3 ms·

ok, but supply of PPE and ventilators to medical workers mainly concerns treatment rather than transmission. stay-at-home and physical distancing primarily con

ok, but supply of PPE and ventilators to medical workers mainly concerns treatment rather than transmission. stay-at-home and physical distancing primarily concern transmission. we want to control transmission to reduce death and suffering, not eliminate them. even with dystopian and draconian measures (not to mention economy-destroying), reducing death and suffering to zero is effectively impossible (and seasonal recurrence is highly likely). moreover, the US is simply not designed, for good reason, to willingly tolerate such measures. life is full of (similarly likely) risks, and we don't generally panic over them. if this were plague-levels of bad, more draconian measures might be warranted, but this isn't that. sub-linear transmission is likely the best we can do. with that in mind, physical distancing (combined with other carefully targeted guidelines like quarantining the sick and having workers wear masks) doesn't need to be perfect to be effective at reducing transmission to sub-linear levels. people who are likely to cough for any reason are already highly discouraged from going out, and most people in public are already hyper-aware of not coughing openly, especially not into each other's mouths. stay-at-home doesn't meaningfully decrease the risk further, but it's a huge risk to social order.

greedo 7y ago
"life is full of (similarly likely) risks, and we don't generally panic over them. if this were plague-levels of bad, more draconian measures might be warranted, but this isn't that." So if the IFR holds up at around 1%, and herd immunity ends up being the only solution since vaccines are tough, the pandemic in the US would be quite bad, no? Help me see where the following is flawed: Population of the US: 328M Herd Immunity infection total (generously assuming 60%): 196M Hospitalization totals (generously assuming 10%): 19M Fatalities based on IFR of 1%: 1.97M So with 1.97M dead Americans, and 17M seriously injured (but surviving) fellow citizens, what exactly would you envision plague-levels of bad? What would be the economic damage from this level of bad? Even if the IFR is off, closer to the flu at 0.1%, the infectiousness of this virus means we'd still need 60% or higher infections for herd immunity. With this IFR, we'd still have 17M hospitalized with serious effects, and still have 197K dead. That's at flu level IFR. The economic value of losing 2M people, as well as 17M with shortened life spans would be far worse than what any lockdown we've implemented would do. It will take all we can to maintain social cohesion for the next 12 months.
JoeAltmaier 7y ago
Its all about the level of risk, which many of us are not so confidently dismissing. Everything follows from that. To assume its 'probably going to be ok' is potentially callously condemning a million people to die needlessly. All for lack of patience.

greedo 7y ago

"life is full of (similarly likely) risks, and we don't generally panic over them. if this were plague-levels of bad, more draconian measures might be warranted, but this isn't that." So if the IFR holds up at around 1%, and herd immunity ends up being the only solution since vaccines are tough, the pandemic in the US would be quite bad, no? Help me see where the following is flawed: Population of the US: 328M Herd Immunity infection total (generously assuming 60%): 196M Hospitalization totals (generously assuming 10%): 19M Fatalities based on IFR of 1%: 1.97M So with 1.97M dead Americans, and 17M seriously injured (but surviving) fellow citizens, what exactly would you envision plague-levels of bad? What would be the economic damage from this level of bad? Even if the IFR is off, closer to the flu at 0.1%, the infectiousness of this virus means we'd still need 60% or higher infections for herd immunity. With this IFR, we'd still have 17M hospitalized with serious effects, and still have 197K dead. That's at flu level IFR. The economic value of losing 2M people, as well as 17M with shortened life spans would be far worse than what any lockdown we've implemented would do. It will take all we can to maintain social cohesion for the next 12 months.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago

Its all about the level of risk, which many of us are not so confidently dismissing. Everything follows from that. To assume its 'probably going to be ok' is potentially callously condemning a million people to die needlessly. All for lack of patience.