5 ms·

I think the parent was implying people are more willing to risk coronavirus death than to be stuck at home for as long as they're expected to.

CydeWeys 7y ago
This may be true for now when most peoples' lives are as yet still unaffected by it, but it's very much not going to be true after a month of uncontrolled pandemic when everyone will know many people who've died from it.
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  I agree, though it'll be a little late at that point.
- treis 7y ago
  You're overestimating the impact. The worst case scenario is more like 1 out of every 100-200 Americans dying. Concentrated mostly in the elderly. The majority won't have anyone close to them die and few will have "many".
  - mehrdadn 7y ago
    No, the worst case scenario is much worse than that. Hospitals won't have room to take care of most people with the virus or other illnesses for that matter, and many will die as a result of just that. The hospitalization rate is quite a bit more than 1%, and that becomes the death rate when no hospital can take care of you. These have all been repeated in the media many, many times by now. I'm in fascination of how people are receiving the memo so slowly in 2020. Not to mention 1/100 is enough for a lot of people to result in at least one person they know dying.
    - treis 7y ago
      >No, the worst case scenario is much worse than that It's really not. People just don't seem to grasp that the rates for positive cases are drastically different than the rates for people infected. We aren't doing nearly enough testing to catch even all the symptomatic cases let alone the asymptomatic and mild ones. The infection fatality rate is almost certainly under 1% and not everyone will get infected even in the worst case. >Not to mention 1/100 is enough for a lot of people to result in at least one person they know dying. Only if we use a very broad definition of what "know" means.
      - amanaplanacanal 7y ago
        You appear to be taking about the mortality rate when medical care is available. What is the rate after the hospitals are full?
      - LorenPechtel 7y ago
        Look at parts of Italy--there are areas that have already had 1% of the population die. Note that most of these are not being reported as Covid-19 deaths (presumably because of the overload, they never got tested), we simply see it in excess mortality.
        treis 7y ago
        >Look at parts of Italy--there are areas that have already had 1% of the population die Which parts are that?
        mdemare 7y ago
        Nembro, Italy. Pop. 11000, 152 deaths. 1.38% of the population died. In March.
        LorenPechtel 7y ago
        I believe there are more examples, but that is one of them.
        treis 7y ago
        A small town doesn't really count as a "part" of a country. It's also probably just a statistical outlier. Even if the overall IFR is 0.5% you will see some areas with rates higher or lower than that from chance or their demographics.
        CydeWeys 7y ago
        It's still early on in the pandemic. The vast majority of the people who will die from it still haven't yet. It's way too early to be putting ceilings on the overall death rate.
  - LorenPechtel 7y ago
    First, the uncontrolled number is more like 4% because the healthcare system crashes. 1% is what you get when the healthcare system still works. And most people have family members that are in the high risk group. It's amazing how many people are willing to sacrifice millions of people on the altar of the economy--when it wouldn't even work very well because people are going to be minimizing risk anyway.
    - CydeWeys 7y ago
      A useful question I've found is "So which of your friends and family are you prepared to sacrifice so we can all get back to normal?" Statistically speaking, with a rapid uncontrolled pandemic, everyone is gonna know at least several people who end up dying.
      - umanwizard 7y ago
        That’s unfair unless you also answer which of your friends you’re willing to sacrifice to unemployment, poverty, homelessness, depression, etc. so we can go on lockdown for longer. I hate this framing that makes it seem like it’s a choice between caring about people and caring about money. When the economy crashes it causes real misery for real people.
        LorenPechtel 7y ago
        The economic consequences of the shutdown will not be remotely as harmful as the deaths from not shutting down.
        umanwizard 7y ago
        How do you know?
        CydeWeys 7y ago
        None of my friends are family are being sacrificed to any of those things. Most are able to work from home or are classified as essential workers and are still working for that reason (e.g. I know some nurses and police officers), and the ones who were in the service sector are furloughed and are getting unemployment. None of this holds a candle to them dying. What do you think is the overall right length of time for the lockdown? Do you think we should already be getting back to work now?

CydeWeys 7y ago

This may be true for now when most peoples' lives are as yet still unaffected by it, but it's very much not going to be true after a month of uncontrolled pandemic when everyone will know many people who've died from it.

mehrdadn 7y ago
I agree, though it'll be a little late at that point.
treis 7y ago
You're overestimating the impact. The worst case scenario is more like 1 out of every 100-200 Americans dying. Concentrated mostly in the elderly. The majority won't have anyone close to them die and few will have "many".
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  No, the worst case scenario is much worse than that. Hospitals won't have room to take care of most people with the virus or other illnesses for that matter, and many will die as a result of just that. The hospitalization rate is quite a bit more than 1%, and that becomes the death rate when no hospital can take care of you. These have all been repeated in the media many, many times by now. I'm in fascination of how people are receiving the memo so slowly in 2020. Not to mention 1/100 is enough for a lot of people to result in at least one person they know dying.
  - treis 7y ago
    >No, the worst case scenario is much worse than that It's really not. People just don't seem to grasp that the rates for positive cases are drastically different than the rates for people infected. We aren't doing nearly enough testing to catch even all the symptomatic cases let alone the asymptomatic and mild ones. The infection fatality rate is almost certainly under 1% and not everyone will get infected even in the worst case. >Not to mention 1/100 is enough for a lot of people to result in at least one person they know dying. Only if we use a very broad definition of what "know" means.
    - amanaplanacanal 7y ago
      You appear to be taking about the mortality rate when medical care is available. What is the rate after the hospitals are full?
    - LorenPechtel 7y ago
      Look at parts of Italy--there are areas that have already had 1% of the population die. Note that most of these are not being reported as Covid-19 deaths (presumably because of the overload, they never got tested), we simply see it in excess mortality.
      - treis 7y ago
        >Look at parts of Italy--there are areas that have already had 1% of the population die Which parts are that?
        mdemare 7y ago
        Nembro, Italy. Pop. 11000, 152 deaths. 1.38% of the population died. In March.
        LorenPechtel 7y ago
        I believe there are more examples, but that is one of them.
        treis 7y ago
        A small town doesn't really count as a "part" of a country. It's also probably just a statistical outlier. Even if the overall IFR is 0.5% you will see some areas with rates higher or lower than that from chance or their demographics.
        CydeWeys 7y ago
        It's still early on in the pandemic. The vast majority of the people who will die from it still haven't yet. It's way too early to be putting ceilings on the overall death rate.
- LorenPechtel 7y ago
  First, the uncontrolled number is more like 4% because the healthcare system crashes. 1% is what you get when the healthcare system still works. And most people have family members that are in the high risk group. It's amazing how many people are willing to sacrifice millions of people on the altar of the economy--when it wouldn't even work very well because people are going to be minimizing risk anyway.
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    A useful question I've found is "So which of your friends and family are you prepared to sacrifice so we can all get back to normal?" Statistically speaking, with a rapid uncontrolled pandemic, everyone is gonna know at least several people who end up dying.
    - umanwizard 7y ago
      That’s unfair unless you also answer which of your friends you’re willing to sacrifice to unemployment, poverty, homelessness, depression, etc. so we can go on lockdown for longer. I hate this framing that makes it seem like it’s a choice between caring about people and caring about money. When the economy crashes it causes real misery for real people.
      - LorenPechtel 7y ago
        The economic consequences of the shutdown will not be remotely as harmful as the deaths from not shutting down.
        umanwizard 7y ago
        How do you know?
      - CydeWeys 7y ago
        None of my friends are family are being sacrificed to any of those things. Most are able to work from home or are classified as essential workers and are still working for that reason (e.g. I know some nurses and police officers), and the ones who were in the service sector are furloughed and are getting unemployment. None of this holds a candle to them dying. What do you think is the overall right length of time for the lockdown? Do you think we should already be getting back to work now?