Hacker News Reader

Comment by cm2187 | Hacker News Reader

I am surprised there isn’t a discussion on the effectiveness of lockdowns.

For instance there is a surprising result coming from large serology studies in Spain and Italy, that outside of health workers, people who were locked down have been infected at the same rate than essential workers who were not locked down. Also the shape and timing of the Swedish infections is very similar to other european countries, suggesting the peak was due to the natural evolution of the epidemic rather than lockdowns.

I don’t think this data is compatible with lockdowns being effective, which should be a key issue given all the consequences of lockdowns.

View on HN

The serology studies in Italy are unfortunately underpowered because of a dumb decision: any person positive with IgG (which appear after or very close to the end of the infectious period) would have to quarantine then wait for a double negative PCR test. Thanks to this, only half of the expected people participated.

But surely that would affect both populations (locked down/not locked down) equally

> I don’t think this data is compatible with lockdowns being effective, which should be a key issue

In many countries, it never even had to go that far. In the United States, for instance, the Constitution prevents executives from taking the kinds of actions they took towards locking down the general public.

The reason we have laws is because sometimes the objective realities around us are not the most important consideration. If it is illegal to threaten people who simply wish to leave their own homes with fines, violence, or punishment - it is illegal whether there's a pandemic in progress or not.

Well, lockdowns definitely worked, as there was significant decrease in the number of cases afterwards. Yes, it was a brute force solution that nobody liked. Yes, epidemiologists and politicians still retain it as the last possible resort. But rest assured everything else will be tried before that. Nobody likes lockdowns. We medical researchers had to stay home like everybody else, and we didn't like that a bit.

Sorry, but your logic is not complete. There were reductions of cases in places without lockdowns, as much as that existed.

You can’t just say I used anti-shark spray after I was bit; since I didn’t get bit again it must have worked.

Travel restrictions and mass gathering bans (as well as school holidays) were contributing to the situation, too. Even Sweden had some measures in place, as well as fully closed borders and mass gathering bans. This will be a next step in the current situation for most other countries.

But the question isn't whether soft measures have an impact. It is whether a hard lockdown, closing shops and restaurants, forcing people to stay home, works. If the same result is achieved without those a hard lockdown, we should stop considering it a useful option.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but Sweden has never had "fully closed borders". They have been closed for countries outside of the EU, but that was only to conform with the rest of the union. No borders were closed for public health reasons.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com