6 ms·

We don't, though! Automobiles are heavily regulated by a staggeringly large bureaucracy that works at all levels from driver training to equipment design to co

We don't, though! Automobiles are heavily regulated by a staggeringly large bureaucracy that works at all levels from driver training to equipment design to collision analysis science to traffic pattern analysis to infrastructure maintenance. We spend enormous amounts of money because we "don't accept" the high fatality rates seen in automobiles. And it works. Check out the charts here for very clear proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in... And now we're doing the same kind of thing (in, obviously, very different ways) to fight the covid pandemic. And it's working too, though better in some areas than others. Germany in TFA is worried that maybe their R0 might have slipped above 1.0 and started growing again. Outside NYC, the US epidemic is still large and still growing.

moduspol 6y ago
We accept it by allowing cars to be driven. That we separately take other steps to lessen the number does not negate the fact that we still accept it. And it's the same thing with COVID-19. We can't quarantine everyone indefinitely, this is unlikely to end without us reaching herd immunity, and the quarantine itself causes non-negligible suffering. We have to approach this rationally.
- newacct583 6y ago
  We don't quarantine everyone, not remotely. Best estimates are that about 20% of the US economy is halted right now. Hyperbole doesn't help. Why is trying to minimize a US death toll on the order of hundreds of thousands[1] at the cost of a 20% GDP hit not a "rational" choice? It may not be your personal choice, but it seems to be to most people. And it's absolutely a well-understood tradeoff by everyone involved. No one went into this blind to the costs. [1] Maybe only ("only") mid-tens-of-thousands if you use the kind of life-years-saved metric that seems to be en vogue among the "open up" set.
  - Johanx64 6y ago
    The problem with "pro-quarantine" arguments is that they miss that: a) they are not going to "save hundreds of thousands of deaths", because quarantine doesn't stop the virus it only slows it down, in other-words quarantine will spread out those deaths in time, but many of those deaths are still going to happen (in due time) b) 20% GDP hit will inevitably directly and indirectly kill, make homeless and starve a lot of people c) in 2nd and 3rd world contries the distruption of the global economy to this degree will kill a metric ton of people d) it's impossible to keep quarantine for extended periods of time, because then it's going to be way more than 20% GDP hit. The only question is which approach is going to kill more people and do more damage in the long run. To me it seems obvious that extended general quarantine is going to do an order of magnitude more damage (than doing the sane thing - like isolating at risk groups).
    - newacct583 6y ago
      > a) they are not going to "save hundreds of thousands of deaths" They literally (literally literally!) already have. What do you think would have happened in late March if the lockdowns hadn't bent the curves? Why do you think the high exponent mode (doubling every 3-6 days) stopped, if you don't think the lockdowns did it? The problem with the "anti-quarantine" arguments is that they confuse the death rates of the status quo (locked-down semi-containment) with those that obtain from an unrestricted economy. That's not how it works. > The only question is which approach is going to kill more people and do more damage in the long run. Find a serious person with numbers that support your case. I think you'll be surprised.
      - FabHK 6y ago
        Yes. To highlight the response to a) - flattening the curve means that the peak is lower, but also that the area is smaller. The herd immunity level is always reached and overshot, but with a flatter curve the overshoot is smaller, and it can also be reached with vaccination. Thus, saving lives, even without full containment.
      - Johanx64 6y ago
pps43 6y ago
> the US epidemic is still large and still growing Rt is below 1 in all states except Minnesota and Nebraska [1]. So the US epidemic is still large, but already shrinking. With that said, when lockdowns are eased, Rt can increase again. [1] https://rt.live https://rt.live
- newacct583 6y ago
  That model isn't consistent with data on the ground though. Many more states are showing clear and obvious growth over the past 7-10 days (which is about the best fidelity that measurement can achieve anyway). Check out the link below for my personal list of "worry states". A few might have ticked down in the past 2-3 days, but the overall trend of all of these states is upward and there's no reliable evidence of a genuine halt in growth. https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=states-normalized&highlight=Nebraska&show=highlight-only&trendline=default&y=log&scale=log&data=cases-daily-7&extra=Kansas,Iowa,Minnesota,Wisconsin,Arizona,Virginia#states-normalized https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=states... Edit: in fact I went back and spot-checked Iowa. That link you posted says that Rt dropped below 1.0 20 days ago. In fact the real world new case rate is almost three times higher than it was 20 days ago! I'll just say it: that site you linked is garbage.
  - pps43 6y ago
    There are more confirmed cases because there's more testing.
    - newacct583 6y ago
      That explanation made sense for the hyper-growth mode (2-3 day doubling) in, say, NYC's early explosion, because there was giant pool of infected being discovered with new tests. It doesn't explain states like Iowa which are doubling only ("only", sigh) every 6-10 days. In that realm you'd expect positives to track linearly with test growth, and they don't. I'm sorry. Those graphs you linked are pretty, but they're just dead wrong.

moduspol 6y ago

We accept it by allowing cars to be driven. That we separately take other steps to lessen the number does not negate the fact that we still accept it. And it's the same thing with COVID-19. We can't quarantine everyone indefinitely, this is unlikely to end without us reaching herd immunity, and the quarantine itself causes non-negligible suffering. We have to approach this rationally.

newacct583 6y ago
We don't quarantine everyone, not remotely. Best estimates are that about 20% of the US economy is halted right now. Hyperbole doesn't help. Why is trying to minimize a US death toll on the order of hundreds of thousands[1] at the cost of a 20% GDP hit not a "rational" choice? It may not be your personal choice, but it seems to be to most people. And it's absolutely a well-understood tradeoff by everyone involved. No one went into this blind to the costs. [1] Maybe only ("only") mid-tens-of-thousands if you use the kind of life-years-saved metric that seems to be en vogue among the "open up" set.
- Johanx64 6y ago
  The problem with "pro-quarantine" arguments is that they miss that: a) they are not going to "save hundreds of thousands of deaths", because quarantine doesn't stop the virus it only slows it down, in other-words quarantine will spread out those deaths in time, but many of those deaths are still going to happen (in due time) b) 20% GDP hit will inevitably directly and indirectly kill, make homeless and starve a lot of people c) in 2nd and 3rd world contries the distruption of the global economy to this degree will kill a metric ton of people d) it's impossible to keep quarantine for extended periods of time, because then it's going to be way more than 20% GDP hit. The only question is which approach is going to kill more people and do more damage in the long run. To me it seems obvious that extended general quarantine is going to do an order of magnitude more damage (than doing the sane thing - like isolating at risk groups).
  - newacct583 6y ago
    > a) they are not going to "save hundreds of thousands of deaths" They literally (literally literally!) already have. What do you think would have happened in late March if the lockdowns hadn't bent the curves? Why do you think the high exponent mode (doubling every 3-6 days) stopped, if you don't think the lockdowns did it? The problem with the "anti-quarantine" arguments is that they confuse the death rates of the status quo (locked-down semi-containment) with those that obtain from an unrestricted economy. That's not how it works. > The only question is which approach is going to kill more people and do more damage in the long run. Find a serious person with numbers that support your case. I think you'll be surprised.
    - FabHK 6y ago
      Yes. To highlight the response to a) - flattening the curve means that the peak is lower, but also that the area is smaller. The herd immunity level is always reached and overshot, but with a flatter curve the overshoot is smaller, and it can also be reached with vaccination. Thus, saving lives, even without full containment.
    - Johanx64 6y ago

pps43 6y ago

> the US epidemic is still large and still growing Rt is below 1 in all states except Minnesota and Nebraska [1]. So the US epidemic is still large, but already shrinking. With that said, when lockdowns are eased, Rt can increase again. [1] https://rt.live https://rt.live

newacct583 6y ago
That model isn't consistent with data on the ground though. Many more states are showing clear and obvious growth over the past 7-10 days (which is about the best fidelity that measurement can achieve anyway). Check out the link below for my personal list of "worry states". A few might have ticked down in the past 2-3 days, but the overall trend of all of these states is upward and there's no reliable evidence of a genuine halt in growth. https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=states-normalized&highlight=Nebraska&show=highlight-only&trendline=default&y=log&scale=log&data=cases-daily-7&extra=Kansas,Iowa,Minnesota,Wisconsin,Arizona,Virginia#states-normalized https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=states... Edit: in fact I went back and spot-checked Iowa. That link you posted says that Rt dropped below 1.0 20 days ago. In fact the real world new case rate is almost three times higher than it was 20 days ago! I'll just say it: that site you linked is garbage.
- pps43 6y ago
  There are more confirmed cases because there's more testing.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    That explanation made sense for the hyper-growth mode (2-3 day doubling) in, say, NYC's early explosion, because there was giant pool of infected being discovered with new tests. It doesn't explain states like Iowa which are doubling only ("only", sigh) every 6-10 days. In that realm you'd expect positives to track linearly with test growth, and they don't. I'm sorry. Those graphs you linked are pretty, but they're just dead wrong.