3 ms·

Because the normal flu does not kill at a rate of covid-19. The post above does not try to dispute that covid-19 is what it is and is not suggesting that it is

by th2020032010 7y ago

Because the normal flu does not kill at a rate of covid-19. The post above does not try to dispute that covid-19 is what it is and is not suggesting that it is a normal flu. We are definitely dealing with something different than normal flu. But you have to consider that majority of the population will go through this without showing symptoms.

StavrosK 7y ago
What you're saying is "a disease kills people who were going to die from it anyway". No, those people weren't going to die if not for COVID-19, and you can say the same thing for any disease, tautologically.
- dirtydroog 7y ago
  He's saying that it's the combination of COVID-19 and other illnesses that cause fatalities. Getting COVID-19 on its own won't kill the majority.
  - StavrosK 7y ago
    He said, verbatim: > The medical advancements in the last 100 years increased the survival chances of many who would not be here already, if not said advancements. Ie "those people wouldn't be here if not for the reasons that let them be here", ie tautological bullshit. Guess what, they also wouldn't be dead if not for COVID-19. Saying "x wouldn't happen if not for the thing that caused it to happen" isn't some profound statement.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  I remember reading about the Great Smog of London in 1952. Yeah the smog killed a lot of people with 'bad lungs' and underlying disease. Two possibilities is mostly people that were going to die anyways died, or it killed people who otherwise had many years of life in them despite their dodgy health. Later analyst of the death records showed it was the latter. The death rate increased. But then did just returned to 'normal' The mortality was excess.
  - StavrosK 7y ago
    But even if it were the former, what does that mean? That you were somehow "supposed" to die from it and were cheating by not dying? By that reasoning, many people are supposed to be eaten by lions, they should get back to the jungle and learn to run better.
    - Gibbon1 7y ago
      You can think of there being two populations of people with health issues who on their way out. And those who are not on their way out. The difference is the former are going to show up in the statics in weeks to months. If an insult kills the former then they get clustered together in the death records. And after that the mortality rate should drop. Because they're dead already. If you don't see that drop afterwards it means the insult killed a bunch of people with health issues who weren't going to die anytime soon. An example I saw was of a WWI vet who had reduced lung capacity because he got gassed during the war. He died during the smog despite being 'okay' beforehand.
      - StavrosK 7y ago
        Sure, but that doesn't make either group "okay" to let die.
        Gibbon1 7y ago
        Goodness no.
        StavrosK 7y ago
        Then there's no point to that argument, save as many people as you can, and anyone you couldn't save is a tragedy.
        Gibbon1 7y ago
        Personally I think the argument is hideous. And it's wrong as well. It's a 'bargaining' argument. Of the same genera of argument that justifies doing nothing about sex trafficking because it doesn't happen women and girls from respectable families.

StavrosK 7y ago

What you're saying is "a disease kills people who were going to die from it anyway". No, those people weren't going to die if not for COVID-19, and you can say the same thing for any disease, tautologically.

dirtydroog 7y ago
He's saying that it's the combination of COVID-19 and other illnesses that cause fatalities. Getting COVID-19 on its own won't kill the majority.
- StavrosK 7y ago
  He said, verbatim: > The medical advancements in the last 100 years increased the survival chances of many who would not be here already, if not said advancements. Ie "those people wouldn't be here if not for the reasons that let them be here", ie tautological bullshit. Guess what, they also wouldn't be dead if not for COVID-19. Saying "x wouldn't happen if not for the thing that caused it to happen" isn't some profound statement.
Gibbon1 7y ago
I remember reading about the Great Smog of London in 1952. Yeah the smog killed a lot of people with 'bad lungs' and underlying disease. Two possibilities is mostly people that were going to die anyways died, or it killed people who otherwise had many years of life in them despite their dodgy health. Later analyst of the death records showed it was the latter. The death rate increased. But then did just returned to 'normal' The mortality was excess.
- StavrosK 7y ago
  But even if it were the former, what does that mean? That you were somehow "supposed" to die from it and were cheating by not dying? By that reasoning, many people are supposed to be eaten by lions, they should get back to the jungle and learn to run better.
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    You can think of there being two populations of people with health issues who on their way out. And those who are not on their way out. The difference is the former are going to show up in the statics in weeks to months. If an insult kills the former then they get clustered together in the death records. And after that the mortality rate should drop. Because they're dead already. If you don't see that drop afterwards it means the insult killed a bunch of people with health issues who weren't going to die anytime soon. An example I saw was of a WWI vet who had reduced lung capacity because he got gassed during the war. He died during the smog despite being 'okay' beforehand.
    - StavrosK 7y ago
      Sure, but that doesn't make either group "okay" to let die.
      - Gibbon1 7y ago
        Goodness no.
        StavrosK 7y ago
        Then there's no point to that argument, save as many people as you can, and anyone you couldn't save is a tragedy.
        Gibbon1 7y ago
        Personally I think the argument is hideous. And it's wrong as well. It's a 'bargaining' argument. Of the same genera of argument that justifies doing nothing about sex trafficking because it doesn't happen women and girls from respectable families.