5 ms·

Why is there this laser focus on Fatality rate as a talking point for anti-mask anti-lockdown types? Is death the only undesirable outcome? Polio had historic m

Why is there this laser focus on Fatality rate as a talking point for anti-mask anti-lockdown types? Is death the only undesirable outcome? Polio had historic mortality rates around 5% in children, would you want your children to catch polio? Would you push for herd immunity for polio and have >60% of the children in the country catch it? It's simply absurd! There are other health risks besides death to consider. How does no one see that? Half of the US seems to think this is just a GLOBAL conspiracy to hurt Donald Trump, like are you dense? You think the entire world would torpedo their economies just for the chance to hurt Trump? These people need help. I am consistently disappointed by the lack of critical thinking in HN comments.

s1artibartfast 6y ago
Fatalities is the best data we have, has common definition, and can be used to set policy. Everyone in the US knows that there are other undesirable outcomes besides death, but there is a lack of data on the rates, duration, or importance.
- devalgo 6y ago
  >Everyone in the US knows that there are other undesirable outcomes besides death You can't really believe that. Maybe a small fraction of the population seems to be aware of this. The rest parrot some version of: "95% of people survive, its just the flu!"
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    I really do. Being hospitalized and recovering is an undesirable outcome, and for that matter, so is having pneumonia or the flu like symptoms at home. Nobody denies those outcomes exist. I agree there is a longer list of negative health outcomes, such as chronic fatigue, shortness of breath, diabetes onset, ect. The association of these with covid-19 is less understood in the medical community, and less widely known to the public, and their importance when setting public policy is less clear. It makes sense to focus on fatalities, because while they are not the only negative, it is the most significant, any other outcomes would roughly track with it.
    - InitialLastName 6y ago
      > It makes sense to focus on fatalities They're also the most obviously permanent negative outcome.
umanwizard 6y ago
> Polio had historic mortality rates around 5% in children, would you want your children to catch polio? No, nor would I want my children (or anyone) to get covid. This is a separate question from whether the current lockdown measures increase life expectancy and if so, whether they’re worth it. > There are other health risks besides death to consider. Yes, there are. Again, a reasonable person might think the probability of those occurring is either (1) low enough to begin with or (2) not much decreased by the lockdown, that the negative effects of the lockdown outweigh it. Do you have any non-anecdotal discussion of (1) how common permanent disability from Covid is, and (2) how many severe covid cases are prevented by lockdowns? > Half of the US seems to think this is just a GLOBAL conspiracy to hurt Donald Trump Nobody in this thread said that covid is not serious or that it is a conspiracy, or anything about Trump, so this is a complete non sequitur. Certainly, there are people in the US who believe that covid is a global conspiracy to hurt Trump, which is absurd, but it’s an obvious fallacy to argue like “some people make absurd arguments for proposition P, therefore P is wrong”.
- devalgo 6y ago
  >Again, a reasonable person might think the probability of those occurring is either (1) low enough to begin with or (2) not much decreased by the lockdown, that the negative effects of the lockdown outweigh it. If you think your average anti-mask anti-lockdown American is making that kind of analysis then frankly I think you are disconnected from reality... >Do you have any non-anecdotal discussion of (1) how common permanent disability from Covid is Permanent disability is obviously impossible to prove at this point. Perhaps the best microcosm we've had to learn from so far is the Diamond Princess cruise ship. The Japan Self-Defense Forces Central Hospital did an in depth study: "Of 104 cases, 76 (73%) were asymptomatic, 41 (54%) of which had lung opacities on CT. Other 28 (27%) cases were symptomatic, 22 (79%) of which had abnormal CT findings." 54% of asymptomatic cases had lung opacities, and 83% of those were ground glass opacity. That usually indicates pretty nasty lung damage. Symptomatic cases as expected showed more and worse damage. Here's an analysis, what is the expected economic cost of achieving herd immunity? If you expect 60% infection rate to provide herd immunity thats 196 million cases in the US. Play with the numbers, 1-5% mortality rates, 50% of asymptomatic and 80% of symptomatic cases had some degree of lung damage. We're talking 500K - 1M+ deaths and tens of millions of people with lung damage. Have you actually factored that into your "The stonks must go up so lets sacrifice grandma" argument? This is also a pointless exercise because virtually every major developed country on the planet has basically beaten this thing with... wait for it... LOCKDOWNS and MASKS. Crazy right? https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/ryct.2020200110 https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/ryct.2020200110

s1artibartfast 6y ago

Fatalities is the best data we have, has common definition, and can be used to set policy. Everyone in the US knows that there are other undesirable outcomes besides death, but there is a lack of data on the rates, duration, or importance.

devalgo 6y ago
>Everyone in the US knows that there are other undesirable outcomes besides death You can't really believe that. Maybe a small fraction of the population seems to be aware of this. The rest parrot some version of: "95% of people survive, its just the flu!"
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  I really do. Being hospitalized and recovering is an undesirable outcome, and for that matter, so is having pneumonia or the flu like symptoms at home. Nobody denies those outcomes exist. I agree there is a longer list of negative health outcomes, such as chronic fatigue, shortness of breath, diabetes onset, ect. The association of these with covid-19 is less understood in the medical community, and less widely known to the public, and their importance when setting public policy is less clear. It makes sense to focus on fatalities, because while they are not the only negative, it is the most significant, any other outcomes would roughly track with it.
  - InitialLastName 6y ago
    > It makes sense to focus on fatalities They're also the most obviously permanent negative outcome.

umanwizard 6y ago

> Polio had historic mortality rates around 5% in children, would you want your children to catch polio? No, nor would I want my children (or anyone) to get covid. This is a separate question from whether the current lockdown measures increase life expectancy and if so, whether they’re worth it. > There are other health risks besides death to consider. Yes, there are. Again, a reasonable person might think the probability of those occurring is either (1) low enough to begin with or (2) not much decreased by the lockdown, that the negative effects of the lockdown outweigh it. Do you have any non-anecdotal discussion of (1) how common permanent disability from Covid is, and (2) how many severe covid cases are prevented by lockdowns? > Half of the US seems to think this is just a GLOBAL conspiracy to hurt Donald Trump Nobody in this thread said that covid is not serious or that it is a conspiracy, or anything about Trump, so this is a complete non sequitur. Certainly, there are people in the US who believe that covid is a global conspiracy to hurt Trump, which is absurd, but it’s an obvious fallacy to argue like “some people make absurd arguments for proposition P, therefore P is wrong”.

devalgo 6y ago
>Again, a reasonable person might think the probability of those occurring is either (1) low enough to begin with or (2) not much decreased by the lockdown, that the negative effects of the lockdown outweigh it. If you think your average anti-mask anti-lockdown American is making that kind of analysis then frankly I think you are disconnected from reality... >Do you have any non-anecdotal discussion of (1) how common permanent disability from Covid is Permanent disability is obviously impossible to prove at this point. Perhaps the best microcosm we've had to learn from so far is the Diamond Princess cruise ship. The Japan Self-Defense Forces Central Hospital did an in depth study: "Of 104 cases, 76 (73%) were asymptomatic, 41 (54%) of which had lung opacities on CT. Other 28 (27%) cases were symptomatic, 22 (79%) of which had abnormal CT findings." 54% of asymptomatic cases had lung opacities, and 83% of those were ground glass opacity. That usually indicates pretty nasty lung damage. Symptomatic cases as expected showed more and worse damage. Here's an analysis, what is the expected economic cost of achieving herd immunity? If you expect 60% infection rate to provide herd immunity thats 196 million cases in the US. Play with the numbers, 1-5% mortality rates, 50% of asymptomatic and 80% of symptomatic cases had some degree of lung damage. We're talking 500K - 1M+ deaths and tens of millions of people with lung damage. Have you actually factored that into your "The stonks must go up so lets sacrifice grandma" argument? This is also a pointless exercise because virtually every major developed country on the planet has basically beaten this thing with... wait for it... LOCKDOWNS and MASKS. Crazy right? https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/ryct.2020200110 https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/ryct.2020200110