5 ms·

>If, instead of covid, it were a plague with 50% death rate... I doubt people would be having as much "lockdown fatigue" since they would literally see the bodi

>If, instead of covid, it were a plague with 50% death rate... I doubt people would be having as much "lockdown fatigue" since they would literally see the bodies piling up in their communities. Instead you have a disease that only mildly affects the majority, putting only small minorities in real danger, which doesn't jive with the "sky is falling" stories the media/government peddles. I don't know about you, but living in NYC, we did "literally see the bodies piling up" in March and April. While the number of deaths was small compared to the overall population of NYC, the fact that morgues were so overwhelmed that refrigerated trucks were required to hold the excess corpses told me that this was a dangerous disease and needed to be taken seriously. Out of curiosity, if 200,000+ deaths in the US doesn't constitute something serious and worthy of attention and efforts to mitigate/minimize the impact of COVID-19, how many deaths would make you change your mind? 1,000,000? 5,000,000?

wincy 6y ago
The vast majority of people don’t internalize statistics at all. They go by experiences. So someone they are close to going from healthy and then suddenly falling ill and dying would be what gets people to pay attention. My 82 year old diabetic grandmother who had a quadruple bypass surgery said “if I die I die, and I’ll follow the rules and wear a mask if they tell me to”, this is a died in the wool Democrat of a woman. The only thing she has seen personally was her ex-husband dying alone in the old folks home because visitation was disallowed. He didn’t get COVID, he died of loneliness, as far as she could tell. So she’s going out to social engagements because she thinks the cure is worse than the disease.
- dehrmann 6y ago
  The big problems with just "listen to the experts" is we've never actually been in this situation, and it depends which type of expert you talk to. Talk to an epidemiologist and you'll get an idea of how a compliant society can stop the disease. Talk to an economist and you'll hear how to minimize economic impact. Talk to a psychologist and you'll hear about mental health, compliance, fatigue. Talk to a political scientist and you might hear about China making a move on Hong Kong. This is a complex system, and there aren't really systemic experts.
  - petertodd 6y ago
    > Talk to a psychologist I actually happened to do exactly that in late Feburary, and he pointed out that about 1% of the population die every year naturally, and WWII killed double-digits in many countries, so COVID-19 killing ~3% was certainly something civilization could survive (remember that the early fatality rate estimates were much higher than they are now, and the vast differences in fatality rate by age weren't yet known). Dunno what he might have said to if I had been a patient. But certainly part of that job is to put things in perspective!
- godelski 6y ago
  I think a lot of the elderly have already faced death. I know for years my grandma has almost welcomed death. It isn't scary to her. So I think many of these people think "so what, I might die this year instead of 6 months later, I'm just going to make the most of whatever time I have left." It definitely makes sense considering the uncertainness of the future for them and rapidly declining cognitive and mental functions. While being younger we're trying to maximize time. Even time with the elderly. Different cost functions.
lixtra 6y ago
> Out of curiosity, if 200,000+ deaths in the US doesn't constitute something serious and worthy of attention and efforts to mitigate/minimize the impact of COVID-19, how many deaths would make you change your mind? Out of curiosity, how many deaths do you consider little enough to be ignored? 400,000? (Smoking) 35,000? (Traffic accidents) 5? (Amoeba infecting the brain) If you say none, do you agree that the measure still needs to fit the threat? Stopping driving would eliminate that cause of death, but it would cause other problems.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >Out of curiosity, how many deaths do you consider little enough to be ignored? 400,000? (Smoking) 35,000? (Traffic accidents) 5? (Amoeba infecting the brain) But are those being ignored (not sure about the Amoeba bit)? Do we routinely mock those who say smoking is bad? Do we ignore traffic fatalities by ripping seat belts and air bags out of vehicles? Are autonomous vehicles widely derided as not useful? The response absolutely needs to be proportionate to the risk. I never said anything different. In fact, in NYC most of the city is open again, because the impact and risk have been reduced -- by taking the virus seriously and a broad segment of the population are taking steps to protect themselves and others. What's more, widespread testing and tracing enable us to identify outbreaks and limit their spread. I don't see that as overreaction. I see it as taking a public health issue seriously and engaging the populace in mitigating/minimizing it. >If you say none, do you agree that the measure still needs to fit the threat? Stopping driving would eliminate the cause of death, but it would cause other problems. I didn't say anything even approaching that. Please don't try to put words in my mouth.
  - ryandrake 6y ago
    To be fair, my dad (and a lot of people in his generation) still refuses to wear a seatbelt "because freedom". For people like me, born after the seatbelt laws came into effect, wearing them is totally normalized, because they've always been around. I never felt like something was taken away from me. I bet that kids born today will not consider wearing a mask when you're sick to be this outrageous affront to freedom, since they'll be used to it by the time they grow up.
jimmyjazz14 6y ago
Heart disease accounts for over 600,000 deaths per year in the US but most people are more likely to use their current health as a metric in determining their diet than the risk of dying from heart disease. For example I am more likely to weigh the fact that I can no longer fit into my pants as a reason to change my diet than the possibility of dying from heart disease.
- mcguire 6y ago
  Similarly, many people are using their own lack of COVID-related death as a metric in determining their behavior.
ptero 6y ago
> in NYC, we did "literally see the bodies piling up" in March and April Was this because of the excess COVID deaths or just because some the services that normally handle deaths were deemed non-critical and so the chain of services that handle bodies just had glitches? Or, to look at it scientifically, did the uptick in NYC deaths per week in March and April put the total deaths per week above, say, (average + 3 sigma) over the past couple of years. Honest question, I do not know this answer but knowing this would help put the numerical base behind an emotional statement. For your second question, On your "how many" question: nobody I know says that 200k deaths do not constitute something worthy of attention. But on average, over 3 million people die per year in the US. 650k per year (according to CDC) just from heart disease, much of it preventable with better habits and good exercise. If 200k deaths is enough to force major life restrictions on everyone (and spend over $5 trillion to limit economic fallout), should we bring the same machinery to focus on heart disease as well: force video taped gym sessions and cardio exercises? require wearable monitors? prohibit admittance to public transport without a gym validation stamp or a doctor note? Those sound aggressive, sorry! That was not the intent; but just from a purely objective approach I do not see why the answer to those should be an automatic "no" if we accept COVID policies as automatic "yes". My 2c.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >Or, to look at it scientifically, did the uptick in NYC deaths per week in March and April put the total deaths per week above, say, (average + 3 sigma) over the past couple of years. Honest question, I do not know this answer but knowing this would help put the numerical base behind an emotional statement. This survey[0] answers (in the affirmative) your question: "During March 11–May 2, 2020, a total of 32,107 deaths were reported to DOHMH; of these deaths, 24,172 (95% confidence interval = 22,980–25,364) were found to be in excess of the seasonal expected baseline. Included in the 24,172 deaths were 13,831 (57%) laboratory-confirmed COVID-19–associated deaths and 5,048 (21%) probable COVID-19–associated deaths, leaving 5,293 (22%) excess deaths that were not identified as either laboratory-confirmed or probable COVID-19–associated deaths (Figure)." [0] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e5.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e5.htm
  - 6y ago
flubert 6y ago
I wonder how much time per day the average person contemplates the 480,000 annual U.S. deaths caused by tobacco? https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/heal...
- trey-jones 6y ago
  It's not really a fair comparison. Tobacco/Smoking seems avoidable: "If I don't smoke, I won't be one of those statistics." With disease, caused by a practically invisible virus, we wash our hands, we keep our distance, we wear a mask, but it still seems likely that we will eventually get it anyway. It seems unavoidable, especially because we can't tell who is spreading it. I think the equivalent of being a non-smoker is just hiding out in your house for 18 months and not seeing another human at all, close family and friends included.
imwm 6y ago
This would explain why NYC flattened and then reduced the first curve relatively quickly.
ryandrake 6y ago
Exactly. We were lucky that COVID wasn't more deadly than it was. I mean, 200k deaths and people still complain about wearing a little piece of cloth over their face. What happens when the hypothetical next "COVID-21" comes that's 20X deadlier? Do we all just suck it up and die, because we won't temporarily give up the freedom of eating at Olive Garden? Sorry, but I'm not willing to risk a double digit percentage chance of getting sick and possibly dying, just to retain the convenience of indoor shopping and getting my hair cut.
- umanwizard 6y ago
  You have a 100% chance of dying.
just-juan-post 6y ago
> While the number of deaths was small compared to the overall population of NYC, the fact that morgues were so overwhelmed that refrigerated trucks were required to hold the excess corpses told me that this was a dangerous disease and needed to be taken seriously. And that's the problem. You still have March / April info in your head and it's stuck there. You're scared of living in the present because your brain living in the past.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >You're scared of living in the present because your brain living in the past. Huh? Because I don't want to see that again, I'm living in the past? Should I ignore previous experience as unimportant? I'd point out that because NYC took strong action back then, we are now mostly open. And I'm glad we are. I don't think we should lock back down. Rather I think it's important to do the myriad other things (social distancing, mask wearing, basic hygiene, widespread testing/tracing, etc.) that will keep the number of cases at a relatively low level (cf. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page ) to avoid such unwanted draconian measures. Ignoring the risk posed by not doing the things that will limit the spread just increases the likelihood that the virus will be uncontrolled and make "lockdowns" more and not less likely. I remember what happened in March-May precisely because I want to avoid further lockdowns, not because I support them.
umanwizard 6y ago
I live in NYC and yes, during March and April you constantly heard ambulances, but I think describing it as "bodies piling up" is hyperbole. The vast majority of us survived. > if 200,000+ deaths in the US doesn't constitute something serious and worthy of attention and efforts to mitigate/minimize the impact of COVID-19 Nobody said they don't. There's a difference between something being serious and worthy of attention, and it being the sort of existential threat that would justify disrupting civilization to the extent we have.
- mcguire 6y ago
  "I live in NYC and yes, during March and April you constantly heard ambulances, but I think describing it as "bodies piling up" is hyperbole. The vast majority of us survived." Let's see here... According to https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e5.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e5.htm, there were 32,107 deaths in NYC in March-May, an excess of 24,172. There are about 8.4 million people in NYC, according to the Goog. That would mean that, normally, there would be about 9 deaths/10,000 residents. In those two months, though, there were about 38 deaths/10k. The other 99.62% survive. Yay, you! "Nobody said they don't. There's a difference between something being serious and worthy of attention, and it being the sort of existential threat that would justify disrupting civilization to the extent we have." "existential threat"? "disrupting civilization"?
nostromo 6y ago
This only happened because people were banned from holding funerals and the entire supply chain of burials was disrupted by stay-at-home orders.

wincy 6y ago

The vast majority of people don’t internalize statistics at all. They go by experiences. So someone they are close to going from healthy and then suddenly falling ill and dying would be what gets people to pay attention. My 82 year old diabetic grandmother who had a quadruple bypass surgery said “if I die I die, and I’ll follow the rules and wear a mask if they tell me to”, this is a died in the wool Democrat of a woman. The only thing she has seen personally was her ex-husband dying alone in the old folks home because visitation was disallowed. He didn’t get COVID, he died of loneliness, as far as she could tell. So she’s going out to social engagements because she thinks the cure is worse than the disease.

dehrmann 6y ago
The big problems with just "listen to the experts" is we've never actually been in this situation, and it depends which type of expert you talk to. Talk to an epidemiologist and you'll get an idea of how a compliant society can stop the disease. Talk to an economist and you'll hear how to minimize economic impact. Talk to a psychologist and you'll hear about mental health, compliance, fatigue. Talk to a political scientist and you might hear about China making a move on Hong Kong. This is a complex system, and there aren't really systemic experts.
- petertodd 6y ago
  > Talk to a psychologist I actually happened to do exactly that in late Feburary, and he pointed out that about 1% of the population die every year naturally, and WWII killed double-digits in many countries, so COVID-19 killing ~3% was certainly something civilization could survive (remember that the early fatality rate estimates were much higher than they are now, and the vast differences in fatality rate by age weren't yet known). Dunno what he might have said to if I had been a patient. But certainly part of that job is to put things in perspective!
godelski 6y ago
I think a lot of the elderly have already faced death. I know for years my grandma has almost welcomed death. It isn't scary to her. So I think many of these people think "so what, I might die this year instead of 6 months later, I'm just going to make the most of whatever time I have left." It definitely makes sense considering the uncertainness of the future for them and rapidly declining cognitive and mental functions. While being younger we're trying to maximize time. Even time with the elderly. Different cost functions.

lixtra 6y ago

> Out of curiosity, if 200,000+ deaths in the US doesn't constitute something serious and worthy of attention and efforts to mitigate/minimize the impact of COVID-19, how many deaths would make you change your mind? Out of curiosity, how many deaths do you consider little enough to be ignored? 400,000? (Smoking) 35,000? (Traffic accidents) 5? (Amoeba infecting the brain) If you say none, do you agree that the measure still needs to fit the threat? Stopping driving would eliminate that cause of death, but it would cause other problems.

nobody9999 6y ago
>Out of curiosity, how many deaths do you consider little enough to be ignored? 400,000? (Smoking) 35,000? (Traffic accidents) 5? (Amoeba infecting the brain) But are those being ignored (not sure about the Amoeba bit)? Do we routinely mock those who say smoking is bad? Do we ignore traffic fatalities by ripping seat belts and air bags out of vehicles? Are autonomous vehicles widely derided as not useful? The response absolutely needs to be proportionate to the risk. I never said anything different. In fact, in NYC most of the city is open again, because the impact and risk have been reduced -- by taking the virus seriously and a broad segment of the population are taking steps to protect themselves and others. What's more, widespread testing and tracing enable us to identify outbreaks and limit their spread. I don't see that as overreaction. I see it as taking a public health issue seriously and engaging the populace in mitigating/minimizing it. >If you say none, do you agree that the measure still needs to fit the threat? Stopping driving would eliminate the cause of death, but it would cause other problems. I didn't say anything even approaching that. Please don't try to put words in my mouth.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  To be fair, my dad (and a lot of people in his generation) still refuses to wear a seatbelt "because freedom". For people like me, born after the seatbelt laws came into effect, wearing them is totally normalized, because they've always been around. I never felt like something was taken away from me. I bet that kids born today will not consider wearing a mask when you're sick to be this outrageous affront to freedom, since they'll be used to it by the time they grow up.

jimmyjazz14 6y ago

Heart disease accounts for over 600,000 deaths per year in the US but most people are more likely to use their current health as a metric in determining their diet than the risk of dying from heart disease. For example I am more likely to weigh the fact that I can no longer fit into my pants as a reason to change my diet than the possibility of dying from heart disease.

mcguire 6y ago
Similarly, many people are using their own lack of COVID-related death as a metric in determining their behavior.

ptero 6y ago

> in NYC, we did "literally see the bodies piling up" in March and April Was this because of the excess COVID deaths or just because some the services that normally handle deaths were deemed non-critical and so the chain of services that handle bodies just had glitches? Or, to look at it scientifically, did the uptick in NYC deaths per week in March and April put the total deaths per week above, say, (average + 3 sigma) over the past couple of years. Honest question, I do not know this answer but knowing this would help put the numerical base behind an emotional statement. For your second question, On your "how many" question: nobody I know says that 200k deaths do not constitute something worthy of attention. But on average, over 3 million people die per year in the US. 650k per year (according to CDC) just from heart disease, much of it preventable with better habits and good exercise. If 200k deaths is enough to force major life restrictions on everyone (and spend over $5 trillion to limit economic fallout), should we bring the same machinery to focus on heart disease as well: force video taped gym sessions and cardio exercises? require wearable monitors? prohibit admittance to public transport without a gym validation stamp or a doctor note? Those sound aggressive, sorry! That was not the intent; but just from a purely objective approach I do not see why the answer to those should be an automatic "no" if we accept COVID policies as automatic "yes". My 2c.

nobody9999 6y ago
>Or, to look at it scientifically, did the uptick in NYC deaths per week in March and April put the total deaths per week above, say, (average + 3 sigma) over the past couple of years. Honest question, I do not know this answer but knowing this would help put the numerical base behind an emotional statement. This survey[0] answers (in the affirmative) your question: "During March 11–May 2, 2020, a total of 32,107 deaths were reported to DOHMH; of these deaths, 24,172 (95% confidence interval = 22,980–25,364) were found to be in excess of the seasonal expected baseline. Included in the 24,172 deaths were 13,831 (57%) laboratory-confirmed COVID-19–associated deaths and 5,048 (21%) probable COVID-19–associated deaths, leaving 5,293 (22%) excess deaths that were not identified as either laboratory-confirmed or probable COVID-19–associated deaths (Figure)." [0] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e5.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e5.htm
- 6y ago

flubert 6y ago

I wonder how much time per day the average person contemplates the 480,000 annual U.S. deaths caused by tobacco? https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/heal...

trey-jones 6y ago
It's not really a fair comparison. Tobacco/Smoking seems avoidable: "If I don't smoke, I won't be one of those statistics." With disease, caused by a practically invisible virus, we wash our hands, we keep our distance, we wear a mask, but it still seems likely that we will eventually get it anyway. It seems unavoidable, especially because we can't tell who is spreading it. I think the equivalent of being a non-smoker is just hiding out in your house for 18 months and not seeing another human at all, close family and friends included.

imwm 6y ago

This would explain why NYC flattened and then reduced the first curve relatively quickly.

ryandrake 6y ago

Exactly. We were lucky that COVID wasn't more deadly than it was. I mean, 200k deaths and people still complain about wearing a little piece of cloth over their face. What happens when the hypothetical next "COVID-21" comes that's 20X deadlier? Do we all just suck it up and die, because we won't temporarily give up the freedom of eating at Olive Garden? Sorry, but I'm not willing to risk a double digit percentage chance of getting sick and possibly dying, just to retain the convenience of indoor shopping and getting my hair cut.

umanwizard 6y ago
You have a 100% chance of dying.

just-juan-post 6y ago

> While the number of deaths was small compared to the overall population of NYC, the fact that morgues were so overwhelmed that refrigerated trucks were required to hold the excess corpses told me that this was a dangerous disease and needed to be taken seriously. And that's the problem. You still have March / April info in your head and it's stuck there. You're scared of living in the present because your brain living in the past.

nobody9999 6y ago
>You're scared of living in the present because your brain living in the past. Huh? Because I don't want to see that again, I'm living in the past? Should I ignore previous experience as unimportant? I'd point out that because NYC took strong action back then, we are now mostly open. And I'm glad we are. I don't think we should lock back down. Rather I think it's important to do the myriad other things (social distancing, mask wearing, basic hygiene, widespread testing/tracing, etc.) that will keep the number of cases at a relatively low level (cf. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page ) to avoid such unwanted draconian measures. Ignoring the risk posed by not doing the things that will limit the spread just increases the likelihood that the virus will be uncontrolled and make "lockdowns" more and not less likely. I remember what happened in March-May precisely because I want to avoid further lockdowns, not because I support them.

umanwizard 6y ago

I live in NYC and yes, during March and April you constantly heard ambulances, but I think describing it as "bodies piling up" is hyperbole. The vast majority of us survived. > if 200,000+ deaths in the US doesn't constitute something serious and worthy of attention and efforts to mitigate/minimize the impact of COVID-19 Nobody said they don't. There's a difference between something being serious and worthy of attention, and it being the sort of existential threat that would justify disrupting civilization to the extent we have.

mcguire 6y ago
"I live in NYC and yes, during March and April you constantly heard ambulances, but I think describing it as "bodies piling up" is hyperbole. The vast majority of us survived." Let's see here... According to https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e5.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e5.htm, there were 32,107 deaths in NYC in March-May, an excess of 24,172. There are about 8.4 million people in NYC, according to the Goog. That would mean that, normally, there would be about 9 deaths/10,000 residents. In those two months, though, there were about 38 deaths/10k. The other 99.62% survive. Yay, you! "Nobody said they don't. There's a difference between something being serious and worthy of attention, and it being the sort of existential threat that would justify disrupting civilization to the extent we have." "existential threat"? "disrupting civilization"?

nostromo 6y ago

This only happened because people were banned from holding funerals and the entire supply chain of burials was disrupted by stay-at-home orders.