8 ms·

Even if that is true, it is missing the point. Avoiding infection is not just for your own good; more importantly, keeping the speed of the virus spreading down

Even if that is true, it is missing the point. Avoiding infection is not just for your own good; more importantly, keeping the speed of the virus spreading down is for protecting everybody. And what you say isn't even true. Plenty of healthy young people get very very sick. The percentages are lower than for older and/or less healthy people, but the numbers are still significant. Don't think you're invulnerable, cause you're not. Don't think that if you get no or only mild symptoms, no harm is done. Think about the other people you have unknowingly infected, and how you've contributed to the spread of the virus. (Where 'you' = the generic 'you', not you personally).

tinus_hn 6y ago
So what are the numbers if they are significant?
krona 6y ago
Avoiding infection is not just for your own good; more importantly, keeping the speed of the virus spreading down is for protecting everybody. Twas ever thus. Norovirus kills 200,000 people every year, and yet we don't close entire cities every time there's an outbreak.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ben_w 6y ago
  IIRC, noro is too infectious for a lockdown to work, even though you can only catch it from the… emissions… when the patient goes off at both ends.
- rsynnott 6y ago
  > Norovirus kills 200,000 people every year That's true, but it kills very few people in the developed world. Deaths from norovirus are mostly a result of inadequate treatment, and/or lack of detection. And, frankly, if covid was only going to kill 200k people, we probably wouldn't be closing anything much. It has already killed almost 350k people, and that's _with_ most countries imposing variously draconian measures.
- jpmoral 6y ago
  I don't understand this thinking. Do you think it's fine if new endemic diseases are added that will kill multiple of 10k or 100k people a year, every year?
  - NeutronStar 6y ago
    But it's fine for the flu to kill 600k people a year?
  - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
    Nobody freaks out over automobile deaths.
    - Intermernet 6y ago
      The entire car safety industry is a result of people freaking out over automobile deaths. Car safety is reactive. People die, friends /relatives /society freak out (justifiably) and the car industry responds. These responses are also debated and argued by the population (seatbelts, safety ratings, speed limits etc.)
sandworm101 6y ago
>> Don't think you're invulnerable, cause you're not. Don't think that if you get no or only mild symptoms, no harm is done. Such statements were true a few months ago. Now 1 in 6 Londoners have had the disease. So those 1 in 6 know exactly how it will impact them because it already has. There are now more than a few people out there who can confidently say "I'll be fine" because they are fine. In coming days/months many people will be getting tests and learning that they have suffered and recovered from the disease at least once. Others will learn that they have been living with someone who has had the disease but it didn't spread even within the household. The days of shouting "you don't know, you might die" at every naysayer are behind us. "With further statistical adjustments, they found about 17% of London adults had been infected; this compares to only 4.3% in the north-east of England." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52749186 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52749186
- maxerickson 6y ago
  Your reply would be better if it bothered to address the other sentences in the paragraph you quote from. It's incredibly tedious that you didn't. It's fine if the reply would be about the same, the problem is that you don't address the meaning of the words you quote!
- radley 6y ago
  > Now 1 in 6 Londoners have had the disease. Please do not spread misinformation. England has had 132k reported cases. London has a population of 8.9M.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - sandworm101 6y ago
    "The top stories on Thursday: UK government data suggests around one in six people in London and one in 20 elsewhere in England have had coronavirus" "With further statistical adjustments, they found about 17% of London adults had been infected; this compares to only 4.3% in the north-east of England." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52749186 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52749186 That's the _BBC_, perhaps the most respected news organization on the planet, and unarguably an expert on all things London. They are citing information released by the UK government: 1 in 6 Londoners. Misinformation my a--.
guscost 6y ago
This is preposterous. The measures we are taking will kill far more than the disease itself when all is said and done - look at the referral numbers for stroke centers alone. If this was a test of our collective ability to meet an emerging threat, then we failed about as badly as it is possible to fail. What’s worse is that we failed not so much because of an initial honest mistake, but because we’ve turned out to be superstitious cowards. Shame on us all.
- ascorbic 6y ago
  We shouldn't compare it with the number of people who eventually die from covid. We should compare it with the number of people who would have died if there were no measures taken.
  - guscost 6y ago
    I’m not OK with that option. We can make up nonsense on computers as many times as we like, but it will never mean that reality “would have” been anything. Science doesn’t work on “would have” questions, and anyone who claims otherwise is a charlatan. So we may not be able to resolve this disagreement. Just understand that I’m at least as pissed off as the people on the other side.
    - simondw 6y ago
      > The measures we are taking will kill far more than the disease itself You're comparing (cost of measures) to (cost of disease after taking those measures), which is a nonsensical comparison. It's like saying "parachutes are too expensive; almost no one dies from skydiving!" How many people would die from skydiving if skydivers stopped using parachutes but continued to skydive? Am I a charlatan if I give a rough number? Surely there is a continuum of uncertainty between the skydivers and "it's impossible to know." Surely diseases can be modeled, and those models used to predict outcomes with various degrees of uncertainty. Surely those predictions have meaning.
      - guscost 6y ago

tinus_hn 6y ago

So what are the numbers if they are significant?

krona 6y ago

Avoiding infection is not just for your own good; more importantly, keeping the speed of the virus spreading down is for protecting everybody. Twas ever thus. Norovirus kills 200,000 people every year, and yet we don't close entire cities every time there's an outbreak.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ben_w 6y ago
IIRC, noro is too infectious for a lockdown to work, even though you can only catch it from the… emissions… when the patient goes off at both ends.
rsynnott 6y ago
> Norovirus kills 200,000 people every year That's true, but it kills very few people in the developed world. Deaths from norovirus are mostly a result of inadequate treatment, and/or lack of detection. And, frankly, if covid was only going to kill 200k people, we probably wouldn't be closing anything much. It has already killed almost 350k people, and that's _with_ most countries imposing variously draconian measures.
jpmoral 6y ago
I don't understand this thinking. Do you think it's fine if new endemic diseases are added that will kill multiple of 10k or 100k people a year, every year?
- NeutronStar 6y ago
  But it's fine for the flu to kill 600k people a year?
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  Nobody freaks out over automobile deaths.
  - Intermernet 6y ago
    The entire car safety industry is a result of people freaking out over automobile deaths. Car safety is reactive. People die, friends /relatives /society freak out (justifiably) and the car industry responds. These responses are also debated and argued by the population (seatbelts, safety ratings, speed limits etc.)

sandworm101 6y ago

>> Don't think you're invulnerable, cause you're not. Don't think that if you get no or only mild symptoms, no harm is done. Such statements were true a few months ago. Now 1 in 6 Londoners have had the disease. So those 1 in 6 know exactly how it will impact them because it already has. There are now more than a few people out there who can confidently say "I'll be fine" because they are fine. In coming days/months many people will be getting tests and learning that they have suffered and recovered from the disease at least once. Others will learn that they have been living with someone who has had the disease but it didn't spread even within the household. The days of shouting "you don't know, you might die" at every naysayer are behind us. "With further statistical adjustments, they found about 17% of London adults had been infected; this compares to only 4.3% in the north-east of England." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52749186 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52749186

maxerickson 6y ago
Your reply would be better if it bothered to address the other sentences in the paragraph you quote from. It's incredibly tedious that you didn't. It's fine if the reply would be about the same, the problem is that you don't address the meaning of the words you quote!
radley 6y ago
> Now 1 in 6 Londoners have had the disease. Please do not spread misinformation. England has had 132k reported cases. London has a population of 8.9M.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- sandworm101 6y ago
  "The top stories on Thursday: UK government data suggests around one in six people in London and one in 20 elsewhere in England have had coronavirus" "With further statistical adjustments, they found about 17% of London adults had been infected; this compares to only 4.3% in the north-east of England." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52749186 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52749186 That's the _BBC_, perhaps the most respected news organization on the planet, and unarguably an expert on all things London. They are citing information released by the UK government: 1 in 6 Londoners. Misinformation my a--.

guscost 6y ago

This is preposterous. The measures we are taking will kill far more than the disease itself when all is said and done - look at the referral numbers for stroke centers alone. If this was a test of our collective ability to meet an emerging threat, then we failed about as badly as it is possible to fail. What’s worse is that we failed not so much because of an initial honest mistake, but because we’ve turned out to be superstitious cowards. Shame on us all.

ascorbic 6y ago
We shouldn't compare it with the number of people who eventually die from covid. We should compare it with the number of people who would have died if there were no measures taken.
- guscost 6y ago
  I’m not OK with that option. We can make up nonsense on computers as many times as we like, but it will never mean that reality “would have” been anything. Science doesn’t work on “would have” questions, and anyone who claims otherwise is a charlatan. So we may not be able to resolve this disagreement. Just understand that I’m at least as pissed off as the people on the other side.
  - simondw 6y ago
    > The measures we are taking will kill far more than the disease itself You're comparing (cost of measures) to (cost of disease after taking those measures), which is a nonsensical comparison. It's like saying "parachutes are too expensive; almost no one dies from skydiving!" How many people would die from skydiving if skydivers stopped using parachutes but continued to skydive? Am I a charlatan if I give a rough number? Surely there is a continuum of uncertainty between the skydivers and "it's impossible to know." Surely diseases can be modeled, and those models used to predict outcomes with various degrees of uncertainty. Surely those predictions have meaning.
    - guscost 6y ago