2020 Suicides Lower Despite Warnings
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2021
Posts: 186
“Conclusion
Although we estimate modest effects of SIP policies, our results should not be taken to imply that the actions of government officials had little effect on the pandemic. There may have been other policies that better mitigated the spread of COVID-19, although SIP orders have been arguably the most drastic and controversial policy. Furthermore, we observe nationwide trends in all outcomes, and these trends may have been highly responsive to the public health recommendations, emergency declarations, and the behaviors of high-profile politicians. Our results also do not mean that sheltering in place per se is an ineffective way to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. If SIP policies did not meaningfully increase the extent to which people actually sheltered in place or socially distanced, our results have nothing to say about the health and societal benefits of staying at home and reducing physical contact with others.
The explanation for our null findings is likely nuanced and multifaceted. One part of the explanation is that many people were already staying at home and social distancing voluntarily even in the absence of SIP policies. Another part of the explanation is, perhaps, that few people who weren’t already changing their behavior complied with the policies. After all, SIP orders appeared to cause less than a 1% decrease in mobility. There was, however, approximately a 50% decrease in mobility nationwide between February and April. The nationwide reaction to COVID-19 almost surely decreased the spread of the disease. SIP orders likely would have been more effective in slowing the spread had more people complied with them, and future SIP orders would likely be more effective if they are coupled with greater enforcement. But we find little evidence that SIP orders, as implemented, had much effect over and above all the other public messaging and voluntary behavior changes occurring nationwide. Although we find no detectable health benefits of SIP orders, we also find that they accounted for a small share of economic costs associated with the pandemic, consistent with other studies (6⇓⇓–9).
Our study is certainly not the last word on this topic. Assessing the effects of SIP orders is difficult, and more information and better designs may become available in the future that enable more precise or more credible estimates. Furthermore, our study focuses on the early months of the pandemic, and the effectiveness of SIP orders could change over time. However, the previously presented evidence on the effectiveness of SIP orders appears to be misleading, and there is currently no compelling evidence to suggest that SIP policies saved a large number of lives or significantly mitigated the spread of COVID-19. However, this does not mean that voluntary social distancing—SIP practice as distinct from policy—was ineffective.”
Maybe read your own article before you shoot yourself in the foot or argue in favor of the opposition? They state that voluntary initial shelter in place undoubtedly helped. And that has places enforced or had populations actually adhered to SIP orders that it would have helped. We never locked down. People still travelled. Went to states that were open so they could eat in a Waffle House and brought it home. It’s not that they didn’t help. It’s that we never even tried.
Although we estimate modest effects of SIP policies, our results should not be taken to imply that the actions of government officials had little effect on the pandemic. There may have been other policies that better mitigated the spread of COVID-19, although SIP orders have been arguably the most drastic and controversial policy. Furthermore, we observe nationwide trends in all outcomes, and these trends may have been highly responsive to the public health recommendations, emergency declarations, and the behaviors of high-profile politicians. Our results also do not mean that sheltering in place per se is an ineffective way to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. If SIP policies did not meaningfully increase the extent to which people actually sheltered in place or socially distanced, our results have nothing to say about the health and societal benefits of staying at home and reducing physical contact with others.
The explanation for our null findings is likely nuanced and multifaceted. One part of the explanation is that many people were already staying at home and social distancing voluntarily even in the absence of SIP policies. Another part of the explanation is, perhaps, that few people who weren’t already changing their behavior complied with the policies. After all, SIP orders appeared to cause less than a 1% decrease in mobility. There was, however, approximately a 50% decrease in mobility nationwide between February and April. The nationwide reaction to COVID-19 almost surely decreased the spread of the disease. SIP orders likely would have been more effective in slowing the spread had more people complied with them, and future SIP orders would likely be more effective if they are coupled with greater enforcement. But we find little evidence that SIP orders, as implemented, had much effect over and above all the other public messaging and voluntary behavior changes occurring nationwide. Although we find no detectable health benefits of SIP orders, we also find that they accounted for a small share of economic costs associated with the pandemic, consistent with other studies (6⇓⇓–9).
Our study is certainly not the last word on this topic. Assessing the effects of SIP orders is difficult, and more information and better designs may become available in the future that enable more precise or more credible estimates. Furthermore, our study focuses on the early months of the pandemic, and the effectiveness of SIP orders could change over time. However, the previously presented evidence on the effectiveness of SIP orders appears to be misleading, and there is currently no compelling evidence to suggest that SIP policies saved a large number of lives or significantly mitigated the spread of COVID-19. However, this does not mean that voluntary social distancing—SIP practice as distinct from policy—was ineffective.”
Maybe read your own article before you shoot yourself in the foot or argue in favor of the opposition? They state that voluntary initial shelter in place undoubtedly helped. And that has places enforced or had populations actually adhered to SIP orders that it would have helped. We never locked down. People still travelled. Went to states that were open so they could eat in a Waffle House and brought it home. It’s not that they didn’t help. It’s that we never even tried.
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2020
Position: Airbus 320 Left
Posts: 254
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2021
Posts: 186
“Conclusion
Maybe read your own article before you shoot yourself in the foot or argue in favor of the opposition? They state that voluntary initial shelter in place undoubtedly helped. And that has places enforced or had populations actually adhered to SIP orders that it would have helped. We never locked down. People still travelled. Went to states that were open so they could eat in a Waffle House and brought it home. It’s not that they didn’t help. It’s that we never even tried.
Maybe read your own article before you shoot yourself in the foot or argue in favor of the opposition? They state that voluntary initial shelter in place undoubtedly helped. And that has places enforced or had populations actually adhered to SIP orders that it would have helped. We never locked down. People still travelled. Went to states that were open so they could eat in a Waffle House and brought it home. It’s not that they didn’t help. It’s that we never even tried.
Are you just so defensive of the failure of how we handled covid that you aren’t reading what you’re writing?
They said, and I paraphrase, “SIP didn’t really do much. Yes, it saved lives, but not nearly as many as the officials say.” Yes, it worked in the beginning (no duh, people were actually scared in the beginning and actually stayed home). But you can’t SIP forever, and that’s exactly what this study is showing. It’s showing that in a controlled environment, SIP works. But in REAL LIFE, it doesn’t work. People are people and it is inhumane to expect people to be afraid and not leave their house for an undisclosed amount of time.
In real life, you can’t eradicate a virus that is highly contagious by just hiding from it. People are designed to live their lives, and that’s what they did.
In a perfect world, we could kill the virus in 3 weeks by not a single person leaving their house. But this isn’t a perfect word; some people have “essential” jobs, some people have terrible homes, some people have no homes, some people don’t care about the rules, the list goes on and on.
This study shows what many have been saying all along (not the MSM or progressive politicians); the SIP orders were terrible because they don’t account for real life circumstances.
It doesn’t matter how many models show it SHOULD work because the reality is they don’t work.
And further, they’re flawed from the very beginning. The goal of SIP is to stop the spread of a virus. That doesn’t line up remotely with the goal of life. Life goals are feed your family, work, provide, have fun, visit family, do new things, be active. Life isn’t about stopping a virus. So you can’t throw a bunch of orders on a nation and expect them to follow it without question when it doesn’t line up with the other important aspects of life.
If you wanna drink the koolaid and think you’re saving lives, by all means, be a hero. But don’t put your life choices on others and expect them to do the same without question.
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2017
Posts: 198
Are you just so defensive of the failure of how we handled covid that you aren’t reading what you’re writing?
They said, and I paraphrase, “SIP didn’t really do much. Yes, it saved lives, but not nearly as many as the officials say.” Yes, it worked in the beginning (no duh, people were actually scared in the beginning and actually stayed home). But you can’t SIP forever, and that’s exactly what this study is showing. It’s showing that in a controlled environment, SIP works. But in REAL LIFE, it doesn’t work. People are people and it is inhumane to expect people to be afraid and not leave their house for an undisclosed amount of time.
In real life, you can’t eradicate a virus that is highly contagious by just hiding from it. People are designed to live their lives, and that’s what they did.
In a perfect world, we could kill the virus in 3 weeks by not a single person leaving their house. But this isn’t a perfect word; some people have “essential” jobs, some people have terrible homes, some people have no homes, some people don’t care about the rules, the list goes on and on.
This study shows what many have been saying all along (not the MSM or progressive politicians); the SIP orders were terrible because they don’t account for real life circumstances.
It doesn’t matter how many models show it SHOULD work because the reality is they don’t work.
And further, they’re flawed from the very beginning. The goal of SIP is to stop the spread of a virus. That doesn’t line up remotely with the goal of life. Life goals are feed your family, work, provide, have fun, visit family, do new things, be active. Life isn’t about stopping a virus. So you can’t throw a bunch of orders on a nation and expect them to follow it without question when it doesn’t line up with the other important aspects of life.
If you wanna drink the koolaid and think you’re saving lives, by all means, be a hero. But don’t put your life choices on others and expect them to do the same without question.
They said, and I paraphrase, “SIP didn’t really do much. Yes, it saved lives, but not nearly as many as the officials say.” Yes, it worked in the beginning (no duh, people were actually scared in the beginning and actually stayed home). But you can’t SIP forever, and that’s exactly what this study is showing. It’s showing that in a controlled environment, SIP works. But in REAL LIFE, it doesn’t work. People are people and it is inhumane to expect people to be afraid and not leave their house for an undisclosed amount of time.
In real life, you can’t eradicate a virus that is highly contagious by just hiding from it. People are designed to live their lives, and that’s what they did.
In a perfect world, we could kill the virus in 3 weeks by not a single person leaving their house. But this isn’t a perfect word; some people have “essential” jobs, some people have terrible homes, some people have no homes, some people don’t care about the rules, the list goes on and on.
This study shows what many have been saying all along (not the MSM or progressive politicians); the SIP orders were terrible because they don’t account for real life circumstances.
It doesn’t matter how many models show it SHOULD work because the reality is they don’t work.
And further, they’re flawed from the very beginning. The goal of SIP is to stop the spread of a virus. That doesn’t line up remotely with the goal of life. Life goals are feed your family, work, provide, have fun, visit family, do new things, be active. Life isn’t about stopping a virus. So you can’t throw a bunch of orders on a nation and expect them to follow it without question when it doesn’t line up with the other important aspects of life.
If you wanna drink the koolaid and think you’re saving lives, by all means, be a hero. But don’t put your life choices on others and expect them to do the same without question.
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2021
Posts: 186
You can do literally all of your life goals covid-safe without needing to go to clubbing, to a football game, Disneyland or to Dennys. The article explicitly says that preventative measures saved lives. I’m sorry you need to be told what to do in order to elicit any compassion or benefit for anyone other than yourself. It SHOULD come naturally.
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Posts: 2,460
Unless you own a business or work for a business that is interconnected to any of the above businesses.
#29
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2021
Posts: 371
Unless you own a club or are a bartender. Unless you own a business connected to football or are employed by a business dependent on football. Unless you work at Disneyland or own or work at a Dennys.
Unless you own a business or work for a business that is interconnected to any of the above businesses.
Unless you own a business or work for a business that is interconnected to any of the above businesses.
How many lives saved would it take to make shelter in place worth it to you?
1,000?
1,000,000?
1,000,000,000?
We're all rational men and women. There has got to be a calculus where mitigation to save X lives is worth the temporary sacrifices and expenditures we've suffered.
What's your number?
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2017
Posts: 198
I asked this at the beginning of the pandemic, I'll ask it again.
How many lives saved would it take to make shelter in place worth it to you?
1,000?
1,000,000?
1,000,000,000?
We're all rational men and women. There has got to be a calculus where mitigation to save X lives is worth the temporary sacrifices and expenditures we've suffered.
What's your number?
How many lives saved would it take to make shelter in place worth it to you?
1,000?
1,000,000?
1,000,000,000?
We're all rational men and women. There has got to be a calculus where mitigation to save X lives is worth the temporary sacrifices and expenditures we've suffered.
What's your number?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post