6 ms·

> Three million people dead would monkey wrench the economy no matter what. Wouldn't that largely depend on the age of the victims? If the majority of victims

> Three million people dead would monkey wrench the economy no matter what. Wouldn't that largely depend on the age of the victims? If the majority of victims are over retirement age, then this isn't likely to be true. We've had nearly 1% of our population killed or wounded in a short period of time before, it's impact on the economy doesn't seem that obvious. > 18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives. > 10 will have permanent lung damage. The extent of these doesn't seem clear either, looking back to the previous SARS epidemic, there was significant ARDS recovery after diagnoses over a period of several years; however, with other certain pre-existing conditions the organ damage was permanent. Even in those cases, the rates are significantly lower than this suggests. It seems like a lot of small sample size studies were used to generate these numbers. I don't doubt COVID is horrific and requires special care to address, but I don't see any benefit in exaggeration.. particularly if your goal is to address an already skeptical audience.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> If the majority of victims are over retirement age No, it's not an election where the majority is the only thing that counts. And if younger people that are seriously ill are spending months debilitated (much of that hospitalized) where older people would die because they couldn't withstand the combination of the disease and the necessary supportive measures, taking more resources while losing more productivity for each young person that gets seriously ill, the fact that more old people are dying is even less relevant to the economic impact
umanwizard 6y ago
> We've had nearly 1% of our population killed or wounded in a short period of time before In fact, more than 1% of the population dies every single year.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  It’s actually a little less than 1% a year (~2.8 million out of ~329 million people). https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
dazag 6y ago
I agree with you.
aeortiz 6y ago
Any heroes willing to volunteer to be part of the 1%?

dragonwriter 6y ago

> If the majority of victims are over retirement age No, it's not an election where the majority is the only thing that counts. And if younger people that are seriously ill are spending months debilitated (much of that hospitalized) where older people would die because they couldn't withstand the combination of the disease and the necessary supportive measures, taking more resources while losing more productivity for each young person that gets seriously ill, the fact that more old people are dying is even less relevant to the economic impact

umanwizard 6y ago

> We've had nearly 1% of our population killed or wounded in a short period of time before In fact, more than 1% of the population dies every single year.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
It’s actually a little less than 1% a year (~2.8 million out of ~329 million people). https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

dazag 6y ago

I agree with you.

aeortiz 6y ago

Any heroes willing to volunteer to be part of the 1%?