3 ms·

> Spreading the idea that shutting down was unwise is incredibly irresponsible. Nonsense. I would argue that spreading the idea that shutting down was a good t

> Spreading the idea that shutting down was unwise is incredibly irresponsible. Nonsense. I would argue that spreading the idea that shutting down was a good thing is and was incredibly irresponsible, but the difference is I don't believe in suppressing other peoples' ideas. But pro-lockdowners seem to love it. For the same reason they like the lockdown: it's a mentality that stems from a love of compulsion and control, and a sharp anxiety about living a full life. > I'll let you do the math on how many are estimated to die without mitigation. I don't advocate against mitigation (nursing homes, etc), but I advocate against containment full-stop. Anyway, I have done the math. In fact, I've done the math with an IFR of .9% and assuming 82% of the population got infected (see Ferguson's paper). 2.2 million deaths. That's what the worst case scenario was. And on balance, it was worth it. What do I think the actual number is? Well, I'd use a new upper bound of maybe 600,000 - which BTW is around the number of cardiac deaths per year in the US. Amortized across 5 years, it becomes even less shocking. These are upper bounds, btw. I think the actual number could be lower, but I don't bank on it. Unfortunately, given the way we classify deaths, it will be very difficult to find out what the "real" death toll was looking back.

atomi 6y ago
Without shutting down it wouldn't be amortized. You'd effectively have millions of additional deaths from lack of hospital capacity, more than doubling the yearly death rate. And additionally you'd have millions of more people with debilitating complications from all causes. That's absolute insanity. You're devaluing life. Stop it. It's frankly scary to think you're out there.
- __blockcipher__ 6y ago
  > Without shutting down it wouldn't be amortized. Huh? No it wouldn't. Read my other comments in the thread, the point is that after it works its way through the population, the set of SARS-CoV-2-naive individuals becomes dominated by new entrants to the world (babies/toddlers), who don't die from COVID-19. So over a period of 5 years, the average yearly death will be this year's deaths / 5. That doesn't hold in the same way for the Flu since it does kill babies. > You'd effectively have millions of additional deaths from lack of hospital capacity This is just false. I can't really debunk it because you didn't make an actual argument, so let's leave it at that. > And additionally you'd have millions of more people with debilitating complications from all causes. Huh? Are you saying complications from COVID-19 itself, or are you saying non-covid reasons which would get neglected due to lack of medical care? > That's absolute insanity. You're devaluing life. Stop it. It's frankly scary to think you're out there. No, I actually value life, which is why I understand how precious it is, and what a cruel thing it is to do to subject an entire planet to a regime of isolation and fear. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I also believe that lockdown leads to more mortality than doing nothing, so even if you don't care about wellbeing and just want to myopically look at lives saved, I'm arguing that lockdown is worse on both counts.
  - atomi 6y ago
    You cannot argue that there wouldn't be more infections if we hadn't shut down. That is, if we hadn't shut down, we'd have exponentially more infections right now. There are deleterious effects to shutting down. But your theory that shutting down has lead to more deaths is absurd.

atomi 6y ago

Without shutting down it wouldn't be amortized. You'd effectively have millions of additional deaths from lack of hospital capacity, more than doubling the yearly death rate. And additionally you'd have millions of more people with debilitating complications from all causes. That's absolute insanity. You're devaluing life. Stop it. It's frankly scary to think you're out there.

__blockcipher__ 6y ago
> Without shutting down it wouldn't be amortized. Huh? No it wouldn't. Read my other comments in the thread, the point is that after it works its way through the population, the set of SARS-CoV-2-naive individuals becomes dominated by new entrants to the world (babies/toddlers), who don't die from COVID-19. So over a period of 5 years, the average yearly death will be this year's deaths / 5. That doesn't hold in the same way for the Flu since it does kill babies. > You'd effectively have millions of additional deaths from lack of hospital capacity This is just false. I can't really debunk it because you didn't make an actual argument, so let's leave it at that. > And additionally you'd have millions of more people with debilitating complications from all causes. Huh? Are you saying complications from COVID-19 itself, or are you saying non-covid reasons which would get neglected due to lack of medical care? > That's absolute insanity. You're devaluing life. Stop it. It's frankly scary to think you're out there. No, I actually value life, which is why I understand how precious it is, and what a cruel thing it is to do to subject an entire planet to a regime of isolation and fear. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I also believe that lockdown leads to more mortality than doing nothing, so even if you don't care about wellbeing and just want to myopically look at lives saved, I'm arguing that lockdown is worse on both counts.
- atomi 6y ago
  You cannot argue that there wouldn't be more infections if we hadn't shut down. That is, if we hadn't shut down, we'd have exponentially more infections right now. There are deleterious effects to shutting down. But your theory that shutting down has lead to more deaths is absurd.