3 ms·

It's good to quantify and ballpark that damage instead of leaving it as an intuitive guess. If public policy demands the trading of lives, at least it shouldn't

It's good to quantify and ballpark that damage instead of leaving it as an intuitive guess. If public policy demands the trading of lives, at least it shouldn't be done by way of blind poker. This study ballparks it around 10-20 deaths per year per 100k residents.

RspecMAuthortah 6y ago
> It's good to quantify and ballpark that damage instead of leaving it as an intuitive guess. Except it is hard to quantify the downside of that bears on quality of life and take that into account. My 70+ year old parents are homebound for last 5+ months, and their overall physical and mental health from lack of physical and social activities have significantly gone down, to the point I expect if this goes on another 6 months or more I might lose at least one of my parents.
- threatofrain 6y ago
  This is a study which looks at the relative impact of pro sports on influenza deaths in cities, not a study on COVID-19. But if a pandemic did hit, and we didn't have any data on the relative impact of different events on death, then you're more blind than ever in making judgments like whether churches should be restricted to 50 (why not 25 or 100?). Similarly, there ought to be discussions on increases in mortality for any other causes under current contexts, including deaths by suicide — there's certainly been a lot of resistance to discussing the impacts of lockdown on public health.
clairity 6y ago
> "This study ballparks it around 10-20 deaths per year per 100k residents." no, it's 1-4 per million[0], so basically inconsequential relative to the (low) ~hundreds per million who typically die each year. dying from sporting event-acquired flu is really, really low on the list of dangers to worry about. worry about the trip getting there instead, if you must worry. [0] based on seizethecheese's quote, as i couldn't read the paper directly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24180543 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24180543
- serf 6y ago
  >dying from sporting event-acquired flu is really, really low on the list of dangers to worry about. worry about the trip getting there instead, if you must worry. these kind of statistics are not for personal caution, they're for risk assessment and public policy. 141 total infant botulism cases were reported in 2017 -- it still warranted a report and investigation work in order to assess the possibility of future problems that stem from the case, spread characteristics, etc.[0] My point being : the rarity and generalized 'total danger' of an event should not determine whether or not it is investigated by public-policy makers and groups like the CDC/WHO. Another facet never mentioned : sporting event-acquired flu is really low on the list of dangers to prioritize, you probably won't be bothered by it -- but the existence of yet another now-quantified danger does nudge your average 'danger score' higher. It always did, of course, but now people have actionable data about it. So, sure, event acquired flu is really rare -- but I bet more people than before will now consider this when planning the trip with or around people with compromised immune systems. [0]:https://www.cdc.gov/botulism/surv/2017/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/botulism/surv/2017/index.html
  - pochamago 6y ago
    "but the existence of yet another now-quantified danger does nudge your average 'danger score' higher" Or lower. I would say that these numbers are actually smaller than my intuition suggested.
  - clairity 6y ago
    > "...they're for risk assessment and public policy." even for that, it's inconsequential. there are many greater and more relevant risks to worry about at a policy level. food-borne botulism has a different risk profile in that the ever-increasing centralization of food distribution can potentially unbound those risks. > "...another now-quantified danger does nudge your average 'danger score' higher. ...more people than before will now consider this when..." that's just fear-mongering. the risks of incidental/accidental deaths are the lowest in history. there's no reason to worry about this particular issue outside of research.
    - 6y ago
bartread 6y ago
> It's good to quantify and ballpark that damage instead of leaving it as an intuitive guess. If public policy demands the trading of lives, at least it shouldn't be done by way of blind poker. Yes, except that once the COVID situation is under control (assuming it can be controlled; some might say that's a big assumption), lots of people will be monumentally pissed off if this kind of study is used to justify ongoing restrictions on attending sporting events, concerts, etc. Everything in life is a risk. What I am painfully aware of at the moment is that whilst everyone I know is willing to follow government guidance related to COVID and to continue doing so for as long as is necessary, we are all craving a return to normality, and are unlikely to be tolerant of tenuous justifications for continuing restrictions after the crisis has passed.
- klyrs 6y ago
  > we are all craving a return to normality Not all. I'm not. I'm missing a couple of things, but I'm not looking forward to "normality". Not wasting my life on commuting has made a huge difference in my life. I tend to get several colds per year, even in the summer, which has added up to a moderate benefit. I hope that our increased awareness of disease prevention will be enduring.
  - bartread 6y ago
    > Not all. Look at the rest of my comment. When I said "all" I was clearly talking about people I know, not everbody everywhere. Specifically people that I know. > Not wasting my life on commuting has made a huge difference in my life. That's fair but it's also again quite clearly not what I was talking about. Read what I've actually said: I'm talking about leisure and social activities. Seriously: stop picking random out of context fragments out of peoples' comments and building strawmen out of them just for the sake of being disagreeable.
    - klyrs 6y ago
      > Read what I've actually said: I'm talking about leisure and social activities. My life is already normal with respect to social and leisure activities. We only keep a lil more distance and do more outside, the former being fine, the latter being an improvement.
iibishnb 6y ago
Why is it 'public policy' that decides if people can attend the theater? People are out of control in this country thinking they have a right to tell everyone else how to live. Such beliefs are depositic and evil.

RspecMAuthortah 6y ago

> It's good to quantify and ballpark that damage instead of leaving it as an intuitive guess. Except it is hard to quantify the downside of that bears on quality of life and take that into account. My 70+ year old parents are homebound for last 5+ months, and their overall physical and mental health from lack of physical and social activities have significantly gone down, to the point I expect if this goes on another 6 months or more I might lose at least one of my parents.

threatofrain 6y ago
This is a study which looks at the relative impact of pro sports on influenza deaths in cities, not a study on COVID-19. But if a pandemic did hit, and we didn't have any data on the relative impact of different events on death, then you're more blind than ever in making judgments like whether churches should be restricted to 50 (why not 25 or 100?). Similarly, there ought to be discussions on increases in mortality for any other causes under current contexts, including deaths by suicide — there's certainly been a lot of resistance to discussing the impacts of lockdown on public health.

clairity 6y ago

> "This study ballparks it around 10-20 deaths per year per 100k residents." no, it's 1-4 per million[0], so basically inconsequential relative to the (low) ~hundreds per million who typically die each year. dying from sporting event-acquired flu is really, really low on the list of dangers to worry about. worry about the trip getting there instead, if you must worry. [0] based on seizethecheese's quote, as i couldn't read the paper directly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24180543 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24180543

serf 6y ago
>dying from sporting event-acquired flu is really, really low on the list of dangers to worry about. worry about the trip getting there instead, if you must worry. these kind of statistics are not for personal caution, they're for risk assessment and public policy. 141 total infant botulism cases were reported in 2017 -- it still warranted a report and investigation work in order to assess the possibility of future problems that stem from the case, spread characteristics, etc.[0] My point being : the rarity and generalized 'total danger' of an event should not determine whether or not it is investigated by public-policy makers and groups like the CDC/WHO. Another facet never mentioned : sporting event-acquired flu is really low on the list of dangers to prioritize, you probably won't be bothered by it -- but the existence of yet another now-quantified danger does nudge your average 'danger score' higher. It always did, of course, but now people have actionable data about it. So, sure, event acquired flu is really rare -- but I bet more people than before will now consider this when planning the trip with or around people with compromised immune systems. [0]:https://www.cdc.gov/botulism/surv/2017/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/botulism/surv/2017/index.html
- pochamago 6y ago
  "but the existence of yet another now-quantified danger does nudge your average 'danger score' higher" Or lower. I would say that these numbers are actually smaller than my intuition suggested.
- clairity 6y ago
  > "...they're for risk assessment and public policy." even for that, it's inconsequential. there are many greater and more relevant risks to worry about at a policy level. food-borne botulism has a different risk profile in that the ever-increasing centralization of food distribution can potentially unbound those risks. > "...another now-quantified danger does nudge your average 'danger score' higher. ...more people than before will now consider this when..." that's just fear-mongering. the risks of incidental/accidental deaths are the lowest in history. there's no reason to worry about this particular issue outside of research.
  - 6y ago

bartread 6y ago

> It's good to quantify and ballpark that damage instead of leaving it as an intuitive guess. If public policy demands the trading of lives, at least it shouldn't be done by way of blind poker. Yes, except that once the COVID situation is under control (assuming it can be controlled; some might say that's a big assumption), lots of people will be monumentally pissed off if this kind of study is used to justify ongoing restrictions on attending sporting events, concerts, etc. Everything in life is a risk. What I am painfully aware of at the moment is that whilst everyone I know is willing to follow government guidance related to COVID and to continue doing so for as long as is necessary, we are all craving a return to normality, and are unlikely to be tolerant of tenuous justifications for continuing restrictions after the crisis has passed.

klyrs 6y ago
> we are all craving a return to normality Not all. I'm not. I'm missing a couple of things, but I'm not looking forward to "normality". Not wasting my life on commuting has made a huge difference in my life. I tend to get several colds per year, even in the summer, which has added up to a moderate benefit. I hope that our increased awareness of disease prevention will be enduring.
- bartread 6y ago
  > Not all. Look at the rest of my comment. When I said "all" I was clearly talking about people I know, not everbody everywhere. Specifically people that I know. > Not wasting my life on commuting has made a huge difference in my life. That's fair but it's also again quite clearly not what I was talking about. Read what I've actually said: I'm talking about leisure and social activities. Seriously: stop picking random out of context fragments out of peoples' comments and building strawmen out of them just for the sake of being disagreeable.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    > Read what I've actually said: I'm talking about leisure and social activities. My life is already normal with respect to social and leisure activities. We only keep a lil more distance and do more outside, the former being fine, the latter being an improvement.

iibishnb 6y ago

Why is it 'public policy' that decides if people can attend the theater? People are out of control in this country thinking they have a right to tell everyone else how to live. Such beliefs are depositic and evil.