7 ms·

"In the real world" This is denial masquerading as cynical realism. Covid-19 cases in the UK continue to increase at 1% or 2% a day. This is much better than t

"In the real world" This is denial masquerading as cynical realism. Covid-19 cases in the UK continue to increase at 1% or 2% a day. This is much better than the double digit growth of March and early April, but it is still bad. At 2% a day cases double every 5 weeks. Would anyone apply this reasoning to any other disease? Can you imagine anyone saying "We have AIDS under control, cases are only doubling once every 5 weeks." You might say that on the best days, the increase has only been 1%. That's fantastic. As soon as people start going back to the pubs, the rate of spread will again accelerate to something more than 1% a day. Classic psychological denial is clearly operating in force. A textbook case might be the man with pain in his chest and numbness in his left arm but instead of thinking it's a heart attack he keeps thinking "It's nothing, just stress." Denial is in force when things are so grim that people do not feel comfortable facing how grim they are. Some people don't see reality until they are forced to. Some people only have a lucid moment when they are in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. Some people never have a lucid moment, they simply die. In reality, the struggle against Covid-19 will take at least another year and might take two or more years. Things are going to be very bad for a long time. But no doubt, some people won't see that clearly till they've personally known some people who've died. The biggest worldwide increase for this illness was 2 days ago: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52748894 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52748894

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
esotericn 6y ago
Personally, I think that that the mindset that you're causing deaths by going outside is an act of denial (on the part of those who believe they can avoid it). It's far more sane (in the sense of being compatible with remaining of sound mind), and realistic, to assume that if you interact with society in the next year or so you _will_ get the virus, and that you're risking your own life by going outside. To think otherwise is not only incorrect, it's socially poisonous. It's placing the burden of your own wellbeing onto every man, woman and child in the country, pitting us against each other in a cruel game, which at least on a statistical level is likely to have the same result regardless. > Can you imagine anyone saying "We have AIDS under control, cases are only doubling once every 5 weeks." HIV/AIDS is a disease that, prior to the invention of modern medication, had essentially a 100% fatality rate. By contrast, at even a 1% fatality rate (way higher than the actual rate when both asymptomatic individuals and the skew to the elderly are taken into account), a 1 year lockdown represents a greater fraction of most individuals' lives. If you're happy staying inside forever, more power to you. My vulnerable family members will be doing exactly that, regardless of Government advice, and it's very difficult for me to deal with the fact that I won't be able to see them as a result. I only hope that your asinine plan doesn't result in half of the population either going insane or revolting because you're stealing a significant portion of their youth.
- xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
  > I only hope that your asinine plan doesn't result in half of the population either going insane or revolting because you're stealing a significant portion of their youth. There was a polio outbreak in the early 1950s here. A few hundred people died, thousands crippled. My grandmother recalls that the fairs were closed and she couldn't see her friends. A footnote in history. No one wen insane or revolted. The only significant portion of anyone's youth that was stolen was the impact of polio on its victims. In 100 years, the only footnote for 2020 will be all the deaths and suffering that this caused. No one will care that you were sad because you couldn't see your friends or go do sports. > My vulnerable family members will be doing exactly that, regardless of Government advice, and it's very difficult for me to deal with the fact that I won't be able to see them as a result. It would be easier if you also stayed inside -- then we could eradicate this virus and you could see them again. If only everyone were able to realize that.
  - esotericn 6y ago
    We are not eradicating the virus, we are flattening the curve. The goalposts have moved, I support lockdown on the original basis, not your fantasy, because it's not only physically impossible - we are not doing it politically or socially, so it's irrelevant.
  - guygurari 6y ago
    > In 100 years, the only footnote for 2020 will be all the deaths and suffering that this caused. No one will care that you were sad because you couldn't see your friends or go do sports. It's weird. Why do you empathize with victims of the disease but not with victims of financial hardship? Do you not see people suffering when looking at hour-long lines at food banks and historical unemployment numbers? Perhaps what will be remembered is the pain of those who were plunged into deep poverty in a New Great Depression that will take us years to recover from.
    - xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
      I definitely empathize with victims of financial hardship, speaking as one! I have zero income right now, and I am not sure where I'll land at the end of this. But financial hardship is solvable -- food, housing, etc. can be handed out. You can't hand out extra lives to victims of the disease. The US government is literally printing trillions of dollars. In my first-world country, most people I know are either: - working from home, otherwise normal - got laid off and are receiving government income, which is pretty modest for doing absolutely nothing. - working with reduced pay/hours, which is subsidized by the government. Are people starving? Are people dying on the streets of malnourishment? I don't see that happening. People are dying in hospitals due to a disease. That pretty much trumps everything else that isn't killing people.
mattmanser 6y ago
I think the point he's trying to make is, so what? The people will stop caring, they've already stopped caring. They're not the ones who are going to die. The realization is dawning that it's only the old that die. Much like the starving kids in Africa, it's rapidly becoming a "Well, it's tragic, but I can't see it" problem. Note I don't know how I personally feel about this, I think this is just the reality of what's about to happen in Western democracies. I think the old will ultimately be chucked under a bus. We'll get lots of tragic stories about care homes and a whole load of hand wringing, but no-one will actually care all that much to bring in another lock-down. Or, as you say, the other option is that we all throw 5-10 years of our lives away in a massive global recession for some old people who've already had the best years of their lives to live a couple of years more. I think we've got to start hoping beyond hope for a magic cure, or that basic social distancing kinda keeps r below 1, so we don't have to look ourselves in the mirror in 5 years time and have to face the reality of what we just did.
- esotericn 6y ago
  FWIW, I don't feel that way at all (re throwing old people under the bus). I think that what's happened is the opposite - the young have been thrown under the bus (even disregarding social activity we have things like school closures, university admissions, exams cancelled), and that economic activity is being hindered unnecessarily, which is having enormous knock-on effects already which will persist for a generation. I think that the appropriate response is for the vulnerable (old, immunocompromised, or really just anyone with low risk tolerance) to isolate and be given the resources to do so. Care homes, for example, should be dealt with via paying the staff much higher salaries and having them stay on-site, effectively 'sealing off' the care home and creating an isolated unit. If you're poor and have to go to work, you should be given enough money such that it's your free choice and you can stay at home if you want. My vulnerable friends and family are forced into doing this, lockdown or no lockdown, they're disinfecting packages, haven't been outside for months, and probably will be forced into a "new way of life" for the foreseeable future. This is the sort of thing that we should be using the severe lockdown time for - determining an appropriate way of protecting the individuals which we know to have very high fatality/complication rates - the people for whom we're bothering to do this at all. What I strongly disagree with is the idea that the lives of the healthy should be deleted in some asinine attempt to drag out the (in my view, inevitable) death toll over a multi-year period.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
It’s certainly true that we’ll be fighting the coronavirus for the next year or two, but that doesn’t mean we’ll be doing it the way you might prefer.
guygurari 6y ago
> At 2% a day cases double every 5 weeks. Would anyone apply this reasoning to any other disease? I don't know but maybe the flu [1]? I don't think focusing just on the infection rate is useful. > Classic psychological denial is clearly operating in force. I think the denial is in thinking that we can beat the virus by extending the lock down for years (you say "might take two or more years"). It is likely that all we are doing is slowing down the spread, and that it will eventually infect most of the population, stopping only when we reach herd immunity. I say this is likely because this is where we are headed unless we come up with a vaccine or treatment at an unprecedented speed -- not something I would bet on. If this is indeed where we are headed, it may be better to open up as much as possible short of overwhelming the healthcare system. Note that in many places, the healthcare systems are significantly below capacity (e.g. [2]). [1] https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200306-sitrep-46-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=96b04adf_2 https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situati... [2] https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pages/dashboard.aspx https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pages/dashboard.aspx
DanBC 6y ago
> Classic psychological denial is clearly operating in force Yes, that's the point that people in this thread is making. It doesn't matter how serious covid-19 is, nor what the R rate is: young people perceive themselves to be at low risk, and they don't care about the risk to other people, so they're going to go out as much as they used to. You only need to look at crowded parks and beaches or queue outside fast food places to see this. Cummings' shenanigans haven't helped (which is I suspect the point of them).
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

esotericn 6y ago

Personally, I think that that the mindset that you're causing deaths by going outside is an act of denial (on the part of those who believe they can avoid it). It's far more sane (in the sense of being compatible with remaining of sound mind), and realistic, to assume that if you interact with society in the next year or so you _will_ get the virus, and that you're risking your own life by going outside. To think otherwise is not only incorrect, it's socially poisonous. It's placing the burden of your own wellbeing onto every man, woman and child in the country, pitting us against each other in a cruel game, which at least on a statistical level is likely to have the same result regardless. > Can you imagine anyone saying "We have AIDS under control, cases are only doubling once every 5 weeks." HIV/AIDS is a disease that, prior to the invention of modern medication, had essentially a 100% fatality rate. By contrast, at even a 1% fatality rate (way higher than the actual rate when both asymptomatic individuals and the skew to the elderly are taken into account), a 1 year lockdown represents a greater fraction of most individuals' lives. If you're happy staying inside forever, more power to you. My vulnerable family members will be doing exactly that, regardless of Government advice, and it's very difficult for me to deal with the fact that I won't be able to see them as a result. I only hope that your asinine plan doesn't result in half of the population either going insane or revolting because you're stealing a significant portion of their youth.

xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
> I only hope that your asinine plan doesn't result in half of the population either going insane or revolting because you're stealing a significant portion of their youth. There was a polio outbreak in the early 1950s here. A few hundred people died, thousands crippled. My grandmother recalls that the fairs were closed and she couldn't see her friends. A footnote in history. No one wen insane or revolted. The only significant portion of anyone's youth that was stolen was the impact of polio on its victims. In 100 years, the only footnote for 2020 will be all the deaths and suffering that this caused. No one will care that you were sad because you couldn't see your friends or go do sports. > My vulnerable family members will be doing exactly that, regardless of Government advice, and it's very difficult for me to deal with the fact that I won't be able to see them as a result. It would be easier if you also stayed inside -- then we could eradicate this virus and you could see them again. If only everyone were able to realize that.
- esotericn 6y ago
  We are not eradicating the virus, we are flattening the curve. The goalposts have moved, I support lockdown on the original basis, not your fantasy, because it's not only physically impossible - we are not doing it politically or socially, so it's irrelevant.
- guygurari 6y ago
  > In 100 years, the only footnote for 2020 will be all the deaths and suffering that this caused. No one will care that you were sad because you couldn't see your friends or go do sports. It's weird. Why do you empathize with victims of the disease but not with victims of financial hardship? Do you not see people suffering when looking at hour-long lines at food banks and historical unemployment numbers? Perhaps what will be remembered is the pain of those who were plunged into deep poverty in a New Great Depression that will take us years to recover from.
  - xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
    I definitely empathize with victims of financial hardship, speaking as one! I have zero income right now, and I am not sure where I'll land at the end of this. But financial hardship is solvable -- food, housing, etc. can be handed out. You can't hand out extra lives to victims of the disease. The US government is literally printing trillions of dollars. In my first-world country, most people I know are either: - working from home, otherwise normal - got laid off and are receiving government income, which is pretty modest for doing absolutely nothing. - working with reduced pay/hours, which is subsidized by the government. Are people starving? Are people dying on the streets of malnourishment? I don't see that happening. People are dying in hospitals due to a disease. That pretty much trumps everything else that isn't killing people.

mattmanser 6y ago

I think the point he's trying to make is, so what? The people will stop caring, they've already stopped caring. They're not the ones who are going to die. The realization is dawning that it's only the old that die. Much like the starving kids in Africa, it's rapidly becoming a "Well, it's tragic, but I can't see it" problem. Note I don't know how I personally feel about this, I think this is just the reality of what's about to happen in Western democracies. I think the old will ultimately be chucked under a bus. We'll get lots of tragic stories about care homes and a whole load of hand wringing, but no-one will actually care all that much to bring in another lock-down. Or, as you say, the other option is that we all throw 5-10 years of our lives away in a massive global recession for some old people who've already had the best years of their lives to live a couple of years more. I think we've got to start hoping beyond hope for a magic cure, or that basic social distancing kinda keeps r below 1, so we don't have to look ourselves in the mirror in 5 years time and have to face the reality of what we just did.

esotericn 6y ago
FWIW, I don't feel that way at all (re throwing old people under the bus). I think that what's happened is the opposite - the young have been thrown under the bus (even disregarding social activity we have things like school closures, university admissions, exams cancelled), and that economic activity is being hindered unnecessarily, which is having enormous knock-on effects already which will persist for a generation. I think that the appropriate response is for the vulnerable (old, immunocompromised, or really just anyone with low risk tolerance) to isolate and be given the resources to do so. Care homes, for example, should be dealt with via paying the staff much higher salaries and having them stay on-site, effectively 'sealing off' the care home and creating an isolated unit. If you're poor and have to go to work, you should be given enough money such that it's your free choice and you can stay at home if you want. My vulnerable friends and family are forced into doing this, lockdown or no lockdown, they're disinfecting packages, haven't been outside for months, and probably will be forced into a "new way of life" for the foreseeable future. This is the sort of thing that we should be using the severe lockdown time for - determining an appropriate way of protecting the individuals which we know to have very high fatality/complication rates - the people for whom we're bothering to do this at all. What I strongly disagree with is the idea that the lives of the healthy should be deleted in some asinine attempt to drag out the (in my view, inevitable) death toll over a multi-year period.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

It’s certainly true that we’ll be fighting the coronavirus for the next year or two, but that doesn’t mean we’ll be doing it the way you might prefer.

guygurari 6y ago

> At 2% a day cases double every 5 weeks. Would anyone apply this reasoning to any other disease? I don't know but maybe the flu [1]? I don't think focusing just on the infection rate is useful. > Classic psychological denial is clearly operating in force. I think the denial is in thinking that we can beat the virus by extending the lock down for years (you say "might take two or more years"). It is likely that all we are doing is slowing down the spread, and that it will eventually infect most of the population, stopping only when we reach herd immunity. I say this is likely because this is where we are headed unless we come up with a vaccine or treatment at an unprecedented speed -- not something I would bet on. If this is indeed where we are headed, it may be better to open up as much as possible short of overwhelming the healthcare system. Note that in many places, the healthcare systems are significantly below capacity (e.g. [2]). [1] https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200306-sitrep-46-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=96b04adf_2 https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situati... [2] https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pages/dashboard.aspx https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pages/dashboard.aspx

DanBC 6y ago

> Classic psychological denial is clearly operating in force Yes, that's the point that people in this thread is making. It doesn't matter how serious covid-19 is, nor what the R rate is: young people perceive themselves to be at low risk, and they don't care about the risk to other people, so they're going to go out as much as they used to. You only need to look at crowded parks and beaches or queue outside fast food places to see this. Cummings' shenanigans haven't helped (which is I suspect the point of them).

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]