7 ms·

> only 0.65% ...

by throwaway713 6y ago

> only 0.65% ...

LanceH 6y ago
In the context of "brutal for the economy", 0.65% deaths pales in comparison to 20% unemployment.
- rurp 6y ago
  Unfortunately we don't have a choice between unemployment being 20% vs 3%. The choice is between the current unemployment and whatever the rate would be if the govt issued no lock-downs and let the virus run rampant. I don't know what the unemployment rate would be in a world with overflowing hospitals and many thousands of deaths per day, but I bet it would be a heck of a lot closer to 20% than 3%.
  - matz1 6y ago
    Hospital are frequently overwhelmed already even without this "pandemic". Many thousand deaths per day are normal situation even before this.
    - beefok 6y ago
      That's the point buddy. They will now be irrecoverably overwhelmed. Every portion of the infrastructure is going to be overwhelmed.
      - matz1 6y ago
        My point is the hospital are no more overwhelmed then what has frequently happen in the past. We don't need lockdown back then, why we do lockdown now ?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- fanimalmanimal 6y ago
  I mean, even with all restrictions lifted a significant enough percentage of people would engage in behavior to avoid the disease that would have a real impact on the economy. We aren’t talking about 3.5% unemployment vs 20% unemployment. We’re talking a deep recession in both cases. One with a deeper recession and less death, and a less deep recession but more death. Good luck trying to quantify that. I’m just gonna keep working from home, and avoiding bars/restaurants/shopping until it passes.
- runarberg 6y ago
  Poverty—though deadly—does not come close to the same mortality rate as COVID-19. Also we know how to deal with 20% unemployment (whether we are willing is another issue). So frankly you are wrong. 20% unemployment is the thing that pales in comparison
  - djsumdog 6y ago
    > Also we know how to deal with 20% unemployment We absolutely do not. Many states have been backloged with unemployment requests[0]. Tens of thousands of people are going back to work now, but were unable to get unemployment for 3~4 months. I've read about people spending 5~8 hours on the phone, told to fill out some other forms, and still get a letter saying they're entitled to $0, while others get more money than they got while full-time employed. Those that are going back to work, may never have the time to fight with the state to get the money they were entitled to. At least in America, we've completely and totally failed at dealing with unemployment. [0]: https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2020/05/04/gov-pritzker-says-theres-no-unemploymentbacklog-but-source-says-more-than-12000-illinoisans-still-waiting-to-be-processed/ https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2020/05/04/gov-pritzker-says-th...
    - runarberg 6y ago
      Well, the knowledge exists. 20% unemployment was seen widely internationally after the 2008 financial collapse. The results were devastating, don’t get me wrong, but some of the effected areas were able to recover fairly quickly. So we do know how to deal with 20% unemployment, but—sadly—we might not be willing to for some reason.
- fzeroracer 6y ago
  We're choosing to not deal with unemployment. Which is to say, we could solve a lot of the issues associated with it very easily but prefer bailing out the stock market over the poor and middle class. Unemployment will be an issue even if we open up because bars, restaurants etc will go under regardless the moment they have a confirmed coronavirus case. Then they have to shut down, sanitize the place etc which is devastating for small businesses.
  - matz1 6y ago
    > Then they have to shut down, sanitize the place etc which is devastating for small businesses. Its unnecessary to do all of these. When someone in the workplace get sick, ask them to take sick leave to recuperate, then back to work when they recover, just how it has been done before this "pandemic". No need to shutdown, No need excessive sanitization. Most people who contract the virus don't get sick.
    - fzeroracer 6y ago
      No, it is absolutely necessary and your comment on 'most people don't get sick' is objectively wrong. It's estimated that around 40% of people are asymptomatic, others do get varying degrees of sick after catching the coronavirus. Because it's highly contagious, it can very rapidly spread through an entire company and then we're back to where I just said. Where they have to shut down, sanitize the place and prevent people/customers from getting sick. Though given your posting history you seem to have a running theme going on of massively downplaying the virus and the fact that you put 'pandemic' in scare quotes indicates that you're probably just an asshole.
      - matz1 6y ago
        >It's estimated that around 40% of people are asymptomatic, others do get varying degrees of sick after catching the coronavirus Alright using your number the asymptomatic + mild symptom will make up the majority of the cases. Nothing to be worry about. >Because it's highly contagious, it can very rapidly spread through an entire company and then we're back to where I just said So what if it spread when the majority of the people will be fine. >Where they have to shut down, sanitize the place and prevent people/customers from getting sick. It is unnecessary to do so. Its excessive. >Though given your posting history you seem to have a running theme going on of massively downplaying the virus and the fact that you put 'pandemic' in scare quotes indicates that you're probably just an asshole. Because the reality is the virus is not as scary as the media reported. The lockdown is way more destructive than the virus itself. Its your choice if you want to live in fear and paranoia.

> only 0.65% ...

LanceH 6y ago

In the context of "brutal for the economy", 0.65% deaths pales in comparison to 20% unemployment.

rurp 6y ago
Unfortunately we don't have a choice between unemployment being 20% vs 3%. The choice is between the current unemployment and whatever the rate would be if the govt issued no lock-downs and let the virus run rampant. I don't know what the unemployment rate would be in a world with overflowing hospitals and many thousands of deaths per day, but I bet it would be a heck of a lot closer to 20% than 3%.
- matz1 6y ago
  Hospital are frequently overwhelmed already even without this "pandemic". Many thousand deaths per day are normal situation even before this.
  - beefok 6y ago
    That's the point buddy. They will now be irrecoverably overwhelmed. Every portion of the infrastructure is going to be overwhelmed.
    - matz1 6y ago
      My point is the hospital are no more overwhelmed then what has frequently happen in the past. We don't need lockdown back then, why we do lockdown now ?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
fanimalmanimal 6y ago
I mean, even with all restrictions lifted a significant enough percentage of people would engage in behavior to avoid the disease that would have a real impact on the economy. We aren’t talking about 3.5% unemployment vs 20% unemployment. We’re talking a deep recession in both cases. One with a deeper recession and less death, and a less deep recession but more death. Good luck trying to quantify that. I’m just gonna keep working from home, and avoiding bars/restaurants/shopping until it passes.
runarberg 6y ago
Poverty—though deadly—does not come close to the same mortality rate as COVID-19. Also we know how to deal with 20% unemployment (whether we are willing is another issue). So frankly you are wrong. 20% unemployment is the thing that pales in comparison
- djsumdog 6y ago
  > Also we know how to deal with 20% unemployment We absolutely do not. Many states have been backloged with unemployment requests[0]. Tens of thousands of people are going back to work now, but were unable to get unemployment for 3~4 months. I've read about people spending 5~8 hours on the phone, told to fill out some other forms, and still get a letter saying they're entitled to $0, while others get more money than they got while full-time employed. Those that are going back to work, may never have the time to fight with the state to get the money they were entitled to. At least in America, we've completely and totally failed at dealing with unemployment. [0]: https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2020/05/04/gov-pritzker-says-theres-no-unemploymentbacklog-but-source-says-more-than-12000-illinoisans-still-waiting-to-be-processed/ https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2020/05/04/gov-pritzker-says-th...
  - runarberg 6y ago
    Well, the knowledge exists. 20% unemployment was seen widely internationally after the 2008 financial collapse. The results were devastating, don’t get me wrong, but some of the effected areas were able to recover fairly quickly. So we do know how to deal with 20% unemployment, but—sadly—we might not be willing to for some reason.
fzeroracer 6y ago
We're choosing to not deal with unemployment. Which is to say, we could solve a lot of the issues associated with it very easily but prefer bailing out the stock market over the poor and middle class. Unemployment will be an issue even if we open up because bars, restaurants etc will go under regardless the moment they have a confirmed coronavirus case. Then they have to shut down, sanitize the place etc which is devastating for small businesses.
- matz1 6y ago
  > Then they have to shut down, sanitize the place etc which is devastating for small businesses. Its unnecessary to do all of these. When someone in the workplace get sick, ask them to take sick leave to recuperate, then back to work when they recover, just how it has been done before this "pandemic". No need to shutdown, No need excessive sanitization. Most people who contract the virus don't get sick.
  - fzeroracer 6y ago
    No, it is absolutely necessary and your comment on 'most people don't get sick' is objectively wrong. It's estimated that around 40% of people are asymptomatic, others do get varying degrees of sick after catching the coronavirus. Because it's highly contagious, it can very rapidly spread through an entire company and then we're back to where I just said. Where they have to shut down, sanitize the place and prevent people/customers from getting sick. Though given your posting history you seem to have a running theme going on of massively downplaying the virus and the fact that you put 'pandemic' in scare quotes indicates that you're probably just an asshole.
    - matz1 6y ago
      >It's estimated that around 40% of people are asymptomatic, others do get varying degrees of sick after catching the coronavirus Alright using your number the asymptomatic + mild symptom will make up the majority of the cases. Nothing to be worry about. >Because it's highly contagious, it can very rapidly spread through an entire company and then we're back to where I just said So what if it spread when the majority of the people will be fine. >Where they have to shut down, sanitize the place and prevent people/customers from getting sick. It is unnecessary to do so. Its excessive. >Though given your posting history you seem to have a running theme going on of massively downplaying the virus and the fact that you put 'pandemic' in scare quotes indicates that you're probably just an asshole. Because the reality is the virus is not as scary as the media reported. The lockdown is way more destructive than the virus itself. Its your choice if you want to live in fear and paranoia.