask more because my school has very strict mask protocols. For the most part I became more lax wearing the mask when I got my booster shot in November. On a side note, I was around about 10 people who had Omicron without wearing masks around them and still tested negative. Maybe the vaccines are working good for me transmission wise?

[GregTheGreat657]

COVID is endemic and we need to move on with our lives

[GregTheGreat657]

Other than the family strategy I have already mentioned here, the next best way to get conservatives vaccinated in higher numbers is that Trump should go on national TV and say that anti-vaxxers are disloyal RINOs. A lot of people would begrudgingly get vaccinated just to prove that they aren't a RINO

[100% pro-life no matter what]

According to covidestim.org, the Rt is now below 1 in every state except Tennessee. It's down to 0.29 in Utah, 0.31 in Rhode Island, and 0.4 or lower in a host of other states.

Tennessee only reports data once a week, so the data is pretty old at this point.  Would guess its past peak in TN as well.

And, sure enough, this week's update shows cases beginning a sharp decline in Tennessee.

[Horus]

Other than the family strategy I have already mentioned here, the next best way to get conservatives vaccinated in higher numbers is that Trump should go on national TV and say that anti-vaxxers are disloyal RINOs. A lot of people would begrudgingly get vaccinated just to prove that they aren't a RINO

On the contrary Trump would lose a lot of support if he did this. His anti vax supporters hate the vaccine more than they love him.

[Lief 🗽]

Day 1 of no restrictions here in Denmark. Feels great. Case numbers are extremely high - more than 40k a day (10 times more than the peak last winter)- but basically nobody gets seriously sick from Omicron here. The total number of people in intensive care is now a paltry 28 persons and is now the lowest since october, which was pre-Omicron. Basically, we have had record high infections throughout january while at the very same time the number of infected in intensive care has fallen by 60%. This is because basically everybody who needed intensive care from COVID had the Delta variant and now that we basically only have Omicron nobody needs intensive care anymore. The remaining 28 are mostly NOT there because of their Omicron infection, but just happen to have it. This is even more pronounced when you look at deaths, where pretty much everyone currently registrered as dying from COVID is actually dying WITH COVID instead, unlike earlier in the pandemic. 

I have supported restrictions and mandates since the beginning, but people need to start to realize that the Omicron variant really isn't very dangerous and that we have ALL the medical tools to combat this disease now in vaccines and therapeutics (most notably Paxlovid from Pfizer). I have no idea why other countries aren't doing like Denmark and the UK at this point. I imagine it has to be right around the corner.

Also, from a political perspective, democrats are gonna get killed if they insist on heavy restrictions way after they cease to be necessary.

EDIT: Forgot to mention that all restrictions were dropped by a united parliament. All parties/groups in parliament supported it, from the far left to the far right.

Our situation is complicated by higher numbers of deaths we’re seeing. It’s not clear whether this is because of lower vaccination numbers, stronger presence of comorbidities, or other things, but it’s giving our leaders pause.

I suspect it is coming in the next few weeks, though. We’ve already seen public health leaders giving the signals.

NY seems to be doubling down on restrictions despite the fact that Omicron peaked here three weeks ago, and now we are basically at the same case levels as we had when this mask mandate was put into effect, supposedly just to stop the holiday surge

I feel like we are in a world of phantom restrictions where no restrictions are ever actually imposed but anti-restriction people feel like they are being imposed anyway.

I think this is because of a couple of factors; many people have responded to the pandemic by adapting their behavior and cancelled social events like holiday parties; NYC restaurants reported mass cancellations of reservations in December. Also, firms (particularly hospitality) have responded to reduced demand and staffing shortages by cutting hours or shutting down. To anti-restriction people particularly here, even though the government didn't do anything, it still feels like a "lockdown" to them and thus they complain about it as if it were one. The big difference, and I've made this point before, is that they are no longer complaining about an overreaching government, but instead attacking their fellow citizens for taking the virus seriously, which is both deplorable and decidedly anti-freedom.

I would say that about 30% of the population will continue to follow very strict COVID precautions indefinitely and that certain states (California, Oregon, Hawaii, Washington, DC, New York, and Illinois) and institutions (colleges, private businesses, etc.) will keep their respective COVID NPIs in place for the long term.

It is really up to people to judge their risk calculus regarding COVID at this point. My risk calculus is less than others, though I still wear an N95 at my job and in certain settings. During the pandemic, I have travelled, attended mass events, and eaten out indoors, though I understand that for others, those activities represent a risk to them.

Same here. I wear masks when I am told and have gotten the booster the weekend before Thanksgiving. However, as soon as I was vaccinated, I stopped wearing masks.

Yeah. My job requires masks for its employees and some places I go to such as the Apple Store and pharmacies still require masks, so I wear my N95 there. When I got back to law school in August, I will start wearing the mask more because my school has very strict mask protocols. For the most part I became more lax wearing the mask when I got my booster shot in November. On a side note, I was around about 10 people who had Omicron without wearing masks around them and still tested negative. Maybe the vaccines are working good for me transmission wise?

Yeah for some reason the meme that vaccines offer zero protection against transmission of omicron has taken hold, when that is clearly not the case. I was exposed to people who were mostly likely infected at the time a couple of times in December and never tested positive (I tested like 4 times for various reasons over this time period). I know a family of four, where the youngest child (a one year old) was positive, but no one else in the home ever caught covid (all vaccinated, and the parents boosted).

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Today/yesterday Finland, Sweden and Switzerland (England, more?) followed Denmark. They said they will/aim to remove all the remaining restrictions this month.

If Biden is smart, he'll do something similar in ASAP and "own" going-back-to-normal momentum. It's clear, it's mostly over in a month. I'm afraid, he'll be scared of/sides with idiots forever-restrictioners as he did with Progressives vs Manchin, wait to long and lose BBB momentum.

God knows

[GeneralMacArthur]

Today/yesterday Finland, Sweden and Switzerland (England, more?) followed Denmark. They said they will/aim to remove all the remaining restrictions this month.

If Biden is smart, he'll do something similar in ASAP and "own" going-back-to-normal momentum. It's clear, it's mostly over in a month. I'm afraid, he'll be scared of/sides with idiots forever-restrictioners as he did with Progressives vs Manchin, wait to long and lose BBB momentum.

God knows

He already did this last summer and everyone (including you) pounced as soon as Delta hit, so let's not pretend this is good-faith advice.

[Tintrlvr]

Yeah for some reason the meme that vaccines offer zero protection against transmission of omicron has taken hold, when that is clearly not the case. I was exposed to people who were mostly likely infected at the time a couple of times in December and never tested positive (I tested like 4 times for various reasons over this time period). I know a family of four, where the youngest child (a one year old) was positive, but no one else in the home ever caught covid (all vaccinated, and the parents boosted).

I mean, we know this. The prevalence (per capita) of positive COVID tests right now among people with two vaccine shots (even ignoring boosters) is about a quarter of the prevalence among the unvaccinated. That's a bit closer a ratio than a sixth during the Delta wave and much closer than a twelfth when mass vaccination first happened, but it's still very significant, especially when a large majority of those double-vaccinated people got their second doses 8-10 months ago at this point. It's clear that the vaccines are still quite protective against transmission.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Today/yesterday Finland, Sweden and Switzerland (England, more?) followed Denmark. They said they will/aim to remove all the remaining restrictions this month.

If Biden is smart, he'll do something similar in ASAP and "own" going-back-to-normal momentum. It's clear, it's mostly over in a month. I'm afraid, he'll be scared of/sides with idiots forever-restrictioners as he did with Progressives vs Manchin, wait to long and lose BBB momentum.

God knows

He already did this last summer and everyone (including you) pounced as soon as Delta hit, so let's not pretend this is good-faith advice.

Or, perhaps, I knew, you would think so and said it on purpose to hurt Biden!!!!



Tell me why are we so blind to see, that the ones we hurt are you and me?

[Tintrlvr]

Actually I think they were unconstitutional, but I have a hard time swallowing that they didn't flatten the death curve at all.

If the argument is that most the benefit came from the voluntary locking down, then it doesn't make sense that the forced lockdowns were a problem.

If the argument is that people staying home and business closing didn't affect the death rate at all, then I don't understand how I haven't gotten a cold in 2 years or how 2 strains of the Flu are probably extinct.

The study notes how the social and economic costs associated with the lockdowns were not worth in the reduction in mortality rates, and that such reduction was of a very trifling or minimal nature. In other words, the lockdowns did little to stem the natural course of the virus.

I do think it's totally fair to say that the lockdowns came far too late to matter and that by the time people were hunkering down in mid-late March COVID was already everywhere.

More significantly, maybe, it's clear from China's example that you could completely stomp out original COVID and even Alpha and Delta (but maybe not Omicron), but you can only do that if you are willing to implement and, maybe more significantly, enforce much more severe lockdowns than places like the US or Western Europe ever tried. Australia had some success in that vein and clearly did save many lives with its strategy of harsh, repeated lockdowns until mass vaccination. The policies implemented by the US and Western Europe that were fleeting, largely suggestions and only loosely enforced were fairly clearly, looking retrospectively, never going to accomplish much in terms of infection reduction despite being nearly as economically damaging as truly serious lockdowns.

Still, it doesn't feel like we could have known this a priori. Australia and China (among others) show us that there was a lockdown approach that would have worked, so it's not the case that lockdowns generally can't work. The lesson perhaps is that you need to commit, one way or another; there was no reasonable halfway where you could both avoid mass death and severe economic consequences, and, by trying to find middle ground, the US and Western Europe ended up with both.

[Calthrina950]

Actually I think they were unconstitutional, but I have a hard time swallowing that they didn't flatten the death curve at all.

If the argument is that most the benefit came from the voluntary locking down, then it doesn't make sense that the forced lockdowns were a problem.

If the argument is that people staying home and business closing didn't affect the death rate at all, then I don't understand how I haven't gotten a cold in 2 years or how 2 strains of the Flu are probably extinct.

The study notes how the social and economic costs associated with the lockdowns were not worth in the reduction in mortality rates, and that such reduction was of a very trifling or minimal nature. In other words, the lockdowns did little to stem the natural course of the virus.

I do think it's totally fair to say that the lockdowns came far too late to matter and that by the time people were hunkering down in mid-late March COVID was already everywhere.

More significantly, maybe, it's clear from China's example that you could completely stomp out original COVID and even Alpha and Delta (but maybe not Omicron), but you can only do that if you are willing to implement and, maybe more significantly, enforce much more severe lockdowns than places like the US or Western Europe ever tried. Australia had some success in that vein and clearly did save many lives with its strategy of harsh, repeated lockdowns until mass vaccination. The policies implemented by the US and Western Europe that were fleeting, largely suggestions and only loosely enforced were fairly clearly, looking retrospectively, never going to accomplish much in terms of infection reduction despite being nearly as economically damaging as truly serious lockdowns.

Still, it doesn't feel like we could have known this a priori. Australia and China (among others) show us that there was a lockdown approach that would have worked, so it's not the case that lockdowns generally can't work. The lesson perhaps is that you need to commit, one way or another; there was no reasonable halfway where you could both avoid mass death and severe economic consequences, and, by trying to find middle ground, the US and Western Europe ended up with both.

An Austarlian style or Chinese style lockdown probably wouldn't have passed constitutional muster, would have greatly intensified political polarization, and possibly exacerbated the riots and other violence we saw during the summer of 2020. I think it would have also had more severe consequences, psychologically and morally, for Americans, and I'm not convinced that such policies would have "worked", per se. Even with imposing since rigorous lockdown policies, those two countries were not able to escape the pandemic. Not even New Zealand, which has sealed itself off from the world for most of the last two years, has been able to escape it. Coronavirus has invaded every country at this point.

And it's true that the United States didn't have the most extensive or vigorous lockdown, but the restrictions that were imposed did not yield the benefits that were promised. And in the long term, is it worth it for governments to pursue the same failed strategies in response to future crises? I would hope that they would modify their approach, taking into consideration the consequences of what has happened.

[jamestroll]

The endless covid arguments about what should have happened in the United States ? It is moot.

We do not have an economy that could have been locked down.  Our society was not able to be locked down.

[It’s so Joever]

Actually I think they were unconstitutional, but I have a hard time swallowing that they didn't flatten the death curve at all.

If the argument is that most the benefit came from the voluntary locking down, then it doesn't make sense that the forced lockdowns were a problem.

If the argument is that people staying home and business closing didn't affect the death rate at all, then I don't understand how I haven't gotten a cold in 2 years or how 2 strains of the Flu are probably extinct.

The study notes how the social and economic costs associated with the lockdowns were not worth in the reduction in mortality rates, and that such reduction was of a very trifling or minimal nature. In other words, the lockdowns did little to stem the natural course of the virus.

I do think it's totally fair to say that the lockdowns came far too late to matter and that by the time people were hunkering down in mid-late March COVID was already everywhere.

More significantly, maybe, it's clear from China's example that you could completely stomp out original COVID and even Alpha and Delta (but maybe not Omicron), but you can only do that if you are willing to implement and, maybe more significantly, enforce much more severe lockdowns than places like the US or Western Europe ever tried. Australia had some success in that vein and clearly did save many lives with its strategy of harsh, repeated lockdowns until mass vaccination. The policies implemented by the US and Western Europe that were fleeting, largely suggestions and only loosely enforced were fairly clearly, looking retrospectively, never going to accomplish much in terms of infection reduction despite being nearly as economically damaging as truly serious lockdowns.

Still, it doesn't feel like we could have known this a priori. Australia and China (among others) show us that there was a lockdown approach that would have worked, so it's not the case that lockdowns generally can't work. The lesson perhaps is that you need to commit, one way or another; there was no reasonable halfway where you could both avoid mass death and severe economic consequences, and, by trying to find middle ground, the US and Western Europe ended up with both.

An Austarlian style or Chinese style lockdown probably wouldn't have passed constitutional muster, would have greatly intensified political polarization, and possibly exacerbated the riots and other violence we saw during the summer of 2020. I think it would have also had more severe consequences, psychologically and morally, for Americans, and I'm not convinced that such policies would have "worked", per se. Even with imposing since rigorous lockdown policies, those two countries were not able to escape the pandemic. Not even New Zealand, which has sealed itself off from the world for most of the last two years, has been able to escape it. Coronavirus has invaded every country at this point.

And it's true that the United States didn't have the most extensive or vigorous lockdown, but the restrictions that were imposed did not yield the benefits that were promised. And in the long term, is it worth it for governments to pursue the same failed strategies in response to future crises? I would hope that they would modify their approach, taking into consideration the consequences of what has happened.

He said deaths were prevented, not cases for f**ks sake.

[Calthrina950]

Actually I think they were unconstitutional, but I have a hard time swallowing that they didn't flatten the death curve at all.

If the argument is that most the benefit came from the voluntary locking down, then it doesn't make sense that the forced lockdowns were a problem.

If the argument is that people staying home and business closing didn't affect the death rate at all, then I don't understand how I haven't gotten a cold in 2 years or how 2 strains of the Flu are probably extinct.

The study notes how the social and economic costs associated with the lockdowns were not worth in the reduction in mortality rates, and that such reduction was of a very trifling or minimal nature. In other words, the lockdowns did little to stem the natural course of the virus.

I do think it's totally fair to say that the lockdowns came far too late to matter and that by the time people were hunkering down in mid-late March COVID was already everywhere.

More significantly, maybe, it's clear from China's example that you could completely stomp out original COVID and even Alpha and Delta (but maybe not Omicron), but you can only do that if you are willing to implement and, maybe more significantly, enforce much more severe lockdowns than places like the US or Western Europe ever tried. Australia had some success in that vein and clearly did save many lives with its strategy of harsh, repeated lockdowns until mass vaccination. The policies implemented by the US and Western Europe that were fleeting, largely suggestions and only loosely enforced were fairly clearly, looking retrospectively, never going to accomplish much in terms of infection reduction despite being nearly as economically damaging as truly serious lockdowns.

Still, it doesn't feel like we could have known this a priori. Australia and China (among others) show us that there was a lockdown approach that would have worked, so it's not the case that lockdowns generally can't work. The lesson perhaps is that you need to commit, one way or another; there was no reasonable halfway where you could both avoid mass death and severe economic consequences, and, by trying to find middle ground, the US and Western Europe ended up with both.

An Austarlian style or Chinese style lockdown probably wouldn't have passed constitutional muster, would have greatly intensified political polarization, and possibly exacerbated the riots and other violence we saw during the summer of 2020. I think it would have also had more severe consequences, psychologically and morally, for Americans, and I'm not convinced that such policies would have "worked", per se. Even with imposing since rigorous lockdown policies, those two countries were not able to escape the pandemic. Not even New Zealand, which has sealed itself off from the world for most of the last two years, has been able to escape it. Coronavirus has invaded every country at this point.

And it's true that the United States didn't have the most extensive or vigorous lockdown, but the restrictions that were imposed did not yield the benefits that were promised. And in the long term, is it worth it for governments to pursue the same failed strategies in response to future crises? I would hope that they would modify their approach, taking into consideration the consequences of what has happened.

He said deaths were prevented, not cases for f**ks sake.

No reason for you to become angry at me.

[It’s so Joever]

Actually I think they were unconstitutional, but I have a hard time swallowing that they didn't flatten the death curve at all.

If the argument is that most the benefit came from the voluntary locking down, then it doesn't make sense that the forced lockdowns were a problem.

If the argument is that people staying home and business closing didn't affect the death rate at all, then I don't understand how I haven't gotten a cold in 2 years or how 2 strains of the Flu are probably extinct.

The study notes how the social and economic costs associated with the lockdowns were not worth in the reduction in mortality rates, and that such reduction was of a very trifling or minimal nature. In other words, the lockdowns did little to stem the natural course of the virus.

I do think it's totally fair to say that the lockdowns came far too late to matter and that by the time people were hunkering down in mid-late March COVID was already everywhere.

More significantly, maybe, it's clear from China's example that you could completely stomp out original COVID and even Alpha and Delta (but maybe not Omicron), but you can only do that if you are willing to implement and, maybe more significantly, enforce much more severe lockdowns than places like the US or Western Europe ever tried. Australia had some success in that vein and clearly did save many lives with its strategy of harsh, repeated lockdowns until mass vaccination. The policies implemented by the US and Western Europe that were fleeting, largely suggestions and only loosely enforced were fairly clearly, looking retrospectively, never going to accomplish much in terms of infection reduction despite being nearly as economically damaging as truly serious lockdowns.

Still, it doesn't feel like we could have known this a priori. Australia and China (among others) show us that there was a lockdown approach that would have worked, so it's not the case that lockdowns generally can't work. The lesson perhaps is that you need to commit, one way or another; there was no reasonable halfway where you could both avoid mass death and severe economic consequences, and, by trying to find middle ground, the US and Western Europe ended up with both.

An Austarlian style or Chinese style lockdown probably wouldn't have passed constitutional muster, would have greatly intensified political polarization, and possibly exacerbated the riots and other violence we saw during the summer of 2020. I think it would have also had more severe consequences, psychologically and morally, for Americans, and I'm not convinced that such policies would have "worked", per se. Even with imposing since rigorous lockdown policies, those two countries were not able to escape the pandemic. Not even New Zealand, which has sealed itself off from the world for most of the last two years, has been able to escape it. Coronavirus has invaded every country at this point.

And it's true that the United States didn't have the most extensive or vigorous lockdown, but the restrictions that were imposed did not yield the benefits that were promised. And in the long term, is it worth it for governments to pursue the same failed strategies in response to future crises? I would hope that they would modify their approach, taking into consideration the consequences of what has happened.

He said deaths were prevented, not cases for f**ks sake.

No reason for you to become angry at me.

I’m not angry lmfao, a bit puzzled with you though.

[DINGO Joe]

Johns Hopkins Study: Covid Lockdowns saved 0.2% of Lives at Enormous Economic and Social Costs in US/Europe.

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html

'While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted,' researchers wrote. 'In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.'

I said it in May 2020, when it wasn't socially acceptable, but now I'll say it again: worst public policy decision in decades.

I am curious to know how the situation would have turned out if our leadership had taken the same approach to the pandemic that the Scandinavian countries did, with fewer restrictions and more encouragement of social interaction.

I think your talking about Sweden which took a laissez faire approach and ended up with a death rate 5 or 6 times higher than Finland and Norway who were much stricter.  The Swedish equivalent of Fauci actually got sh**tcanned over it.

[Calthrina950]

Johns Hopkins Study: Covid Lockdowns saved 0.2% of Lives at Enormous Economic and Social Costs in US/Europe.

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html

'While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted,' researchers wrote. 'In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.'

I said it in May 2020, when it wasn't socially acceptable, but now I'll say it again: worst public policy decision in decades.

I am curious to know how the situation would have turned out if our leadership had taken the same approach to the pandemic that the Scandinavian countries did, with fewer restrictions and more encouragement of social interaction.

I think your talking about Sweden which took a laissez faire approach and ended up with a death rate 5 or 6 times higher than Finland and Norway who were much stricter.  The Swedish equivalent of Fauci actually got sh**tcanned over it.

This much is true, but I don't believe that even the strictest responses to this would have been worth the costs-namely, the economic dislocations and the erosion of civil liberties.

[Tintrlvr]

Actually I think they were unconstitutional, but I have a hard time swallowing that they didn't flatten the death curve at all.

If the argument is that most the benefit came from the voluntary locking down, then it doesn't make sense that the forced lockdowns were a problem.

If the argument is that people staying home and business closing didn't affect the death rate at all, then I don't understand how I haven't gotten a cold in 2 years or how 2 strains of the Flu are probably extinct.

The study notes how the social and economic costs associated with the lockdowns were not worth in the reduction in mortality rates, and that such reduction was of a very trifling or minimal nature. In other words, the lockdowns did little to stem the natural course of the virus.

I do think it's totally fair to say that the lockdowns came far too late to matter and that by the time people were hunkering down in mid-late March COVID was already everywhere.

More significantly, maybe, it's clear from China's example that you could completely stomp out original COVID and even Alpha and Delta (but maybe not Omicron), but you can only do that if you are willing to implement and, maybe more significantly, enforce much more severe lockdowns than places like the US or Western Europe ever tried. Australia had some success in that vein and clearly did save many lives with its strategy of harsh, repeated lockdowns until mass vaccination. The policies implemented by the US and Western Europe that were fleeting, largely suggestions and only loosely enforced were fairly clearly, looking retrospectively, never going to accomplish much in terms of infection reduction despite being nearly as economically damaging as truly serious lockdowns.

Still, it doesn't feel like we could have known this a priori. Australia and China (among others) show us that there was a lockdown approach that would have worked, so it's not the case that lockdowns generally can't work. The lesson perhaps is that you need to commit, one way or another; there was no reasonable halfway where you could both avoid mass death and severe economic consequences, and, by trying to find middle ground, the US and Western Europe ended up with both.

An Austarlian style or Chinese style lockdown probably wouldn't have passed constitutional muster, would have greatly intensified political polarization, and possibly exacerbated the riots and other violence we saw during the summer of 2020. I think it would have also had more severe consequences, psychologically and morally, for Americans, and I'm not convinced that such policies would have "worked", per se. Even with imposing since rigorous lockdown policies, those two countries were not able to escape the pandemic. Not even New Zealand, which has sealed itself off from the world for most of the last two years, has been able to escape it. Coronavirus has invaded every country at this point.

This isn't responding to my point; I said they avoided most deaths. And they have. But, even if you're going to focus on cases, Australia barely had any cases before vaccination and reopening. I'm not a forever-lockdowns person and basically think thematically Australia got it right to care a lot until vaccines became available and then stop caring once vaccination was widespread (in contrast to the US and parts of Western Europe that didn't care enough early on and maybe care too much now).

And, yes, maybe Chinese or Australian-style lockdowns would have been challenged in courts, or would have been unsuccessful due to public resistance. On the other hand, their success in Australia, where they were orchestrated by a competent central government, clearly shows that the totally failed response in the West wasn't an inevitable cultural result. But we didn't have the leadership (particularly Trump) who was willing to implement those policies.

In the end, we can debate whether Australian-style lockdowns and total international travel bans would have been worth it. They would have saved a lot of lives, but they also would have caused somewhat more economic hardships than we actually experienced, at least early on, and maybe a lot more economic hardships than would have resulted from just shrugging our collective shoulders. And it's okay to debate which would have been the better plan. But you have to be honest with yourself on what you'd be trading off: It's simply not the case that the only alternatives were US/Western Europe-style policies or doing nothing, and the Australian model was at least quite successful in one sense that it spared many lives.

And it's true that the United States didn't have the most extensive or vigorous lockdown, but the restrictions that were imposed did not yield the benefits that were promised. And in the long term, is it worth it for governments to pursue the same failed strategies in response to future crises? I would hope that they would modify their approach, taking into consideration the consequences of what has happened.

That was the whole point of my point, and I agree that the weak and limited restrictions in the US didn't deliver the results promised. I think that's okay; especially in March-May 2020, we were still learning, and policy mistakes are completely understandable and forgiveable. It's not clear at all that alternative policy approach of shoulder-shrugging would have delivered better results (depending on how you define "better"); what is clear is that the alternative policy approach of serious lockdowns would have delivered better results, defined narrowly as fewer deaths (see discussion above).

I do agree that we should do things differently than we (in the US) did if the exact same scenario happens in the future. However, the exact same scenario won't happen in the future, so that's pretty meaningless.  Even if the next crisis is another novel respiratory disease, it will likely present in ways where weaker or strong policies, or totally different policies, or even the same policies, might be appropriate. There are theoretical respiratory diseases where some US states, or some European countries, actually did perfectly calibrate their responses to address the crisis. We can't know just from our experience with COVID-19.

And I agree with you that for COVID, the time for lockdown policies is almost certainly past, reserving judgment of course for when the next variant comes out that totally ignores vaccination (not only for case spread but also for severity). But no one is really proposing anything resembling the early 2020 policies again for COVID anyway so this is basically a moot point.

[Hammy]

Johns Hopkins Study: Covid Lockdowns saved 0.2% of Lives at Enormous Economic and Social Costs in US/Europe.

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html

'While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted,' researchers wrote. 'In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.'

I said it in May 2020, when it wasn't socially acceptable, but now I'll say it again: worst public policy decision in decades.

Hard to take seriously an article on public health from somebody whose focus is on law and economics.  As others have pointed out, actual health data from countries that had little to no restrictions early on had significantly worse outcomes, and there's a better case to be made about the impact on mental and financial well-being that they caused.

But a paper by an economics professor on the impacts the lockdowns (which impacted the economy) had on viral mortality is no more credible than publishing a paper tying vaccines to autism in order to smear your competitor.

[DINGO Joe]

Johns Hopkins Study: Covid Lockdowns saved 0.2% of Lives at Enormous Economic and Social Costs in US/Europe.

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html

'While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted,' researchers wrote. 'In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.'

I said it in May 2020, when it wasn't socially acceptable, but now I'll say it again: worst public policy decision in decades.

I am curious to know how the situation would have turned out if our leadership had taken the same approach to the pandemic that the Scandinavian countries did, with fewer restrictions and more encouragement of social interaction.

I think your talking about Sweden which took a laissez faire approach and ended up with a death rate 5 or 6 times higher than Finland and Norway who were much stricter.  The Swedish equivalent of Fauci actually got sh**tcanned over it.

This much is true, but I don't believe that even the strictest responses to this would have been worth the costs-namely, the economic dislocations and the erosion of civil liberties.

Dead people seem to cause quite a bit of economic dislocation and in the US at least the death rates the first couple months of the pandemic seem almost quaint to what has followed.

[Calthrina950]

Johns Hopkins Study: Covid Lockdowns saved 0.2% of Lives at Enormous Economic and Social Costs in US/Europe.

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html

'While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted,' researchers wrote. 'In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.'

I said it in May 2020, when it wasn't socially acceptable, but now I'll say it again: worst public policy decision in decades.

I am curious to know how the situation would have turned out if our leadership had taken the same approach to the pandemic that the Scandinavian countries did, with fewer restrictions and more encouragement of social interaction.

I think your talking about Sweden which took a laissez faire approach and ended up with a death rate 5 or 6 times higher than Finland and Norway who were much stricter.  The Swedish equivalent of Fauci actually got sh**tcanned over it.

This much is true, but I don't believe that even the strictest responses to this would have been worth the costs-namely, the economic dislocations and the erosion of civil liberties.

Dead people seem to cause quite a bit of economic dislocation and in the US at least the death rates the first couple months of the pandemic seem almost quaint to what has followed.

You are saying, then, that you disagree with the article's conclusions? And that the lockdown policies which were pursued were worth it?

[MATTROSE94]

Johns Hopkins Study: Covid Lockdowns saved 0.2% of Lives at Enormous Economic and Social Costs in US/Europe.

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html

'While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted,' researchers wrote. 'In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.'

I said it in May 2020, when it wasn't socially acceptable, but now I'll say it again: worst public policy decision in decades.

I am curious to know how the situation would have turned out if our leadership had taken the same approach to the pandemic that the Scandinavian countries did, with fewer restrictions and more encouragement of social interaction.

Not sure how it would have turned out. Another interesting thing to speculate is if the original COVID strain was either Delta or Omicron. If it was Omicron, I would have been less supportive of restrictions at the beginning, but if it was Delta, then I probably would have supported Chinese style lockdowns in the US.

[Pericles]

The study isn't even peer-reviewed, it is nonsense that goes against easily observable experiences from different countries and common sense.

[DINGO Joe]

Johns Hopkins Study: Covid Lockdowns saved 0.2% of Lives at Enormous Economic and Social Costs in US/Europe.

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html

'While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted,' researchers wrote. 'In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.'

I said it in May 2020, when it wasn't socially acceptable, but now I'll say it again: worst public policy decision in decades.

I am curious to know how the situation would have turned out if our leadership had taken the same approach to the pandemic that the Scandinavian countries did, with fewer restrictions and more encouragement of social interaction.

I think your talking about Sweden which took a laissez faire approach and ended up with a death rate 5 or 6 times higher than Finland and Norway who were much stricter.  The Swedish equivalent of Fauci actually got sh**tcanned over it.

This much is true, but I don't believe that even the strictest responses to this would have been worth the costs-namely, the economic dislocations and the erosion of civil liberties.

Dead people seem to cause quite a bit of economic dislocation and in the US at least the death rates the first couple months of the pandemic seem almost quaint to what has followed.

You are saying, then, that you disagree with the article's conclusions? And that the lockdown policies which were pursued were worth it?

Well, I'm not terribly familiar with the timing of the  lockdowns in Europe and the distribution of deaths across the countries.  All I can do is look at the death graphs (those roller coaster rides of surges and declines of deaths in each county.  In the US, the lockdowns clearly limited the impact of the first wave of the pandemic to several urban areas in the US and overall made it the weakest of the waves in the US.  Subsequent waves in the US have been worse and wider spread.  In fact, the most annoying thing about the current wave is that the previous Delta wave never subsided before the Omicron wave   We're on the 6th straight month over over 1000/day.  The original (lock down) wave lasted two months, last winter was 4 months (with the highest peak).  The original lockdowns were disruptive but very impactful in US.  All you have to do is look at a death graph to figure that out.  Europe had a lousy winter 20-21 like the US, but Western Europe at least doesn't look as pathetic as the US graph does over the last six months.