So after reading a misleading meme on the internet I was compelled to compare the COVID situation in Canada over the past few months to that in the USA. This is what I notice.

The Canadian stock market has crashed by a thousand points since the beginning of the year and COVID cases in Canada have **increased** 700% since mid june... Compared to america where the stock market has **increased** by 3,000 points since the beginning of the year (thatsa 33% increase) and covid cases has **dropped** by more than 50% since the beginning of july.

The issue with lockdowns is they look great to everyone who is too ignorant to understand whats going on, but they devastate the economy and do no good because the second you let up the lock down no one has immunity and the virus spreads like it is new. So in the long run you get hit hard in the wallet AND in terms of the infection. Meanwhile the americans approach may have resulted in more infection early on but fewer in the long term and without damaging the economy along the way.

@freemo "the wallet" wouldn't matter if we didn't have a capitalist economy where money was needed by so many ppl for survival. End capitalism.

@rbe_expert Yes it would. Even if you could some how figure out a way to make a non-capitalistic society work without everyone starving to death in general (has never been down) the productivity and ability to make progress in terms of infrastructure and resources still has just as much effect on the health of the population as in a capitalist society. If you lock everyone away and prevent them from working resources, including food, become scarce and people start dying.

The only difference you'd have in an idealistic non-capitalist society, say communism, would be instead of some people starving a bit more than others, everyone would starve and die together.

@freemo I'm obviously NOT saying lock EVERYONE away, just the non-essential people most of the time. Strawman argument.

@rbe_expert Yes I know what your saying. that has the same consequences, just to a slightly lesser extent than locking everyone away.

Point is lockdowns don't work, to any extent, when dealing with a virus that has the sorts of qualities this virus has. A full lockdown would have the worst long-term results, a partial lock down isnt quite as bad but still does more harm than good.

Lockdowns do not work at surpressing a virus that is in the wild globally, has a large portion of asymptomatic carriers, has short incubation periods, and has weak long-term immune response.... it literally has all the characteristics that a lockdown is **not** suited for as a solution.

@freemo I don't understand why any of that is relevant. What you're saying is like "preventing driving through intersections without stoplights is bad because you can still get into accidents!" But the point is to reduce the spread and therefore the deaths. Isolate areas where the virus has been shown to spread to. Introduce randomized periodic testing to determine where it has spread to as a population.

@rbe_expert No your analogy is completely naive to the points of the argument, it isnt like that at all.

The point made here is exactly that lockdowns **do not** reduce the spread overall spread, it will only **delay** the spread. That is the key.

Its easy to understand why that is if you imagine an ideal lockdown where there is absolutely no spread of the virus locally, but where the virus remains in the wild. All that would do is put things on pause, you'd have no cases of any kind but eventually lockdown gets lifted. When it does you are right back at square one, the lock down had no benefit as now you have the whole population in the wild, no immunity, and the vir5us spreads exactly as it would when it was first introduced if no lock down were instituted. So it would effectively do nothing to reduce the spread of the virus in the long term.

If you consider partial (imperfect) lockdowns the scenario is the same except instead of completely pausing the spread it only temporarily slows it down and once the lockdown is lifted it goes back to spreading at its normal pace again and the overall numbers infected long-term would be the same as if the virus had never spread.

Now in the above scenario the total number infected would be the same long-term in both a full lockdown, partial lockdown, or no lockdown, if we were talking about a virus like measles where once you get it you are immune for life, because with such a virus you can develop a perfect herd immunity once a certain level of spread is reached, thus you an upper level which is always a constant for long-term end results.

However in this case we do not have the normal immunity properties we expect with measles, instead we have the same immunity properties we have with all other coronavirus-class viruses (for example the common cold is about 50% of the time a type of coronavirus). What we see is that when someone has a very mild case, particularly asymptomatic, then their immunity lasts only on the order of weeks. In a severe case the immunity appears to be in the ballpark of a year max, just like we see with types of coronavirus.

This changes the dynamics of herd immunity significantly. Consider the simple case where everyone had a severe infection (just to make the mental exercise easier to understand). Also lets pick a random number of 70% population immunity could theoretically cause herd immunity. If 70% of the population got infected overnight we would have herd immunity for a year and no new infections would be seen for a year after that. However if you slowed down the infection so that you stopped all new cases for a whole year and locked down everyone, then when they were released there would be no herd immunity, you'd see the same overnight spike, and you just wasted a year of your life in lockdown with no benefits, in the end the people still got infected.

So in the end the lockdowns dont help. There is in fact only one argument for the lock down, if your hospitals go over 100% capacity then a partial lock down makes sense to slow the virus just enough to get capacity below 100%. But in such a case you want a minimal lockdown such that it is just barely enough to get the numbers under 100% but no more than that. The USA hospitals on average have maintained a margin under 100% so this has not been an issue.

@freemo Can you show to me that a lockdown can't slow spread enough and long enough to prevent mass casualties while a vaccine is developed and distributed within a 2-3 year period?

@rbe_expert you are assuming a vaccine can and will be developed. But every indication is that is unlikely.. for starters we have been trying to create vaccines for corona virus class viruses for many decades now and have never created a successful long-lasting vaccine for a single corona-class virus in the 30+ years we have tried.

Second the nature of this virus suggests even if we do create a vaccine it iis likely to not be very effective. We have seen this virus has exceptionally short immunity time when you have a weak immune response with asymptomatic carriers being able to be reinfected on an order of weeks. It is only with massive immune responses (people sick enough to be in the hospital) do we see any appreciable immunity which current numbers suggest would be on the order of only a year.

Since vaccines by their nature tend to create weak immune responses, and especially given our failure to produce particularly effective vaccines in the past on this class of virus anyway, in all liklihood we will not see a vaccine that will be of any substantial benefit here.