3 ms·

> Is an extra 2 million US deaths in 2 months within your experience?!? No, but extremely well grounded and understood epidemiological models say that that is

> Is an extra 2 million US deaths in 2 months within your experience?!? No, but extremely well grounded and understood epidemiological models say that that is the likely result. I accept that things far outside my experience can happen, especially when there are strong scientific grounds for believing so. You don't want to damage the economy with lockdowns, so you're dismissing basic epidemiology. You earlier accused me of intellectual dishonesty, but your basic argumentation here is driven by what you want (not to damage the economy), rather than what the facts indicate (that an unchecked COVID-19 epidemic will eventually infect about 60% of the population and kill about 1% of those infected). The intellectually honest argument for you to make would be this: "If the choice is between locking down the country for a month and damaging the economy, or letting the epidemic run its course and kill 2 million Americans, then letting the epidemic run its course is preferable." But you're not making that argument openly, and are instead trying to dismiss epidemiology. > You say that as though it's "just some boomer's 401k" I haven't said anything about "boomers," and in fact, I find it stupid when young people online dismiss "boomers." Baby boomers are going to be hit especially hard by this epidemic if it goes unchecked, and I think accepting damage to the economy is far preferable to letting the healthcare system collapse and large numbers of elderly people die.

xscott 7y ago
> If the choice is between locking down the country for a month ... There's something fishy there. If anything you're saying is true, one month can't possibly be enough. I'll skip the napkin math, but if your numbers are correct, it'd be 5 months if you could schedule people to get sick for available hospital beds perfectly. (Ok, napkin math: I'm assuming everyone will eventually be exposed, using your 60% infected, 10% will need hospitals for 1 week, and 1 million hospital beds in the US. So pretty wide margins for error.) > your basic argumentation here is driven by what you want You and your straw men. I think you're inventing things for me to have said/wanted/believed because I haven't written much that you can actually argue against. Look at what I write, and quit making up things between the lines --- The only justification I've given for my position so far is that in my experience, predictions of doom have always been false. Maybe I'm wrong this time, and I guess we'll know in a 3-8 weeks. > .. and are instead trying to dismiss epidemiology No, I dismiss statistics made by dividing small and uncertain numbers by other small and uncertain numbers, and I always doubt extrapolation, even when it's based on good statistics. > Baby boomers are going to be hit especially hard by this epidemic if it goes unchecked And younger / middle aged people (without savings/investments) are going to be hit very hard by the economy collapsing.
- doubleunplussed 7y ago
  You're right that social distancing until everyone gets infected is a bloody long time (I think you've underestimated it - other estimates are several years, though we'd probably have a vaccine by then). The consensus on the best solution is to crush the virus with extreme social distancing, so that it doesn't infect most of the population, and so that we don't have to keep the economy shut for ages. This would only take on order weeks. Then we can open the economy up mostly, and keep hygeine standards high and do extensive testing and contact tracing to keep case numbers very low (low enough that we can still do effective tracing) until a vaccine arrives. Here's a summary: https://www.victoryovercovid19.org/ https://www.victoryovercovid19.org/
  - xscott 7y ago
    I guess we'll know in 6-8 weeks.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  > I always doubt extrapolation, even when it's based on good statistics. The extrapolation is based on an extremely well tested and understood theory of epidemics. It's really as simple as: the number of people infected each day is proportional to the number of people who carry the virus, so the growth in infections is exponential. That's extremely solid logic and it's been proven time and again, so complaining about extrapolation doesn't make any sense. > I think you're inventing things for me to have said/wanted/believed because I haven't written much that you can actually argue against. I think your motivations are obvious. You keep dismissing the science of epidemiology, saying everything is uncertain, and you keep returning to the idea that the lockdowns will destroy the economy. A lot of people are arguing like you are. > Maybe I'm wrong this time, and I guess we'll know in a 3-8 weeks. At which point the US will have to go into lockdown anyways, only that the epidemic will be much worse. Better to do as doubleunplussed explains, and crush the epidemic now with a relatively short lockdown, and then partially reopen and try to contain the virus at a much lower level with widespread testing and contact tracing. China did this, and South Korea, Singapore and other countries did enough testing and contact tracing early on that they haven't had to go into lockdown.

xscott 7y ago

> If the choice is between locking down the country for a month ... There's something fishy there. If anything you're saying is true, one month can't possibly be enough. I'll skip the napkin math, but if your numbers are correct, it'd be 5 months if you could schedule people to get sick for available hospital beds perfectly. (Ok, napkin math: I'm assuming everyone will eventually be exposed, using your 60% infected, 10% will need hospitals for 1 week, and 1 million hospital beds in the US. So pretty wide margins for error.) > your basic argumentation here is driven by what you want You and your straw men. I think you're inventing things for me to have said/wanted/believed because I haven't written much that you can actually argue against. Look at what I write, and quit making up things between the lines --- The only justification I've given for my position so far is that in my experience, predictions of doom have always been false. Maybe I'm wrong this time, and I guess we'll know in a 3-8 weeks. > .. and are instead trying to dismiss epidemiology No, I dismiss statistics made by dividing small and uncertain numbers by other small and uncertain numbers, and I always doubt extrapolation, even when it's based on good statistics. > Baby boomers are going to be hit especially hard by this epidemic if it goes unchecked And younger / middle aged people (without savings/investments) are going to be hit very hard by the economy collapsing.

doubleunplussed 7y ago
You're right that social distancing until everyone gets infected is a bloody long time (I think you've underestimated it - other estimates are several years, though we'd probably have a vaccine by then). The consensus on the best solution is to crush the virus with extreme social distancing, so that it doesn't infect most of the population, and so that we don't have to keep the economy shut for ages. This would only take on order weeks. Then we can open the economy up mostly, and keep hygeine standards high and do extensive testing and contact tracing to keep case numbers very low (low enough that we can still do effective tracing) until a vaccine arrives. Here's a summary: https://www.victoryovercovid19.org/ https://www.victoryovercovid19.org/
- xscott 7y ago
  I guess we'll know in 6-8 weeks.
DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
> I always doubt extrapolation, even when it's based on good statistics. The extrapolation is based on an extremely well tested and understood theory of epidemics. It's really as simple as: the number of people infected each day is proportional to the number of people who carry the virus, so the growth in infections is exponential. That's extremely solid logic and it's been proven time and again, so complaining about extrapolation doesn't make any sense. > I think you're inventing things for me to have said/wanted/believed because I haven't written much that you can actually argue against. I think your motivations are obvious. You keep dismissing the science of epidemiology, saying everything is uncertain, and you keep returning to the idea that the lockdowns will destroy the economy. A lot of people are arguing like you are. > Maybe I'm wrong this time, and I guess we'll know in a 3-8 weeks. At which point the US will have to go into lockdown anyways, only that the epidemic will be much worse. Better to do as doubleunplussed explains, and crush the epidemic now with a relatively short lockdown, and then partially reopen and try to contain the virus at a much lower level with widespread testing and contact tracing. China did this, and South Korea, Singapore and other countries did enough testing and contact tracing early on that they haven't had to go into lockdown.