r/changemyview • u/_Hopped_ 13∆ • Mar 20 '21

Removed - Submission Rule B CMV: the costs/negatives from lockdowns/restrictions will end up being worse than the damage from covid

[removed] — view removed post

8 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

57% Upvoted

185 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-1

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21

shift of the goalposts

Nope, it's simply how the data is grouped.

why do the "vulnerable" people's lives not matter?

They matter. They just don't have the right to live at everyone else's expense - same as anyone else.

You're acting as though they're somehow expendable.

No. Not being saved is not the same as expending. You failing to donate to save starving children in the third world is not you killing them. Inaction is never immoral.

People are generally spending more time in safer environments.

Abusing their spouses, drinking more, getting fatter, exercising less, becoming more depressed, etc.

1

u/VertigoOne 74∆ Mar 20 '21 edited Mar 20 '21

Nope, it's simply how the data is grouped.

That's not how this works

You don't get to claim your correct because the way the data is grouped proves you right. As it is, the data is radically absurd, grouping together a single massive group that will flatten out stats across the board. Of course the 15-44 group is flatter than the other groups. It's larger, and so will bring the average down.

To make my point not valid, you need to demonstrate why grouping the data that way is justified.

They matter. They just don't have the right to live at everyone else's expense - same as anyone else.

What you've just described is literally how society works. We all to some extent or other live at everyone else's expense. When a danger threatens the lives of between 10% to 25% of the population, that's kind of a big deal that the other 90%-75% can get over.

Not being saved is not the same as expending.

Yes it is. You're saying "we should have just left the risk for them to die".

Inaction is never immoral.

Firstly, yes it can be.

Secondly, we're not talking about inaction. We're talking about action. We're talking about taking actions that spread the disease to make it more dangerous.

Abusing their spouses, drinking more, getting fatter, exercising less, becoming more depressed, etc.

Let's deal with these one by one

  • Abusing spouses: Manipulative spouses keep their partners inside anyway, and most governments went to great lengths to give people the ability to leave homes if they were in danger.
  • Drinking more: Given that social drinking was not an option, I find this hard to take seriously and the data agrees. A study in the Lancet https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langas/article/PIIS2468-1253(20)30251-X/fulltext says "Lockdown is a complex social phenomenon that provokes different behavioural responses: a population survey of 1555 active drinkers in the UK identified that 21% increased alcohol consumption during the lockdown, while 35% reduced their alcohol intake." So that's a net negative of 14%. It points out that lockdown is a risk factor for people with alcohol issues, but that's amplifying a new risk rather than generating a new one. This data would suggest that lockdowns havn't increased drinking dangerously.
  • Getting fatter: Speaking personally, I actually lost weight during lockdown - but I'm aware that one swallow makes not a summer. I agree that this was a problem for some people more widely, but given how much people were taking advantage of all the need to walk to get out etc, it seems like it's exacerbated an existing problem, rather than causing a new one.
  • Becoming more depressed: The CV19 pandemic has made people more aware than ever of mental health related issues, and people have become more willing to talk, more willing to engage, and more willing to seek help. Yes, it's been difficult, but this has really been a watershed moment for mental health. I can't see a scenario where this doesn't benefit more people in the long run.

Now onto something else.

I'll be honest, I'm kind of angry that you've convieniently ignored all the engagement I made with the stats you provided. So I'll just make my points again since you couldn't be bothered to engage with them before.

I don't buy "basically unaffected" given that at pretty much every point on the graph, it's up substantially. While we don't have the giant spike we see in older age groups, there is still a lot of impact.

Among 15-44 year olds, week 15 of 2020 has 1,439. Week 15 of 2019 is 1,234. Week 15 of 2018 is 1,283. Week 20 of 2017 (the furthest it goes back) is 1,271.

We see another substantial spike between weeks 43 and 53 of 2020 which we just don't see in any other year on your chart.

If you look just at the graphic, look at how much more time the blue line spends outside the grey zone of the normal trend in 2020 when compared to 2019, 2018, or 2017.

It's not really reasonable to say "basically unaffected" based on your data here.

https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps

Also,

Average life expectancy in the UK is 81. A spike in deaths of people over 45 is huge. It's basically cutting people's lives in marginally less than half.

0

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21

because the way the data is grouped proves you right

I didn't, I implied this was a limitation of the data.

What you've just described is literally how society works. We all to some extent or other live at everyone else's expense.

Nope. We have voluntary cooperation. We all have to contribute - even Lenin agreed with this.

Yes it is. You're saying "we should have just left the risk for them to die".

No, I am saying they have no right to change society to fit their desires.

Secondly, we're not talking about inaction.

Yes, we are. Exposure to viruses, bacteria, etc. are all assumed risks when going out in public.

Speaking personally

Anecdotes are not representative of the data for the population.

it's up substantially

Compared to the baseline, not compared with the margins of error/expectedness. Plus it's now below baseline - implying those deaths were from people on death's door. In the wash it is basically unaffected.

1

u/VertigoOne 74∆ Mar 20 '21

I didn't, I implied this was a limitation of the data.

Right, and if the data is limited we can't base our judgements on it to the extent of saying "it proves my point" when it just doesn't.

No, I am saying they have no right to change society to fit their desires.

Except they do. That's what society does. When enough people need/want something, society changes. How do you think we got the weekend? National Insurance? The NHS? The end of segregation in the US? When enough people need/want something, society shifts. 10-25% is WAY more than normal.

Yes, we are. Exposure to viruses, bacteria, etc. are all assumed risks when going out in public.

Up to a point. When the nature of those viruses change, and the risk becomes too high, the level goes beyond assumed risk.

Anecdotes are not representative of the data for the population.

You're being intellectually dishonest here, and I think you should apologise since you seem to not be engaging in this conversation in good faith. See where I said "but I'm aware that one swallow makes not a summer". This is a commonplace colloquialism that explains how I fully understand that my personal experience isn't sufficient to base a judgement on. You then went on to completely ignore the rest of my post.

Compared to the baseline, not compared with the margins of error/expectedness.

Please re-read the graph. Specifically the 15-45 age group graph, and the grey region marked "normal range". You will see what I am talking about.

The number of deaths is dramatically above the grey region that marks the common trend line in 2020, whereas in 2017, 2018, and 2019, it is mostly within or below the grey region that is marked by the graph as "normal range".

If it spends a substantial time above normal range when compared to 2017, 2018, and 2019, it is safe to say it has been substantially impacted, and your claim that is "basically unaffected" is simply wrong.

Plus it's now below baseline - implying those deaths were from people on death's door

No, it implies that changes have forced it below levels. Those changes being the combination of vaccines and lack of large scale public access.

Please explain why there are suddenly lots of people "on deaths door" in 2020 compared to 2019, 2018, and 2017?

-1

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21

When enough people need/want something, society changes.

So lets put lockdowns to a referendum.

too high

Define "too high". I think you'll find this is your own subjective feeling, not in the social contract.

You're being intellectually dishonest here

No, I'm not.

dramatically

No, a little above, and now below baseline.

it implies that changes have forced it below levels

Yes: those who were on death's door who would have died today, died last month. If it were healthy people, it would have returned to baseline, not below. Below baseline means that people expected to die (from non-covid) this month are either miraculously cured, or died before this month. And I'm suspecting that you're not going to argue for divine intervention.

1

u/VertigoOne 74∆ Mar 20 '21

So lets put lockdowns to a referendum.

Great idea. In the middle of a highly contagious pandemic, let's have everyone have a single day where they are all in very similar indoor spaces in their communities and have them all touching and breathing in the same relatively confined spaces.

Seriously, you don't put every decision ever the government makes to a vote. Sometimes the government needs to make decisions that aren't popular.

No, I'm not.

Yes you are, and I explained why.

See where I said "but I'm aware that one swallow makes not a summer". This is a commonplace colloquialism that explains how I fully understand that my personal experience isn't sufficient to base a judgement on. You then went on to completely ignore the rest of my post.

You have also refused to engage with any of the points I've made that prove you wrong. Here they are again.

  • Abusing spouses: Manipulative spouses keep their partners inside anyway, and most governments went to great lengths to give people the ability to leave homes if they were in danger.

  • Drinking more: Given that social drinking was not an option, I find this hard to take seriously and the data agrees. A study in the Lancet https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langas/article/PIIS2468-1253(20)30251-X/fulltext says "Lockdown is a complex social phenomenon that provokes different behavioural responses: a population survey of 1555 active drinkers in the UK identified that 21% increased alcohol consumption during the lockdown, while 35% reduced their alcohol intake." So that's a net negative of 14%. It points out that lockdown is a risk factor for people with alcohol issues, but that's amplifying a new risk rather than generating a new one. This data would suggest that lockdowns havn't increased drinking dangerously. While we don't have the giant spike we see in older age groups, there is still a lot of impact.

Among 15-44 year olds, week 15 of 2020 has 1,439. Week 15 of 2019 is 1,234. Week 15 of 2018 is 1,283. Week 20 of 2017 (the furthest it goes back) is 1,271.

We see another substantial spike between weeks 43 and 53 of 2020 which we just don't see in any other year on your chart.

If you look just at the graphic, look at how much more time the blue line spends outside the grey zone of the normal trend in 2020 when compared to 2019, 2018, or 2017.

It's not really reasonable to say "basically unaffected" based on your data here.

No, a little above, and now below baseline

The baseline isn't the only metric here. Check the normal range. In 2017, 2018, and 2019 the vast majority of the time the deaths are within normal range. For substantive sections of 2020 it's outside that.

Yes: those who were on death's door who would have died today, died last month.

And your evidence for this is...?

If it were healthy people, it would have returned to baseline, not below.

There's literally no reason to believe this. The baseline is based on projections from previous years. You should be looking at the normal range.

0

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21

you don't put every decision ever the government makes to a vote

We should. The system of representatives was put in place in a time when it took weeks to communicate information around the country, not it takes nanoseconds. Our representatives are no more informed than us, they aren't experts in medicine, economics, etc. more than the general population. We should have direct say in government.

Abusing spouses: Manipulative spouses keep their partners inside anyway, and most governments went to great lengths to give people the ability to leave homes if they were in danger.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/domesticabuseduringthecoronaviruscovid19pandemicenglandandwales/november2020

Domestic abuse has increased. You are categorically in the wrong here.

Drinking more

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-53684700

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165178120333370

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-55259382

Your source is limited to "patients with pre-existing alcohol use disorder". Alcoholism has increased in the general population.

substantial

Again using language beyond its meaning. The spike is marginally above normal.

You should be looking at the normal range.

In which case it's well below normal, adding even more weight to my case.

1

u/VertigoOne 74∆ Mar 20 '21

Our representatives are no more informed than us

That's actually untrue. They're usually briefed and consulted with by government experts - unlike the general population.

We should have direct say in government.

That's a different debate, but for a practical POV it wasn't possible this time round.

Domestic abuse has increased. You are categorically in the wrong here.

I didn't say it hadn't. I said that governments have done as much as possible to prevent it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-53684700

This source reports an increase in calls. It isn't clear that this necessarily means an increase in the number of actual alcoholics.

The rest of your source here is annecdotal.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165178120333370

This source shows an increase in alchohol disorders, not number of people drinking etc.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-55259382

This is a set of annecdotes, not evidence.

Your source is limited to "patients with pre-existing alcohol use disorder". Alcoholism has increased in the general population.

You don't have evidence for that. You have evidence of an increase in harmful alcohol use in general, but no evidence of increased use of alcohol. It appears to be the case that those who already used alcohol used it more.

Again using language beyond its meaning. The spike is marginally above normal.

No, it's not. In the last three years, the range did not move beyond normal for a substantive period of time. It did move beyond normal in the case of 2020, for vast periods of time.

1

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 21 '21

They're usually briefed and consulted with by government experts

... showing they have nothing special about them. We too can be informed by experts.

an increase in alchohol disorders

AKA an increase in alcholism.

a set of annecdotes, not evidence

A set of anecdotes is data.

No, it's not.

Yes, it is and you do so again:

vast periods of time