4 ms·
I agree, but the death rate of COVID-19 may not be high enough to justify a huge increase in risk tolerance.
by Robotbeat 7y ago
I agree, but the death rate of COVID-19 may not be high enough to justify a huge increase in risk tolerance.
- Chemranch2020 7y agoThere are many solutions especially the O2 respiratory mask which is very effective against airborne particles and viruses. You can get it here. http://chemexoticshop.com/product/buy-o2-breath-mask-online/ http://chemexoticshop.com/product/buy-o2-breath-mask-online/
- vondur 7y agoYou may be correct about the death rate, but the disruption that it's causing the global economy may change the calculus in the FDA.
- Someone1234 7y agoWe should risk people's lives because doing otherwise may harm the economy..?
- vondur 7y agoI'm not saying that, but I'm sure there are people in the Government who are taking that point when making these decisions.
- gdsimoes 7y agoHarming the economy is also a risk to people’s lives, though.
- jokoon 7y agoTo what extent? Please expand because this depends on how people's lives depends on the economy. You can take good measures that slows down the economy without endangering people's lives. Of course you can also consider social unrest to be a risk but that's another matter.
- buckminster 7y agoIf people's lives don't depend on the economy, why don't we all stop working?
- jimmaswell 7y agoWall Street and stock prices are detached from day to day life for most people.
- buckminster 7y ago"The economy" isn't just what happens on Wall Street.
- mellavora 7y agoWell, for one, I depend on the economy for my food. I also depend on it for my drinking water. Oh, and in winter, for my heat. Leaving that aside, I've also found the economy helpful in providing me with clothes and shelter. And when I have gone off in the woods and played survivalist (and yes, I have), I depended on the economy not only for much of the gear which enabled this, but also for keeping me safe from attack by other tribes while off in the woods. No-one was fighting me for a particular foraging/hunting ground.
- AlexandrB 7y agoSo you’re in favor of policies that aggressively redistribute wealth to help mitigate such risks for the most vulnerable (the poor)?
- papito 7y agoMan, where have you been?
- xiphias2 7y agoDearh rate for sever cases is huge. We'll get the first test results at end of march/start of april. If I have 30% chance of dying I take anything that lowers the chance significantly.
- hutzlibu 7y agoEven if the side effects are cancer in a year? Strong, consistent headache? Organ poisening? Permanent weakening of immune system? ... And you would have to be very old and with strong preconditions, to have a 30% death chance with corvid-19. And then any side effects would be even more fatal.
- dnautics 7y agoThat's arbitrary. What's the death rate for severe flu? If I define severe to be "throwing a fever of greater than 42 C" it'll be really high.
- mellavora 7y agoflu mortality is about 0.1% though, like Covid, varies by age group/pre-existing. Also varies by strain/year
- isbadawi 7y agoThe parent's point is about the metric of "death rate for severe cases", which is ambiguous depending on how you define severe. You could pick a definition of severe such that the death rate is 100%, but that wouldn't be super useful.