3 ms·

You seem to be setting up a false dichotomy between your original position ("that's too vague to justify destroying the economy") and your current one ("we shou

You seem to be setting up a false dichotomy between your original position ("that's too vague to justify destroying the economy") and your current one ("we should do this all the time for other diseases"). I reject that, as anyone who believes in logic should. There are places we can draw a line that affects behavior. I believe that one such line is between an immediate danger of someone dying for lack of life-saving resources vs. a situation where any such danger is more attenuated. You might think the line should be elsewhere, and that's fine, but you don't even seem to be trying to define one. Instead you seem to be looking only at the extremes, and using both as an excuse to argue with anything in between. Pretty low even for HN. BTW, I have actually discussed this with children, and they have no trouble understanding how the current situation is different than flu. Maybe that's because they're not obfuscating for the sake of argument itself.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
threatofrain 7y ago
> 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. Influenza kills tens of thousands per year, and people are getting sick through social contact. The fact that the medical system is having trouble doesn't change the how -- sick people getting other people sick. That's the part that makes it a social problem, the part where one person's actions potentially kills another. The "logic" can be made pretty clear but you just prefer to respond with... "logic" instead of figures. I've asked who is paying for whom and how much. That is the uncertainty I see in the situation, and the discussion which I see lacking. There's not even a 6-month vision for what's going to happen.
- notacoward 7y ago
  You want figures? I've already cited a report estimating a possible 4.4M people needing ICU-level care. That's vs. ~85K ICU beds and ~62K ventilators. https://www.healthaffairs.org/pb-assets/documents/blog/blog_exhibit_2020_03_17_jha_1-1584462367887.pdf https://www.healthaffairs.org/pb-assets/documents/blog/blog_... http://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/resources/COVID-19/200214-VentilatorAvailability-factsheet.pdf http://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/resources/COVID-19/20... Even if those patients were spread evenly over the whole year and across hospitals, which is totally unrealistic, that's tens of thousands who couldn't get the care they need and would probably die. This has already happened in Italy, which has a better ratio of resources to population than the US. BTW, that doesn't even count the people who need those resources for completely separate reasons (including the flu you pretend to care about), or those who get a bed/ventilator and die anyway, or those who never even get as far as the hospital. Add all that up and COVID-19 could exceed even heart disease as the year's #1 killer - as I already said. By contrast, hospitals have been absorbing the congruent load related to flu, on top of the normal load from everything else, for years. "More than we can handle" vs. "less than we can handle" is a pretty basic kind of difference, and a good example of the quantitative becoming qualitative. And if you had spent half the effort looking these numbers yourself that you've spent stealth-advocating for one position by attacking its opposite (didn't see you giving chrismeller this much of a hard time for a less-supported answer) you'd be familiar with those numbers already. > one person's actions potentially kills another The set of actions that could potentially kill another is vast. Making that the standard without addressing likelihood or intent or anything else is solipsistic. > I've asked who is paying for whom and how much Ah, always with the dollars. I won't even dignify that with a detailed response. It's your turn to take an actual stand, and defend it as you demand others defend theirs. What numbers are you assuming for the economic collapse you've predicted? What rational basis is there for believing that the cure is literally worse than the disease? Can you debate with facts instead of "avoid bad things" and emotion?
  - objectivetruth 7y ago
    >What numbers are you assuming for the economic collapse you've predicted? What rational basis is there for believing that the cure is literally worse than the disease? Can you debate with facts instead of "avoid bad things" and emotion? You won't get an answer because they realize that putting an actual dollar amount on the lives of those who will die isn't quite acceptable yet, even on a libertarian paradise site like HN.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

threatofrain 7y ago

> 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. Influenza kills tens of thousands per year, and people are getting sick through social contact. The fact that the medical system is having trouble doesn't change the how -- sick people getting other people sick. That's the part that makes it a social problem, the part where one person's actions potentially kills another. The "logic" can be made pretty clear but you just prefer to respond with... "logic" instead of figures. I've asked who is paying for whom and how much. That is the uncertainty I see in the situation, and the discussion which I see lacking. There's not even a 6-month vision for what's going to happen.

notacoward 7y ago
You want figures? I've already cited a report estimating a possible 4.4M people needing ICU-level care. That's vs. ~85K ICU beds and ~62K ventilators. https://www.healthaffairs.org/pb-assets/documents/blog/blog_exhibit_2020_03_17_jha_1-1584462367887.pdf https://www.healthaffairs.org/pb-assets/documents/blog/blog_... http://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/resources/COVID-19/200214-VentilatorAvailability-factsheet.pdf http://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/resources/COVID-19/20... Even if those patients were spread evenly over the whole year and across hospitals, which is totally unrealistic, that's tens of thousands who couldn't get the care they need and would probably die. This has already happened in Italy, which has a better ratio of resources to population than the US. BTW, that doesn't even count the people who need those resources for completely separate reasons (including the flu you pretend to care about), or those who get a bed/ventilator and die anyway, or those who never even get as far as the hospital. Add all that up and COVID-19 could exceed even heart disease as the year's #1 killer - as I already said. By contrast, hospitals have been absorbing the congruent load related to flu, on top of the normal load from everything else, for years. "More than we can handle" vs. "less than we can handle" is a pretty basic kind of difference, and a good example of the quantitative becoming qualitative. And if you had spent half the effort looking these numbers yourself that you've spent stealth-advocating for one position by attacking its opposite (didn't see you giving chrismeller this much of a hard time for a less-supported answer) you'd be familiar with those numbers already. > one person's actions potentially kills another The set of actions that could potentially kill another is vast. Making that the standard without addressing likelihood or intent or anything else is solipsistic. > I've asked who is paying for whom and how much Ah, always with the dollars. I won't even dignify that with a detailed response. It's your turn to take an actual stand, and defend it as you demand others defend theirs. What numbers are you assuming for the economic collapse you've predicted? What rational basis is there for believing that the cure is literally worse than the disease? Can you debate with facts instead of "avoid bad things" and emotion?
- objectivetruth 7y ago
  >What numbers are you assuming for the economic collapse you've predicted? What rational basis is there for believing that the cure is literally worse than the disease? Can you debate with facts instead of "avoid bad things" and emotion? You won't get an answer because they realize that putting an actual dollar amount on the lives of those who will die isn't quite acceptable yet, even on a libertarian paradise site like HN.