4 ms·

I find there is an uncomfortable blurry line in the sand here where it is somehow OK to let the flu kill tens of thousands without us batting an eyelash, but no

I find there is an uncomfortable blurry line in the sand here where it is somehow OK to let the flu kill tens of thousands without us batting an eyelash, but not OK for this illness to kill a million. At the end of the day the decision is pragmatic and based on money, similar to allowing motor vehicles on public roads (to the point where they are de facto required).

vkou 7y ago
This virus is currently killing people 30 times faster than the flu. ~0.01% of the population dies from the flu each year. 0.12% of the population of Italy died over the past two weeks from COVID-19, and the rate of deaths has still not peaked - despite a complete lockdown. Had there not been a lockdown, the death rate would have continued doubling every 3 days. You're drawing a false equivalence.
- jobigoud 7y ago
  > 0.12% of the population of Italy died over the past two weeks from COVID-19 I think you mixed up numbers, this looks too large by one order of magnitude. Maybe you used the numer of cases instead of deaths or something.
  - vkou 7y ago
    Sorry, I missed a zero. It's 0.012% - but over two weeks, instead of over a year. So, the 30x number is correct... But not the 0.12% one.
- foobarian 7y ago
  I understand how much bigger the mortality is for this virus, and I understand why we are reacting this way. But how do you argue that deaths from one virus are not equivalent to the other? If it's just numbers, can you specify the number that is OK to let die instead of locking down?
  - vkou 7y ago
    If the death rate were within 5x of the flu, and if the death rate did not increase dramatically when our medical system is overloaded, a hard lockdown would probably be a mistake. It's not 5x, and it does increase dramatically, though.
sgc 7y ago
There is nothing to say we were right to let the flu do that, and I would argue that we should reassess our moral compass in the face of all suffering and death as a society. This event should be a wake up call. We should invest much more resources and mindshare into alleviating suffering and stop accepting that these deaths are "inevitable".
- foobarian 7y ago
  Agreed, and I am hoping one outcome of this disaster will be that a lot more resources will be devoted to prevention/treatment of such illnesses we've come to accept as common. Flu for sure, maybe even the common cold.
justforyou 7y ago
Comparing this to the flu is a non-starter for participating an an intelligent discussion about this.

vkou 7y ago

This virus is currently killing people 30 times faster than the flu. ~0.01% of the population dies from the flu each year. 0.12% of the population of Italy died over the past two weeks from COVID-19, and the rate of deaths has still not peaked - despite a complete lockdown. Had there not been a lockdown, the death rate would have continued doubling every 3 days. You're drawing a false equivalence.

jobigoud 7y ago
> 0.12% of the population of Italy died over the past two weeks from COVID-19 I think you mixed up numbers, this looks too large by one order of magnitude. Maybe you used the numer of cases instead of deaths or something.
- vkou 7y ago
  Sorry, I missed a zero. It's 0.012% - but over two weeks, instead of over a year. So, the 30x number is correct... But not the 0.12% one.
foobarian 7y ago
I understand how much bigger the mortality is for this virus, and I understand why we are reacting this way. But how do you argue that deaths from one virus are not equivalent to the other? If it's just numbers, can you specify the number that is OK to let die instead of locking down?
- vkou 7y ago
  If the death rate were within 5x of the flu, and if the death rate did not increase dramatically when our medical system is overloaded, a hard lockdown would probably be a mistake. It's not 5x, and it does increase dramatically, though.

sgc 7y ago

There is nothing to say we were right to let the flu do that, and I would argue that we should reassess our moral compass in the face of all suffering and death as a society. This event should be a wake up call. We should invest much more resources and mindshare into alleviating suffering and stop accepting that these deaths are "inevitable".

foobarian 7y ago
Agreed, and I am hoping one outcome of this disaster will be that a lot more resources will be devoted to prevention/treatment of such illnesses we've come to accept as common. Flu for sure, maybe even the common cold.

justforyou 7y ago

Comparing this to the flu is a non-starter for participating an an intelligent discussion about this.