4 ms·

Yeah let's get all the young people infected, having one percent of that population die is fine right? Next, they'll surely never talk to the people at risk. Th

by Aachen 6y ago

Yeah let's get all the young people infected, having one percent of that population die is fine right? Next, they'll surely never talk to the people at risk. Their grandparents can sit at home and be more bored to death and lonely than they usually already are and have young people, which are allowed out, to bring them food. Couldn't possibly go wrong. How do you picture different kinds of measures per risk group going? People can already choose to isolate more, disinfect more, keep distance more, etc. if they find themselves at risk. The compulsory measures are a bare minimum to prevent unnecessary deaths and keep the long term impact to a minimum. You can find a new job next year and live on government benefits in the meantime (or is the worst-case scenario for you not unemployment and boredom? Well, infecting loved ones would be worse in these times but you don't seem to find that very worrying) but if you're one of today's corona deaths you can't find another life.

_-___________-_ 6y ago
> Yeah let's get all the young people infected, having one percent of that population die is fine right? Are you really claiming with a straight face that the chance of a young person who gets infected dying is 1/100? Would love to see you try to provide a source for that...
- Aachen 6y ago
  Are we really going to split hairs over what the exact percentage is or can we talk about the point? To me it seems like crazy talk to pose something, which would cause millions of deaths, to be unbelievable not to do. I'd be much more interested in how they think this could possibly work in a safe manner than debating whether it causes 5 per thousand or 10 per thousand (a sibling comment said 0.63%, so 6.3 million among the billion young people we have). Something something straight face.
  - _-___________-_ 6y ago
    You’re probably two orders of magnitude off. Not exactly splitting hairs. (Sibling comment is talking about CFR, not IFR.) Any conclusions you might reach based on that kind of exaggeration of the risk are pretty meaningless.
luckylion 6y ago
> You can find a new job next year and live on government benefits in the meantime The problem with that kind of thinking is it doesn't account for how the government gets money, which generally taxes on stuff being produced. If you don't produce stuff, you cannot redistribute it. There's no magic "the government takes care of it, we can all stay home forever" concept. Increased government spending now means increased taxes tomorrow, that ought to be obvious.
- rswail 6y ago
  Increased government spending now means greater national debt. Governments get money by printing it. They get revenue by taxation. They can borrow by issuing debt instruments. A recovering economy and greater economic activity leads to greater tax revenue without necessarily increasing taxation rates. This is a natural "budget stabilizer" effect that happens during recessions and expansions. Debt funding is currently at historically low, almost zero/negative rates. Australia's debt-to-GDP is relatively low (42% prior to the current recession), our debt ratings are AAA.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > Increased government spending now means greater national debt. Governments get money by printing it. They get revenue by taxation. They can borrow by issuing debt instruments. That's just a path for hyper inflation when no increased production is included. Money is a placeholder for value. If you don't create value and print money, the money doesn't magically create the stuff that gives it value. It might not ruin a country, but I very much dislike this "whatever, the state can pay" hand-waving that just assumes the products magically appear if you just increase the money supply. There's no perpetual money machine, you can't just spend a billion as a state and generate 1.2bn in taxes, rinse & repeat.
    - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
      I dunno. The US seems like a case study in this stuff. Large deficits every year, and even the more Conservative party is willing to pass a huge tax cut and nobody blinks an eye. The connection between income and spending appears to have been completely severed. And some people have been predicting hyperinflation for at least 40 years now.
anoncake 6y ago
The IFR of Covid is closer to 0.5% than to 1%. That is something we are perfectly used to: For example, Australia had a death rate of 0.63% in 2019.[1] Of course having anyone die isn't "fine". But the death of less than 1% of the population is something we can tolerate, not some kind of disaster of unprecedented magnitude worth a lockdown causing damage we can't even foresee yet. [1] https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/deaths-australia/latest-release https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/deaths-a...
- icpmacdo 6y ago
  CDC's survival percentage based on the IFR per age group 0-19----99.997% 20-49---99.98% 50-69---99.5% 70+-----94.6%
  - jonsno56 6y ago
    I love how you can produce statistics about survival rate but not disability rate. Because surprise, you don’t have a clue
    - anoncake 6y ago
      Exactly. There is no evidence that there is a significant disability rate, so no one can provide any.
      - jonsno56 6y ago
        You: efficient market hypothesis Also you: never invented anything
      - jonsno56 6y ago
        You should probably google myalgic encephalomyelitis and covid
        anoncake 6y ago
        https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/09/27/dont-tell-people-to-google-it-thats-your-job-not-theirs/ https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/09/27/dont-tell-people-to...

by Aachen 6y ago

_-___________-_ 6y ago

> Yeah let's get all the young people infected, having one percent of that population die is fine right? Are you really claiming with a straight face that the chance of a young person who gets infected dying is 1/100? Would love to see you try to provide a source for that...

Aachen 6y ago
Are we really going to split hairs over what the exact percentage is or can we talk about the point? To me it seems like crazy talk to pose something, which would cause millions of deaths, to be unbelievable not to do. I'd be much more interested in how they think this could possibly work in a safe manner than debating whether it causes 5 per thousand or 10 per thousand (a sibling comment said 0.63%, so 6.3 million among the billion young people we have). Something something straight face.
- _-___________-_ 6y ago
  You’re probably two orders of magnitude off. Not exactly splitting hairs. (Sibling comment is talking about CFR, not IFR.) Any conclusions you might reach based on that kind of exaggeration of the risk are pretty meaningless.

luckylion 6y ago

> You can find a new job next year and live on government benefits in the meantime The problem with that kind of thinking is it doesn't account for how the government gets money, which generally taxes on stuff being produced. If you don't produce stuff, you cannot redistribute it. There's no magic "the government takes care of it, we can all stay home forever" concept. Increased government spending now means increased taxes tomorrow, that ought to be obvious.

rswail 6y ago
Increased government spending now means greater national debt. Governments get money by printing it. They get revenue by taxation. They can borrow by issuing debt instruments. A recovering economy and greater economic activity leads to greater tax revenue without necessarily increasing taxation rates. This is a natural "budget stabilizer" effect that happens during recessions and expansions. Debt funding is currently at historically low, almost zero/negative rates. Australia's debt-to-GDP is relatively low (42% prior to the current recession), our debt ratings are AAA.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > Increased government spending now means greater national debt. Governments get money by printing it. They get revenue by taxation. They can borrow by issuing debt instruments. That's just a path for hyper inflation when no increased production is included. Money is a placeholder for value. If you don't create value and print money, the money doesn't magically create the stuff that gives it value. It might not ruin a country, but I very much dislike this "whatever, the state can pay" hand-waving that just assumes the products magically appear if you just increase the money supply. There's no perpetual money machine, you can't just spend a billion as a state and generate 1.2bn in taxes, rinse & repeat.
  - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
    I dunno. The US seems like a case study in this stuff. Large deficits every year, and even the more Conservative party is willing to pass a huge tax cut and nobody blinks an eye. The connection between income and spending appears to have been completely severed. And some people have been predicting hyperinflation for at least 40 years now.

anoncake 6y ago

The IFR of Covid is closer to 0.5% than to 1%. That is something we are perfectly used to: For example, Australia had a death rate of 0.63% in 2019.[1] Of course having anyone die isn't "fine". But the death of less than 1% of the population is something we can tolerate, not some kind of disaster of unprecedented magnitude worth a lockdown causing damage we can't even foresee yet. [1] https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/deaths-australia/latest-release https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/deaths-a...

icpmacdo 6y ago
CDC's survival percentage based on the IFR per age group 0-19----99.997% 20-49---99.98% 50-69---99.5% 70+-----94.6%
- jonsno56 6y ago
  I love how you can produce statistics about survival rate but not disability rate. Because surprise, you don’t have a clue
  - anoncake 6y ago
    Exactly. There is no evidence that there is a significant disability rate, so no one can provide any.
    - jonsno56 6y ago
      You: efficient market hypothesis Also you: never invented anything
    - jonsno56 6y ago
      You should probably google myalgic encephalomyelitis and covid
      - anoncake 6y ago
        https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/09/27/dont-tell-people-to-google-it-thats-your-job-not-theirs/ https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/09/27/dont-tell-people-to...