3 ms·

On the basis of what research? Some experts are suggesting against these kinds of measures. And this is a serious encroachment on fundamental rights, for a vi

by jMyles 7y ago

On the basis of what research? Some experts are suggesting against these kinds of measures. And this is a serious encroachment on fundamental rights, for a virus whose worst-case scenario is a number of deaths similar to the number of people who die from smoking every year. This policy seems extreme and uninformed to me.

not2b 7y ago
Where do you get the idea that the worst case scenario is similar to the number of deaths from smoking? If half the US population gets the virus and 1% die, that' 1.5 million deaths. But if half the population gets the virus all at almost the same time, hospitals run out of ventilators, and maybe it will be 5% deaths. That's 7.5 million deaths.
- jMyles 7y ago
  I appreciate that we're all doing our own thinking and napkin math here, but the people who crunch these numbers all the time are talking about worst-case estimations much, much lower than that. Here are a bunch of solid papers on the topic: http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/infectious-disease-topics/covid-19#bibliography&1-4 http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/infectious-disease-topics/covid-19...
aeturnum 7y ago
I think there are two different levels for this. First, I think that we should obey lockdown orders that are in line with many (though, as you say, not all) medical experts. Few policies are supported unanimously and, given the stakes, noting that it isn't unanimously supported seems like a very weak critique. Second, if you want to critique the policy, you should probably be providing information on how some experts disagree with this policy and why. If ever there was a time to err on the side of caution this is it, and erring on the side of caution includes being cautious with how we critique health policy. We all have the right (and obligation) to talk about what approach would be best, but in doing that we must not undermine the current, unavoidably imperfect, approach.

by jMyles 7y ago

not2b 7y ago

Where do you get the idea that the worst case scenario is similar to the number of deaths from smoking? If half the US population gets the virus and 1% die, that' 1.5 million deaths. But if half the population gets the virus all at almost the same time, hospitals run out of ventilators, and maybe it will be 5% deaths. That's 7.5 million deaths.

jMyles 7y ago
I appreciate that we're all doing our own thinking and napkin math here, but the people who crunch these numbers all the time are talking about worst-case estimations much, much lower than that. Here are a bunch of solid papers on the topic: http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/infectious-disease-topics/covid-19#bibliography&1-4 http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/infectious-disease-topics/covid-19...

aeturnum 7y ago

I think there are two different levels for this. First, I think that we should obey lockdown orders that are in line with many (though, as you say, not all) medical experts. Few policies are supported unanimously and, given the stakes, noting that it isn't unanimously supported seems like a very weak critique. Second, if you want to critique the policy, you should probably be providing information on how some experts disagree with this policy and why. If ever there was a time to err on the side of caution this is it, and erring on the side of caution includes being cautious with how we critique health policy. We all have the right (and obligation) to talk about what approach would be best, but in doing that we must not undermine the current, unavoidably imperfect, approach.