4 ms·

> far, far more people die of very common things More people die of those things in a year than have died of COVID-19 so far but that's the wrong comparison. T

> far, far more people die of very common things More people die of those things in a year than have died of COVID-19 so far but that's the wrong comparison. There's real science and math behind predictions of a much higher toll which would make the comparison look very different. There's also an aspect of who has control over outcomes. People can protect themselves from various ills by eating right, exercising, not smoking, etc. There's no connection to other people's actions or outcomes. With communicable disease, the person who's not worried about their own outcome can cause the literal death of other people who had no choice about being born with certain medical conditions that made them more susceptible. You might feel you're Living Right and you're at no risk yourself, but - as has been pointed out many times but apparently not enough - It's Not Just About You. Your actions are connected to others' outcomes. There's a social responsibility to avoid becoming a vector for infection.

chrismeller 7y ago
I agree that we're not looking at a year's worth of data, but that was also kind of the point... we're not looking at a year's worth of data. If 97 people have died in the US so far... you've got a _long_ way to go, even looking at an exponential growth rate, to even approach the top 10 causes of death in the US. According to the CDC 47,000 people killed themselves in 2017 [1], and that's #10. Also 100% preventable. You also have control over your own susceptibility and spread of something like the flu or the common cold, but no one in the US ever wears a mask to prevent that (though in other countries that is a common sight). 1: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm Edit: It wasn't 8 people who have died, it was 97 according to the CDC. My bad.
- notacoward 7y ago
  > even looking at an exponential growth rate, Do you know how exponential growth works? The exponent matters. A lot. There's a big difference between 1% growth per week and 10% growth every day. According to the actual math and models being used by epidemiologists, over four million people could need ICU-level care for COVID-19. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200317.457910/full/ https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200317.45791... Since we don't have anywhere near that many ICU beds, and there's an even more acute shortage of ventilators, a high percentage of those people wouldn't get the care they need and would therefore die - eclipsing even heart disease in the list you cite. So no, measures to reduce that exponent are not unreasonable. We need to reduce both the number of contacts people have per day and the likelihood that each contact will lead to infection. Please study some math beyond what you've only partially remembered from grade school. > You also have control over your own susceptibility and spread of something like the flu or the common cold Those are far less likely to reach a level where they require hospitalization, let alone ICU-level care. Yes, they're preventable (not 100% BTW), but there's no danger of affecting others by increasing strain on scarce hospital resources, so it's not a very constructive comparison.
  - ykevinator 7y ago
    It's amazing how many epidemiologist don't understand the difference between exponential and polynomial growth.
- whycombagator 7y ago
  > You also have control over your own susceptibility and spread of something like the flu or the common cold, but no one in the US ever wears a mask to prevent that (though in other countries that is a common sight). The mask culture in the US is lacking as you point out. But there is a flu vaccine. They give those out free at every corner/office in the country, pretty much. Yet the US still sees 10s of thousands of dead per year. Also of note, the flu is less fatal (case level) & less transmittable than COVID-19. > If 97 people have died in the US so far 160[0] Look back at 1918, 1957, 1968 flu pandemics[1]. 1918 isn't too recent, but the last two mentioned killed 100k+ in the US, and at least 1 million worldwide. If we get less deaths from COVID-19 than we do with seasonal flu - that doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't worth reacting to. With how easy COVID-19 spreads, the relatively high % of required hospitalization, and lack of a vaccine is exactly why Hubei/Lombardy got in the state they did. Some would prefer to "wait and see" if it gets to those levels in the US, but many would rather act now instead of later. It will certainly be interesting to see how the COVID-19 situation pans out. For the record, I hope you end up being correct! [0] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_pandemic#Influenza_pandemics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_pandemic#Influenza_p...
threatofrain 7y ago
This social responsibility argument is vague and will stay there, because the flu still kills many people, so why are we letting so many people die instead of locking down? Why don't we lock down the schools for the flu to protect those who have immune weaknesses? Where's the moral line or set of criteria for when people's deaths are treated as routine numbers? When economies shut down, at some point people will also start dying and suffering. Is there a quantification for that? How do we trade those lives with other lives? Do we have a morally clear picture of who we're trading for whom?
- notacoward 7y ago
  > because the flu still kills many people As I've already pointed out, that's a false equivalence. COVID-19 != flu. We can (and I believe should) respond differently to different things. It's so simple a child could get it.
  - threatofrain 7y ago
    Yes, I'm asking for what moral reasoning you use to determine that the yearly deaths attributed to the flu shouldn't warrant similar action. Are the numbers there... not high enough for you? Are you okay being a disease vector for the flu because the numbers aren't high enough for you? Is that okay for the immune-privileged? And how many people are dying from economic damage? How does one quantify that? Does one bother to quantify that at all? Do share. If you have a sense of moral clarity, why don't you just share it, instead of hinting that things are so obvious that a child can understand it?
    - notacoward 7y ago
      > Are the numbers there... not high enough for you? They're not high enough to put strain on hospital resources, and therefore to move from a mostly-individual to a mostly-collective type of problem. Nobody else is likely to die because you didn't get a flu shot (BTW the existence of a vaccine is also a factor here) and tied up a ventilator that they also needed. That's a real concern with COVID-19. > hinting that things are so obvious that a child can understand it? I wasn't hinting.

chrismeller 7y ago

I agree that we're not looking at a year's worth of data, but that was also kind of the point... we're not looking at a year's worth of data. If 97 people have died in the US so far... you've got a _long_ way to go, even looking at an exponential growth rate, to even approach the top 10 causes of death in the US. According to the CDC 47,000 people killed themselves in 2017 [1], and that's #10. Also 100% preventable. You also have control over your own susceptibility and spread of something like the flu or the common cold, but no one in the US ever wears a mask to prevent that (though in other countries that is a common sight). 1: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm Edit: It wasn't 8 people who have died, it was 97 according to the CDC. My bad.

notacoward 7y ago
> even looking at an exponential growth rate, Do you know how exponential growth works? The exponent matters. A lot. There's a big difference between 1% growth per week and 10% growth every day. According to the actual math and models being used by epidemiologists, over four million people could need ICU-level care for COVID-19. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200317.457910/full/ https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200317.45791... Since we don't have anywhere near that many ICU beds, and there's an even more acute shortage of ventilators, a high percentage of those people wouldn't get the care they need and would therefore die - eclipsing even heart disease in the list you cite. So no, measures to reduce that exponent are not unreasonable. We need to reduce both the number of contacts people have per day and the likelihood that each contact will lead to infection. Please study some math beyond what you've only partially remembered from grade school. > You also have control over your own susceptibility and spread of something like the flu or the common cold Those are far less likely to reach a level where they require hospitalization, let alone ICU-level care. Yes, they're preventable (not 100% BTW), but there's no danger of affecting others by increasing strain on scarce hospital resources, so it's not a very constructive comparison.
- ykevinator 7y ago
  It's amazing how many epidemiologist don't understand the difference between exponential and polynomial growth.
whycombagator 7y ago
> You also have control over your own susceptibility and spread of something like the flu or the common cold, but no one in the US ever wears a mask to prevent that (though in other countries that is a common sight). The mask culture in the US is lacking as you point out. But there is a flu vaccine. They give those out free at every corner/office in the country, pretty much. Yet the US still sees 10s of thousands of dead per year. Also of note, the flu is less fatal (case level) & less transmittable than COVID-19. > If 97 people have died in the US so far 160[0] Look back at 1918, 1957, 1968 flu pandemics[1]. 1918 isn't too recent, but the last two mentioned killed 100k+ in the US, and at least 1 million worldwide. If we get less deaths from COVID-19 than we do with seasonal flu - that doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't worth reacting to. With how easy COVID-19 spreads, the relatively high % of required hospitalization, and lack of a vaccine is exactly why Hubei/Lombardy got in the state they did. Some would prefer to "wait and see" if it gets to those levels in the US, but many would rather act now instead of later. It will certainly be interesting to see how the COVID-19 situation pans out. For the record, I hope you end up being correct! [0] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_pandemic#Influenza_pandemics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_pandemic#Influenza_p...

threatofrain 7y ago

This social responsibility argument is vague and will stay there, because the flu still kills many people, so why are we letting so many people die instead of locking down? Why don't we lock down the schools for the flu to protect those who have immune weaknesses? Where's the moral line or set of criteria for when people's deaths are treated as routine numbers? When economies shut down, at some point people will also start dying and suffering. Is there a quantification for that? How do we trade those lives with other lives? Do we have a morally clear picture of who we're trading for whom?

notacoward 7y ago
> because the flu still kills many people As I've already pointed out, that's a false equivalence. COVID-19 != flu. We can (and I believe should) respond differently to different things. It's so simple a child could get it.
- threatofrain 7y ago
  Yes, I'm asking for what moral reasoning you use to determine that the yearly deaths attributed to the flu shouldn't warrant similar action. Are the numbers there... not high enough for you? Are you okay being a disease vector for the flu because the numbers aren't high enough for you? Is that okay for the immune-privileged? And how many people are dying from economic damage? How does one quantify that? Does one bother to quantify that at all? Do share. If you have a sense of moral clarity, why don't you just share it, instead of hinting that things are so obvious that a child can understand it?
  - notacoward 7y ago
    > Are the numbers there... not high enough for you? They're not high enough to put strain on hospital resources, and therefore to move from a mostly-individual to a mostly-collective type of problem. Nobody else is likely to die because you didn't get a flu shot (BTW the existence of a vaccine is also a factor here) and tied up a ventilator that they also needed. That's a real concern with COVID-19. > hinting that things are so obvious that a child can understand it? I wasn't hinting.