6 ms·

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.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - ldrndll 6y ago
      Care to cite any stats supporting your assertion that a maximum of 2% of the population would die? During periods where the healthcare system has been overloaded the mortality rates have been many multiples of that during times when healthcare is provided at an appropriate level. What’s more, do you have any reasonable figures to suggest why letting a percentage or more of the population die unnecessarily, consigning even larger numbers to long-term health problems and so forth is somehow a good choice?
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.

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.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - ldrndll 6y ago
    Care to cite any stats supporting your assertion that a maximum of 2% of the population would die? During periods where the healthcare system has been overloaded the mortality rates have been many multiples of that during times when healthcare is provided at an appropriate level. What’s more, do you have any reasonable figures to suggest why letting a percentage or more of the population die unnecessarily, consigning even larger numbers to long-term health problems and so forth is somehow a good choice?

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.