3 ms·

It isn’t 1% for everyone True. If you're younger (really, under 60) and healthy it's much less than 1%. 1/3% of those who didn’t die seem to have debilitating

It isn’t 1% for everyone True. If you're younger (really, under 60) and healthy it's much less than 1%. 1/3% of those who didn’t die seem to have debilitating persistent problems Unclear if you mean 1/3 of all infections, which is far too high, or 1 to 3 percent, which is possibly reasonable, although again it's going to be skewed towards older and unhealthy people. even if everything is fine with you, you can pass it to someone who passes it to someone who dies from your unwillingness to act for the greater good At some point people have to be responsible for themselves. If you're severely allergic to peanuts, then that's something that you have to watch out for; we don't ban peanuts for the general public. If you're at high risk for COVID then you should take appropriate precautions, but it's unreasonable to demand that everyone else be forbidden from seeing their friends and family for months or years.

azinman2 6y ago
Any levels of fatality is relative to how overwhelmed the health care system is, and the access to care that people have. We’ve seen it as high as 15% already in some places. This is a GLOBAL pandemic; any spread within your community can eventually make it to the Amazon in Brazil where it’s ravishing local communities that don’t have access to modern hospitals. Your statement seems to emphasize that the focus should be on the youth, who are also dying of this disease. But the careless nature of dismissing the fatality rate of those over 60 or with co-morbidities is really unbelievable. So my parents, who are otherwise healthy and I expect to live for DECADES more should die now so you can go out and see your friends? Or those who are young with diabetes that might otherwise have an entire full life? The level of selfishness of such a statement is just off the charts. If you were to kill just ONE person and be caught you’d be in jail for many years, purposefully (murder) or by accident (manslaughter). Yet passing a disease that has brought the world to its knees around is somehow ok? When did those who get affected by your actions get to weight in and vote on this? Or do you feel you can just unilaterally decide that it’s fine for others to die _unnecessarily_? And for businesses to suffer because the disease keeps going and others DO care about their own safety and those around them? Furthermore, the CDC just acknowledged it may be as high as 1/3 of those recovered with persistent issues [1]. Even if it were 1-3%, why is that ok for that 1-3%? 1% of the global population is approximately 80 million people. How many of these would have solved climate change, found a cure for covid, or otherwise positively impacted the planet? That’s worth not just saying indoors collectively for a short period to prevent? It keeps going because people DON’T do what’s in the best interest for all of society, or even their future self. You’re basing your assumptions on an extremely short time span of data, but we know that many viruses can strike far later in life with devastating consequences, or a lifetime of flare ups. We simply don’t know, but Dr. Fauci has repeatedly warned people about such a possibility. How can you calculate such risks when they’re unknown? Peanuts are something that can be easily regulated and limited to those who are allergic. They pose no global threat, and don’t hop between people. Those allergic can also carry epipens. There is no epipen for covid (yet?). Until then we have an unusually highly contagious virus that spreads from a very high percentage of asymptotic carriers. Already in the US over 1/3 of Americans who died in WWII have died since March that largely wouldn’t have otherwise [2]. It’s July. Please reconsider your actions. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6930e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6930e1.htm [2] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
- orangecat 6y ago
  But the careless nature of dismissing the fatality rate of those over 60 or with co-morbidities is really unbelievable. Exactly the opposite. By pushing the narrative of everybody being roughly equally vulnerable, we've failed to protect those who are most at risk. In a reasonable world, we would have locked down nursing homes immediately, with workers quarantined on site. (And paying them a ton of money in compensation). We also would have said that nobody over 60 or with health complications should be working outside of the home, even in essential businesses. Instead we panicked over young people going to beaches. So my parents, who are otherwise healthy and I expect to live for DECADES more should die now so you can go out and see your friends? Your parents, like mine, should take appropriate precautions. I'm not going to visit them or anyone else at elevated risk without a recent negative test, nor should they allow me to. But it's not reasonable to transitively extend the moral blame for infections back to patient zero. The level of selfishness of such a statement is just off the charts. Lockdowns cause massive harm to mental health, children's education, and people's livelihoods. And even physical health, as "elective" procedures like cancer screenings are cancelled. I could say that you're selfish for ignoring them, but instead I believe that we're all trying to do the best we can, and we have different conceptions of the costs and benefits of various actions. Or do you feel you can just unilaterally decide that it’s fine for others to die _unnecessarily_? Every day everyone does things that indirectly raise risks for other people. Do you quarantine yourself during every flu season? Do you ever take unnecessary car trips, thereby increasing the risk of other drivers and pedestrians suffering a fatal accident? If you want to argue that the current situation requires placing the entire country under house arrest indefinitely, you're going to have to show your work. Furthermore, the CDC just acknowledged it may be as high as 1/3 of those recovered with persistent issues "Persistent" as defined in that study is 2-3 weeks, which is not an unusual amount of time to recover from the flu. That’s worth not just saying indoors collectively for a short period to prevent? If I believed that a strict one month lockdown would eliminate the virus, I'd be all for it. I don't.

azinman2 6y ago

Any levels of fatality is relative to how overwhelmed the health care system is, and the access to care that people have. We’ve seen it as high as 15% already in some places. This is a GLOBAL pandemic; any spread within your community can eventually make it to the Amazon in Brazil where it’s ravishing local communities that don’t have access to modern hospitals. Your statement seems to emphasize that the focus should be on the youth, who are also dying of this disease. But the careless nature of dismissing the fatality rate of those over 60 or with co-morbidities is really unbelievable. So my parents, who are otherwise healthy and I expect to live for DECADES more should die now so you can go out and see your friends? Or those who are young with diabetes that might otherwise have an entire full life? The level of selfishness of such a statement is just off the charts. If you were to kill just ONE person and be caught you’d be in jail for many years, purposefully (murder) or by accident (manslaughter). Yet passing a disease that has brought the world to its knees around is somehow ok? When did those who get affected by your actions get to weight in and vote on this? Or do you feel you can just unilaterally decide that it’s fine for others to die _unnecessarily_? And for businesses to suffer because the disease keeps going and others DO care about their own safety and those around them? Furthermore, the CDC just acknowledged it may be as high as 1/3 of those recovered with persistent issues [1]. Even if it were 1-3%, why is that ok for that 1-3%? 1% of the global population is approximately 80 million people. How many of these would have solved climate change, found a cure for covid, or otherwise positively impacted the planet? That’s worth not just saying indoors collectively for a short period to prevent? It keeps going because people DON’T do what’s in the best interest for all of society, or even their future self. You’re basing your assumptions on an extremely short time span of data, but we know that many viruses can strike far later in life with devastating consequences, or a lifetime of flare ups. We simply don’t know, but Dr. Fauci has repeatedly warned people about such a possibility. How can you calculate such risks when they’re unknown? Peanuts are something that can be easily regulated and limited to those who are allergic. They pose no global threat, and don’t hop between people. Those allergic can also carry epipens. There is no epipen for covid (yet?). Until then we have an unusually highly contagious virus that spreads from a very high percentage of asymptotic carriers. Already in the US over 1/3 of Americans who died in WWII have died since March that largely wouldn’t have otherwise [2]. It’s July. Please reconsider your actions. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6930e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6930e1.htm [2] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

orangecat 6y ago
But the careless nature of dismissing the fatality rate of those over 60 or with co-morbidities is really unbelievable. Exactly the opposite. By pushing the narrative of everybody being roughly equally vulnerable, we've failed to protect those who are most at risk. In a reasonable world, we would have locked down nursing homes immediately, with workers quarantined on site. (And paying them a ton of money in compensation). We also would have said that nobody over 60 or with health complications should be working outside of the home, even in essential businesses. Instead we panicked over young people going to beaches. So my parents, who are otherwise healthy and I expect to live for DECADES more should die now so you can go out and see your friends? Your parents, like mine, should take appropriate precautions. I'm not going to visit them or anyone else at elevated risk without a recent negative test, nor should they allow me to. But it's not reasonable to transitively extend the moral blame for infections back to patient zero. The level of selfishness of such a statement is just off the charts. Lockdowns cause massive harm to mental health, children's education, and people's livelihoods. And even physical health, as "elective" procedures like cancer screenings are cancelled. I could say that you're selfish for ignoring them, but instead I believe that we're all trying to do the best we can, and we have different conceptions of the costs and benefits of various actions. Or do you feel you can just unilaterally decide that it’s fine for others to die _unnecessarily_? Every day everyone does things that indirectly raise risks for other people. Do you quarantine yourself during every flu season? Do you ever take unnecessary car trips, thereby increasing the risk of other drivers and pedestrians suffering a fatal accident? If you want to argue that the current situation requires placing the entire country under house arrest indefinitely, you're going to have to show your work. Furthermore, the CDC just acknowledged it may be as high as 1/3 of those recovered with persistent issues "Persistent" as defined in that study is 2-3 weeks, which is not an unusual amount of time to recover from the flu. That’s worth not just saying indoors collectively for a short period to prevent? If I believed that a strict one month lockdown would eliminate the virus, I'd be all for it. I don't.