
Take the Shutdown Skeptics Seriously - mrfusion
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/take-shutdown-skeptics-seriously/611419/
======
twblalock
It's disturbing how the goalposts have been changing around the shelter-in-
place orders.

The original argument was to "flatten the curve" to prevent hospitals from
becoming overwhelmed. By that logic, areas where the hospitals have not been
overwhelmed (which is most of the United States) should be gradually reducing
restrictions, and only maintaining the restrictions necessary to prevent
hospitals from becoming overwhelmed.

Lately, the prevailing argument seems to be that we need to shelter in place
because virus cases will increase if we don't. That was not the original
justification. Of course cases will increase! The question ought to be, will
they increase to the extent that they overwhelm hospital capacity?

Most of the people quoted in the article agreed with shelter-in-place orders
in the first place, and now they are being labeled as "skeptics" for sticking
with the original rationale.

~~~
WalterBright
They're all just winging it. The software model being used is garbage:

[https://lockdownsceptics.org/code-review-of-fergusons-
model/](https://lockdownsceptics.org/code-review-of-fergusons-model/)

The "Ferguson Model" is described here:

[https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01003-6](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01003-6)

~~~
creato
This model is not the _only_ reason governments have acted. They also saw what
happened in Wuhan, Italy, NYC, etc.

Also, the US federal government doesn't use it, they use a model from UW:
[https://www.vox.com/future-
perfect/2020/5/2/21241261/coronav...](https://www.vox.com/future-
perfect/2020/5/2/21241261/coronavirus-modeling-us-deaths-ihme-pandemic)

~~~
WalterBright
Is the UW model based on the Ferguson code or not? The article I cited says
Microsoft is doing a rewrite of the Ferguson code, and the UW model is funded
by Bill Gates' foundation, and we all know that Bill is closely connected to
Microsoft.

~~~
joshuamorton
Given that the UW model chronically underestimates the US death toll, can you
explain the reasoning behind "we shouldn't trust the model, but also we should
still reopen"?

~~~
thu2111
The UW model can't be said to estimate or underestimate anything at all - it's
just curve fitting and is being constantly updated because the moment they
issue an update, it's immediately out of line with reality. And not just out
of line but outside the uncertainty bounds too.

There's a review of the performance of the model and its updates here:

[https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/coronavirus-
pandemic-p...](https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/coronavirus-pandemic-
projection-models-proving-unreliable/)

------
jonstewart
Friedersdorf has a number of quotes concerning the impact of a long term
shutdown (and/or recession). That doesn’t seem like the same thing as being a
shutdown skeptic.

Part of the point of the safer at home orders is to buy time, not only to
avoid oversubscription of hospitals but also for government to ramp up
testing, protocols, contact tracing, and so on. Look at South Korea for how
that can work.

Unfortunately the federal government has squandered the opportunity to plan,
prepare, and implement at every step along the way. At the same time, the bulk
of the push to open comes not from reasoned argument, but special interests.
The protesters seen at state capitols are victims of fake news, astroturfing
organizers, and disinformation campaigns.

That Friedersdorf doesn’t discuss those dynamics—at all—makes me lose a lot of
respect for him. It’s just lazy both-sides journalism, where a contrarian
viewpoint is taken up with very little justification, examination of the
facts, or assignment of responsibility to important actors. Very disappointing
to read this in The Atlantic considering so much of its coverage -has- been so
good.

------
wk_end
Without commenting on whether I agree or disagree with anything in the article
itself, I do find the rhetorical sleight-of-hand curious: the writer is
effectively asking the reader to "take the shutdown skeptics seriously" by
articulating the same points that "shutdown skeptics" have made and that
haven't been taken seriously.

Or, put another way: despite the prevarication, the author clearly _is_ a
shutdown skeptic, of course they want shutdown skeptics to be taken seriously!

~~~
lux
There's still a valid point in there that we should take the underlying need
seriously, not the proposed solution of reopening.

For example, a solution could be as simple as America financially supporting
its citizens like other countries have done, reducing the desperation that's
causing the pressure to reopen sooner than they likely know is safe. Don't
make it a lesser of two evils choice in the first place.

Reminds me of something I read on here about assuming a strong man version of
people's arguments instead of a straw man one. Maybe they're knowingly
protesting because they believe those are the only choices they have.

~~~
microcolonel
> _For example, a solution could be as simple as America financially
> supporting its citizens like other countries have done_

Money is not nutritious when eaten.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I believe the parent's point is this: We need an economy that produces a
certain amount of stuff - food, water, electricity, fuel, healthcare. We can't
just make that stuff appear by moving or printing money, we have to actually
produce the stuff.

Now, I know, that was the idea behind "critical infrastructure" \- we had to
keep _those_ things running, even if we shut down everything else. But the
longer we shut down, I suspect the more things we find that are critical.
(Made up example: Water is critical, so water treatment is critical, so the
chemicals used are critical, so the ingredients to manufacture them are
critical, so certain kinds of mining are critical, so eventually mining
machinery is critical.)

~~~
microcolonel
It turns out the majority of things people work on are a critical and fragile
component of the supply chain of an essential good or service.

------
drfrank
The U.S. doesn't have to choose between total shutdown and total opening.
Targeted opening is feasible.

The U.S. also doesn't have to choose between individual destitution and death
of the vulnerable. Some combination of financial support covered by bonds with
freezing debt collection of various categories would provide significant
relief.

As in all macroeconomic challenges a combination of approaches is necessary.

~~~
filoleg
Exactly. I think that a lot of “lockdown skeptics” are totally cool with a
targeted and phased restriction lift-up that involves clear metrics on how and
when each stage should proceed. But it all gets drowned out by people
instantly resorting to “they are advocating for an instant lift-up of all
restrictions, what a bunch of morons who don’t care for human lives” sort of
arguments, as soon as they hear anything but a unanimous agreement with an
indefinite lockdown.

~~~
greglindahl
The current policy for my county, state, and federal government is a targeted
and phased restriction lift-up, that involves metrics that unclear because we
don't really know enough yet.

You might want to re-evaluate the "lockdown skeptics" arguments in that light.

~~~
filoleg
>that involves metrics that unclear because we don't really know enough yet

Not knowing numbers is not the same as vague or unclear metrics. For example,
saying "phase 3 will proceed once the hospital occupancy goes below 30%"
doesn't qualify as vague in my book (numbers and such obviously made up by
me). While we don't know when that happens, the metric itself is very clear
and specific.

What kind of metrics does your county's lift-up plan use that are unclear just
"because we don't really know enough yet"?

------
Jabbles
This entire discussion seems to miss the point that it is not black-and-white.

Every year, tens of thousands of people in the US die from influenza. But the
economy is not shutdown to prevent this. We recognise that the cost of tens of
millions of dollars per life saved is not worth it.

People seem to think it's morally bankrupt to put a cost on saving lives. But
that is what we (as a society) do every day. Every healthcare system puts a
price on each treatment. In the US the patient (or insurance) pays for it. In
the UK an ethics council will determine if that is a good use of the finite
money the system has.

But in order to have a proper discussion about this, we need to have some
numbers. How many lives will be saved, how much will it cost? Is "lives saved"
even the right metric? Any article that hand-waves away the numbers is
worthless.

A thought experiment for both sides: at some point your opinion would change,
for/against the lockdown. How much more or how much less deadly would COVID-19
have to be for you to change your mind?

~~~
anoncareer0212
You're repeating the article with some grandiose hand-waving to compare it to
the flu, when it's already killed 5x any flu season in just 4 months :/

~~~
Jabbles
I don't think you read my comment at all.

~~~
aaomidi
The problem is you start by comparing this to the flu.

People are going to stop reading after that because it's generally a pattern
of another idiot rambling.

Don't write in that pattern if you don't want people to interpret it in that
pattern.

~~~
Jabbles
Yes judging from the responses that seems to be what happened.

Maybe I could compare it to car accidents - we don't ban driving because the
costs would be enormous.

I hope that doesn't spawn replies about self-driving cars...

~~~
aaomidi
Well, the difference between this and your examples is that it was a novel
situation.

The question always comes to would you rather over react or under react to a
novel pandemic?

It's also interesting that this conversation about economics isn't spreading
more towards alright now that we have this lock down are there any monetary
policy changes we can make to allow us to adapt to this?

Many other countries have dealt with the economic consequences of the lockdown
better than the US, despite being poorer countries.

------
gremlinsinc
There was an article that I saw yesterday, CBB to dig it up that said if only
80% of Americans wore masks we could nearly rid the country of corona virus.

That's all it takes. Such a simple thing. We can't have full re-opening while
we have self-ish protesters who revel in spreading the disease and make a
mockery of public health. If they'd have some personal responsibility or if
stores would just take the initiative nationally to require masks for every
patron, we'd be over this by fall, and subsequent waves wouldn't be so bad.

A post from someone in my hometown yesterday on facebook had a guy boycotting
great clips because they made him put on a mask to step foot inside and he had
to make an appointment. (State law now for all stylists/barbers/etc.). All it
takes is respect of others AND the virus to stop this thing. Why can't people
do this?

~~~
robk
No one can say masks would have that effect. Not enough evidence (yet?)

~~~
ceejayoz
[https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/05/masks-
covid-19-infec...](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/05/masks-
covid-19-infections-would-plummet-new-study-says)

> “One reason is that nearly everyone there is wearing a mask,” said De Kai,
> an American computer scientist with joint appointments at UC Berkeley’s
> International Computer Science Institute and at the Hong Kong University of
> Science and Technology. He is also the chief architect of an in-depth study,
> set to be released in the coming days, that suggests that every one of us
> should be wearing a mask—whether surgical or homemade, scarf or bandana—like
> they do in Japan and other countries, mostly in East Asia. This formula
> applies to President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence (occasional
> mask refuseniks) as well as every other official who routinely interacts
> with people in public settings. Among the findings of their research paper,
> which the team plans to submit to a major journal: If 80% of a closed
> population were to don a mask, COVID-19 infection rates would statistically
> drop to approximately one twelfth the number of infections—compared to a
> live-virus population in which no one wore masks.

~~~
greglindahl
Article in Vanity Fair about a computer scientist who plans on submitting a
paper for peer review at some point in the future.

I wear a mask, but I have no illusions about how unsettled the science around
doing so is.

~~~
dkfjdkfjda
I agree there's a lot of misconceptions and myths about masks. It clearly is
not a panacea, it's really difficult (or even impossible) to quantify the
impact, especially when combined with other precautions. Plus there's very
little research about how masks affect this particular virus, because it's
always somewhat specific.

IMO the best thing we can do is look at experience from countries that managed
to get the infection under control, like SK. I highly recommend these
interviews with one of their leading experts, what he says makes a lot of
sense:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwoNP9QWr4Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwoNP9QWr4Y)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAk7aX5hksU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAk7aX5hksU)

When he says face masks are one of the effective measures, I'd probably trust
him ... The question is what exactly should be the rules.

Our country is in a lockdown for ~2 months now, and most of the time face
masks were required when leaving the house. We're probably going to relax the
rules a bit soon, only requiring them when closed spaced, etc. Which probably
makes sense, it's pointless to wear a mask when jogging alone in the woods, or
something like that (and people were not following that perfectly anyway).

My personal opinion is that face masks do help, partly because they limit how
far your droplets reach, partly because it limits how frequently you touch
your face. Even a simple home-made mask or scarf will help with that.

I think a lot of the "do not wear masks" recommendations in many countries is
due to concerns that a recommendation to wear a face mask would make the
shortage even worse.

~~~
greglindahl
> IMO the best thing we can do is look at experience from countries that
> managed to get the infection under control,

What experience? You go on to recommend listening to an interview. I was
hoping for data. Remember that we're discussing the suggestion in this pre-
pre-preprint that we can be confident that wearing masks has a huge effect on
the infection rate.

------
eveningcoffee
I do not understand what is going on in US and in UK. Both have reached some
plateau but the daily new cases are not going down. This has been going on for
over a month.

I presume that this is result of too late reaction to the outbreak but perhaps
somebody knows better.

~~~
agd
Possible that it’s simply due to increased testing capacity. Before, many
cases did not show up in the figures because there weren’t many tests carried
out.

~~~
watwut
Are you sure testing capacity went up? I don't recall reading about that.

~~~
orangecat
Daily tests have increased over the last several weeks:
[https://covidtracking.com/data/us-daily](https://covidtracking.com/data/us-
daily)

~~~
Scipio_Afri
Yes but the percentage of positive tests accounts for the increase in testing
rates. Positive tests divided by total tests.

If percent positive of all tests is the same as before then the infection rate
is not decreasing, or increasing - its constant. That is the case in many
areas although some are seeing decreases or increases. E.g. some are
increasing (e.g. Maine, South Dakota), some are decreasing (e.g. NYC, NJ),
some are constant (e.g. DC/MD/VA have been constantly at 20% positive for the
last couple of weeks now).

Most states are looking for a decreasing rate of positive tests for two weeks
especially of its the percent positive case is under 10%. Generally under 10%
is considered under control or manageable by experts.

~~~
joshuamorton
This isn't correct. Tests aren't given randomly. They're rationed and given
only to the most at risk people. As testing capacity increases, tests can be
given to groups who are less likely to be infected.

So at first tests were basically only given to people who had multiple
symptoms, to be sure. Now you can get a test in my area if you're asymptomatic
but working at a job that requires you to come into contact with other people.

If the percent positive of all tests is constant even as you test more people,
that means that even as you test less obviously symptomatic people, the number
of infected is constant, which could mean the infection rate is going up. Or
not, but it's not certain that it's complex.

> Generally under 10% is considered under control or manageable by experts.

Can you cite this?

~~~
Scipio_Afri
"There's no exact number to aim for, but here's a guiding principle: You want
a low percentage of your tests to come back positive, around 10% or even
lower, says William Hanage, an epidemiologist at Harvard."

[https://www.npr.org/sections/health-
shots/2020/04/22/8405263...](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-
shots/2020/04/22/840526338/is-the-u-s-testing-enough-for-covid-19-as-debate-
rages-on-heres-how-to-know)

There are several other sources out there that state that for example the WHO
also recommended it as a guideline. Yes not everyone is being tested but the
10% does account to some degree of the "severity" of those being tested. If
you're only able to test the most likely cases you'll get a much higher %
positive.

------
lmilcin
Take the trucks with bodies seriously.

Take doctors deciding who to give the respirator to seriously.

Today facts don't matter as much. But I see these things and I remember this
is only about 1% (maybe couple) of population getting sick already
overwhelming the system and I don't need any more convincing.

------
greendave
> Critics are dismayed. Citing forecasts that COVID-19 deaths could rise to
> 3,000 per day in June, they say that reopening without better defenses
> against infections is reckless.

The problem at this point is that there is little evidence that shutting down
is improving our defenses. The federal effort is not there. The state efforts
are haphazard. Worse, while the shutdown was strong enough to destroy the
economy, it was enacted unevenly and poorly enforced so that transmission
outside of the NY area has barely dropped at all. Without reducing
transmissions significantly, there are simply too many cases and too little
infrastructure to trace, test and quarantine.

The United States will likely serve as a cautionary tale for the rest of the
world for a long time to come.

~~~
fxtentacle
I believe the US has been treated as a cautionary tale ever since January 20,
2017 ;)

------
microcolonel
Reminder to the professional class: Money is not nutritious when eaten. There
is only so much that financial support can do when productivity and efficiency
are slashed.

It may seem like everything will blow over if the Uber Eats fairy magically
manifests food in exchange for currency at the homes of Americans, but for
money to function there must also be productivity.

------
fxtentacle
This article seems to have an odd relationship with nuanced facts.

While it is correct that nobody knows for sure how long it will take until
medicine or vaccination are available, there are estimates that one can use
for planning. But the article goes from "there is a level of uncertainty" to
"impossible to know, let's ignore it completely".

Similarly, while the article is technically correct that the US is currently
doing deficit spending, it really isn't the immutable fact that they present
it as. It would be quite easy to levy taxes so that there's no deficit. Taxing
the rich could finance the current level of stimulus spending for years, but
the article goes from "we'll need to make adjustments to our system" to "it is
impossible".

------
kazagistar
Almost all these arguments have the same basic structure.

1\. We depend on X 2\. X is provided by free trade and the open market. 3\.
Quarantine hurts free trade and the open market. 4\. Therefore, ongoing
quarantine hurts X.

While the argument is sound, removing or reducing the quarantine (ie, solving
point 3) is not the only solution. You can also change point 2, on a case by
case basis, and remove the supply chain dependence on markets, money, profit,
and capitalism.

Of course, someone who is "pro opening the economy" will be unable to accept
this option on ideological or often self interest grounds, and thus try to
reduce the option space to a simple binary, because mass death is better then
the replacement of an economic paradigm from which they have benefited so.

------
yhersk0vitz
As a wise man once said - "If no one's making stuff, there won't be any
stuff."

------
tayo42
There's nothing to be taken seriously. These skeptics seem to be the
equivalent of anti vax people. They read a couple bias confirming articles and
studies and fill in the blanks for the rest of the argument. These skeptics
aren't experts, they don't have all of the information. The continue to act
enlightened. The internet has given a loud voice to minority. Why would I
trust someone who has only just started to read about infections and policy
over our actual leaders who are being briefed each day, working with real
experts and getting constant data.

really this whole think just shows either lack of critical thinking and
foresight or that there are a lot of sociopaths that can't have any empathy.

For anyone calling for the reopening of cities, even something like try it out
and see (maybe this is better on this site, filled with engineers who don't
just test stuff out live and see what happens) are you willing to die for this
cause? Or are you willing to let a loved one die for this cause?

------
goodcanadian
We are never going to "beat" the virus with lockdown restrictions. We could be
in lockdown for two years, and the virus would still be there. We could try to
hold out for a vaccine, but the optimistic estimate for a timescale is still
on the order of a year or two. Meanwhile, the lockdown has real costs. Setting
aside the direct economic effects (which I do believe are also important to
consider), isolation and reduction of income cause real mental and physical
health problems. At some point, the costs of the lockdown exceed the costs of
the virus. I won't pretend to know exactly where that line is. The only real
solution, in my mind, is to go for herd immunity as quickly as possible. That
doesn't mean relaxing all restrictions, but it does mean tailoring the
restrictions to maintain a high, but manageable case load in order to let the
virus go through the population as quickly as possible without overwhelming
medical systems. Of course, we should do our best to protect vulnerable people
both to avoid unnecessary deaths and to limit the strain on health care. I
believe the balance can be found, and as we learn more, we will be able to
tailor our methods to control the virus while minimizing the impact on
society.

------
htnsao
I think the article is spot-on.

So far only .03% of the population of Sweden has died from Covid-19.
(3.2k/10.2M). Pretty negligible. Does that really justify the consequences of
shutting down the world economy?

Most of those people were going to be dying soon anyway. Like my grandma, she
was 93.

I think we are experiencing the modern equivalent of China's disastrous "Great
Leap Forward". But instead of being caused by terrified bureaucrats listening
to a tyrant, this time it's from terrified politicians listening to the
bleeding-heart media. The same folks that are always whining about something
have now brought about the "Great Leap Backward".

One could say the world is now suffering under the tyranny of the media. Or
rather, suffering the tyranny of the meek.

~~~
joshuamorton
I think people overestimate how "open" Sweden really is. It's not particularly
more open than many states, it's just that businesses and individuals have
chosen to take individual responsibility to protect society[0], as opposed to
fighting it as a danger to the economy and an infringement on rights.

[0]:
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2020/apr/21/...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2020/apr/21/sweden-
covid-19-policy-trust-citizens-state)

~~~
htnsao
Ok so look at Brazil, 11k dead out of 212M = .005%

~~~
awalsh128
It looks like you are just cherrypicking examples and wildly speculating.
Brazil is early into this and seeing a high rate of transmission (R0 2.8). We
really don't know enough in this country's case what the end result will be in
terms of mortality.

~~~
htnsao
>It looks like you are just cherrypicking examples and wildly speculating.

Hardly. Those are the two countries that have resisted shutdown of their
economies and are showing negligible percentage of deaths.

And the World Food Programme has stated that the coronovirus shutdown is
putting ~265 million at risk of famine and "as our Executive Director told the
UN Security Council on Tuesday, we could be looking at 300,000 people dying
every day for three months" [0]

>Brazil is early into this and seeing a high rate of transmission (R0 2.8). We
really don't know enough in this country's case what the end result will be in
terms of mortality.

Yeah. Perhaps it will bump up from .005% of their population dying to .03%.
Mostly the already sick and elderly.

[0]:[https://www.dw.com/en/world-food-program-act-now-to-
prevent-...](https://www.dw.com/en/world-food-program-act-now-to-prevent-
coronavirus-famine/a-53219305)

------
Analemma_
> Denunciations of that sort cast the lockdown debate as a straightforward
> battle between a pro-human and a pro-economy camp. But the actual trade-offs
> are not straightforward.

The irony here is that these sentences are correct, but the author comes to
exactly the wrong conclusion from them. There is no battle between a pro-human
and pro-economy camp, because if we just threw the doors open and let the
virus rage out of control, everyone would end up staying home out of fear
anyway and there'd be no difference, in terms of economic damange, from a
state-mandated shutdowns now. Note that there is nothing preventing you from
flying right now, but the planes are still empty. Or how the government is
ordering meat processing plants to reopen but they are still running way below
capacity because workers are just staying home so they don't get sick.

It is not a choice between economic damage and lives lost, it's a choice
between an orderly lockdown now and a chaotic _de facto_ lockdown later,
except the latter has a lot more people dying - the economic damage is
inevitable either way.

Do not take shutdown skeptics seriously, they don't deserve it.

~~~
dkfjdkfjda
That's not what the article says, though. It merely says that lockdowns do
have consequences too, particularly prolonged ones, and we should consider
those too. But such discussion is largely impossible because the whole issue
got framed as good vs. evil, and even just questioning some aspects of the
lockdown (say, school closures) gets you labeled as someone who essentially
wants to murder vulnerable people.

FWIW I do live in a country which is in lockdown for ~2m now, and I do think
it was the right thing to do. But it's not really feasible to stay in
indefinite lockdown - not just because of economy, but because of impact on
public health etc.

