5 ms·

People aren't dry brush though. It's not a good thing that huge swaths of the population are dying. We won't be inherently more resilient to diseases in the sho

People aren't dry brush though. It's not a good thing that huge swaths of the population are dying. We won't be inherently more resilient to diseases in the short term just because all the vulnerable people are dead. For one, we don't even understand all the long term effects of having COVID as it is: there's heart damage, lung damage, brain damage, extended fatigue, and that's just what we're seeing evidence of now. [0] If another disease like COVID strikes in a couple years, it could still tear through the surviving population and cause similar long lasting effects. The thousands that're suffering a terrible death daily, separated from their families and straining our healthcare systems to the breaking point--their deaths are not somehow making our populaitons safer from another disease. EDIT: your analogy also supposes it's somehow the old/vulnerable populations that're the reservoir for the virus in our populations, when data indicates the opposite: it's far more likely younger populations are the carriers/vectors for COVID, especially since they are more often asymptomatic (w.r.t. acute effects) than more vulnerable chunks of the population. Future bugs will have plenty of population to travel through. [0]: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-long-term-effects/art-20490351 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/i...

umvi 6y ago
> People aren't dry brush though In the analogy the dry brush are the vulnerable that die. Once the dry brush is gone, it can't burn a second time. Just like small pox wiped out all the vulnerable native americans, but then the offspring of the survivors were increasingly more resilient. Except in this case the fatality rate is 1% (or less) instead of 90%. > For one, we don't even understand all the long term effects of having COVID as it is: there's heart damage, lung damage, brain damage, extended fatigue, and that's just what we're seeing evidence of now. This just seems like fear of the unknown. On the contrary, for the vast majority of healthy humans, it seems like the immune-system is well equipped to deal with the virus so there isn't much reason to fear IMO (i.e. most people recover at home with no modern medicine needed). I have several family members that had it and recovered with seemingly no other long term effects, so there is no reason to believe they are going to be screwed later in life. > If another disease like COVID strikes in a couple years, it could still tear through the surviving population and cause similar long lasting effects. More fear of the unknown. Novel viruses don't come along very often. Getting sick is not a bad thing, natural selection is not a bad thing, it's the very mechanism that has allowed humans to survive this long on planet earth.
- tenacious_tuna 6y ago
  > the dry brush are the vulnerable that die No, the dry brush is what makes the fires get out of control and cause more damage than they "ought to," implying that if the brush is regularly dealt with then the broader population of trees will be better off. But (a) we're not talking about trees, we're talking about people, and (b) letting swaths of the population die from a disease does not imply the surviving population will be better off in the future. People can't die twice because we only have a single life, and callously saying "welp, you would have died later anyway, might as well die now so our stats look good" is so unbelievably short-sighted I can't believe I'm seeing this argument made by multiple people on HN. > This just seems like fear of the unknown.. Uh, yes, it's fear of what the largely unknown disease will do to us. We shouldn't blindly assume that it's "not that bad" if it occasionally rips through the population off of some belief it'll make us safer if we're routinely exposed to pandemics--as follows from your brush-and-forest-fire analogy--when we don't understand the effects of those diseases. > Natural selection is not a bad thing I do not understand this point at all. Should we not have allergen warnings on food packaging? Or glasses for folks with bad eyesight? There are plenty of reasons we intervene in the "natural course" of events to make people's lives better. Citing "natural selection" is not in any way a valid defense for just letting diseases meander through populations.
  - umvi 6y ago
    > No, the dry brush is what makes the fires get out of control and cause more damage than they "ought to," Wait, am I making the analogy, or you? You can't just take my analogy and twist it until it fits your view. Make a new analogy, but don't correct mine. > I do not understand this point at all. Should we not have allergen warnings on food packaging? Or glasses for folks with bad eyesight? There are plenty of reasons we intervene in the "natural course" of events to make people's lives better Sure, but where do you draw the line? Should we move heaven and earth to artificially prolong the life of people extremely vulnerable to common diseases? Or just let them die and be replaced with more resilient humans?
    - tenacious_tuna 6y ago

umvi 6y ago

> People aren't dry brush though In the analogy the dry brush are the vulnerable that die. Once the dry brush is gone, it can't burn a second time. Just like small pox wiped out all the vulnerable native americans, but then the offspring of the survivors were increasingly more resilient. Except in this case the fatality rate is 1% (or less) instead of 90%. > For one, we don't even understand all the long term effects of having COVID as it is: there's heart damage, lung damage, brain damage, extended fatigue, and that's just what we're seeing evidence of now. This just seems like fear of the unknown. On the contrary, for the vast majority of healthy humans, it seems like the immune-system is well equipped to deal with the virus so there isn't much reason to fear IMO (i.e. most people recover at home with no modern medicine needed). I have several family members that had it and recovered with seemingly no other long term effects, so there is no reason to believe they are going to be screwed later in life. > If another disease like COVID strikes in a couple years, it could still tear through the surviving population and cause similar long lasting effects. More fear of the unknown. Novel viruses don't come along very often. Getting sick is not a bad thing, natural selection is not a bad thing, it's the very mechanism that has allowed humans to survive this long on planet earth.

tenacious_tuna 6y ago
> the dry brush are the vulnerable that die No, the dry brush is what makes the fires get out of control and cause more damage than they "ought to," implying that if the brush is regularly dealt with then the broader population of trees will be better off. But (a) we're not talking about trees, we're talking about people, and (b) letting swaths of the population die from a disease does not imply the surviving population will be better off in the future. People can't die twice because we only have a single life, and callously saying "welp, you would have died later anyway, might as well die now so our stats look good" is so unbelievably short-sighted I can't believe I'm seeing this argument made by multiple people on HN. > This just seems like fear of the unknown.. Uh, yes, it's fear of what the largely unknown disease will do to us. We shouldn't blindly assume that it's "not that bad" if it occasionally rips through the population off of some belief it'll make us safer if we're routinely exposed to pandemics--as follows from your brush-and-forest-fire analogy--when we don't understand the effects of those diseases. > Natural selection is not a bad thing I do not understand this point at all. Should we not have allergen warnings on food packaging? Or glasses for folks with bad eyesight? There are plenty of reasons we intervene in the "natural course" of events to make people's lives better. Citing "natural selection" is not in any way a valid defense for just letting diseases meander through populations.
- umvi 6y ago
  > No, the dry brush is what makes the fires get out of control and cause more damage than they "ought to," Wait, am I making the analogy, or you? You can't just take my analogy and twist it until it fits your view. Make a new analogy, but don't correct mine. > I do not understand this point at all. Should we not have allergen warnings on food packaging? Or glasses for folks with bad eyesight? There are plenty of reasons we intervene in the "natural course" of events to make people's lives better Sure, but where do you draw the line? Should we move heaven and earth to artificially prolong the life of people extremely vulnerable to common diseases? Or just let them die and be replaced with more resilient humans?
  - tenacious_tuna 6y ago