[throwaway_2009]

People who support lockdowns aren't interested in facts; their viewpoints are shaped by marketing.

It's been blindingly obvious from the moment we knew that coronavirus had a 1% IFR pre-vaccine that all of the restrictions have been net negative.

We're now over 2% of our lives into this _by any definition_, which makes it utterly incontrovertible.

That's why we have constant "reminders" everywhere; it's an attempt to bypass logic by simply bombarding people with nonsense.

[dang]

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. Of course the topic is flammable to begin with, but what you did here stands out noticeably as more flamey than the rest of the thread.

Edit: you posted a whole bunch of flamewar comments to this thread. We ban accounts that do that. Please don't do it again, regardless of what your views are or how right they are or how right you feel they are.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29615430.

[paulryanrogers]

> People who support lockdowns aren't interested in facts; their viewpoints are shaped by marketing.

Sweeping generalizations aren't really adding to the discussion here. Please assume the best of others. We're all trying to find the best way forward with incomplete information. And tying ideas too closely to ones identity, or that of others, won't help us adapt as more evidence come to light.

[dexen]

>Sweeping generalizations aren't really adding to the discussion here

That sentiment fits individualist views and policies, where it behooves us to hear out individuals and consider them on their individual merits.

However the view and policy discussed (limitations on individuals for common good) is explicitly a collectivist view and policy. Applying a sweeping generalization to a collectivist view and policy is fit and proper by the very nature of collectivism.

Edit: corrected a typo from "individuals" to "individualist".

[geofft]

That math doesn't work out, because the infection fatality ratio measures fatality - non-existence - not impaired existence.

Long covid is a thing, and affects a staggeringly large percentage of people who get covid and do not die, significantly affecting the rest of their lives. One recent study claims an infection impaired-quality-of-life ratio of over 50% (https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/how-many-people-get-...).

And in the other direction, we have lived over 2% of our lives in the pandemic living our lives, certainly not as well as any of us would have hoped, but living them nonetheless.

So either the math needs to take into account the reduced quality of life from those affected by covid (not to mention those affected by losing family members, caretakers, etc., those affected by knock-on effects like delayed surgeries, and so forth), or it needs to say, well, we haven't died from the so-called "lockdowns," so if any lives at all were saved, that outweighs the 0% of time we spent dead during them.

It is certainly still possible that the interventions were still net negative, but it's not as simple as 1% of the population dying from covid < 2% of people's lives spent in "lockdowns."

[carom]

>we haven't died from the so-called "lockdowns,"

To be fair, no one here has died from COVID either.

[twofornone]

Not to mention that the IFR is dramatically skewed by age and obesity. Yes, early indications were that COVID was a serious, deadly pandemic, but we've had more than enough time and data at this point to recognize that this is not the plague that it is being treated as.

[paulryanrogers]

Those of us who are immune compromised or obese are people too. I don't expect the whole world to stop for me, though would appreciate if folks take some precautions until hospitals can manage the flood. (In the US over 40% of adults are obese.)