9 ms·

> the government should just let this run its course Isn't it just an opinion? I personally think that way. Why wouldn't I be allowed to think that?

• simonbarker87 6y ago
  You’re totally allowed to have that opinion and other people are totally allowed to think it’s idiotic, unless I’m missing you’re point?
  • dj_mc_merlin 6y ago
    The other points you made are near or actually conspiracy theory level. His is just an opinion on how it should be handled.
    • simonbarker87 6y ago
      Not the OP - just chiming in
  • regularemployee 6y ago
    one feels like a personal attack and the other seems like an opinion.
  • polote 6y ago
    Well then why do some people think it is idiotic?
    • shawabawa3 6y ago
      Because it would result in hundreds of thousands dying, complete overcapacity of hospitals increasing the death rate of covid and all other injuries and illnesses, and cause even more damage to the economy as a result than lockdown
    • patrec 6y ago
      Speaking only for myself, I think your opinion is idiotic based on some simple back of the envelope math I did many months ago (when the UK announced its herd immunity plan), relating to hospital capacity, likely peak case numbers, proportion of cases that would need hospital treatment or die and some simple minded guesses about knock-on effects for the rest of the health system. I have not bothered to redo these calculations in the light of current evidence (some things have gotten better, others have gotten worse), but I remain sceptical that anyone numerate who spent one or two hours trying to work out the likely results of your advocated policy would arrive at similar conclusion as to the best course of action as you did. So let me ask: on what basis did you arrive at your opinion? [Edit: HN comment from 10 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22578742 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22578742]
      • polote 6y ago
        if we let the virus lives its life, maximum 2% of pop will die, 90 more % will live normally and a few percent will have covid related health issues. so we sacrifice a few percent of population for the future of the others
        • frereubu 6y ago
          > so we sacrifice a few percent of population for the future of the others No, you sacrifice an uncertain percentage of the population (but probably larger than you suggest because healthcare systems would be quickly overwhelmed by a massive spike in cases) to both death and long-term sickness and disability, but for what? Lockdown causes people to lose their jobs, children to miss school, and others to suffer problems with mental health (although to use your phrasing, this would just be "a few percent" of the population) but it saves people's lives and health. I'm also really disappointed that people don't get the idea that people dying and having long-term health issues doesn't screw the economy too.
        • matthewmacleod 6y ago
          This is obviously not true, since allowing the virus to spread freely massively increases the rate of fatalities and long-term illness once healthcare becomes overwhelmed.
  • bluecalm 6y ago
    Because it's a value judgement and one at least worth considering so it's not idiotic. I mean maybe the decision to lockdown for many many months is better but we are least need to try to estimate how many lives it saves in comparison to just letting it run and hope big the economic cost is.
    • lazyasciiart 6y ago
      Good news, we did.
      • bluecalm 6y ago
        Yeah and it's still a value call with significant part of the population on both sides. It's easy to be for lockdowns when you're in privileged position in the society but if you talk to people not so fortunate when it comes to income, education and perspectives in life you will see why they are so often for letting the pandemic run it course. It's because lockdowns take the very little they had in their life be it work or ways to escape loneliness for just a while. I am sick of this tone of superiority so often used here. It's so elitist and so out of touch.
        • lazyasciiart 6y ago
          You complained that people need to "at least look at the cost", and now you're mad that people have looked at it and found the answers to be wildly in favor of lockdowns. It is an unbelievable "tone of superiority" to keep ranting about everyone else not having thought as deeply as you, and imagining yourself as the only person who knows any low income people.
• tshaddox 6y ago
  No one suggested that you aren't allowed to think that, but let's all hope you're not allowed to make policy decisions!
• jpxw 6y ago
  You’re allowed to think it, it’s just patently idiotic. Our hospitals would be overwhelmed, the morality rate would skyrocket amongst COVID and non-COVID patients alike.
  • polote 6y ago
    So now the number of free icu beds in hospital and number of death are the only kpi we look at to make decisions? It is crazy how people opinion like mine is fully ignored in Europe. today we tolerate flu deaths so that people can live freely, why shouldn't we tolerate covid deaths to live freely?
    • pcurve 6y ago
      For every 1,000 diagnosed covid case, roughly 14-18 of them will eventually die. Rich or poor countries alike, that range has been consistent. Wouldn't you say that's rather staggeringly high number to simply let things run course?
      • Taurenking 6y ago
        in which universe is 0.018% a "staggeringly high number"
    • astrophysician 6y ago
      because tolerating flu deaths doesn't completely overwhelm healthcare systems?
    • tunesmith 6y ago
      One reason of many: flu deaths don't overwhelm hospital capacity. If someone dies from flu, it's generally not because of lack of available care. When hospital capacity is overwhelmed, people die that wouldn't otherwise die. If covid overwhelms hospital capacity, then people will die because of lack of available care. And so therefore, people dying from lack of available care is valued as "worse" than people dying with sufficient medical care. And so if you equate the two, a lot of people think that is crazy.
• LatteLazy 6y ago
  You can think what you like as long as you wear a mask, work from home if able etc. Seriously, you have an absolute right to your opinion. But too many people think that stretches to taking their mask off in public places or having parties.
• titzer 6y ago
  You're allowed to think any way you want. And you're even allowed to explain that you do think that and why. But most people will probably think that's plainly a bad plan and point out that lots of people will die because of it, so be prepared to feel embarrassed often.
  • mainstreemm 6y ago
    It's really not that uncommon of a belief, those who hold it just get shamed a lot by the crowd that parrots the media narrative all the time and keep it amongst ourselves, instead of talking to you about it. Maybe most people do believe what you do, but majority opinion isn't automatically right opinion. You know what else will kill people? Economic shock. It's so arrogant to act like an opinion like yours is completely obviously right, and to tell someone to "prepare to feel embarrassed often". You should feel embarrassed.
  • jtbayly 6y ago
    Kind of like letting people drive cars, right?
• GlennS 6y ago
  I guess it seems like a surprising view to have (to think that the government should let it run its course)? I mean, the evidence is pretty clear by now isn't it? Countries that responded to the pandemic with swift strong action, especially restrictions on movement, have had the best outcomes for both health and the economy. Countries that tried to protect the economy / their nation's finances by enacting watered down measures have fared very much worse. It's interesting to me how far views in different places have diverged on where the balance point is for this. Australia's recently been having a debate about whether or not 20 cases a day is enough to justify a full lockdown of a city (the NSW premier decided no) and border closures (most states decided yes). Meanwhile, in the UK...
  • fsdfgsfsdfsdfsd 6y ago
    I don't think the evidence is clear. There are countries that were unsuccessful with their lockdowns, and countries were numbers were decreasing (because of lockdown or other reasons is unclear). Then there is China, whose numbers can't be trusted. And some remote island states seem to have done well. Most interesting case perhaps Taiwan (which incidentally also belongs to China).
    • rswskg 6y ago
      The taiwanese people might have something to say about that.
      • fsdfgsfsdfsdfsd 6y ago
        About what - being part of China? I don't think so.
  • Supermancho 6y ago
    > I mean, the evidence is pretty clear by now isn't it? I think the evidence is clear that it's endemic to the world (like Tuberculosis still is, with most ppl carrying a latent infection). Things are deadly in the world. As far as pandemics go, this one is about as bad as the modern world can handle...ok, some govts can handle. If economies/governments fall apart, it will run it's course as well. The bet that the entire world will lock down their borders and get vaccines every 6 mo for the rest of our lifetimes, is silly. Will corona basically be gone this year? Next year? The year after that? It's all hand wringing theater at this point. I think there's plenty of evidence that govts are taking advantage of the situation, but that's not the same as it being a grand conspiracy to release a virus for transhumanistic purposes (to get ppl used to getting govt injection). That's also nonsense.
• ldrndll 6y ago
  That isn’t the full statement though, you omitted the part about it being just like the flu. I think if you believe that it should be allowed to run its course understanding what it entails then you’re either woefully ignorant or something of a sociopath (but that’s addressed in other comments below). However, believing it should run its course because it’s no worse than the rule is not just an opinion, it clearly ignores all evidence to the contrary and is roughly equivalent to the others in terms of bring completely detached from fact or empirical evidence.
  • ldrndll 6y ago
    I’d love to know why this is being downvoted. As other people have observed, there exist right now multiple, highly effective vaccines. To advocate for letting it run through the population, knowing it will likely kill at least 1% of the population, cause long term health care problems for countless more, and likely devastate the economy... the best option here is that you are ignorant of these facts.