3 ms·

> 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 emoti

> 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.

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.