5 ms·

That’s not a terrible argument. But people are more upset about murder drunk driving, terrorism, opiod, and suicide than dying of disease because it’s human cau

That’s not a terrible argument. But people are more upset about murder drunk driving, terrorism, opiod, and suicide than dying of disease because it’s human caused. It would make most sense to compare CoVID19 to deaths caused by disease per year in the USA, as that is apples to apples. I don’t have those numbers off hand. Edit: https://ourworldindata.org/causes-of-death https://ourworldindata.org/causes-of-death The overall rate is roughly the same as the death rate from disease.

scrollaway 7y ago
As I said in a previous comment, this is your 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!" Except you now have 2Y lives lost every day.
- randyrand 7y ago
  Thats not a fallacy. Thats exactly my point. It's not worth decimating human rights over 1 year of 2x the human death rate. If it were 4x, 5x sure, but 2x is not worthy of banning nearly all physical human interaction for many months or more.
  - scrollaway 7y ago
    I don't like being locked down at home any more than you do. But right now, my freedom to go out impedes on my neighbour's freedom not to get sick. COVID-19 has spread father than you think. It is also more damaging than you think. I'm hopeful the lockdowns won't be too long, and countries will gradually open up rather than all-at-once.
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      I strongly suspect you do. Nearly 100% of the people I've seen argue in favor of indefinite lockdowns are white collar internet natives, capable of getting a reasonable amount of personal and professional satisfaction through a monitor. If you know anyone who works with their hands for a living, or whose primary social activity is having a beer with the bros, you understand why it's not as simple as just "it'll end when it ends".
      - scrollaway 7y ago
        I don't know where you see me arguing in favour of indefinite lockdowns, and quite frankly, screw your shitty judgemental attitude. Not only am I low risk, but I've already had the virus and passed it nearly asymptomatically. I'm likely immune. This shit doesn't benefit me in any way. And while I may indeed, like most people on this site, make a living online; I've stopped working nearly entirely and have been donating my time to work on COVID-19 projects. In the mean time, I can't see my girlfriend, can't hang out with my local friends (sorry, "bros"), can't do my usual sports, and I still have to support the people in my life who have it much harder than me because they can't work. So no, I'm not in favour of indefinite lockdowns, but I'm also not in favour of ignoring the problem until it goes away on its own.
        SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
        When I say "indefinite", I just mean that you don't seem to have a standard for how long the lockdown can be at maximum. The lockdown in my area, for instance, were imposed with no expiration date or even a clear explanation of when it'd start be lifted. (Which is why I'm very frustrated with people who seem to be siding with that kind of vague policy.) Maybe I'm mistaken and you're not on board with that. Is there some definite period of lockdown you're in favor of, where after that period we accept we've done what we can?
        scrollaway 7y ago
        I'm not the right person to ask. I'm not an expert. What I know is that I don't want to stay stuck in my house for the next few months, but I also want life to be normal when I do get out, and not turned into a "nobody can shake hands or kiss" movie. I'm also not in favour of vague policies but can you really blame politicians in this case? It's easy to make predictions but nobody really knows what things will be like three weeks from now. What's the point of saying things will return to normal in three weeks if it's not grounded in anything?
        SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  - chillacy 7y ago
    > If it were 4x, 5x sure, but 2x is not worthy That seems like a normative judgement, there's no way everybody you talk to would agree with the exact place you drew the line.

scrollaway 7y ago

As I said in a previous comment, this is your 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!" Except you now have 2Y lives lost every day.

randyrand 7y ago
Thats not a fallacy. Thats exactly my point. It's not worth decimating human rights over 1 year of 2x the human death rate. If it were 4x, 5x sure, but 2x is not worthy of banning nearly all physical human interaction for many months or more.
- scrollaway 7y ago
  I don't like being locked down at home any more than you do. But right now, my freedom to go out impedes on my neighbour's freedom not to get sick. COVID-19 has spread father than you think. It is also more damaging than you think. I'm hopeful the lockdowns won't be too long, and countries will gradually open up rather than all-at-once.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    I strongly suspect you do. Nearly 100% of the people I've seen argue in favor of indefinite lockdowns are white collar internet natives, capable of getting a reasonable amount of personal and professional satisfaction through a monitor. If you know anyone who works with their hands for a living, or whose primary social activity is having a beer with the bros, you understand why it's not as simple as just "it'll end when it ends".
    - scrollaway 7y ago
      I don't know where you see me arguing in favour of indefinite lockdowns, and quite frankly, screw your shitty judgemental attitude. Not only am I low risk, but I've already had the virus and passed it nearly asymptomatically. I'm likely immune. This shit doesn't benefit me in any way. And while I may indeed, like most people on this site, make a living online; I've stopped working nearly entirely and have been donating my time to work on COVID-19 projects. In the mean time, I can't see my girlfriend, can't hang out with my local friends (sorry, "bros"), can't do my usual sports, and I still have to support the people in my life who have it much harder than me because they can't work. So no, I'm not in favour of indefinite lockdowns, but I'm also not in favour of ignoring the problem until it goes away on its own.
      - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
        When I say "indefinite", I just mean that you don't seem to have a standard for how long the lockdown can be at maximum. The lockdown in my area, for instance, were imposed with no expiration date or even a clear explanation of when it'd start be lifted. (Which is why I'm very frustrated with people who seem to be siding with that kind of vague policy.) Maybe I'm mistaken and you're not on board with that. Is there some definite period of lockdown you're in favor of, where after that period we accept we've done what we can?
        scrollaway 7y ago
        I'm not the right person to ask. I'm not an expert. What I know is that I don't want to stay stuck in my house for the next few months, but I also want life to be normal when I do get out, and not turned into a "nobody can shake hands or kiss" movie. I'm also not in favour of vague policies but can you really blame politicians in this case? It's easy to make predictions but nobody really knows what things will be like three weeks from now. What's the point of saying things will return to normal in three weeks if it's not grounded in anything?
        SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
- chillacy 7y ago
  > If it were 4x, 5x sure, but 2x is not worthy That seems like a normative judgement, there's no way everybody you talk to would agree with the exact place you drew the line.