If you are getting proportionally more infections from locked down people than from front line health workers, what does that tell you about the efficacy of lockdowns?
By itself,
nothing at all. :shrug:
If there are 100 or 1,000 front line healthcare workers, and 100,000 people "locked down" the infection RATE could be far higher in healthcare workers, and we'd still see higher nominal numbers from those "locked down." So that figure by itself tells us nothing at all, except that the not-really-lockdown in NYC wasn't 100% effective.
The residents still went out for food, drugs, to walk the dog, to visit friends if they wanted, and to a dozen or more other categories of "essential" businesses. So the public wasn't in NYC or anywhere else truly "locked down." Those measures LIMITED social contacts but didn't eliminate them, and so a reasonable expectation of limiting social contacts was only ever to reduce the spread, not stop it.
This is basic stuff here, and you seem to be missing all of it. Have you not spent 10 minutes thinking about what you're suggesting?
The one thing the NYC study doesn't prove at all is that the lockdowns were successful. Don't you find it odd that states think keeping people closely confined indoors is safe while letting them go outdoors to breezy beaches is dangerous? There's something wrong with that picture.
I agree that the NYC study of new infections doesn't prove
anything, except that limited lockdowns are not 100% effective, which is of course what everyone already expected. You're the one connecting dots that are randomly placed on a page.
And opening beaches doesn't mean just opening the physical space, that strip of sand along the ocean. To open those safely to the PUBLIC requires parking lots, changing rooms, bathrooms, places to serve food and drink, get gas, hotel rooms, access emergency services, and more. For example, the GSMNP closed, but that's because the more than 1 million per month that visit requires a massive amount of infrastructure to support them, including all those things I mentioned, such as restrooms, emergency services, food and drink, and lots of the areas in the park do concentrate huge numbers in small areas, such as a really popular overlook that on a busy day has hundreds on a platform elbow to elbow, and same with some popular hiking destinations.
If you want to find some area on which we can agree, I do agree that some states' efforts to prohibit
some outdoor activities was misguided for a couple of reasons. First, outdoor activities give us an outlet when we're otherwise restricted to stay at home, and being human we need those outlets when the alternative is more TV or staring at a wall. Second, someone walking a trail or fishing in a boat or wading in a stream isn't a risk, or it's a minor risk akin to getting some milk at the store at worst/best, and those risks are IMO acceptable for those who choose to engage in them. But that conclusion depends on the policy. A local park was "open" but they closed the restrooms because it was impractical to keep them clean and safe. So you could walk the trails but not use the facilities, or a couple of playgrounds that also had kids, and parents/grandparents, often packed in elbow to elbow on nice days with people sharing surfaces like the equipment, chairs, tables, etc. I thought that was the right compromise. We didn't go there - too crowded - but it didn't appear to be a vector of disease because perhaps even on a crowded day contact with others walking opposite direction was seconds, not minutes or hours.
