7 ms·

The chart shows a modes uptick which follows a large drop. But neither the drop or the uptick take inflation to a level that’s unusual unusual compared to its r

The chart shows a modes uptick which follows a large drop. But neither the drop or the uptick take inflation to a level that’s unusual unusual compared to its recent history. Wake me up if it continues for another six months!

ianai 6y ago
I agree this inflation story isn’t the story we should focus on. We should be doing everything to get our numbers under 1 new case per 100k people per day. We’re still having a 9/11 event every three days by death count.
- CyberRabbi 6y ago
  Saying we have a “9/11 event every three days” is an excessively emotional and alarmist way to frame what’s happening. 600K people die in the US of cancer every year. If we took your framing, that means cancer is causing a 9/11 every other day. (Edit: did incorrect math here originally) Please try to use emotionally neutral language when communicating to others about the pandemic. It has already been distorted and politicized in the public sphere enough, in both directions.
  - lvs 6y ago
    In both cases, these are excess deaths that would not have otherwise occurred. That is not true of cancer. Your choice to downplay the comparison is as consciously political as GP's choice to point out the comparison.
    - CyberRabbi 6y ago
      I downplayed nothing. You have further proved my point.
  - darkerside 6y ago
    Cancer _is_ causing 200 9/11s every day, and people are freaked out by it. That's why we spend billions on cancer research every year. And if we could prevent cancer by simple changes to our lifestyle by wearing masks and social distancing, you can bet that most people (not all) would support it and look at people who don't with disgust. I disagree with your trivialization of these deaths. I unironically presume that you have little empathy for individual deaths due to gun violence, accidents, and other tragedies, since those are even smaller in scope than the enormous number of people who die of cancer on a regular basis. Edit: I also fell into the trap of not questioning your assumptions. 600k a year is 1,643 per day. So a 9/11 every two days. Closer to COVID in numbers than you presented. Still horrible. I stand by the rest of my post.
    - CyberRabbi 6y ago
      > I disagree with your trivialization of these deaths. I unironically presume that you have little empathy for individual deaths due to gun violence, accidents, and other tragedies, since those are even smaller in scope than the enormous number of people who die of cancer on a regular basis. I literally “trivialized” nothing. Promoting the use of emotionally neutral language is not “trivialization.” Furthermore, the assumption that I “have little empathy for individual deaths” because I promote emotionally neutral language is both parody and shameful. Thank you for further proving my point.
      - darkerside 6y ago
        You exaggerated cancer deaths by 400x to minimize what's happening with COVID (and BTW, were at 1k deaths a day, which is creeping up to be similar to the cancer number). You could start with walking back that claim, which was blatantly inaccurate and misleading.
        CyberRabbi 6y ago
        I did walk the claim back but even if I didn’t citing what I thought was an accurate number is not trivializing. The overall point remains true, invoking 9/11 imagery when talking about covid death numbers is emotionally manipulative rhetoric and it does more harm than good.
        darkerside 6y ago
        Thanks for correcting. In my opinion, "emotionally manipulative" is in the eye of the beholder. So in a way, you're both right. As for the underlying question of, is it helpful? I think it does help to visualize the scope of a disaster which people are asking to have trouble comprehending. Like Stalin said, one death is a tragedy. One million deaths is a statistic.
    - logicchains 6y ago
      >And if we could prevent cancer by simple changes to our lifestyle by wearing masks and social distancing, you can bet that most people (not all) would support it and look at people who don't with disgust. There's no guarantee that these things will prevent deaths; if there's no vaccine relatively soon all they'll achieve is delaying deaths. And social distancing is not a "simple lifestyle" change: it's a destructive, traumatic event that's destroyed more peoples' jobs, businesses and livelihoods than anything else in the past half century, and caused a massive increase in mental health issues and suicide: https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/advance-article/doi/10.1093/qjmed/hcaa202/5857612 https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/advance-article/doi/10.1093/q.... I'm going to assume you're an introvert in some ivory tower tech job that allows working from home, otherwise I can't imagine how you could have so little empathy for the havock lockdowns are wreaking on ordinary working people's lives.

ianai 6y ago

I agree this inflation story isn’t the story we should focus on. We should be doing everything to get our numbers under 1 new case per 100k people per day. We’re still having a 9/11 event every three days by death count.

CyberRabbi 6y ago
Saying we have a “9/11 event every three days” is an excessively emotional and alarmist way to frame what’s happening. 600K people die in the US of cancer every year. If we took your framing, that means cancer is causing a 9/11 every other day. (Edit: did incorrect math here originally) Please try to use emotionally neutral language when communicating to others about the pandemic. It has already been distorted and politicized in the public sphere enough, in both directions.
- lvs 6y ago
  In both cases, these are excess deaths that would not have otherwise occurred. That is not true of cancer. Your choice to downplay the comparison is as consciously political as GP's choice to point out the comparison.
  - CyberRabbi 6y ago
    I downplayed nothing. You have further proved my point.
- darkerside 6y ago
  Cancer _is_ causing 200 9/11s every day, and people are freaked out by it. That's why we spend billions on cancer research every year. And if we could prevent cancer by simple changes to our lifestyle by wearing masks and social distancing, you can bet that most people (not all) would support it and look at people who don't with disgust. I disagree with your trivialization of these deaths. I unironically presume that you have little empathy for individual deaths due to gun violence, accidents, and other tragedies, since those are even smaller in scope than the enormous number of people who die of cancer on a regular basis. Edit: I also fell into the trap of not questioning your assumptions. 600k a year is 1,643 per day. So a 9/11 every two days. Closer to COVID in numbers than you presented. Still horrible. I stand by the rest of my post.
  - CyberRabbi 6y ago
    > I disagree with your trivialization of these deaths. I unironically presume that you have little empathy for individual deaths due to gun violence, accidents, and other tragedies, since those are even smaller in scope than the enormous number of people who die of cancer on a regular basis. I literally “trivialized” nothing. Promoting the use of emotionally neutral language is not “trivialization.” Furthermore, the assumption that I “have little empathy for individual deaths” because I promote emotionally neutral language is both parody and shameful. Thank you for further proving my point.
    - darkerside 6y ago
      You exaggerated cancer deaths by 400x to minimize what's happening with COVID (and BTW, were at 1k deaths a day, which is creeping up to be similar to the cancer number). You could start with walking back that claim, which was blatantly inaccurate and misleading.
      - CyberRabbi 6y ago
        I did walk the claim back but even if I didn’t citing what I thought was an accurate number is not trivializing. The overall point remains true, invoking 9/11 imagery when talking about covid death numbers is emotionally manipulative rhetoric and it does more harm than good.
        darkerside 6y ago
        Thanks for correcting. In my opinion, "emotionally manipulative" is in the eye of the beholder. So in a way, you're both right. As for the underlying question of, is it helpful? I think it does help to visualize the scope of a disaster which people are asking to have trouble comprehending. Like Stalin said, one death is a tragedy. One million deaths is a statistic.
  - logicchains 6y ago
    >And if we could prevent cancer by simple changes to our lifestyle by wearing masks and social distancing, you can bet that most people (not all) would support it and look at people who don't with disgust. There's no guarantee that these things will prevent deaths; if there's no vaccine relatively soon all they'll achieve is delaying deaths. And social distancing is not a "simple lifestyle" change: it's a destructive, traumatic event that's destroyed more peoples' jobs, businesses and livelihoods than anything else in the past half century, and caused a massive increase in mental health issues and suicide: https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/advance-article/doi/10.1093/qjmed/hcaa202/5857612 https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/advance-article/doi/10.1093/q.... I'm going to assume you're an introvert in some ivory tower tech job that allows working from home, otherwise I can't imagine how you could have so little empathy for the havock lockdowns are wreaking on ordinary working people's lives.