3 ms·

I read it as "suicide-inducing isolation is not necessarily preferable to risking COVID spread".

jolmg 6y ago
If the isolation is the cure and covid is the disease, isn't that backwards? The comment says "can't be worse", so they're saying it is preferable, since it can't be worse. EDIT: Nevermind, I see now that "can't" is probably meant as "shouldn't" instead of "is impossible to".
rualca 6y ago
> I read it as "suicide-inducing isolation is not necessarily preferable to risking COVID spread". That interpretation is absurd and.far-fetched, as it's based on a couple of suicide cases that happened within a cruise ship whose crew was, for no reason, subjected to solitary confinement for months just because their employer felt no need to repatriate their crew. And even if we blindly assume those suicides were due to lockdowns, let's put in perspective that those two suicides are dwarfed by the close to two million covid19 deaths so far.
- caturopath 6y ago
  So, I wasn't advocating the implication the original commenter might have been, but I think you're being pretty unreasonable in this post. > let's put in perspective that those two suicides are dwarfed by the close to two million covid19 deaths so far These aren't comparable numbers, so I don't see how it provides perspective. You're comparing the global number of deaths to the number of suicides within a tiny population. You have to use actual counterfactuals: you're currently comparing apples to oranges. You'd need to compare the number of ADDITIONAL deaths if these folks weren't confined to these two deaths by suicide or, more interestingly, the number of additional global deaths we would have seen without lockdowns (not that total!) to the the global spike in suicide, if there was one. (I didn't address your point about the employer's malfeasance because I don't feel like I have anything useful to say there. With that conceded, I am just responding to the other part of your post.)

If the isolation is the cure and covid is the disease, isn't that backwards? The comment says "can't be worse", so they're saying it is preferable, since it can't be worse. EDIT: Nevermind, I see now that "can't" is probably meant as "shouldn't" instead of "is impossible to".

rualca 6y ago

> I read it as "suicide-inducing isolation is not necessarily preferable to risking COVID spread". That interpretation is absurd and.far-fetched, as it's based on a couple of suicide cases that happened within a cruise ship whose crew was, for no reason, subjected to solitary confinement for months just because their employer felt no need to repatriate their crew. And even if we blindly assume those suicides were due to lockdowns, let's put in perspective that those two suicides are dwarfed by the close to two million covid19 deaths so far.

caturopath 6y ago
So, I wasn't advocating the implication the original commenter might have been, but I think you're being pretty unreasonable in this post. > let's put in perspective that those two suicides are dwarfed by the close to two million covid19 deaths so far These aren't comparable numbers, so I don't see how it provides perspective. You're comparing the global number of deaths to the number of suicides within a tiny population. You have to use actual counterfactuals: you're currently comparing apples to oranges. You'd need to compare the number of ADDITIONAL deaths if these folks weren't confined to these two deaths by suicide or, more interestingly, the number of additional global deaths we would have seen without lockdowns (not that total!) to the the global spike in suicide, if there was one. (I didn't address your point about the employer's malfeasance because I don't feel like I have anything useful to say there. With that conceded, I am just responding to the other part of your post.)