3 ms·

The current 280k death toll would be higher and and heading towards 1918 Influence deaths with many hospitals being overwhelmed. That's what the lock downs are

The current 280k death toll would be higher and and heading towards 1918 Influence deaths with many hospitals being overwhelmed. That's what the lock downs are preventing, and that's why things aren't as bad as the models predicted, because we took action to slow the spread of the virus. But maybe you think 50 million deaths are worth keeping the economy rolling along (and that millions dying and health care failing wouldn't effect it), while the epidemiologists of the world don't know what they're talking about.

concordDance 7y ago
Lockdowns aren't preventing it, they're delaying it. 50 million deaths in the USA is utter nonesense. There's plenty of disagreement between epidemologists as to the costs of lockdowns and exit strategies.
- haakonhr 7y ago
  US isn't the only country in the world
  - concordDance 7y ago
    Given the grandparent was in a thread on a US company in California I assumed a US context.
    - goatlover 7y ago
      I compared it to 1918 Influenza's global death count/estimate. 50 million people worldwide is a lot, even with the 7.8 billion we have. And 2 million US deaths would be a lot as well. I think it's worth some inconvenience and economic slowdown to prevent millions of deaths.
      - concordDance 7y ago
        Depends how big the "inconvenience" and slowdown is (both economic losses and isolation and routine disruption cause death and quality of life decreases). Poverty is on average much much worse than covid19 for life expectancy (though there are a lot of caveats here). This isn't a taboo trade-off, both sides of the trade-off contain things we really don't want to sacrifice.
centimeter 7y ago
The evidence from Sweden and from serological data everywhere doesn’t suggest that to be the case. It’s looking more and more like the lockdowns are actually accomplishing approximately nothing. But I can tell you didn’t consider/understand my point about why it’s stupid to just optimize for “number of deaths”, which is the relevant part.
- goatlover 7y ago
  The evidence from the US, Italy, Spain, UK and France is that a lack of early lockdown led to the number of cases and deaths we see now.

concordDance 7y ago

Lockdowns aren't preventing it, they're delaying it. 50 million deaths in the USA is utter nonesense. There's plenty of disagreement between epidemologists as to the costs of lockdowns and exit strategies.

haakonhr 7y ago
US isn't the only country in the world
- concordDance 7y ago
  Given the grandparent was in a thread on a US company in California I assumed a US context.
  - goatlover 7y ago
    I compared it to 1918 Influenza's global death count/estimate. 50 million people worldwide is a lot, even with the 7.8 billion we have. And 2 million US deaths would be a lot as well. I think it's worth some inconvenience and economic slowdown to prevent millions of deaths.
    - concordDance 7y ago
      Depends how big the "inconvenience" and slowdown is (both economic losses and isolation and routine disruption cause death and quality of life decreases). Poverty is on average much much worse than covid19 for life expectancy (though there are a lot of caveats here). This isn't a taboo trade-off, both sides of the trade-off contain things we really don't want to sacrifice.

centimeter 7y ago

The evidence from Sweden and from serological data everywhere doesn’t suggest that to be the case. It’s looking more and more like the lockdowns are actually accomplishing approximately nothing. But I can tell you didn’t consider/understand my point about why it’s stupid to just optimize for “number of deaths”, which is the relevant part.

goatlover 7y ago
The evidence from the US, Italy, Spain, UK and France is that a lack of early lockdown led to the number of cases and deaths we see now.