5 ms·

Mortality rate in older folks is terrible, and needs to be managed, but it can be managed. Yeah...I keep seeing this handwave from the "I should be able to do

by kjs3 6y ago

Mortality rate in older folks is terrible, and needs to be managed, but it can be managed. Yeah...I keep seeing this handwave from the "I should be able to do whatever I want" crowd. How exactly can it be managed? Basically it's "if you have any possible risk factor, you should lock yourself away so me and my friends aren't inconvenienced by your existence". Ignoring the fact (and the associated abdication of responsibility) that there's no established risk assessment beyond "if you're an oldster, stay home", and it's not clear why the many otherwise low risk are getting sick and dying. They are apparently the cost of partying on weekends.

xlm1717 6y ago
"If you have any possible risk factor, you should lock yourself away so me and my friends aren't inconvenienced by your existence" is how quarantines have worked for hundreds of years.
- kjs3 6y ago
  In a quarantine, "Me and my friends" don't go out partying packed at the bar while the oldsters sequester. Look at how well things are going at every college that's opened up. For hundreds of years, a 'quarantine' didn't mean "for everyone except us entitled shitstains". It meant for everyone. We aren't running this how quarantines have worked for hundreds of years.
arcticbull 6y ago
As opposed to 100% of people locking themselves away? The reality is people won’t do what you’re asking. The evidence is in the infection curve. We have to manage the society/neighbors we have not the people we wish we had. Further, a few months later everyone can come out and play.
- lbeltrame 6y ago
  > a few months later everyone can come out and play. I'm not so sure. Governments can't admit that fighting such a contagious virus with non-pharmaceutical interventions is extremely difficult on the long run. You're just buying time for a cure (not necessarily a vaccine: drugs work, too).
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    The problem is people aren’t doing it so it doesn’t matter what the intention is. You need to tailor the public policy towards what people will actually do not what you wish they would do. Otherwise you’re left with the half measures that achieve absolutely nothing you see today.
    - AstralStorm 6y ago
      If there's literally nothing suitable that would be automatically done, what would you do? Allow people to do whatever at the cost of lives or force them to do what is right? Usually in law, number 1 is called negligence.
      - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
        > Allow people to do whatever at the cost of lives or force them to do what is right? You're invoking police power to massively disrupt people's lives indefinitely. That's unacceptable. Let people exercise their inalienable freedoms and assume whatever risk they want. We saw people preempt the government in avoiding risky behavior as the pandemic started, and we'll see people preempt the government in resuming normal life avoiding risk as they deem fit.
  - AstralStorm 6y ago
    In case of this virus, probably not a vaccine. Or not alone. And any vaccine would need some period of widespread testing, comparable to how long it took to devise flu vaccines. This one can jump species, reinfection cases have been described already, and coronaviruses in general are known to cause seasonal infections.
    - lbeltrame 6y ago
      > And any vaccine would need some period of widespread testing That's what the current Phase III trials are doing (30K people for Pfizer, 30K people for Moderna, ~12K people for Oxford/AstraZeneca). This should be enough to check for efficacy, while probably not enough for potential long-term effects. Reinfections are, so far, a minuscule number compared to the total cases (2 properly documented cases), so I expect immunity to last at least a year, basing on the current data. Time will tell if I'm wrong, of course.
cipher_system 6y ago
You don't seem to think very highly of other people. You could also phrase it as "if you have any possible risk factor, you should lock yourself away so me and my friends can build up herd immunity so you don't have to", just as the article said.
- kjs3 6y ago
  This response actually had me LOL. We're packed in this bar pounding beers with my dudebros...so we can build up immunity! I got on my bike and road to Sturgis with 50k other bikers...so we can herd up some immunity! I'm out here maskless and not social distancing, threatening people for not opening schools and complaining about not getting a haircut...how else can we get immune! I think my read on other people is pretty spot on.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    Again, you're playing to the audience you wish you had instead of the one you actually have. As we have been unable to get people to stay inside, there's no good that will come of continuing to tell people to stay inside while we know they won't. We need to figure out how to minimize harm given what we now know. You're basically arguing for the war on drugs.

by kjs3 6y ago

xlm1717 6y ago

"If you have any possible risk factor, you should lock yourself away so me and my friends aren't inconvenienced by your existence" is how quarantines have worked for hundreds of years.

kjs3 6y ago
In a quarantine, "Me and my friends" don't go out partying packed at the bar while the oldsters sequester. Look at how well things are going at every college that's opened up. For hundreds of years, a 'quarantine' didn't mean "for everyone except us entitled shitstains". It meant for everyone. We aren't running this how quarantines have worked for hundreds of years.

arcticbull 6y ago

As opposed to 100% of people locking themselves away? The reality is people won’t do what you’re asking. The evidence is in the infection curve. We have to manage the society/neighbors we have not the people we wish we had. Further, a few months later everyone can come out and play.

lbeltrame 6y ago
> a few months later everyone can come out and play. I'm not so sure. Governments can't admit that fighting such a contagious virus with non-pharmaceutical interventions is extremely difficult on the long run. You're just buying time for a cure (not necessarily a vaccine: drugs work, too).
- arcticbull 6y ago
  The problem is people aren’t doing it so it doesn’t matter what the intention is. You need to tailor the public policy towards what people will actually do not what you wish they would do. Otherwise you’re left with the half measures that achieve absolutely nothing you see today.
  - AstralStorm 6y ago
    If there's literally nothing suitable that would be automatically done, what would you do? Allow people to do whatever at the cost of lives or force them to do what is right? Usually in law, number 1 is called negligence.
    - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
      > Allow people to do whatever at the cost of lives or force them to do what is right? You're invoking police power to massively disrupt people's lives indefinitely. That's unacceptable. Let people exercise their inalienable freedoms and assume whatever risk they want. We saw people preempt the government in avoiding risky behavior as the pandemic started, and we'll see people preempt the government in resuming normal life avoiding risk as they deem fit.
- AstralStorm 6y ago
  In case of this virus, probably not a vaccine. Or not alone. And any vaccine would need some period of widespread testing, comparable to how long it took to devise flu vaccines. This one can jump species, reinfection cases have been described already, and coronaviruses in general are known to cause seasonal infections.
  - lbeltrame 6y ago
    > And any vaccine would need some period of widespread testing That's what the current Phase III trials are doing (30K people for Pfizer, 30K people for Moderna, ~12K people for Oxford/AstraZeneca). This should be enough to check for efficacy, while probably not enough for potential long-term effects. Reinfections are, so far, a minuscule number compared to the total cases (2 properly documented cases), so I expect immunity to last at least a year, basing on the current data. Time will tell if I'm wrong, of course.

cipher_system 6y ago

You don't seem to think very highly of other people. You could also phrase it as "if you have any possible risk factor, you should lock yourself away so me and my friends can build up herd immunity so you don't have to", just as the article said.

kjs3 6y ago
This response actually had me LOL. We're packed in this bar pounding beers with my dudebros...so we can build up immunity! I got on my bike and road to Sturgis with 50k other bikers...so we can herd up some immunity! I'm out here maskless and not social distancing, threatening people for not opening schools and complaining about not getting a haircut...how else can we get immune! I think my read on other people is pretty spot on.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Again, you're playing to the audience you wish you had instead of the one you actually have. As we have been unable to get people to stay inside, there's no good that will come of continuing to tell people to stay inside while we know they won't. We need to figure out how to minimize harm given what we now know. You're basically arguing for the war on drugs.