4 ms·
Half of the article is about making numbers relative (active/total cases, cases/population, etc). But death toll is counted in absolute numbers. No one will th
by hcarvalhoalves 7y ago
Half of the article is about making numbers relative (active/total cases, cases/population, etc).
But death toll is counted in absolute numbers. No one will think 1M deaths is victory just because this is 1% of whatever. People are right to be hysterical, we have tough times ahead.
- guscost 7y agoBy that logic, with those numbers (and if 1M is the total globally), then we “lose” almost as badly to the seasonal flu, every year. I’m not saying we shouldn’t care about deadly illnesses. But the world is a dangerous place, and we’ve been pretty bad about changing that, historically. Also, if we ruin 5 million lives to save (some percent of) 1 million, is that worth it? How about ruining 50 million lives? We can save lives with drastic measures, but drastic measures will have bad consequences too, and it seems like nobody has any perspective on that.
- scrollaway 7y agoWhat's the name of this fallacy? 1. "New thing X puts us at risk of losing Y lives every day." 2. "We lose Y lives to car accidents every day". 3. "Ergo, X is harmless!" You now have 2Y lives lost every day.
- guscost 7y agoThat’s not even close to what I’m saying. How did you read my comment and understand it as that??