4 ms·

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

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
      Delaying deaths (slowing the spread) doesn't mean that "deaths" are prevented - they are still going to happen just spread across significantly larger timeframe, however, the extreme measures taken to slow down the spread have already and will kill, starve and impoverish way more people and do way more damage overall. If quarantine made the virus go away (which it doesn't) - or it bought enough time to make vaccines or effective treatments, then it would make sense, but it doesn't. All it does it make it seem like you are saving lives, while in effect the deaths are just spread across a longer timeframe and now you're killing, starving and impoverishing people from the severe and dire economic consequences.
      - padde 6y ago
        Take into account an overwhelmed health system and you will understand that the "spreading out over time" itself is in fact what is saving many lives.

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
    Delaying deaths (slowing the spread) doesn't mean that "deaths" are prevented - they are still going to happen just spread across significantly larger timeframe, however, the extreme measures taken to slow down the spread have already and will kill, starve and impoverish way more people and do way more damage overall. If quarantine made the virus go away (which it doesn't) - or it bought enough time to make vaccines or effective treatments, then it would make sense, but it doesn't. All it does it make it seem like you are saving lives, while in effect the deaths are just spread across a longer timeframe and now you're killing, starving and impoverishing people from the severe and dire economic consequences.
    - padde 6y ago
      Take into account an overwhelmed health system and you will understand that the "spreading out over time" itself is in fact what is saving many lives.