3 ms·

Is the goal of civilization that all people should be 100% protected against 100% of threats 100% of the time? I have a statistically higher chance of dying in

Is the goal of civilization that all people should be 100% protected against 100% of threats 100% of the time? I have a statistically higher chance of dying in a car accident in the 2.5 hour drive to visit my parents than I do of dying from Covid-19. The restrictions we're placing people under over this virus are disproportionate to the harm it's doing to our civilization. If the goal is really to protect people, then we shouldn't stop at isolation. We should ban all of the things that could potentially harm people: alcohol, tobacco, fast food, sex (protected or otherwise - there is too much risk), and driving. We should remove all peoples' liberties to protect them from all threats.

nl 6y ago
It's 2 weeks (at most) isolation when you have a greater than 80% chance of being infected and spreading it to hundreds of people. That seems a reasonable thing to do, because unlike all your other hyperbolic examples it is potentially harmful to large numbers of other people.
- nradov 6y ago
  The best estimate of R0 is 2.5, not hundreds. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html#table-1 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...
  - nl 6y ago
    Yes, and an R0 of 2.5 is only 5 chained infections from 100 (ok, 97). If there is no isolation that's inevitable.
    - nradov 6y ago
      That's a real stretch. If you're going to count chained infections then why stop at 5? You might as well go to infinity and claim that everyone in the world will be infected. Ridiculous.
rgbrenner 6y ago
I have a statistically higher chance of dying in a car accident in the 2.5 hour drive to visit my parents than I do of dying from Covid-19. You didn't do one bit of math before writing that. In 2.5 hours, about 10 people will die in car accidents in the US. (100 per day) Versus about 100 people from Covid (1000 per day). Only 8% of the US population does NOT have access to a car. Exclude the elderly and children.. but that's still not enough of a difference to explain an order of magnitude more deaths. You draw a lot of conclusions from rhetoric instead of facts. That's exactly what got us into this mess.
- henriquez 6y ago
  Well except that recorded Covid-19 deaths are statistically inseparable from deaths due to comorbidities and the overwhelming majority of recorded deaths were over 55 years old and had two or more comorbidities. The number of recorded Covid-19 deaths with zero comorbidities is some infinitesimal fraction (< 10%) of the overall “death count.” So, yes, as a perfectly healthy mid-30s adult I have a higher chance of dying in a car accident. If anything we’ve successfully argued why people with comorbid risk factors (old age, diabetes, asthma, obesity, etc.) should remain isolated, but even that is looking sketchy as the death rate continues to plummet.
  - WalterGR 6y ago
    the overwhelming majority of recorded deaths were over 55 years old and had two or more comorbidities. The number of recorded Covid-19 deaths with zero comorbidities is some infinitesimal fraction (< 10%) of the overall “death count.” A comorbidity is something that contributed to death, not necessarily a pre-existing condition. Please take another look at the CDC report you’re extrapolating your claim from. You’ll see comorbidities such as * Influenza and pneumonia * Adult respiratory distress syndrome * Respiratory failure * Respiratory arrest * Cardiac arrest As it stands you’re essentially saying that if you have no pre-existing conditions, then being shot is fairly risk free. After all, people who die from gunshot wounds have comorbidities like blood loss, cardiac arrest, brain damage, laceration of internal organs, and sepsis.
- deleted 6y ago
sunopener 6y ago
> We should remove all peoples' liberties to protect them from all threats. Well, that's a bit far. We just want to protect our human trafficking trade, our customers don't want to risk dying of COVID-19, nor do we want to expose our product to an outbreak, that'd just be bad business. The restrictions are necessary and the vaccine can't come fast enough, our COVID-19 free stock is dwindling fast and we will need more humans that are immune our our whole trade will collapse, and that will NOT be good for the global economy and the heads of state we've strategically positioned.

nl 6y ago

It's 2 weeks (at most) isolation when you have a greater than 80% chance of being infected and spreading it to hundreds of people. That seems a reasonable thing to do, because unlike all your other hyperbolic examples it is potentially harmful to large numbers of other people.

nradov 6y ago
The best estimate of R0 is 2.5, not hundreds. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html#table-1 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...
- nl 6y ago
  Yes, and an R0 of 2.5 is only 5 chained infections from 100 (ok, 97). If there is no isolation that's inevitable.
  - nradov 6y ago
    That's a real stretch. If you're going to count chained infections then why stop at 5? You might as well go to infinity and claim that everyone in the world will be infected. Ridiculous.

rgbrenner 6y ago

I have a statistically higher chance of dying in a car accident in the 2.5 hour drive to visit my parents than I do of dying from Covid-19. You didn't do one bit of math before writing that. In 2.5 hours, about 10 people will die in car accidents in the US. (100 per day) Versus about 100 people from Covid (1000 per day). Only 8% of the US population does NOT have access to a car. Exclude the elderly and children.. but that's still not enough of a difference to explain an order of magnitude more deaths. You draw a lot of conclusions from rhetoric instead of facts. That's exactly what got us into this mess.

henriquez 6y ago
Well except that recorded Covid-19 deaths are statistically inseparable from deaths due to comorbidities and the overwhelming majority of recorded deaths were over 55 years old and had two or more comorbidities. The number of recorded Covid-19 deaths with zero comorbidities is some infinitesimal fraction (< 10%) of the overall “death count.” So, yes, as a perfectly healthy mid-30s adult I have a higher chance of dying in a car accident. If anything we’ve successfully argued why people with comorbid risk factors (old age, diabetes, asthma, obesity, etc.) should remain isolated, but even that is looking sketchy as the death rate continues to plummet.
- WalterGR 6y ago
  the overwhelming majority of recorded deaths were over 55 years old and had two or more comorbidities. The number of recorded Covid-19 deaths with zero comorbidities is some infinitesimal fraction (< 10%) of the overall “death count.” A comorbidity is something that contributed to death, not necessarily a pre-existing condition. Please take another look at the CDC report you’re extrapolating your claim from. You’ll see comorbidities such as * Influenza and pneumonia * Adult respiratory distress syndrome * Respiratory failure * Respiratory arrest * Cardiac arrest As it stands you’re essentially saying that if you have no pre-existing conditions, then being shot is fairly risk free. After all, people who die from gunshot wounds have comorbidities like blood loss, cardiac arrest, brain damage, laceration of internal organs, and sepsis.
deleted 6y ago

sunopener 6y ago

> We should remove all peoples' liberties to protect them from all threats. Well, that's a bit far. We just want to protect our human trafficking trade, our customers don't want to risk dying of COVID-19, nor do we want to expose our product to an outbreak, that'd just be bad business. The restrictions are necessary and the vaccine can't come fast enough, our COVID-19 free stock is dwindling fast and we will need more humans that are immune our our whole trade will collapse, and that will NOT be good for the global economy and the heads of state we've strategically positioned.