5 ms·

Except for the ones that will end up fighting the worst illness in their lifetime. It may not be them but their parents or grandparents.

by fcurts 6y ago

tjr225 6y ago
Maybe, maybe not.
- fcurts 6y ago
  "Maybe" at individual level becomes "certainly" at city, state, or nation level.
ACow_Adonis 6y ago
You ever had/lived with multiple relatives going with cancer or Alzheimer's. I'm sure it's un-PC to say it, but Covid is a relative cakewalk in comparison...
- esotericimpl 6y ago
  What if your Alzheimer’s parent died of Covid. Should we assume this is a cakewalk for me? Stop acting callous.
- Aeolun 6y ago
  Depends, if you’re 70 and diagnosed with cancer, you may still have a few years or recover completely. If you are diagnosed with covid you have a pretty high chance of being dead before a month has passed.
  - tinus_hn 6y ago
    If you are 70 and get Covid-19 you have a 90% chance of recovering. You make it sound like you have a 90% chance of dying which is an extreme exaggeration.
    - catalogia 6y ago
      In 2017, a 70 year old American man had a 2.2% chance of dying that year and on average was expected to live another 14 years. I'm curious how the average life expectancy of a 70 year old has changed from that year to this one. Is it down to 13 years yet?
    - Aeolun 6y ago
      You are right, for some reason I was under the impression that COVID-19 was much more lethal to older people. I think because of the early cohort in Japan, of which most 70+ people ended up deceased.
- fcurts 6y ago
  I have (both my parents died from cancer in their 50s). How is this related to this topic? Lockdown or not, crowding and not wearing a mask is irresponsible - you aren't just putting yourself at risk, but also the people around you.
  - ACow_Adonis 6y ago
    It's relevant because we currently have two sides going at each other raising irresponsible levels of hyperbole, virtue/team- signaling and fear mongering on both sides, just in different directions. Covid is simultaneously currently worse than the flu, but on the order of genuine avoidable human suffering it SHOULD have (and should still) be treated rationally: isolating and protecting the most vulnerable, practicing good hygiene, a moment to reflect on our lifestyles, policies and our self imposed diseases that make us more vulnerable to the virus. It has a mortality function that, statistically, correlates most strongly with a person's already existing X year survival probability. If you plotted out the frequency of ages and deaths over time, it would primarily register as a small blip/compressing of deaths primarily amongst the older. People who go off on the other end of the spectrum: that this should be the end of society/ socialising, commerce/trade and public life, are just as ridiculous and irresponsible as those who think nothing should be fine, because they illicit fear, partisanship, and stop our finite resources being spent where they do most good, not to mention the harm that's going to come from all the poorly targeted reactions. In this case it's an opportunity to drop the hyperbole and rationally visit how we deal with healthcare and end of life, because how we deal with the elderly already, especially our experiences with those illnesses I mentioned, are qualitatively worse than the experience of dying relatively quickly from covid, but we accept it because it was "part of the everyday" (or in a lot of societies, deliberately excluded from the everyday so we don't think about it too much).
    - fzeroracer 6y ago
      I keep seeing this idea that people are demanding the lockdown last forever and everything should be over, but it seems to primarily come from people using it as an attempt to seem rational by taking a standpoint in the perceived middle rather than any sort of reality. The actual reality is that one side wants people to wear masks and gradually open up in a safe manner because other places that opened up irresponsibly were hit by a second wave of infections. The other side takes mask wearing as fascism and will do literally everything in their power to harass people who wear masks or attempt to bypass the requirement for the sake of making themselves feel better. You calling COVID19 a cakewake is irresponsible hyperbole in itself considering it is dangerous and we should not be under any delusion that it is not. But it is manageable if people don't operate under delusion.
- richardw 6y ago
  You can’t catch cancer or Alzheimer’s, and the hospitals are set to handle the predicable case load. This is a situation where you can prevent a massive increase of simultaneous cases on top of all the cancer so people are trying to do that. Stabbing kills you more quickly but still seems worthwhile to prevent.
  - babesh 6y ago
    You can absolutely catch cancer. Just work in a toxic environment or have a spouse that smokes a couple of packs a day. It just takes a lot longer.
    - Nasrudith 6y ago
      Catching means the disease itself is contagious - it is the environment or habbit which spreads it as opposed to a cancer patient coughing on you and giving you cancer - unless radiation treatment has gone /very/ wrong through historic levels of medical malpractice. Indefinite chaining area of effect vs just area of effect roughly.
      - babesh 6y ago
        I think you are mostly right but reality, as usual, is much more complicated than that. HPVs give you cancer. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus_infection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus_infection Also there are other viruses that also cause cancer See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus#Cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus#Cancer So you very well could have a cancer patient coughing on you and giving you cancer but the underlying cause is the virus that they have (that caused their cancer) rather than the cancer itself. So you have chaining of cancer (albeit via a virus).
        babesh 6y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oncovirus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oncovirus "The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer estimated that in 2002, infection caused 17.8% of human cancers"

Except for the ones that will end up fighting the worst illness in their lifetime. It may not be them but their parents or grandparents.

by fcurts 6y ago

Except for the ones that will end up fighting the worst illness in their lifetime. It may not be them but their parents or grandparents.

tjr225 6y ago

Maybe, maybe not.

fcurts 6y ago
"Maybe" at individual level becomes "certainly" at city, state, or nation level.

ACow_Adonis 6y ago

You ever had/lived with multiple relatives going with cancer or Alzheimer's. I'm sure it's un-PC to say it, but Covid is a relative cakewalk in comparison...

esotericimpl 6y ago
What if your Alzheimer’s parent died of Covid. Should we assume this is a cakewalk for me? Stop acting callous.
Aeolun 6y ago
Depends, if you’re 70 and diagnosed with cancer, you may still have a few years or recover completely. If you are diagnosed with covid you have a pretty high chance of being dead before a month has passed.
- tinus_hn 6y ago
  If you are 70 and get Covid-19 you have a 90% chance of recovering. You make it sound like you have a 90% chance of dying which is an extreme exaggeration.
  - catalogia 6y ago
    In 2017, a 70 year old American man had a 2.2% chance of dying that year and on average was expected to live another 14 years. I'm curious how the average life expectancy of a 70 year old has changed from that year to this one. Is it down to 13 years yet?
  - Aeolun 6y ago
    You are right, for some reason I was under the impression that COVID-19 was much more lethal to older people. I think because of the early cohort in Japan, of which most 70+ people ended up deceased.
fcurts 6y ago
I have (both my parents died from cancer in their 50s). How is this related to this topic? Lockdown or not, crowding and not wearing a mask is irresponsible - you aren't just putting yourself at risk, but also the people around you.
- ACow_Adonis 6y ago
  It's relevant because we currently have two sides going at each other raising irresponsible levels of hyperbole, virtue/team- signaling and fear mongering on both sides, just in different directions. Covid is simultaneously currently worse than the flu, but on the order of genuine avoidable human suffering it SHOULD have (and should still) be treated rationally: isolating and protecting the most vulnerable, practicing good hygiene, a moment to reflect on our lifestyles, policies and our self imposed diseases that make us more vulnerable to the virus. It has a mortality function that, statistically, correlates most strongly with a person's already existing X year survival probability. If you plotted out the frequency of ages and deaths over time, it would primarily register as a small blip/compressing of deaths primarily amongst the older. People who go off on the other end of the spectrum: that this should be the end of society/ socialising, commerce/trade and public life, are just as ridiculous and irresponsible as those who think nothing should be fine, because they illicit fear, partisanship, and stop our finite resources being spent where they do most good, not to mention the harm that's going to come from all the poorly targeted reactions. In this case it's an opportunity to drop the hyperbole and rationally visit how we deal with healthcare and end of life, because how we deal with the elderly already, especially our experiences with those illnesses I mentioned, are qualitatively worse than the experience of dying relatively quickly from covid, but we accept it because it was "part of the everyday" (or in a lot of societies, deliberately excluded from the everyday so we don't think about it too much).
  - fzeroracer 6y ago
    I keep seeing this idea that people are demanding the lockdown last forever and everything should be over, but it seems to primarily come from people using it as an attempt to seem rational by taking a standpoint in the perceived middle rather than any sort of reality. The actual reality is that one side wants people to wear masks and gradually open up in a safe manner because other places that opened up irresponsibly were hit by a second wave of infections. The other side takes mask wearing as fascism and will do literally everything in their power to harass people who wear masks or attempt to bypass the requirement for the sake of making themselves feel better. You calling COVID19 a cakewake is irresponsible hyperbole in itself considering it is dangerous and we should not be under any delusion that it is not. But it is manageable if people don't operate under delusion.
richardw 6y ago
You can’t catch cancer or Alzheimer’s, and the hospitals are set to handle the predicable case load. This is a situation where you can prevent a massive increase of simultaneous cases on top of all the cancer so people are trying to do that. Stabbing kills you more quickly but still seems worthwhile to prevent.
- babesh 6y ago
  You can absolutely catch cancer. Just work in a toxic environment or have a spouse that smokes a couple of packs a day. It just takes a lot longer.
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    Catching means the disease itself is contagious - it is the environment or habbit which spreads it as opposed to a cancer patient coughing on you and giving you cancer - unless radiation treatment has gone /very/ wrong through historic levels of medical malpractice. Indefinite chaining area of effect vs just area of effect roughly.
    - babesh 6y ago
      I think you are mostly right but reality, as usual, is much more complicated than that. HPVs give you cancer. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus_infection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus_infection Also there are other viruses that also cause cancer See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus#Cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus#Cancer So you very well could have a cancer patient coughing on you and giving you cancer but the underlying cause is the virus that they have (that caused their cancer) rather than the cancer itself. So you have chaining of cancer (albeit via a virus).
      - babesh 6y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oncovirus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oncovirus "The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer estimated that in 2002, infection caused 17.8% of human cancers"