(no subject)

[ny_quant]

JPMorgan has a devastating piece arguing that infection rates have declined — not increased — in states where lockdowns have ended, “even after allowing for an appropriate measurement lag.” (Kolanovic)

(1/x) pic.twitter.com/E6TJ3Qsa2b

— Carl Quintanilla (@carlquintanilla) May 20, 2020

Comments

[misha-b.livejournal.com]

I am not sure what the argument is exactly. It is not like everyone instantly went to a crowded club after the lockdown. We probably have to wait for a few weeks to see any effects.

And this makes no sense at all: “This means that the pandemic and COVID-19 likely have its own dynamics unrelated to often inconsistent lockdown measures that were being implemented..” Perhaps you can argue that social distancing/masks without lockdown would have similar effect, but clearly those things affect the virus spread.

[ny-quant.livejournal.com]

// Perhaps you can argue that social distancing/masks without lockdown would have similar effect

Indeed I would.

[misha-b.livejournal.com]

That's a reasonable argument, I don't think we have enough information to judge. I think we will see soon whether those measures are effective.

However, to say that lockdowns make epidemics worse is IMHO absurd.

[ny-quant.livejournal.com]

// to say that lockdowns make epidemics worse is IMHO absurd.

I don't think he says that.

[misha-b.livejournal.com]

My understanding is that he claims that the epidemic has its own dynamics and lockdowns do not help to slow it down. I find this absurd, since we know the physical mechanism of viral spread and lockdowns clearly make it more difficult for the virus to propagate. Am I misinterpreting what he is saying?

[ny-quant.livejournal.com]

// My understanding is that he claims that the epidemic has its own dynamics

yes

// and lockdowns do not help to slow it down

no, only the excessive portion doesn't help