5 ms·

> 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 COV

by 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.
  - josephcsible 6y ago
    > wearing a mask when you're sick That's very different than forcing everyone to wear masks all the time just in case anyone is ever sick.
    - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
      In case they are asymptomatic and spreading a somewhat dangerous respiratory disease for which we have no vaccine, treatment or pre-existing immunity.
- nineplay 6y ago
  > Do we ignore traffic fatalities by ripping seat belts and air bags out of vehicles? Some preventive measures are clearly justified. Wearing a mask requires little more effort than wearing a seat belt and refusing to wear one is pretty childish at this point. Losing precious time with family is a lot harder and a sacrifice few people would consider making in the face of traffic fatalities.
  - nradov 6y ago
    How long are you expecting asymptomatic people to wear masks in public? What are the exit criteria?
    - nineplay 6y ago
      Until there's a vaccine with some level of population coverage? I don't have a date, I don't feel it's a heavy burden to bear. If there's a significant downside to wearing a mask it's not obvious to me.
      - tphyahoo 6y ago
        Then just wear a mask. Editing: I'm sorry to be cranky about this. Different strokes for different folks. It's one thing to do something, it's another thing to force other people to do it because "it doesn't bother me." Maybe it bothers other people. People don't like to be told what to think, how to feel, or how to act. Maybe mask wearing is justified but you can't just hand wave it away as "no big deal" because it doesn't happen to bother you, when it obviously bothers plenty of other people. Also here's a study, if you like that kind of thing https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s00392-020-01704-y?sharing_token=4AfWegbHOxk00hiHYtrplPe4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY4ZfoGR_ibmFHApWSw2JRb7yoFxeXbxgdwNA2TYmPtz8OVhsr-eLNmHTAFlu6bFbQl5DaVnEieqTZNVL58LC3cW5QirGJONSGqeFdIMNEhxS2AmFJPw2wAfRsgDXHh9EII%3D https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s00392-020-01704-y?sh... "The pulmonary function parameters were significantly lower with mask (forced expiratory volume: 5.6 ± 1.0 vs 5.3 ± 0.8 vs 6.1 ± 1.0 l/s with sm, ffpm and nm" (surgical mask, n95 mask, and no mask)
    - dehrmann 6y ago
- josephcsible 6y ago
  > 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 point is that we didn't ban smoking or driving. We did ban being close to other people.
  - lixtra 6y ago
    Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. Not being close to other people is the most effective measure to stop this pandemic. Wearing a mask while sitting in a badly ventilated room with many others is considered high risk by most experts. While the lockdown let the infection numbers collapse the mask requirements showed little impact so far. So banning being close is what happened and helped.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >The point is that we didn't ban smoking Actually, we did. Especially in places where masks are currently required. When was the last time you could just light up a cigarette or cigar (or a joint for that matter) in a restaurant, bar, shop or other indoor venue?
    - josephcsible 6y ago
      You're allowed to smoke in your own house, but you're not allowed to have large gatherings in your own house.
- lixtra 6y ago
  >> If you say none [...] Maybe I should have used: In case you say none > I didn't say anything even approaching that. Please don't try to put words in my mouth. Neither did GP umvi say anything approaching >>> [...] 200,000+ deaths in the US doesn't constitute something serious and worthy of attention and efforts to mitigate/minimize the impact [...] Since we all now agree that no mitigation measures are bad and total measures are bad, we’re back to arguing what is the right middle ground.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >Since we all now agree that no mitigation measures are bad and total measures are bad, we’re back to arguing what is the right middle ground. How about social distancing, mask wearing, basic hygiene, widespread testing/tracing, keeping the sick away from the healthy, limited restrictions in areas with outbreaks/clusters, etc.? You know, the stuff that the public health experts have been recommending throughout? I'm not sure that there's really much argument to be had that such measures (given that they've been pretty much standard procedure for disease outbreaks for decades) are appropriate and effective.
    - lixtra 6y ago
      > You know, the stuff that the public health experts have been recommending throughout? I thought 8 months ago experts agreed that paper masks were useless for the general public. 30? years ago herd immunity was an agreed approach for measles. 10 months ago it was the general approach to the common cold in kindergardens. EDIT: I personally think that pebbles in the shoes would be more effective than masks because it would make people stay at home even more.
      - mcguire 6y ago
        "10 months ago [herd immunity] was the general approach to the common cold in kindergardens." Herd immunity, to my knowledge, has never developed for the common cold, because there are several hundred viruses responsible and they're rather changeable. The general approach, as I recall it, was, "we can't do anything about it, but it doesn't kill too many people, and those at risk can get flu and pneumonia vaccinations." And herd immunity for measles is due to vaccination. If measles were a novel disease, you would be seeing lockdowns that make San Quentin look open and free.

by lixtra 6y ago

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.
- josephcsible 6y ago
  > wearing a mask when you're sick That's very different than forcing everyone to wear masks all the time just in case anyone is ever sick.
  - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
    In case they are asymptomatic and spreading a somewhat dangerous respiratory disease for which we have no vaccine, treatment or pre-existing immunity.
nineplay 6y ago
> Do we ignore traffic fatalities by ripping seat belts and air bags out of vehicles? Some preventive measures are clearly justified. Wearing a mask requires little more effort than wearing a seat belt and refusing to wear one is pretty childish at this point. Losing precious time with family is a lot harder and a sacrifice few people would consider making in the face of traffic fatalities.
- nradov 6y ago
  How long are you expecting asymptomatic people to wear masks in public? What are the exit criteria?
  - nineplay 6y ago
    Until there's a vaccine with some level of population coverage? I don't have a date, I don't feel it's a heavy burden to bear. If there's a significant downside to wearing a mask it's not obvious to me.
    - tphyahoo 6y ago
      Then just wear a mask. Editing: I'm sorry to be cranky about this. Different strokes for different folks. It's one thing to do something, it's another thing to force other people to do it because "it doesn't bother me." Maybe it bothers other people. People don't like to be told what to think, how to feel, or how to act. Maybe mask wearing is justified but you can't just hand wave it away as "no big deal" because it doesn't happen to bother you, when it obviously bothers plenty of other people. Also here's a study, if you like that kind of thing https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s00392-020-01704-y?sharing_token=4AfWegbHOxk00hiHYtrplPe4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY4ZfoGR_ibmFHApWSw2JRb7yoFxeXbxgdwNA2TYmPtz8OVhsr-eLNmHTAFlu6bFbQl5DaVnEieqTZNVL58LC3cW5QirGJONSGqeFdIMNEhxS2AmFJPw2wAfRsgDXHh9EII%3D https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s00392-020-01704-y?sh... "The pulmonary function parameters were significantly lower with mask (forced expiratory volume: 5.6 ± 1.0 vs 5.3 ± 0.8 vs 6.1 ± 1.0 l/s with sm, ffpm and nm" (surgical mask, n95 mask, and no mask)
  - dehrmann 6y ago
josephcsible 6y ago
> 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 point is that we didn't ban smoking or driving. We did ban being close to other people.
- lixtra 6y ago
  Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. Not being close to other people is the most effective measure to stop this pandemic. Wearing a mask while sitting in a badly ventilated room with many others is considered high risk by most experts. While the lockdown let the infection numbers collapse the mask requirements showed little impact so far. So banning being close is what happened and helped.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >The point is that we didn't ban smoking Actually, we did. Especially in places where masks are currently required. When was the last time you could just light up a cigarette or cigar (or a joint for that matter) in a restaurant, bar, shop or other indoor venue?
  - josephcsible 6y ago
    You're allowed to smoke in your own house, but you're not allowed to have large gatherings in your own house.
lixtra 6y ago
>> If you say none [...] Maybe I should have used: In case you say none > I didn't say anything even approaching that. Please don't try to put words in my mouth. Neither did GP umvi say anything approaching >>> [...] 200,000+ deaths in the US doesn't constitute something serious and worthy of attention and efforts to mitigate/minimize the impact [...] Since we all now agree that no mitigation measures are bad and total measures are bad, we’re back to arguing what is the right middle ground.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >Since we all now agree that no mitigation measures are bad and total measures are bad, we’re back to arguing what is the right middle ground. How about social distancing, mask wearing, basic hygiene, widespread testing/tracing, keeping the sick away from the healthy, limited restrictions in areas with outbreaks/clusters, etc.? You know, the stuff that the public health experts have been recommending throughout? I'm not sure that there's really much argument to be had that such measures (given that they've been pretty much standard procedure for disease outbreaks for decades) are appropriate and effective.
  - lixtra 6y ago
    > You know, the stuff that the public health experts have been recommending throughout? I thought 8 months ago experts agreed that paper masks were useless for the general public. 30? years ago herd immunity was an agreed approach for measles. 10 months ago it was the general approach to the common cold in kindergardens. EDIT: I personally think that pebbles in the shoes would be more effective than masks because it would make people stay at home even more.
    - mcguire 6y ago
      "10 months ago [herd immunity] was the general approach to the common cold in kindergardens." Herd immunity, to my knowledge, has never developed for the common cold, because there are several hundred viruses responsible and they're rather changeable. The general approach, as I recall it, was, "we can't do anything about it, but it doesn't kill too many people, and those at risk can get flu and pneumonia vaccinations." And herd immunity for measles is due to vaccination. If measles were a novel disease, you would be seeing lockdowns that make San Quentin look open and free.