4 ms·

The death rates aren't the only thing that enter the equation, which is obvious if you think about it for a few seconds. Furthermore, and I can't believe I hav

The death rates aren't the only thing that enter the equation, which is obvious if you think about it for a few seconds. Furthermore, and I can't believe I have to type this: Drunk driving isn't an airborne pathogen. You can't "catch" drunk driving after unknowingly breathing in alcohol fumes from someone in the subway, then suddenly, 10-14 days later, wake up in your car having an accident after having spread some more drunk driving to people you've been in proximity to. Why would it be "come on man!"? Because we have the ability to ban drunk drivers from the road, which we've done. We however don't have the ability to ban the coronavirus from our lungs, but I'm sure if we did have the ability to do that, we'd just do that instead of … you know, locking everything down. We're doing what we're doing because it's the only thing we can do. Some countries are trying other things. Some are better prepared than others and can afford to do less radical things. But what every country can pretty much (at this point) agree on is that, left completely unchecked, this will end us. Not just through the disease itself, but through the after-effects of the healthcare system collapsing.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
I don't think every country can or has agreed on that. A lot of people argue that we shouldn't let the healthcare system collapse, that it's worth paying any cost no matter how large to prevent, but healthcare systems have collapsed in pandemics before and it's never been the end of the world. And to justify some of the proposals I've seen floating around, where we'll all be imprisoned at home for 3 or 6 or 18 months, "end of the world" is pretty much what you'd need to believe.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  Imagine if the virus doesn't have a fatality rate that's very high in one sense, but it's high enough to overload the healthcare system so that most people who need to be hospitalized will just be left to die for a few months. It won't end civilization, it won't be a blip in population growth, but I have a very strong reaction that "pride goeth before a fall" and you shouldn't go and assume that you and everyone you love will be lucky. It wouldn't make sense to destroy civilization or the global economy, but I don't think it's obvious that coping efforts are not worth a few trillion dollars in redistributed wealth and a lot of "nonessential" people staying at home for a while. From some of the charts and numbers I've seen, about 10 million people in the world die from infectious diseases in an average year. If everyone got COVID-19 and 1% died, that would be something like 70 million. Plus who know how many would die from other causes that could not be treated due to the epidemic. So, what is worth doing to save 70 million people? I don't even know if I want to attempt to answer that, but if you're saying we're going too far, then you should have an answer. But whatever, I'll attempt to answer myself. In the US, my impression is that liability for a death in civil court, could be on the order of a million dollars, as that's the order of magnitude of what an average person makes in a lifetime. Multiply a million times 70 million and you get $70 trillion. So that puts bailouts and stuff that cost a couple trillion in perspective. Maybe it is in fact coldly rational to try to prevent the virus from spreading?
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    Imagine that last year, someone proposed that you and 99 other random people should hole up in your rooms for 3 months. You can't see anyone in person, nobody can visit you, you can only leave to get groceries or go for a walk alone. In return, one person gets cured of lung cancer. Do you take that deal? Of course you don't, it's not even close. That's an absurd degree of sacrifice to make in return for 1/100th of a life. But it's the same degree of sacrifice we would be making in a 3 month lockdown.
    - scrollaway 7y ago
      You've been using a lot of really contrived scenarios that don't faithfully represent reality. Here's the reality: We're trying to stop a pandemic of a highly contagious disease that can overload most countries' healthcare systems and has the potential to kill millions. Also, putting aside how contrived your example is: yes I fucking would take that deal. 3 months of inconvenience in return for someone's life being saved? You know people fight cancer for years, right?
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      Well, it's a bit contrived, but look at the math with our numbers. 1/100th of a life is worth maybe (at least) $100,000 in present day US society. $100K/3 = $33.3K/month. That's $400K per year. I imagine that I'm creating less value doing what I'm doing now, and probably so are you. So, yes, it seems like a logical person would choose to sacrifice for that. Not everybody should, and currently, indeed some people are going about their jobs more normally. But overall, it makes perfect sense for most according to reasonable estimated costs vs benefits.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago

I don't think every country can or has agreed on that. A lot of people argue that we shouldn't let the healthcare system collapse, that it's worth paying any cost no matter how large to prevent, but healthcare systems have collapsed in pandemics before and it's never been the end of the world. And to justify some of the proposals I've seen floating around, where we'll all be imprisoned at home for 3 or 6 or 18 months, "end of the world" is pretty much what you'd need to believe.

perl4ever 7y ago
Imagine if the virus doesn't have a fatality rate that's very high in one sense, but it's high enough to overload the healthcare system so that most people who need to be hospitalized will just be left to die for a few months. It won't end civilization, it won't be a blip in population growth, but I have a very strong reaction that "pride goeth before a fall" and you shouldn't go and assume that you and everyone you love will be lucky. It wouldn't make sense to destroy civilization or the global economy, but I don't think it's obvious that coping efforts are not worth a few trillion dollars in redistributed wealth and a lot of "nonessential" people staying at home for a while. From some of the charts and numbers I've seen, about 10 million people in the world die from infectious diseases in an average year. If everyone got COVID-19 and 1% died, that would be something like 70 million. Plus who know how many would die from other causes that could not be treated due to the epidemic. So, what is worth doing to save 70 million people? I don't even know if I want to attempt to answer that, but if you're saying we're going too far, then you should have an answer. But whatever, I'll attempt to answer myself. In the US, my impression is that liability for a death in civil court, could be on the order of a million dollars, as that's the order of magnitude of what an average person makes in a lifetime. Multiply a million times 70 million and you get $70 trillion. So that puts bailouts and stuff that cost a couple trillion in perspective. Maybe it is in fact coldly rational to try to prevent the virus from spreading?
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  Imagine that last year, someone proposed that you and 99 other random people should hole up in your rooms for 3 months. You can't see anyone in person, nobody can visit you, you can only leave to get groceries or go for a walk alone. In return, one person gets cured of lung cancer. Do you take that deal? Of course you don't, it's not even close. That's an absurd degree of sacrifice to make in return for 1/100th of a life. But it's the same degree of sacrifice we would be making in a 3 month lockdown.
  - scrollaway 7y ago
    You've been using a lot of really contrived scenarios that don't faithfully represent reality. Here's the reality: We're trying to stop a pandemic of a highly contagious disease that can overload most countries' healthcare systems and has the potential to kill millions. Also, putting aside how contrived your example is: yes I fucking would take that deal. 3 months of inconvenience in return for someone's life being saved? You know people fight cancer for years, right?
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    Well, it's a bit contrived, but look at the math with our numbers. 1/100th of a life is worth maybe (at least) $100,000 in present day US society. $100K/3 = $33.3K/month. That's $400K per year. I imagine that I'm creating less value doing what I'm doing now, and probably so are you. So, yes, it seems like a logical person would choose to sacrifice for that. Not everybody should, and currently, indeed some people are going about their jobs more normally. But overall, it makes perfect sense for most according to reasonable estimated costs vs benefits.