4 ms·

I don't understand why at risk people don't just stay at home. Why lock everybody else up? Enough is enough, kids need to go back to school and people need to g

I don't understand why at risk people don't just stay at home. Why lock everybody else up? Enough is enough, kids need to go back to school and people need to go back to work. This document seems hand-wavy and doesn't answer anything.

gdulli 7y ago
First, because they live with people who aren't at risk and if those people go about their lives it defeats the purpose. Second, if everyone not explicitly at high risk went about their normal business, some percentage of them would still need medical attention and the hospitals would run out of beds, leaving some to die.
- sergiotapia 7y ago
  So, you live with people that are at risk, you can stay home too! Second: That's the nature of nature. If you want, you can protect yourself, stay home!
  - gdulli 7y ago
    And what happens when you, with your good judgement, decide to protect yourself and stay home, and then you have an unrelated treatable condition but die because no hospital could take you because they're all busy dealing with all the Coronavirus patients who were left to their good judgement and didn't stay home?
    - sergiotapia 7y ago
      1. Your hypothetical isn't a possibility. The numbers do not reflect that possibility, not even close. 2. Even if it were a possibility, it's that vs. shutting down peoples lives for a very long time. "Is your life worth my liberty?" - that's something we fundamentally disagree on.
      - objectivetruth 7y ago
        If you have proof that it's impossible for the US healthcare system to be overloaded and shut down during a pandemic, you should publish! NEJM, Lancet, Journal of Infectious Diseases: I know there are a LOT of doctors and public health officials who'd love to see your evidence!
dsjoerg 7y ago
Fair questions. What fatality rate are you expecting for not-at-risk people? Is that risk of death acceptable to you? What risk of death should I expect, I'm a healthy 47 year old male. Is it 0.1% or 0.01%? The difference between those two matters to me and the research isn't clear yet as far as I can tell. By doing a bunch of the steps implied in the document my chance of surviving is better, by keeping the infection rate in the populace lower so that I'm less likely to get infected and die before the vaccine arrives.
- sergiotapia 7y ago
  Whatever number you arrive at is your concern. You want to shelter in place go for it. What I don't want is the government shutting down everything. Leave it to the individual.
  - viklove 7y ago
    And when 3-5 million people die over the course of a year you won't blame the government?
    - sergiotapia 7y ago
      Those numbers aren't realistic.
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      Those numbers are unrealistically high, but even so I wouldn't blame the government for them. If Wuhan hadn't set a bad example, I doubt anyone would have even considered universal house arrest as an option in the government's toolkit.
    - war1025 7y ago
      Something I thought about the other day that I think puts some of this in perspective: The population of the US is ~300 million. The average lifespan is ~80 years. We have a growing population, but supposing we had a stable population, that would require a bit more than 3 million people to die each year. Basically my point is, in a stable situation, that order of people will already be dying yearly. I don't know what the actual numbers are for the county, but basically since people live less than 100 years, if we had a stable population (which at some point we'll need to return to), then roughly 1% of the population needs to die every year.
chillacy 7y ago
One passibility is: if some people are going to work then everyone's going to have to work, or else risk falling behind. It's the prisoner's dilemma, someone who wants to stay home would end up having to go to work anyways. This has already happened with the laughable amount of people considered "essential" when the governor of NYC made it optional (investment bankers taking the subway to go to work!) Taken like that it becomes more like restrictions on pollution or laws against corporate espionage in how the government shapes the economy already.
- sergiotapia 7y ago
  >One passibility is: if some people are going to work then everyone's going to have to work, or else risk falling behind. Then that's the reality. Again, I don't believe we should be forced to be locked down by the government, let alone some rinky dink local government politician on a power trip. Leave it to the individual.

gdulli 7y ago

First, because they live with people who aren't at risk and if those people go about their lives it defeats the purpose. Second, if everyone not explicitly at high risk went about their normal business, some percentage of them would still need medical attention and the hospitals would run out of beds, leaving some to die.

sergiotapia 7y ago
So, you live with people that are at risk, you can stay home too! Second: That's the nature of nature. If you want, you can protect yourself, stay home!
- gdulli 7y ago
  And what happens when you, with your good judgement, decide to protect yourself and stay home, and then you have an unrelated treatable condition but die because no hospital could take you because they're all busy dealing with all the Coronavirus patients who were left to their good judgement and didn't stay home?
  - sergiotapia 7y ago
    1. Your hypothetical isn't a possibility. The numbers do not reflect that possibility, not even close. 2. Even if it were a possibility, it's that vs. shutting down peoples lives for a very long time. "Is your life worth my liberty?" - that's something we fundamentally disagree on.
    - objectivetruth 7y ago
      If you have proof that it's impossible for the US healthcare system to be overloaded and shut down during a pandemic, you should publish! NEJM, Lancet, Journal of Infectious Diseases: I know there are a LOT of doctors and public health officials who'd love to see your evidence!

dsjoerg 7y ago

Fair questions. What fatality rate are you expecting for not-at-risk people? Is that risk of death acceptable to you? What risk of death should I expect, I'm a healthy 47 year old male. Is it 0.1% or 0.01%? The difference between those two matters to me and the research isn't clear yet as far as I can tell. By doing a bunch of the steps implied in the document my chance of surviving is better, by keeping the infection rate in the populace lower so that I'm less likely to get infected and die before the vaccine arrives.

sergiotapia 7y ago
Whatever number you arrive at is your concern. You want to shelter in place go for it. What I don't want is the government shutting down everything. Leave it to the individual.
- viklove 7y ago
  And when 3-5 million people die over the course of a year you won't blame the government?
  - sergiotapia 7y ago
    Those numbers aren't realistic.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    Those numbers are unrealistically high, but even so I wouldn't blame the government for them. If Wuhan hadn't set a bad example, I doubt anyone would have even considered universal house arrest as an option in the government's toolkit.
  - war1025 7y ago
    Something I thought about the other day that I think puts some of this in perspective: The population of the US is ~300 million. The average lifespan is ~80 years. We have a growing population, but supposing we had a stable population, that would require a bit more than 3 million people to die each year. Basically my point is, in a stable situation, that order of people will already be dying yearly. I don't know what the actual numbers are for the county, but basically since people live less than 100 years, if we had a stable population (which at some point we'll need to return to), then roughly 1% of the population needs to die every year.

chillacy 7y ago

One passibility is: if some people are going to work then everyone's going to have to work, or else risk falling behind. It's the prisoner's dilemma, someone who wants to stay home would end up having to go to work anyways. This has already happened with the laughable amount of people considered "essential" when the governor of NYC made it optional (investment bankers taking the subway to go to work!) Taken like that it becomes more like restrictions on pollution or laws against corporate espionage in how the government shapes the economy already.

sergiotapia 7y ago
>One passibility is: if some people are going to work then everyone's going to have to work, or else risk falling behind. Then that's the reality. Again, I don't believe we should be forced to be locked down by the government, let alone some rinky dink local government politician on a power trip. Leave it to the individual.