6 ms·

Based on what data?

by take_a_breath 6y ago

Based on what data?

matz1 6y ago
Based on economy going to the ruin and risking people life. Prolong lockdown will reduce your immune system as well.
- take_a_breath 6y ago
  So, no actual data? The solution is to risk even more lives by sending people back to work? Again, I’d like to see the data behind that calculation. If you’re interested in people’s lives, maybe we can work on universal healthcare, increasing minimum wages, or guaranteeing sick-leave?
  - matz1 6y ago
    So you want to risk people life by not allowing them to work ?
    - take_a_breath 6y ago
      Provide data that shows it is a larger risk. Without that data you are arguing based on ideology not facts. The thing about not working is that we have government mechanisms to help those people. We can beef up social security, unemployment benefits, or direct payments. Then people can go back to work afterwards. Work will always exist. It exists even now with a “closed” economy. The thing about dying is that it’s pretty final.
      - matz1 6y ago
        >We can beef up social security, unemployment benefits, or direct payments If you give people money for not working, who are going to work then ? Money will become meaningless if you can't use to buy stuff.
        take_a_breath 6y ago
        ==Money will become meaningless if you can't use to buy stuff.== I don't follow this line of thought. We already give people money for not working (examples are social security and unemployment benefits). None of that has made money obsolete. Why would a temporary measure in the midst of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic? Why don't I see people make this same argument about businesses getting money from the government? Will money become meaningless for businesses? Do people stop trying to earn money once they reach a certain level? Elon Musk certainly hasn't.
        matz1 6y ago
        Ok tell me then, let say the government give people money for not working then why would people then want to work on let say grocery store where you suggest its risky ?
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - pinkfoot 6y ago
      Ok, I'll bite: where are the coffins of all the people who have died in the last four weeks from not working? Because I can show you lots of coffins from people in NY and Italy who went to work whilst the pandemic was raging.
      - matz1 6y ago
        you don't think no people will die by not be able to afford basic necessities due to not working ?
        pinkfoot 6y ago
        Oh, I do. So show us the model (we still do that right?) when the death by virus numbers are less than the death by poverty numbers. But you can't becuase you didn't. You just "feel" its time.
        matz1 6y ago
        So if the death by poverty is less than death of virus, then continue lockdown ? Must be sucks to be the one who dying due to poverty caused by lockdown.
        pinkfoot 6y ago
        Of course not, and here is why: lockdown is not binary, there are degrees of lockdown. So, when you help us all out with the model of deaths-by-lockdown that informed your decision, we can all benefit from it by comparing it against the latest, updated death-by-covid-19 models and making an informed choice about the degree (if any) of lockdown to pursue. The lesser evil. But of course no such model exists. Its all just emoting. Happy to be wrong.
        matz1 6y ago
        So both are evil, must be suck to be the one affected by the "less" evil decision.
    - falcolas 6y ago
      So you want to risk people’s lives by forcing them to work? And yes, it is forcing. Amazon, a fantastic example right now, is removing the ability for warehouse workers to stay at home, unless they take unpaid leave. No pay, no healthcare benefits, unless you go into a warehouse and risk your lives.
      - matz1 6y ago
        I didn't say force, if you don't want to work then don't work.
    - c0nducktr 6y ago
      Every time someone responds to you, you pivot.
GarrisonPrime 6y ago
Based on the drop in cases, ludicrously low infection and death rates, the need to balance healthcare system burden with a speedy development of herd immunity,and the economic devastation. People can’t just say “it’s worth it if we save just one life”. Bullshit. Everything requires context, and being under lockdown has its own severe consequences. Including the loss of life.
- take_a_breath 6y ago
  ==Based on the drop in cases== Friday and Saturday saw the highest single day totals of new cases. ==ludicrously low infection and death rates== Nobody knows these rates because we can’t test enough people to know infection rates. People are dying at home so it will be a while until we know actual death rates. ==speedy development of herd immunity== You and your family should jump to the front line and help build this immunity. I’ll protect my 2 year-old and pregnant wife in our home. All we have to do is look to the 1918 flu to see the danger of opening up too soon. Making up strawman quotes from your “opposition” doesn’t change the data on this virus or the history of past viruses.
  - IfIEverCatchYou 6y ago
    > You and your family should jump to the front line and help build this immunity. I’ll protect my 2 year-old and pregnant wife in our home. This is exactly how the pandemic should have been handled. Personal risk should have been allowed to be determined by the individual, not the state, at the expense of personal rights.
    - take_a_breath 6y ago
      The obvious flaw is that we know people can be asymptomatic carriers. That means they can put others at risk which violates the personal rights of those individuals. This also can’t be done without significant testing which still isn’t available 9 weeks after declaring a public health emergency.
      - 6y ago
TechBro8615 6y ago
As a start, the 21% of people with antibodies in NYC, indicating a 0.5% IFR.

Based on what data?

matz1 6y ago

Based on economy going to the ruin and risking people life. Prolong lockdown will reduce your immune system as well.

take_a_breath 6y ago
So, no actual data? The solution is to risk even more lives by sending people back to work? Again, I’d like to see the data behind that calculation. If you’re interested in people’s lives, maybe we can work on universal healthcare, increasing minimum wages, or guaranteeing sick-leave?
- matz1 6y ago
  So you want to risk people life by not allowing them to work ?
  - take_a_breath 6y ago
    Provide data that shows it is a larger risk. Without that data you are arguing based on ideology not facts. The thing about not working is that we have government mechanisms to help those people. We can beef up social security, unemployment benefits, or direct payments. Then people can go back to work afterwards. Work will always exist. It exists even now with a “closed” economy. The thing about dying is that it’s pretty final.
    - matz1 6y ago
      >We can beef up social security, unemployment benefits, or direct payments If you give people money for not working, who are going to work then ? Money will become meaningless if you can't use to buy stuff.
      - take_a_breath 6y ago
        ==Money will become meaningless if you can't use to buy stuff.== I don't follow this line of thought. We already give people money for not working (examples are social security and unemployment benefits). None of that has made money obsolete. Why would a temporary measure in the midst of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic? Why don't I see people make this same argument about businesses getting money from the government? Will money become meaningless for businesses? Do people stop trying to earn money once they reach a certain level? Elon Musk certainly hasn't.
        matz1 6y ago
        Ok tell me then, let say the government give people money for not working then why would people then want to work on let say grocery store where you suggest its risky ?
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - pinkfoot 6y ago
    Ok, I'll bite: where are the coffins of all the people who have died in the last four weeks from not working? Because I can show you lots of coffins from people in NY and Italy who went to work whilst the pandemic was raging.
    - matz1 6y ago
      you don't think no people will die by not be able to afford basic necessities due to not working ?
      - pinkfoot 6y ago
        Oh, I do. So show us the model (we still do that right?) when the death by virus numbers are less than the death by poverty numbers. But you can't becuase you didn't. You just "feel" its time.
        matz1 6y ago
        So if the death by poverty is less than death of virus, then continue lockdown ? Must be sucks to be the one who dying due to poverty caused by lockdown.
        pinkfoot 6y ago
        Of course not, and here is why: lockdown is not binary, there are degrees of lockdown. So, when you help us all out with the model of deaths-by-lockdown that informed your decision, we can all benefit from it by comparing it against the latest, updated death-by-covid-19 models and making an informed choice about the degree (if any) of lockdown to pursue. The lesser evil. But of course no such model exists. Its all just emoting. Happy to be wrong.
        matz1 6y ago
        So both are evil, must be suck to be the one affected by the "less" evil decision.
  - falcolas 6y ago
    So you want to risk people’s lives by forcing them to work? And yes, it is forcing. Amazon, a fantastic example right now, is removing the ability for warehouse workers to stay at home, unless they take unpaid leave. No pay, no healthcare benefits, unless you go into a warehouse and risk your lives.
    - matz1 6y ago
      I didn't say force, if you don't want to work then don't work.
  - c0nducktr 6y ago
    Every time someone responds to you, you pivot.

GarrisonPrime 6y ago

Based on the drop in cases, ludicrously low infection and death rates, the need to balance healthcare system burden with a speedy development of herd immunity,and the economic devastation. People can’t just say “it’s worth it if we save just one life”. Bullshit. Everything requires context, and being under lockdown has its own severe consequences. Including the loss of life.

take_a_breath 6y ago
==Based on the drop in cases== Friday and Saturday saw the highest single day totals of new cases. ==ludicrously low infection and death rates== Nobody knows these rates because we can’t test enough people to know infection rates. People are dying at home so it will be a while until we know actual death rates. ==speedy development of herd immunity== You and your family should jump to the front line and help build this immunity. I’ll protect my 2 year-old and pregnant wife in our home. All we have to do is look to the 1918 flu to see the danger of opening up too soon. Making up strawman quotes from your “opposition” doesn’t change the data on this virus or the history of past viruses.
- IfIEverCatchYou 6y ago
  > You and your family should jump to the front line and help build this immunity. I’ll protect my 2 year-old and pregnant wife in our home. This is exactly how the pandemic should have been handled. Personal risk should have been allowed to be determined by the individual, not the state, at the expense of personal rights.
  - take_a_breath 6y ago
    The obvious flaw is that we know people can be asymptomatic carriers. That means they can put others at risk which violates the personal rights of those individuals. This also can’t be done without significant testing which still isn’t available 9 weeks after declaring a public health emergency.
    - 6y ago

TechBro8615 6y ago

As a start, the 21% of people with antibodies in NYC, indicating a 0.5% IFR.