4 ms·

> "I don't want to go to the ER, because I might catch COVID from another patient, or doctor" is a very justifiable fear. The mortality risk of undetected/unad

> "I don't want to go to the ER, because I might catch COVID from another patient, or doctor" is a very justifiable fear. The mortality risk of undetected/unaddressed heart problems, etc, far supercedes the risk from COVID-19. You could find some limited examples where that's not true but it is overwhelmingly the case. It is becoming increasingly clear that the level of panic associated with COVID-19 is absolutely divorced from the ground truths. But it doesn't just affect non-COVID-19 mortality. It may be that our response is even making COVID-19 mortality worse in some cases: From https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2009787?query=recirc_mostViewed_railB_article https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2009787?query=rec...): "Social distancing, isolation, and reluctance to present to the hospital may contribute to poor outcomes. Two patients in our series delayed calling an ambulance because they were concerned about going to a hospital during the pandemic." (My note: So the irony here is incredible, these weren't just non-COVID-19 patients afraid to come in but _people who actually had life-threatening COVID-19_.) And from https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(20)30090-0/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0...: "Third, the COVID-19 epidemic has caused a parallel epidemic of fear, anxiety, and depression. People with mental health conditions could be more substantially influenced by the emotional responses brought on by the COVID-19 epidemic, resulting in relapses or worsening of an already existing mental health condition because of high susceptibility to stress compared with the general population." and "Finally, many people with mental health disorders attend regular outpatient visits for evaluations and prescriptions. However, nationwide regulations on travel and quarantine have resulted in these regular visits becoming more difficult and impractical to attend."

vkou 6y ago
> It is becoming increasingly clear that the level of panic associated with COVID-19 is absolutely divorced from the ground truths. No, it's becoming increasingly clear that people are incapable of telling the difference between their personal health[1], and the health of society as a whole. The risk of COVID to me is low. The risk to society of me going about my daily business as if nothing has happened is high. There are social adjustments that do little to reduce my risk, but decrease overall risk, and unsurprisingly, people who don't understand, or don't care about the difference between the two, push back on them. And now we get to look forward to a torrent of people who will be complaining that the horse didn't bolt because we closed the barndoor. [1] You are pointing out a few anecdotes of people not going to the ER when they should. I don't deny that a few people are making that mistake. But if we're going by anecdotes, I can point out a million and one anecdotes of people not taking basic health precautions - that I don't even need to go to a newspaper for - since I can see them out of my window.
- ryankemper 6y ago
  > The risk of COVID to me is low. The risk to society of me going about my daily business as if nothing has happened is high. There are social adjustments that do little to reduce my risk, but decrease overall risk, and unsurprisingly, people who don't understand, or don't care about the difference between the two, push back on them. This is not a fair characterization. Rather, it could be said that the externalities of suspension of elective surgeries, widespread business closures, widespread social isolation and unprecedented fear (which is certainly disproportionate to the risk, _even in those with comorbidities_), are all factors that those who are parroting the "Stay home!" party line are neglecting. I don't think it's fair to say that those who argue against the path we've taken are doing so because of their purely personal risk factors. When highly interconnected systems - like the global supply chain - unravel, it's very hard to predict the full ramifications there. It might be good to start with the impact of these lockdowns on the global food supply and the estimates of 100+ million extra cases of starvation. (I generally try to focus on other factors because quite frankly, to flip your rhetorical technique around, I think that many in favor of these lockdowns don't really care too much about how lockdowns impact conditions in third-world countries and thus I largely try to talk about the direct first-world impact). I don't think those in favor of lockdown are trying to do harm, their intentions are good. But the poor understanding of key concepts such as _what an economy actually is_ is leading to a number of irrational statements being made: for example, the argument that re-opening business is "trading human lives for money". The actual reality is much more nuanced. While on the contrary, perhaps it's just been in my online interactions, but arguing against lockdown/indefinite containment is consistently characterized as either motivated by self-interest or due to the perceived personal risk being low. In essence, the "you clearly don't care about old peoples' lives" argument. -- I've been doing a pseudo-experiment where I've been asking acquaintances of mine what they think the overall infection fatality rate of COVID-19 is, and also what they think their personal risk is. Everyone I've talked to has overestimated the mortality risk both to others and to themselves by an order of magnitude. For example, many have told me that they think the infection fatality rate is 2.2% overall, or 4-5%, etc. In one case a largely healthy young 20-something estimated their personal risk of death at 2%. That's multiple orders of magnitude off. This pseudo-experiment of mine proves nothing, but it's an interesting insight into what people think. (Many of my social groups are very transparently "liberal"-leaning and disproportionate panic in the US is split on party lines so that's not very surprising).

vkou 6y ago

> It is becoming increasingly clear that the level of panic associated with COVID-19 is absolutely divorced from the ground truths. No, it's becoming increasingly clear that people are incapable of telling the difference between their personal health[1], and the health of society as a whole. The risk of COVID to me is low. The risk to society of me going about my daily business as if nothing has happened is high. There are social adjustments that do little to reduce my risk, but decrease overall risk, and unsurprisingly, people who don't understand, or don't care about the difference between the two, push back on them. And now we get to look forward to a torrent of people who will be complaining that the horse didn't bolt because we closed the barndoor. [1] You are pointing out a few anecdotes of people not going to the ER when they should. I don't deny that a few people are making that mistake. But if we're going by anecdotes, I can point out a million and one anecdotes of people not taking basic health precautions - that I don't even need to go to a newspaper for - since I can see them out of my window.

ryankemper 6y ago
> The risk of COVID to me is low. The risk to society of me going about my daily business as if nothing has happened is high. There are social adjustments that do little to reduce my risk, but decrease overall risk, and unsurprisingly, people who don't understand, or don't care about the difference between the two, push back on them. This is not a fair characterization. Rather, it could be said that the externalities of suspension of elective surgeries, widespread business closures, widespread social isolation and unprecedented fear (which is certainly disproportionate to the risk, _even in those with comorbidities_), are all factors that those who are parroting the "Stay home!" party line are neglecting. I don't think it's fair to say that those who argue against the path we've taken are doing so because of their purely personal risk factors. When highly interconnected systems - like the global supply chain - unravel, it's very hard to predict the full ramifications there. It might be good to start with the impact of these lockdowns on the global food supply and the estimates of 100+ million extra cases of starvation. (I generally try to focus on other factors because quite frankly, to flip your rhetorical technique around, I think that many in favor of these lockdowns don't really care too much about how lockdowns impact conditions in third-world countries and thus I largely try to talk about the direct first-world impact). I don't think those in favor of lockdown are trying to do harm, their intentions are good. But the poor understanding of key concepts such as _what an economy actually is_ is leading to a number of irrational statements being made: for example, the argument that re-opening business is "trading human lives for money". The actual reality is much more nuanced. While on the contrary, perhaps it's just been in my online interactions, but arguing against lockdown/indefinite containment is consistently characterized as either motivated by self-interest or due to the perceived personal risk being low. In essence, the "you clearly don't care about old peoples' lives" argument. -- I've been doing a pseudo-experiment where I've been asking acquaintances of mine what they think the overall infection fatality rate of COVID-19 is, and also what they think their personal risk is. Everyone I've talked to has overestimated the mortality risk both to others and to themselves by an order of magnitude. For example, many have told me that they think the infection fatality rate is 2.2% overall, or 4-5%, etc. In one case a largely healthy young 20-something estimated their personal risk of death at 2%. That's multiple orders of magnitude off. This pseudo-experiment of mine proves nothing, but it's an interesting insight into what people think. (Many of my social groups are very transparently "liberal"-leaning and disproportionate panic in the US is split on party lines so that's not very surprising).