4 ms·

> What you propose here is asking every non-at-risk person to take an unknown, but possibly as high as a percent or two, risk of dying. I doubt many people will

> What you propose here is asking every non-at-risk person to take an unknown, but possibly as high as a percent or two, risk of dying. I doubt many people will take you up on that. I certainly won't. This is a complete farce. 1-2% of dying in not-at-risk individuals? We know that the diamond princess, the cruise where we tested everybody, had around a 1% mortality rate, and that was with a bunch of at-risk individuals (the elderly, in this case). That basically gives us an upper bound IFR, and other data coming out from places like Germany is putting us closer to .2-.6% IFR. But yes, if someone has extreme anxiety that they are going to die from covid, even despite evidence to the contrary, they should absolutely stay at home. No one should be forced to go outside, but unfortunately in many parts of the world people are being forbidden from going outside practically at all. The important thing here is the individual needs to be empowered to make an informed decision based off their personal risk tolerance. If someone decides that the unknowns are too overwhelming and they want to remain at home until a hypothetical future vaccine is hypothetically released, that's totally fine. But critically, I don't want to be living in a society that is forcing me to stay inside for reasons that are not based on evidence-based public health policy. And unfortunately so much of what we've seen (e.g. closing public parks, banning jogging, disallowing drive-thru church meetings until the decision was overturned) is not grounded in sane policy, but instead in panic-driven reactionism.

pdonis 6y ago
> This is a complete farce. This seems like a highly disproportionate response. > other data coming out from places like Germany is putting us closer to .2-.6% IFR. Which is not that different from 1% if you're talking about people deliberately exposing themselves to the virus. If I'm not going to do that at 1%, I'm not going to do it at .2% either. So the term "complete farce" seems way over the top. To me, if you seriously think a significant number of people are going to be willing to deliberately infect themselves and take a .2% risk of dying, or even a considerably lower risk than that, that seems like a farce. > The important thing here is the individual needs to be empowered to make an informed decision based off their personal risk tolerance. I'm generally in favor of the idea that people should be given the best available information and then should make their own decisions. In this particular case, I just think you are way, way off as far as your apparent estimate of the average person's risk tolerance when it comes to deliberately infecting themselves with a virus. Also, if we're going to talk about evidence-based public policy, we need to look at the evidence regarding how well people make decisions when they are empowered to do so. I think the evidence of the last couple of months shows that many people are very bad at that; a lot of public places continued to be crowded with people well after the point where there was plenty of public information telling everyone that close contact with other people in crowded places would spread this virus. Further, our current public policy regime holds public officials responsible when things go bad, regardless of whether it was actually their fault. That creates a huge incentive for public officials to impose restrictions on people, whether or not they actually make a difference. If we really want to be empowered to make our own choices, we need to stop expecting our public officials to automatically protect us from bad things happening, and take the responsibility for protecting ourselves.
- __blockcipher__ 6y ago
  FWIW: .2% would be the IFR for the general population. Given you stated you are not at risk, your actual chance of death would be something like .007%, or 7 deaths in 10,000
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > Given you stated you are not at risk, your actual chance of death would be something like .007%, or 7 deaths in 10,000 Where is this number coming from? (Also, .007% is 7 per 100,000.)
    - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
      Sorry for the delayed response. And thanks for catching my math fail. Those numbers came from https://esb.nu/blog/20059695/we-kunnen-nu-gaan-rekenen-aan-corona https://esb.nu/blog/20059695/we-kunnen-nu-gaan-rekenen-aan-c..., but given it's in dutch it's probably easier to use this table that a redditor compiled: https://old.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/g4tqvk/dutch_antibody_study_of_blood_donors_reveals_3/fnzkn4k/ https://old.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/g4tqvk/dutch_antib... My bad on not including the source originally; I was on mobile and couldn't track it down (and therefore probably should have just not commented)

pdonis 6y ago

> This is a complete farce. This seems like a highly disproportionate response. > other data coming out from places like Germany is putting us closer to .2-.6% IFR. Which is not that different from 1% if you're talking about people deliberately exposing themselves to the virus. If I'm not going to do that at 1%, I'm not going to do it at .2% either. So the term "complete farce" seems way over the top. To me, if you seriously think a significant number of people are going to be willing to deliberately infect themselves and take a .2% risk of dying, or even a considerably lower risk than that, that seems like a farce. > The important thing here is the individual needs to be empowered to make an informed decision based off their personal risk tolerance. I'm generally in favor of the idea that people should be given the best available information and then should make their own decisions. In this particular case, I just think you are way, way off as far as your apparent estimate of the average person's risk tolerance when it comes to deliberately infecting themselves with a virus. Also, if we're going to talk about evidence-based public policy, we need to look at the evidence regarding how well people make decisions when they are empowered to do so. I think the evidence of the last couple of months shows that many people are very bad at that; a lot of public places continued to be crowded with people well after the point where there was plenty of public information telling everyone that close contact with other people in crowded places would spread this virus. Further, our current public policy regime holds public officials responsible when things go bad, regardless of whether it was actually their fault. That creates a huge incentive for public officials to impose restrictions on people, whether or not they actually make a difference. If we really want to be empowered to make our own choices, we need to stop expecting our public officials to automatically protect us from bad things happening, and take the responsibility for protecting ourselves.

__blockcipher__ 6y ago
FWIW: .2% would be the IFR for the general population. Given you stated you are not at risk, your actual chance of death would be something like .007%, or 7 deaths in 10,000
- pdonis 6y ago
  > Given you stated you are not at risk, your actual chance of death would be something like .007%, or 7 deaths in 10,000 Where is this number coming from? (Also, .007% is 7 per 100,000.)
  - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
    Sorry for the delayed response. And thanks for catching my math fail. Those numbers came from https://esb.nu/blog/20059695/we-kunnen-nu-gaan-rekenen-aan-corona https://esb.nu/blog/20059695/we-kunnen-nu-gaan-rekenen-aan-c..., but given it's in dutch it's probably easier to use this table that a redditor compiled: https://old.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/g4tqvk/dutch_antibody_study_of_blood_donors_reveals_3/fnzkn4k/ https://old.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/g4tqvk/dutch_antib... My bad on not including the source originally; I was on mobile and couldn't track it down (and therefore probably should have just not commented)