5 ms·

Sorry, what's your age ? edit: OK I got one downvote instead of an answer. Wasn't the question gentle enough? The death rate for my age is .37%, it seems tha

by thro1 6y ago

Sorry, what's your age ? edit: OK I got one downvote instead of an answer. Wasn't the question gentle enough? The death rate for my age is .37%, it seems that the death rate for your age may be not important at all -correct ?

censorsheep 6y ago
It wasn't me that downvoted you. I don't do that, even when I can. I can't on HN btw. I'm in the 35-44 range. A lot of people are making arguments without keeping things in perspective. First, people die. That is a fact of life. Our attempt to smooth out nature will be smyted in time. It will snap back. We are spending too much money. We are creating a fear-driven easily controlled society. We are encouraging censorship. All of this stuff is very bad. Do you agree with that?
- brandon272 6y ago
  There are negative effects of shutdowns, yes. I would argue that the case hasn't been made that allowing the virus to run rampant among society is the lesser of two evils. Given the risk level, on an average basis, the question seems to be, "Are you willing to kill off either yourself, or more likely someone you know, so that we can all enjoy the ability to go stand in stores?" A large percentage of the population (doesn't even have to be anywhere near a majority) is going to answer "No" to that question. Regardless of lockdowns, regardless of what the government says they are allowed to do. People will maintain their own personal "shutdowns" regardless of how the government (or those who assess the risk differently) tell them to feel.
  - umanwizard 6y ago
    > Given the risk level, on an average basis, the question seems to be, "Are you willing to kill off either yourself, or more likely someone you know, so that we can all enjoy the ability to go stand in stores?" This is an absurd appeal to emotion — it implies that you should treat COVID-19 as something you will deterministically die from. The correct framing is “what _probability_ of increased death for yourself or someone you know would you accept in order for the lockdown to be over?” Well, “someone you know” is extremely vague, but just speaking for myself, I’d probably accept a 10% risk of my own death to end the lockdown (which is many orders of magnitude higher than the actual risk). No I don’t think my grandma dying is worth all this being over. I do think some small risk of people dying is worth it, though. Everyone thinks that way about everything, even if it’s hard to admit. If they didn’t, they would never have gone outside even before COVID-19 was discovered.
    - brandon272 6y ago
      > This is an absurd appeal to emotion — it implies that you should treat COVID-19 as something you will deterministically die from. It's not an appeal to emotion at all. If we allow the virus to run unabated through the population, it's a statistical likelihood that someone you know will die from it. I think "someone you know" is generally understood to mean friends, acquaintances, near and extended family members. Of course, we're only talking about probabilities and at the end of the day there would be people who would end up having no one they know die, and others who would see half their families wiped out. > I’d probably accept a 10% risk of my own death to end the lockdown Accepting a 10% risk of death to "end a lockdown", of all things, so that people can go stand in stores, is completely incomprehensible to me, which just goes to show that not everyone's risk tolerance is the same. You can't dictate to others how they feel on this topic.
      - umanwizard 6y ago
        > Accepting a 10% risk of death to "end a lockdown", of all things, so that people can go stand in stores, is completely incomprehensible to me, which just goes to show that not everyone's risk tolerance is the same. It is not about wanting to stand in stores. It is about avoiding long-term damage to the material conditions of millions, maybe billions, of people. Do you not think the lockdown will cause a huge increase in poverty, homelessness, and starvation?
        brandon272 6y ago
        > Do you not think the lockdown will cause a huge increase in poverty, homelessness, and starvation? Perhaps. But that's something that should be quantified and included as part of the risk assessment so that rational decisions can be made. It's also something that can be planned for and mitigated. It also plays into the idea that the economy is "shutdown" or that there is a universal "lockdown" happening or that the economy needs to be "reopened" because it is no longer producing anything at all. Large parts of the economy didn't have to (and did not) shut down and they have continued full-steam ahead.
    - censorsheep 6y ago
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Few people are brave enough to explicitly say "yup it's worth N deaths to do suchandsuch", no matter how important the suchandsuch is. If you gave people a complete understanding of the scenario, that "stay inside until the risk is gone" means "stay inside until at least 2021, maybe longer, while the rest of the world gets to stand in stores and eat at restaurants again", I doubt any significant number of people would sign up for it.
  - quercus 6y ago
    How can you reduce all of the freedoms we've lost in the lockdown to "go stand in stores." That's life to you? Standing in stores? It will not be possible to have a rational argument about the cost/benefits of lockdown if people aren't going to acknowledge how many features of our lives have been sacrificed.
    - brandon272 6y ago
      Can you provide a list of the freedoms we've lost? Honestly, perhaps my thinking on what I or others have lost in this is too narrow. People are being asked to make the temporary sacrifice of practicing physical distancing. That's what it boils down to in terms of "freedoms lost". And because, frankly, we have been utterly unprepared to deal with this completely predictable viral outbreak, much of our society is unprepared to conduct business in a way that allows or supports physical distancing. So people are scrambling. Yes, there will be severe economic hardship for many people. No one denies that. But as I said, for many people they are making an extremely difficult choice between economic hardship or what they perceive to be the health and wellbeing of family and loved ones.
      - tripletao 6y ago
        Where I am in the USA, people are seriously proposing not to resume in-person elementary school in fall. Public education is one of very few equalizers in society here, and the children who fall behind because their parents can't/won't/don't supplement the videoconference lectures may never catch up. That cost is hard to quantify for me, but it seems tremendous, unquestionably worth a significant chance of my (but mostly others', since coronavirus mostly kills the elderly) death. Do you agree? How many quality-adjusted life years do you think it's worth paying to keep the kids in school? The answer can't be zero, since just driving them there costs something. This isn't a pleasant question, but it's one that society has to answer. I really don't like the binary argument about "lockdowns". It creates the impression that the pro side wants no one leaving the house except for food, and the anti side wants to resume status quo ante corona. The real answer is of course in between--that some measures, like masks and not standing too close are clearly worth it, while others, like banning all outdoor exercise, are not. Perhaps some people arguing for or against "lockdowns" really are at those extremes, but I doubt most are.
- thro1 6y ago
  I'm scared of people.. their laziness in thinking and consequences of it. I wish people wear masks by self if it may be needed - not because someone told them so, like being responsible for others acting first on self could prove that no one need to 'take care' of you if you don't want it, otherwise you just allow to treat self and others like you may need it.
  - quercus 6y ago
    Likewise, I'm scared of people, for their laziness in accepting the consequences of annihilating our culture for a few extra points of risk reduction.
- chimprich 6y ago
  Your numbers seem to be roughly correct based on the studies I've seen. Maybe a bit of an underestimate given that the latest serological studies are suggesting a higher than originally predicted IFR, but close enough for discussion. > I'm in the 35-44 range. Me too. Leaving aside the danger to older people, let's selfishly consider our risk. My baseline fatality rate is something like 1 in 1,000. That's not odds I'm absolutely wild about - I wouldn't be keen on getting on an aeroplane with a 1 in 1,000 chance of crashing - but not something I'd worry too much about. What's considerably scarier and what you don't seem to be considering is the hospitalisation rate. This could be in the region of 3-5% for our age group. A case requiring hospital treatment could easily be lethal if you have an overwhelmed health system. Even if you survive, you may then be facing serious long-term health problems. Odds of a bad outcome approaching 1 in 20 are a lot more thought-provoking than 1 in 1,000. > We are creating a fear-driven Fear is a good thing in general, providing it doesn't stop you thinking rationally. It keeps people alive.

by thro1 6y ago

censorsheep 6y ago

It wasn't me that downvoted you. I don't do that, even when I can. I can't on HN btw. I'm in the 35-44 range. A lot of people are making arguments without keeping things in perspective. First, people die. That is a fact of life. Our attempt to smooth out nature will be smyted in time. It will snap back. We are spending too much money. We are creating a fear-driven easily controlled society. We are encouraging censorship. All of this stuff is very bad. Do you agree with that?

brandon272 6y ago
There are negative effects of shutdowns, yes. I would argue that the case hasn't been made that allowing the virus to run rampant among society is the lesser of two evils. Given the risk level, on an average basis, the question seems to be, "Are you willing to kill off either yourself, or more likely someone you know, so that we can all enjoy the ability to go stand in stores?" A large percentage of the population (doesn't even have to be anywhere near a majority) is going to answer "No" to that question. Regardless of lockdowns, regardless of what the government says they are allowed to do. People will maintain their own personal "shutdowns" regardless of how the government (or those who assess the risk differently) tell them to feel.
- umanwizard 6y ago
  > Given the risk level, on an average basis, the question seems to be, "Are you willing to kill off either yourself, or more likely someone you know, so that we can all enjoy the ability to go stand in stores?" This is an absurd appeal to emotion — it implies that you should treat COVID-19 as something you will deterministically die from. The correct framing is “what _probability_ of increased death for yourself or someone you know would you accept in order for the lockdown to be over?” Well, “someone you know” is extremely vague, but just speaking for myself, I’d probably accept a 10% risk of my own death to end the lockdown (which is many orders of magnitude higher than the actual risk). No I don’t think my grandma dying is worth all this being over. I do think some small risk of people dying is worth it, though. Everyone thinks that way about everything, even if it’s hard to admit. If they didn’t, they would never have gone outside even before COVID-19 was discovered.
  - brandon272 6y ago
    > This is an absurd appeal to emotion — it implies that you should treat COVID-19 as something you will deterministically die from. It's not an appeal to emotion at all. If we allow the virus to run unabated through the population, it's a statistical likelihood that someone you know will die from it. I think "someone you know" is generally understood to mean friends, acquaintances, near and extended family members. Of course, we're only talking about probabilities and at the end of the day there would be people who would end up having no one they know die, and others who would see half their families wiped out. > I’d probably accept a 10% risk of my own death to end the lockdown Accepting a 10% risk of death to "end a lockdown", of all things, so that people can go stand in stores, is completely incomprehensible to me, which just goes to show that not everyone's risk tolerance is the same. You can't dictate to others how they feel on this topic.
    - umanwizard 6y ago
      > Accepting a 10% risk of death to "end a lockdown", of all things, so that people can go stand in stores, is completely incomprehensible to me, which just goes to show that not everyone's risk tolerance is the same. It is not about wanting to stand in stores. It is about avoiding long-term damage to the material conditions of millions, maybe billions, of people. Do you not think the lockdown will cause a huge increase in poverty, homelessness, and starvation?
      - brandon272 6y ago
        > Do you not think the lockdown will cause a huge increase in poverty, homelessness, and starvation? Perhaps. But that's something that should be quantified and included as part of the risk assessment so that rational decisions can be made. It's also something that can be planned for and mitigated. It also plays into the idea that the economy is "shutdown" or that there is a universal "lockdown" happening or that the economy needs to be "reopened" because it is no longer producing anything at all. Large parts of the economy didn't have to (and did not) shut down and they have continued full-steam ahead.
  - censorsheep 6y ago
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Few people are brave enough to explicitly say "yup it's worth N deaths to do suchandsuch", no matter how important the suchandsuch is. If you gave people a complete understanding of the scenario, that "stay inside until the risk is gone" means "stay inside until at least 2021, maybe longer, while the rest of the world gets to stand in stores and eat at restaurants again", I doubt any significant number of people would sign up for it.
- quercus 6y ago
  How can you reduce all of the freedoms we've lost in the lockdown to "go stand in stores." That's life to you? Standing in stores? It will not be possible to have a rational argument about the cost/benefits of lockdown if people aren't going to acknowledge how many features of our lives have been sacrificed.
  - brandon272 6y ago
    Can you provide a list of the freedoms we've lost? Honestly, perhaps my thinking on what I or others have lost in this is too narrow. People are being asked to make the temporary sacrifice of practicing physical distancing. That's what it boils down to in terms of "freedoms lost". And because, frankly, we have been utterly unprepared to deal with this completely predictable viral outbreak, much of our society is unprepared to conduct business in a way that allows or supports physical distancing. So people are scrambling. Yes, there will be severe economic hardship for many people. No one denies that. But as I said, for many people they are making an extremely difficult choice between economic hardship or what they perceive to be the health and wellbeing of family and loved ones.
    - tripletao 6y ago
      Where I am in the USA, people are seriously proposing not to resume in-person elementary school in fall. Public education is one of very few equalizers in society here, and the children who fall behind because their parents can't/won't/don't supplement the videoconference lectures may never catch up. That cost is hard to quantify for me, but it seems tremendous, unquestionably worth a significant chance of my (but mostly others', since coronavirus mostly kills the elderly) death. Do you agree? How many quality-adjusted life years do you think it's worth paying to keep the kids in school? The answer can't be zero, since just driving them there costs something. This isn't a pleasant question, but it's one that society has to answer. I really don't like the binary argument about "lockdowns". It creates the impression that the pro side wants no one leaving the house except for food, and the anti side wants to resume status quo ante corona. The real answer is of course in between--that some measures, like masks and not standing too close are clearly worth it, while others, like banning all outdoor exercise, are not. Perhaps some people arguing for or against "lockdowns" really are at those extremes, but I doubt most are.
thro1 6y ago
I'm scared of people.. their laziness in thinking and consequences of it. I wish people wear masks by self if it may be needed - not because someone told them so, like being responsible for others acting first on self could prove that no one need to 'take care' of you if you don't want it, otherwise you just allow to treat self and others like you may need it.
- quercus 6y ago
  Likewise, I'm scared of people, for their laziness in accepting the consequences of annihilating our culture for a few extra points of risk reduction.
chimprich 6y ago
Your numbers seem to be roughly correct based on the studies I've seen. Maybe a bit of an underestimate given that the latest serological studies are suggesting a higher than originally predicted IFR, but close enough for discussion. > I'm in the 35-44 range. Me too. Leaving aside the danger to older people, let's selfishly consider our risk. My baseline fatality rate is something like 1 in 1,000. That's not odds I'm absolutely wild about - I wouldn't be keen on getting on an aeroplane with a 1 in 1,000 chance of crashing - but not something I'd worry too much about. What's considerably scarier and what you don't seem to be considering is the hospitalisation rate. This could be in the region of 3-5% for our age group. A case requiring hospital treatment could easily be lethal if you have an overwhelmed health system. Even if you survive, you may then be facing serious long-term health problems. Odds of a bad outcome approaching 1 in 20 are a lot more thought-provoking than 1 in 1,000. > We are creating a fear-driven Fear is a good thing in general, providing it doesn't stop you thinking rationally. It keeps people alive.