4 ms·

>this deadly virus the deadly virus with the extremely high survival rate? >maybe we are going to have to change our definition of normal no we won't. things

>this deadly virus the deadly virus with the extremely high survival rate? >maybe we are going to have to change our definition of normal no we won't. things returned to normal after much more serious pandemics. people are already realizing the risks of this virus were oversold and starting to move on.

staplers 6y ago
> extremely high survival rate COVID-19 is (so far) about 10x-20x deadlier than the common flu which we have vaccines for and approaching about half of the total death toll of the 1918 flu which is considered the deadliest in modern history. What is your basis for "extremely high survival rate"?
- Spivak 6y ago
  I guess people see ~2% death rate and assume that's low?
  - COVardsStayHome 6y ago
    From where did you pull out 2%? Out of your ass fucking retard?
- floren 6y ago
  > approaching about half of the total death toll of the 1918 flu Approaching half of 17-50 million dead?
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    "We" is the United States here, right? > In the U.S., about 28% of the population of 105 million became infected, and 500,000 to 850,000 died (0.48 to 0.81 percent of the population).[129][130][131] We're pretty close to half of 500k.
  - beckingz 6y ago
    Growth mindset.
- grillvogel 6y ago
  covid has killed 25 million people?
Spivak 6y ago
I don't think people were ever arguing that the virus is particularly deadly. Like ~2% death rate is really really high for a flu but it's not the black plague or anything. If you're a young-ish healthy adult with a normal immune system then (statistically speaking) quarantine likely didn't benefit you at all. The thing that makes COVID novel is that it's extremely contagious. Your part in quarantining is not spreading it to the more vulnerable/unlucky people in your life. Because a 2% death rate in a country of 300 million people is still 6 million dead in an entirely preventable way.
- grillvogel 6y ago
  our response to the virus has caused more harm to more people than the virus itself, and the goalposts to end restrictions keep moving once the previous criteria are met. where is your 2% number coming from? CDC estimates the infection fatality ratio as: 0-19 years: 0.00003 20-49 years: 0.0002 50-69 years: 0.005 70+ years: 0.054 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    > our response to the virus has caused more harm to more people than the virus itself That can happen from failure or from success. The far more important comparison is response vs. what the virus would have done without that response. > the goalposts to end restrictions keep moving once the previous criteria are met Criteria like what? The only one I've seen is trying to get the rate of spread down and we really haven't managed that.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > our response to the virus has caused more harm to more people than the virus itself, That’s not a bad thing. A bad thing would be if our response caused more harm that the additional harm the virus would have caused but for the response, but that it caused more than it allowed the virus to cause is not a problem. > and the goalposts to end restrictions keep moving once the previous criteria are met. No, they haven't. It's true that both the restrictions in place in some jurisdictions and the criteria for step down have been revised based on better understanding of the virus and associated activity-related risks, but that's not the same thing (and has resulted in loosening of some restrictions directly and easing of some criteria, as well as tightening other a restrictions and criteria.) But they haven't moved in response to meeting preexisting criteria. You think we should just ignore new information ?

staplers 6y ago

> extremely high survival rate COVID-19 is (so far) about 10x-20x deadlier than the common flu which we have vaccines for and approaching about half of the total death toll of the 1918 flu which is considered the deadliest in modern history. What is your basis for "extremely high survival rate"?

Spivak 6y ago
I guess people see ~2% death rate and assume that's low?
- COVardsStayHome 6y ago
  From where did you pull out 2%? Out of your ass fucking retard?
floren 6y ago
> approaching about half of the total death toll of the 1918 flu Approaching half of 17-50 million dead?
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  "We" is the United States here, right? > In the U.S., about 28% of the population of 105 million became infected, and 500,000 to 850,000 died (0.48 to 0.81 percent of the population).[129][130][131] We're pretty close to half of 500k.
- beckingz 6y ago
  Growth mindset.
grillvogel 6y ago
covid has killed 25 million people?

Spivak 6y ago

I don't think people were ever arguing that the virus is particularly deadly. Like ~2% death rate is really really high for a flu but it's not the black plague or anything. If you're a young-ish healthy adult with a normal immune system then (statistically speaking) quarantine likely didn't benefit you at all. The thing that makes COVID novel is that it's extremely contagious. Your part in quarantining is not spreading it to the more vulnerable/unlucky people in your life. Because a 2% death rate in a country of 300 million people is still 6 million dead in an entirely preventable way.

grillvogel 6y ago
our response to the virus has caused more harm to more people than the virus itself, and the goalposts to end restrictions keep moving once the previous criteria are met. where is your 2% number coming from? CDC estimates the infection fatality ratio as: 0-19 years: 0.00003 20-49 years: 0.0002 50-69 years: 0.005 70+ years: 0.054 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  > our response to the virus has caused more harm to more people than the virus itself That can happen from failure or from success. The far more important comparison is response vs. what the virus would have done without that response. > the goalposts to end restrictions keep moving once the previous criteria are met Criteria like what? The only one I've seen is trying to get the rate of spread down and we really haven't managed that.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > our response to the virus has caused more harm to more people than the virus itself, That’s not a bad thing. A bad thing would be if our response caused more harm that the additional harm the virus would have caused but for the response, but that it caused more than it allowed the virus to cause is not a problem. > and the goalposts to end restrictions keep moving once the previous criteria are met. No, they haven't. It's true that both the restrictions in place in some jurisdictions and the criteria for step down have been revised based on better understanding of the virus and associated activity-related risks, but that's not the same thing (and has resulted in loosening of some restrictions directly and easing of some criteria, as well as tightening other a restrictions and criteria.) But they haven't moved in response to meeting preexisting criteria. You think we should just ignore new information ?