Comment by BrendanEich | Hacker News Reader

Comment by BrendanEich | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> The argument against lockdowns was based on it being comparable to a cold/flu season.

No:

CDC 2007: https://cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/pdf/community_mitigat... p. 25:

“... the effectiveness of pandemic mitigation strategies will erode rapidly as the cumulative illness rate prior to implementation climbs above 1 percent of the population....”

WHO 2006: http://upmc-biosecurity.org/website/resources/publications/2... argues against lockdowns.

The argument against lockdown as ineffective above 1% spread is based on models, see the references. Whether these are good models or not, that's what CDC policy guidance was.

Western lockdowns with many essential workers spreading the virus, especially nosocomially, are even less justifiable. Wrecking the economy, including health care sector employment and facilities, while leaving people worse off on all other health fronts (deferred checkups and treatments), plus the psychological toll culminating in elevated suicides, is not worth hard-to-measure reduction in spread. Lockdowns actually focus spread into shared housing, notably nursing homes. They also select adversely in the face of mutated variants.

Lockdown policy guidance was not based on cold vs. flu or severity of either. I have no idea why you thought this.

I'd like to point out the obvious but those links are written about flus.

Here is the advice that replaces that 2007 CDC paper (from 2017):

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/rr/rr6601a1.htm

> NPIs can be phased in, or layered, on the basis of pandemic severity and local transmission patterns over time.

It goes on to explain that it may suggest "lockdowns" if the pandemic is severe enough.

Here are the two actual papers that other link is based on (the 2nd of these is more applicable):

- https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/12/1/05-1370_article

- https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/12/1/05-1371_article (see phase 6)

Some quotes:

> A 1959 WHO consultation concluded, "In the Northern hemisphere at least, the opening of schools after the summer holidays seems to have played an important role in initiating the main epidemic phase" (13). Despite the propensity of influenza epidemics to be amplified in primary schools (14), data on the effectiveness of school closures are limited. Apparently no data or analyses exist for recommending illness thresholds or rates of change that should lead to considering closing or reopening schools.

> Apparently no controlled studies assess the efficacy of mask use in preventing transmission of influenza viruses.

> As noted above, influenza virus isolation rates decreased, but since multiple measures were implemented, the contribution of mask use, if any, is uncertain (20). In case-control studies conducted in Beijing and Hong Kong, wearing masks in public was independently associated with protection from SARS in a multivariate analysis.

These papers are from 2006. They are also very clear that the circumstances matter. Regarding international travel, it seems they suggest that restricting travel would be difficult, if not impossible. They suggest closing schools if a link is unknown or found between schools and transmission.

School closure efficacy has been well researched, you found the same links I did when I researched this years ago. We were talking about lockdowns, so why switch to school closures? No need to answer.

Viral family, Flu or CoV, is not material to the modeling work as far as I can tell. The models consider respiratory viruses and attack rate and other such parameters.

No authority that I know of has suggested lockdown in the past for anything similar in mortality to Covid-19. If it's severe enough... but it isn't. Please focus on this. The CDC IFR estimates show Covid-19 as worse for older cohorts, much less severe for younger, than Flu.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com