The big debate: is lockdown wrong?

[CenterField]

Over 99% of people infected with COVID survive. And the majority of those who do die from COVID aren't going to any beach parties because they're wasting away inside nursing homes where they will die soon anyway. The lockdowns are robbing the young and the healthy of their precious time on this earth in order to protect people who already had the chance to live a full and long life. It's ghoulish and unfair.

I'm not sure that the end tally will be over 99% surviving. This remains to be seen. But yes, maybe it will be so.

I'm concerned about those who survive but still have severe consequences, like permanent lung damage, a propensity to develop blood clots, and who knows what else in the long run, since this is a novel illness that is not fully understood yet?

Again, like I said to the other poster, 48% of people hospitalized with severe COVID-19 are between the ages of 40 and 59. It's not as restricted to 80-year-olds in nursing homes as people sometimes seem to believe.

[Peter1469]

Thanks. I'll definitely look around.

A suggestion maybe for the moderators: it would be nice to have a forum topic just for COVID-19 threads. It would be easier to locate the threads that address this problem, which is attracting so much attention.

About the costs of the lockdown exceeding the benefits, maybe you are right, the way we did it - chaotic, very poorly enforced, very heterogeneous, and most importantly, without a robust payroll protection that might have prevented the huge unemployment numbers we are saying.

We have the highest unemployment numbers of all developed Western countries. They tried even harsher lockdowns than ours but coupled it with the government directly injecting money into business to keep the payroll going; business accepting this help would not be able to lay off employees. Sure, it can't solve all problems but these other countries ended up with much smaller unemployment numbers.

I think it's not the lockdown risks that outweighs the benefits... It's the lockdown costs *as we practiced it* that outweighs the benefits.

Yes, the feds are adding $600 to each state unemployment check. Low wage workers are making more money on unemployment than if they were working. That is just plain stupid.

[Peter1469]

Flattening the curve is a good excuse for a couple of weeks or a month. But not months. It is time to end the lockdowns.

I think the main objective of a lockdown is not to stop the spread, which pretty much can't be accomplished with a virus this contagious (it is estimated that it is up to five times more contagious than the flu). What a lockdown can accomplish, even if it doesn't ultimately decrease the number of people getting infected, is that it avoids the overwhelming of the healthcare system which would happen if everybody peaked at the same time.

If we allowed this to happen (and I think that thankfully we were very successful in avoiding that), the number of "collateral damage" deaths would be huge.

Like I said, someone is young and healthy but gets into a car crash... is hushed to the nearest hospital... but all the beds and ICU beds and ER beds and OR ventilators are taken by COVID-19 patients... then the youngster just dies.

Same if you are taking your child to an ER with a severe asthma attack that might need respiratory assistance while it is abated... but all respiratory devices are taken by COVID-19 patients... and then your child dies.

Not fun, huh?

[Peter1469]

TB is curable with a single dose of penicillin. What's the correct number of deaths is acceptable to you?

No it isn't. Doctors use a course of treatment that lasts at least 6 months.

First-line drugs


The first-line drugs isoniazid (INH), rifampin (RIF), pyrazinamide (PZA), and ethambutol (EMB) are used together in initial treatment (for regimens and doses, see Tuberculosis (TB) : Treatment regimens and Dosing of Oral First-Line Anti-TB Drugs*).


Isoniazid (INH) is given orally once/day, has good tissue penetration (including CSF), and is highly bactericidal. It remains the single most useful and least expensive drug for TB treatment. Decades of uncontrolled use—often as monotherapy—in many countries (especially in East Asia) have greatly increased the percentage of resistant strains. In the US, about 10% of isolates are INH-resistant.



Adverse effects of isoniazid include rash, fever, and, rarely, anemia and agranulocytosis. INH causes asymptomatic, transient aminotransferase elevations in up to 20% of patients and clinical (usually reversible) hepatitis in about 1/1000. Clinical hepatitis occurs more often in patients> 35 yr, alcoholics, postpartum women, and patients with chronic liver disease. Monthly liver function testing is not recommended unless patients have risk factors for liver disease. Patients with unexplained fatigue, anorexia, nausea, vomiting, or jaundice may have hepatic toxicity; treatment is suspended and liver function tests are done. Those with symptoms and any significant aminotransferase elevation (or asymptomatic elevation > 5 times normal) by definition have hepatic toxicity, and INH is stopped.

[Peter1469]

I agree to a point. The lock down wasn't done correctly. Golf course, sailing? The lock down was overkill but still the right thing to do. When I go to the store I have the right not to be killed by someone.

If you think you are at risk don't go to the store.

[CenterField]

Yes, the feds are adding $600 to each state unemployment check. Low wage workers are making more money on unemployment than if they were working. That is just plain stupid.

This is why it would have been preferable to support payroll (thus avoiding unemployment in the first place) than to send checks to unemployed people.

[CenterField]

Flattening the curve is a good excuse for a couple of weeks or a month. But not months. It is time to end the lockdowns.

Well, they are ending. I thought the question here was more one of the past, if having had the lockdown was wrong. I don't think it was, although I think it could have been better.

[carolina73]

This is why it would have been preferable to support payroll (thus avoiding unemployment in the first place) than to send checks to unemployed people.

They did both. We kept paying our employees through the government payroll relief funding, but some people became permanently laid off because owners did not expect to rehire them. They received unemployment plus the $600 stimulus.
Those not working lost nothing and therefore did not need a check.

I'm not sure who is not getting a check in your world that should.

[MisterVeritis]

Caution is not oppression. The Governors acted with the information they had. The Tenth Amendment gives them the power unless they violate the Constitution.

I personally think they went too far with it.

Yes, it is. The Constitution shall not be set aside because of a virus.

[MisterVeritis]

How do you know who is healthy?

How do you know who is guilty? Due process.