5 ms·

0.8% is 160 000 greater New Yorkers and 2.7 Million Americans. That's all the Americans to have died in every war combined, roughly. That is a lot of people a

by jariel 7y ago

0.8% is 160 000 greater New Yorkers and 2.7 Million Americans. That's all the Americans to have died in every war combined, roughly. That is a lot of people and I don't suggest most people would be willing to just allow that to happen. Are we not greater than that as a civilization?

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
People allow 2.7 million Americans to die every year. Not that this isn't a tragedy! We should work hard and urgently towards a world where nobody has to die, whether from heart disease or cancer or coronavirus. And the coronavirus presents a variety of high leverage options that are unavailable for other causes of death. But if destroying American society is the cost of containing the coronavirus, we can't pay it.
- jhayward 7y ago
  You fail to make the case that the choice is the straw man presented: destroy America or let the virus run wild. The US has an immense set of tools and strategies available that would, if used intelligently, certainly prevent America being destroyed without compromising public health. However, many Americans, as seemingly you do, refuse to consider or admit that these tools exist and can easily be deployed if the political will supports them. The only thing “destroying America” is right-wing politics refusing to use the tools available to counter the hugely deflationary step-function we are in.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    I didn't intend to make that case. I've seen many mitigations proposed that I'm wholly in favor of. By all means, let's hire 300,000 contact tracers, and close schools until the fall, and all wear masks whenever we're in close contact with strangers. Hopefully these measures will have an impact! But I've also seen people propose mitigations that would destroy America, and use "political will" as a euphemism for "acceptance of giant quarantine camps for all sufferers and their close contacts" or "willingness to sacrifice all social contact indefinitely". I don't think it's a good thing if political will drives us to do things which are counter to our values.
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    Exactly, what's going to happen to small businesses and working class people in the US is a policy choice. And people that thing letting the virus run wild is going to prevent that are delusional.
cvwright 7y ago
> Are we not greater than that as a civilization? Are we so great that we have totally conquered disease? That we can keep everyone alive forever? Certainly not. To assume otherwise shows an astonishing level of hubris.
dr_dshiv 7y ago
If you count by Quality of Life Adjusted Years, then dying at age 25 is a lot worse than dying at age 75.
- jhayward 7y ago
  Everyone's life has the same value. Old people, poor people, black people, people with diabetes, people who have had transplants, people who have had cancer, fat people, all have the same value as a 25-year-old who has had 1%-er medical care, diet, and home life since birth.
  - eric_b 7y ago
    Sorry to break your fairytale world view, but this is naive and stupid. If you really believe this I suggest strongly that you learn more about the real world and those who live in it.
    - dang 7y ago
      Could you please stop breaking the site guidelines? You've been doing this a ton. Not cool, regardless of how wrong other people are or you feel they are. I don't know which side you're arguing for, but in addition to egregiously flouting HN's rules, you're discrediting it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - JPKab 7y ago
    As if anyone is arguing this. Your comments mark you as one of the people politicizing this. As if small business owners who have seen the data change and question why liquor stores can be open and they can't are all right wingers. By the way, your comment is naive and foolish. Grown-ups in hospitals make the decision on a regular basis that yes, a 25 year olds life is more valuable than an elderly persons. The right wingers deny science on climate change. Now I'm seeing left wingers deny science on covid19 antibodies. (They already do it with nuclear power) I've seen 5 antibody studies all say the same thing, and the left wingers just attack all of them reflexively. Sweden was right. We were wrong.
credit_guy 7y ago
I can't speak for the greater New York area, but limiting to NYC, there are about 8.3 million inhabitants. As of today, about 12k Covid19 deaths. If it's true that about 21% of the population has been infected so far [1], that's 1.75 million, so a fatality rate of 0.7%. Let's say herd immunity for the very dense NYC is reached at 80%. That's an additional 4.9 million new yorkers who will get the virus. At the current fatality rate of 0.7% that's 34.3k additional deaths. If we extend for many months the lockdown, maybe we bring the fatality rate to 0.5% due to protocol improvements. That's a 24.5k dead, or about 9k saved. We are talking about 9000 people saved, not 160000. But keep in mind, the 9000 people saved are just the Covid19 victims. There will be additional deaths due to months and months of missed "elective" healthcare. People with diabetes, hypertension, etc, etc, who are not managing their condition properly because if you're not Covid19, nobody cares about you anymore. Who is counting these invisible victims? After you put them in, it's not clear on a net basis how many people you save, but it's probably in the low single digit thousands, if there. Now, notice that I did not mention so far anything about unemployment, bankruptcies, tenant evictions, foreclosures, or any of the other myriad of economic illnesses. I kept the discussion strictly about healthcare, and who dies who lives. I'm in favor of keeping the lockdown for a bit longer, but keeping it for many months doesn't make too much sense, even if you completely disregard the economic consequences. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22958352 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22958352

by jariel 7y ago

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago

People allow 2.7 million Americans to die every year. Not that this isn't a tragedy! We should work hard and urgently towards a world where nobody has to die, whether from heart disease or cancer or coronavirus. And the coronavirus presents a variety of high leverage options that are unavailable for other causes of death. But if destroying American society is the cost of containing the coronavirus, we can't pay it.

jhayward 7y ago
You fail to make the case that the choice is the straw man presented: destroy America or let the virus run wild. The US has an immense set of tools and strategies available that would, if used intelligently, certainly prevent America being destroyed without compromising public health. However, many Americans, as seemingly you do, refuse to consider or admit that these tools exist and can easily be deployed if the political will supports them. The only thing “destroying America” is right-wing politics refusing to use the tools available to counter the hugely deflationary step-function we are in.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  I didn't intend to make that case. I've seen many mitigations proposed that I'm wholly in favor of. By all means, let's hire 300,000 contact tracers, and close schools until the fall, and all wear masks whenever we're in close contact with strangers. Hopefully these measures will have an impact! But I've also seen people propose mitigations that would destroy America, and use "political will" as a euphemism for "acceptance of giant quarantine camps for all sufferers and their close contacts" or "willingness to sacrifice all social contact indefinitely". I don't think it's a good thing if political will drives us to do things which are counter to our values.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  Exactly, what's going to happen to small businesses and working class people in the US is a policy choice. And people that thing letting the virus run wild is going to prevent that are delusional.

cvwright 7y ago

> Are we not greater than that as a civilization? Are we so great that we have totally conquered disease? That we can keep everyone alive forever? Certainly not. To assume otherwise shows an astonishing level of hubris.

dr_dshiv 7y ago

If you count by Quality of Life Adjusted Years, then dying at age 25 is a lot worse than dying at age 75.

jhayward 7y ago
Everyone's life has the same value. Old people, poor people, black people, people with diabetes, people who have had transplants, people who have had cancer, fat people, all have the same value as a 25-year-old who has had 1%-er medical care, diet, and home life since birth.
- eric_b 7y ago
  Sorry to break your fairytale world view, but this is naive and stupid. If you really believe this I suggest strongly that you learn more about the real world and those who live in it.
  - dang 7y ago
    Could you please stop breaking the site guidelines? You've been doing this a ton. Not cool, regardless of how wrong other people are or you feel they are. I don't know which side you're arguing for, but in addition to egregiously flouting HN's rules, you're discrediting it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- JPKab 7y ago
  As if anyone is arguing this. Your comments mark you as one of the people politicizing this. As if small business owners who have seen the data change and question why liquor stores can be open and they can't are all right wingers. By the way, your comment is naive and foolish. Grown-ups in hospitals make the decision on a regular basis that yes, a 25 year olds life is more valuable than an elderly persons. The right wingers deny science on climate change. Now I'm seeing left wingers deny science on covid19 antibodies. (They already do it with nuclear power) I've seen 5 antibody studies all say the same thing, and the left wingers just attack all of them reflexively. Sweden was right. We were wrong.

credit_guy 7y ago

I can't speak for the greater New York area, but limiting to NYC, there are about 8.3 million inhabitants. As of today, about 12k Covid19 deaths. If it's true that about 21% of the population has been infected so far [1], that's 1.75 million, so a fatality rate of 0.7%. Let's say herd immunity for the very dense NYC is reached at 80%. That's an additional 4.9 million new yorkers who will get the virus. At the current fatality rate of 0.7% that's 34.3k additional deaths. If we extend for many months the lockdown, maybe we bring the fatality rate to 0.5% due to protocol improvements. That's a 24.5k dead, or about 9k saved. We are talking about 9000 people saved, not 160000. But keep in mind, the 9000 people saved are just the Covid19 victims. There will be additional deaths due to months and months of missed "elective" healthcare. People with diabetes, hypertension, etc, etc, who are not managing their condition properly because if you're not Covid19, nobody cares about you anymore. Who is counting these invisible victims? After you put them in, it's not clear on a net basis how many people you save, but it's probably in the low single digit thousands, if there. Now, notice that I did not mention so far anything about unemployment, bankruptcies, tenant evictions, foreclosures, or any of the other myriad of economic illnesses. I kept the discussion strictly about healthcare, and who dies who lives. I'm in favor of keeping the lockdown for a bit longer, but keeping it for many months doesn't make too much sense, even if you completely disregard the economic consequences. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22958352 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22958352