5 ms·

That’s still whole numbers for anyone over 60, and significant numbers still for anyone below it. Have you ever seriously contemplated death? If you have, thos

by WD-42 6y ago

That’s still whole numbers for anyone over 60, and significant numbers still for anyone below it. Have you ever seriously contemplated death? If you have, those numbers don’t seem very good, not at all. Not to mention these are stats for DEATH. Meaning these are the worst case scenario. Dead. The chances of getting seriously ill, like major suffering, are much higher. Would you want to experience that? Would you wish that on others in your community? Suck it up and do some pushups for gods sake.

seizethecheese 6y ago
Yes, I've contemplated death. Have you? Here are the chances of dying in a year, for a given age, from actuarial tables: 25 year olds: 0.16% chance of dying 35 year olds: 0.2% chance of dying 45 year olds: 0.3% chance of dying 55 year olds: 0.7% chance of dying 65 year olds: 2% chance of dying 75 year olds: 3.5% 85 year olds: 10% 95 year olds: 26% https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
- WD-42 6y ago
  This is abhorrently flawed logic. These mortality rates are a sum of your chances of dying from literally everything that can kill you, including cancer and heart disease. We're talking about a disease right here right now that has similar rates of mortality, that is currently active and being spread in our communities, could have even larger long term mortality rates and yet people are making excuses of why it's ok to possible expose other people so that they can avoid working out in their living room.
eanzenberg 6y ago
I guess you’re really careful about the flu and driving, and wear a helmet when crossing the street too? How about, if you’re worried, stay home, stay in. If you’re not worried, go out. Let’s not impinge on freedoms of any groups. Not just little freedoms. Pretty basic ones like, freedoms of assembly.
- majormajor 6y ago
  For the vulnerable people, in some ways it would be better if everyone else went on as normal. Let the virus burn through the population as fast as possible, then you can go out again! But there's a few big problems here: a) As we've seen, some of the most vulnerable people are in situations where "staying in" without letting the virus in is very difficult. This will be worse the more widespread in the wider community? b) Even if the vulnerable can perfectly protect themselves, this assumes a very selfish calculus of unconcern for everyone else. If your hospitals fall past the tipping point in a "get it over with ASAP" yolo policy, people not only die faster than in a world where there's never a vaccine or effictive treatment, more of them die too due to reduced ability to treat. c) Who's gonna pay for all the non-wealthy vulnerable people to stay home? Especially in cases where they need to be more isolated, such as those with healthy roommates who will be acting normally, so they need to relocate too? I haven't seen anyone proposing answers to this in the states like TX or GA.
Khaine 6y ago
Sure, but how many of those people would have died from the normal flu? I know this is a morbid topic, but it gets to a fundamental truth. How valuable is a human life? Is it worth significantly damaging the future of the young through economic depression and increased social isolation and mental illness to extend the life old old people by a year, 5 years? There is no easy solution. We can hibernate as much of the non-essential economy with lock-downs and mandate the wearing of masks. But this, will extend the economic hardship we are under, which will put further economic strain on young people, who now have had to contend with the great recession and now likely a depression. We can do like sweeden and try and isolate and protect the vulnerable, and keep the economy open, or we can do nothing. Each of these choices has trade-offs in terms of economic hardship and lives. Not just the lives of people who get COVID, but those who commit suicide due to social isolation, economic hardship, and other factors related to COVID. American's can't have this discussion in a mature manner because it has been poisoned by politics.
- p1necone 6y ago
  Why are you so certain that hundreds of thousands of deaths are not going to seriously affect the economy either?
  - showdeadtest 6y ago
    That’s about a month’s worth of deaths. The economic impact would be roughly that of everybody taking a really long vacation. We are past that. And it’s completely besides the point—-it does not seem like that is the calculus going into our policy decisions here in August.
    - kbenson 6y ago
      > That’s about a month’s worth of deaths. Looking at current number of deaths as the outcome for the decision to open stuff up only makes sense if you think we would have seen the same infection rate. If the infection rate is high enough and fast enough, we surpass the healthcare system's capacity to help with hospitalization, and then we see a large increase in the mortality rate for those infected, as some of those with bad, but not fatal infections that recovered in the hospital don't recover out of the hospital. The faster the spread, the worse (higher) that number is. > The economic impact would be roughly that of everybody taking a really long vacation. People come back from vacations. The economic impact would be more like those people all quit at the same time. > it does not seem like that is the calculus going into our policy decisions here in August. It is. They're looking at worst case scenarios for COVID-19, and how likely they are, compared to worst case scenarios for the economy, and how likely they are. Worst case for the economy is a depression, which may take years or decades to recover from, but the workers are still there, still trained, and we can hopefully get them back to work with stimulus, even if it takes a long time. Worst case for COVID-19 is that instead of hundreds of thousands of dead, we see millions of dead. What's the economic impact of one of every 50 or 100 families loses a parent, and how that affects they flexibility and ability to recover from financial bumps? What's the impact to Apple or Google if a high level exec that's spears a division dies (what's happened at Apple since Job died, and he had plenty of time to groom a successor)? What about the 20 employees of small business that was struggling but surviving when the owner dies? The economic impact of people actually disappearing forever is sometimes equivalent of the cost and time to train a replacement (which is generally multiple months of salary for any non-trivial position), and that's when it can actually be replaced adequately. Even if you want to completely ignore the humanitarian aspect of it, there's good economic reason to not want people to die, and why locking things down, while economically disastrous, maybe still be less economically disastrous than NOT doing so.
centimeter 6y ago
> Have you ever seriously contemplated death? Probably deeper and in a more structured way than you, based on the way you're writing. If your "contemplation" in the context of disease management didn't involve risk analysis (that means multiplying probabilities by utilities), you were probably just mentally masturbating rather than coming up with useful insights. > Suck it up and do some pushups for gods sake. Thinking that "some pushups" is the same as a real gym routine also says a lot about you and your qualifications to speak about health management.

by WD-42 6y ago

seizethecheese 6y ago

Yes, I've contemplated death. Have you? Here are the chances of dying in a year, for a given age, from actuarial tables: 25 year olds: 0.16% chance of dying 35 year olds: 0.2% chance of dying 45 year olds: 0.3% chance of dying 55 year olds: 0.7% chance of dying 65 year olds: 2% chance of dying 75 year olds: 3.5% 85 year olds: 10% 95 year olds: 26% https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

WD-42 6y ago
This is abhorrently flawed logic. These mortality rates are a sum of your chances of dying from literally everything that can kill you, including cancer and heart disease. We're talking about a disease right here right now that has similar rates of mortality, that is currently active and being spread in our communities, could have even larger long term mortality rates and yet people are making excuses of why it's ok to possible expose other people so that they can avoid working out in their living room.

eanzenberg 6y ago

I guess you’re really careful about the flu and driving, and wear a helmet when crossing the street too? How about, if you’re worried, stay home, stay in. If you’re not worried, go out. Let’s not impinge on freedoms of any groups. Not just little freedoms. Pretty basic ones like, freedoms of assembly.

majormajor 6y ago
For the vulnerable people, in some ways it would be better if everyone else went on as normal. Let the virus burn through the population as fast as possible, then you can go out again! But there's a few big problems here: a) As we've seen, some of the most vulnerable people are in situations where "staying in" without letting the virus in is very difficult. This will be worse the more widespread in the wider community? b) Even if the vulnerable can perfectly protect themselves, this assumes a very selfish calculus of unconcern for everyone else. If your hospitals fall past the tipping point in a "get it over with ASAP" yolo policy, people not only die faster than in a world where there's never a vaccine or effictive treatment, more of them die too due to reduced ability to treat. c) Who's gonna pay for all the non-wealthy vulnerable people to stay home? Especially in cases where they need to be more isolated, such as those with healthy roommates who will be acting normally, so they need to relocate too? I haven't seen anyone proposing answers to this in the states like TX or GA.

Khaine 6y ago

Sure, but how many of those people would have died from the normal flu? I know this is a morbid topic, but it gets to a fundamental truth. How valuable is a human life? Is it worth significantly damaging the future of the young through economic depression and increased social isolation and mental illness to extend the life old old people by a year, 5 years? There is no easy solution. We can hibernate as much of the non-essential economy with lock-downs and mandate the wearing of masks. But this, will extend the economic hardship we are under, which will put further economic strain on young people, who now have had to contend with the great recession and now likely a depression. We can do like sweeden and try and isolate and protect the vulnerable, and keep the economy open, or we can do nothing. Each of these choices has trade-offs in terms of economic hardship and lives. Not just the lives of people who get COVID, but those who commit suicide due to social isolation, economic hardship, and other factors related to COVID. American's can't have this discussion in a mature manner because it has been poisoned by politics.

p1necone 6y ago
Why are you so certain that hundreds of thousands of deaths are not going to seriously affect the economy either?
- showdeadtest 6y ago
  That’s about a month’s worth of deaths. The economic impact would be roughly that of everybody taking a really long vacation. We are past that. And it’s completely besides the point—-it does not seem like that is the calculus going into our policy decisions here in August.
  - kbenson 6y ago
    > That’s about a month’s worth of deaths. Looking at current number of deaths as the outcome for the decision to open stuff up only makes sense if you think we would have seen the same infection rate. If the infection rate is high enough and fast enough, we surpass the healthcare system's capacity to help with hospitalization, and then we see a large increase in the mortality rate for those infected, as some of those with bad, but not fatal infections that recovered in the hospital don't recover out of the hospital. The faster the spread, the worse (higher) that number is. > The economic impact would be roughly that of everybody taking a really long vacation. People come back from vacations. The economic impact would be more like those people all quit at the same time. > it does not seem like that is the calculus going into our policy decisions here in August. It is. They're looking at worst case scenarios for COVID-19, and how likely they are, compared to worst case scenarios for the economy, and how likely they are. Worst case for the economy is a depression, which may take years or decades to recover from, but the workers are still there, still trained, and we can hopefully get them back to work with stimulus, even if it takes a long time. Worst case for COVID-19 is that instead of hundreds of thousands of dead, we see millions of dead. What's the economic impact of one of every 50 or 100 families loses a parent, and how that affects they flexibility and ability to recover from financial bumps? What's the impact to Apple or Google if a high level exec that's spears a division dies (what's happened at Apple since Job died, and he had plenty of time to groom a successor)? What about the 20 employees of small business that was struggling but surviving when the owner dies? The economic impact of people actually disappearing forever is sometimes equivalent of the cost and time to train a replacement (which is generally multiple months of salary for any non-trivial position), and that's when it can actually be replaced adequately. Even if you want to completely ignore the humanitarian aspect of it, there's good economic reason to not want people to die, and why locking things down, while economically disastrous, maybe still be less economically disastrous than NOT doing so.

centimeter 6y ago

> Have you ever seriously contemplated death? Probably deeper and in a more structured way than you, based on the way you're writing. If your "contemplation" in the context of disease management didn't involve risk analysis (that means multiplying probabilities by utilities), you were probably just mentally masturbating rather than coming up with useful insights. > Suck it up and do some pushups for gods sake. Thinking that "some pushups" is the same as a real gym routine also says a lot about you and your qualifications to speak about health management.