5 ms·

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 sacr

by 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?
- Aeolun 6y ago
  > 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? If I squint my eyes a bit. Reduce the burden on the pension system?
  - jlokier 6y ago
    If I squint my eyes, I don't think it would even reduce the burden on the state pension system when you take into account the benefit system it is part of. Long-term disabled or ill people who are unable to work will effectively take early retirement (in some cases they can draw on their actual pension early too), and depend on state support from then on whether it's called pension or something else. The duration of payouts will be longer than for ordinary retirement age. It's not just miserable for those survivors, it's expensive for the state. Long-term health problems are also likely to cost more in healthcare later.
    - Aeolun 6y ago
      True, but do more people end up in long term care than dead? I’d guess so, based on what I read so far, but not sure.
- malandrew 6y ago
  > 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. If you ask people to cite statistics for their claims, you should also do so for your claims such as this one.
  - ldrndll 6y ago
    I think it’s appropriate to ask for stats for suggestions that run counter to accepted wisdom. That doesn’t put the onus on me to provide evidence of generally accepted facts. Suggesting that we should let the virus run wild through the population is contrary to guidance from the WHO, any number of national health organisations, etc. So no, I don’t feel the need to cite statistics for my position, as it’s not the novel one. It is an axiom of healthcare that outcomes suffer in an overburdened healthcare system, and readily apparent why that is the case. That said, for those too lazy to look, here’s literally the top result for me when googling terms related to this: https://www.kabc.com/news/covid-19-mortality-rates-rise-as-hospitals-become-overcrowded/ https://www.kabc.com/news/covid-19-mortality-rates-rise-as-h...
lostlogin 6y ago
... or you can lock down, eradicate it and go back to normal (except for international travel). It passed that point in many places now unfortunately. I’m in Auckland, NZ and it’s a normal summer. We have also learned that NZs terrible road toll is unrelated to tourists, who we previously blamed. Have you considered that of 100 friends, family and acquaintances you’d see two die and 10 would have a painful and difficult future?
- Taurenking 6y ago
  Let's see how things are once winter rolls over
selimthegrim 6y ago
And what happens when you get more mutant strains that do God knows what. You want to bet it’ll be 2%? What about 1895 and 1918?
smcl 6y ago
So by that calculation 1.32 million people (2% of 66 million) would die and we're supposed to NOT react strongly to people who hold that opinion?
- matz1 6y ago
  As supposed of advocating lockdown ? How many million of people would suffer from lockdown?
  - smcl 6y ago
    Really not sure how to perform that comparison. How do we equate one death vs one "suffer", and how do we count the "suffers" of people who take ill of covid in the free-for-all scenario? I think the ball is in your court on this one but, frankly, good luck
    - matz1 6y ago
      So not sure then do lockdown anyway?
      - smcl 6y ago
        Well we actually have a very good idea of how many people would die of Covid if the entire population of the UK got Covid. We don't know how many people have ... whatever you are proposing we compare that against. So faced with the options of "prevent the deaths of over a million people" and "matz1 doesn't like lockdown but doesn't want to talk about or quantify it" I think the choice is pretty clear. Unless you want to elaborate further?
        matz1 6y ago
        whats the evidence that lockdown can 'prevent the deaths of over a million people' ? Keep in mind Lockdown can cause death as well.
        6y ago
patrec 6y ago
There are already multiple working vaccines. Why on earth would you even contemplate killing or permanently damaging over a million people, just in the UK alone? Do you really think that 90% of the remaining population will be cool with that and continue to lead a normal life amidst all of this? Even a good fraction of other people in the bottom decile for empathy might waver in their commitment to lead a normal and maximally economically productive life if they are (understandably) worried about the risks this brings to their own well-being.
PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
Congratulations on totally missing the point. [ EDIT: the number I originally used for "requiring hospitalization" were way off. I've edited to reflect data from September provided by the CDC. The 20% -> ICU figure comes from the NYC experience in May, but seems roughly correct from other global hotspots ] Roughly 0.4% of those who catch COVID19 will require hospitalization. Of those, 20% will require ICU treatment. In the end, the entire human race will be exposed to SARS-COV-2. If that happens all on the same day, or week, or month or probably even year, no health care system in the world can possibly deal with the case load. Some of those who might have survived COVID19 with hospital care will die. But (and this is the important part) those with other medical conditions that timely and effective health care could have treated will also die. Trauma (e.g. car or tool accidents). Infectious disease. Cancer. Chronic health conditions. And in killing all these people, you've made nothing better for those who survive, because if you think the economy has gone to hell under current attempts to deal with it, you clearly cannot imagine it as the entire health care system melts down. COVID19 is not a personal health crisis. Most people will not die of it (even though hundreds of thousands will, which is not going to be much comfort to their families, friends, colleagues and neighbors. It is a public health crisis that threatens to overwhelm our health care systems and thus have far worse effects than just the disease itself.
- Supermancho 6y ago
  > Roughly 20% of those who catch COVID19 will require hospitalization. Where do you get this from? I do think, of those requiring hospitalization, there is somewhere around a <20% mortality rate (it seems to vary by region).
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    The number was very, very, very wrong. I've corrected it. My point remains intact, I think.
- usaphp 6y ago
  > Roughly 20% of those who catch COVID19 will require hospitalization. Of those, 20% will require ICU treatment. Where do you get these numbers from? California has about 50k new cases per day, with probably another 50k cases that were not tested. According to your stats 20k people will require hospitalization and 5k will require an ICU bed per day.
cawlin 6y ago
Just casually let ~150 million people die. Cool.
jlokier 6y ago
I suppose you are free to decide that 1.32 million people in the UK should die an avoidable death, so that others have an easier life for a few months. Yes it's a value judgement. But it's a particularly awful value to hold: - Advocating for the death of a million people when it's avoidable is abhorrent - It would be more than that, due to the collapse of health services, causing people who would currently survive to die instead - It would be more again due to the increased likelihood of viral mutations when left to run rampant - Also due to the collapse of health services, most deaths would be outside hospitals, i.e. at home, slowly suffocating to death - Some would survive with brain damage due to lack of oxygen at home - While dying, people at home would know if they could get a hospital place they'd probably survive, and avoid brain damage, but they can't get one - It wouldn't even boost the economy, because a million deaths is actually quite a drag on the economy, especially when most of them are dying at home with their families staying at home to look after them due to collapse of the health services - It would be horrendously traumatic; a lot of people would struggle to work afterwards after watching their family members, friends, neighbours and people they know die at home slowly from an avoidable cause - It would cause tremendous social division, as many of the traumatised people having watched their family members (& friends, etc) die, avoidably, would know it was caused by the actions of their own neighbours & local community, along with national decision-making to "sacrifice" those million - That's just deaths; survivors with long Covid would also be a large drag on the economy, struggling or unable to work, requiring support, and potentially expensive for the healthcare services and their familiies in later life if it's long-term organ damage as some fear. The numbers with long Covid would exceed the current number of official unemployed - Advocating for serious life-long disability for another several million people when it's avoidable is abhorrent too

by polote 6y ago

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?

Aeolun 6y ago
> 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? If I squint my eyes a bit. Reduce the burden on the pension system?
- jlokier 6y ago
  If I squint my eyes, I don't think it would even reduce the burden on the state pension system when you take into account the benefit system it is part of. Long-term disabled or ill people who are unable to work will effectively take early retirement (in some cases they can draw on their actual pension early too), and depend on state support from then on whether it's called pension or something else. The duration of payouts will be longer than for ordinary retirement age. It's not just miserable for those survivors, it's expensive for the state. Long-term health problems are also likely to cost more in healthcare later.
  - Aeolun 6y ago
    True, but do more people end up in long term care than dead? I’d guess so, based on what I read so far, but not sure.
malandrew 6y ago
> 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. If you ask people to cite statistics for their claims, you should also do so for your claims such as this one.
- ldrndll 6y ago
  I think it’s appropriate to ask for stats for suggestions that run counter to accepted wisdom. That doesn’t put the onus on me to provide evidence of generally accepted facts. Suggesting that we should let the virus run wild through the population is contrary to guidance from the WHO, any number of national health organisations, etc. So no, I don’t feel the need to cite statistics for my position, as it’s not the novel one. It is an axiom of healthcare that outcomes suffer in an overburdened healthcare system, and readily apparent why that is the case. That said, for those too lazy to look, here’s literally the top result for me when googling terms related to this: https://www.kabc.com/news/covid-19-mortality-rates-rise-as-hospitals-become-overcrowded/ https://www.kabc.com/news/covid-19-mortality-rates-rise-as-h...

lostlogin 6y ago

... or you can lock down, eradicate it and go back to normal (except for international travel). It passed that point in many places now unfortunately. I’m in Auckland, NZ and it’s a normal summer. We have also learned that NZs terrible road toll is unrelated to tourists, who we previously blamed. Have you considered that of 100 friends, family and acquaintances you’d see two die and 10 would have a painful and difficult future?

Taurenking 6y ago
Let's see how things are once winter rolls over

selimthegrim 6y ago

And what happens when you get more mutant strains that do God knows what. You want to bet it’ll be 2%? What about 1895 and 1918?

smcl 6y ago

So by that calculation 1.32 million people (2% of 66 million) would die and we're supposed to NOT react strongly to people who hold that opinion?

matz1 6y ago
As supposed of advocating lockdown ? How many million of people would suffer from lockdown?
- smcl 6y ago
  Really not sure how to perform that comparison. How do we equate one death vs one "suffer", and how do we count the "suffers" of people who take ill of covid in the free-for-all scenario? I think the ball is in your court on this one but, frankly, good luck
  - matz1 6y ago
    So not sure then do lockdown anyway?
    - smcl 6y ago
      Well we actually have a very good idea of how many people would die of Covid if the entire population of the UK got Covid. We don't know how many people have ... whatever you are proposing we compare that against. So faced with the options of "prevent the deaths of over a million people" and "matz1 doesn't like lockdown but doesn't want to talk about or quantify it" I think the choice is pretty clear. Unless you want to elaborate further?
      - matz1 6y ago
        whats the evidence that lockdown can 'prevent the deaths of over a million people' ? Keep in mind Lockdown can cause death as well.
        6y ago

patrec 6y ago

There are already multiple working vaccines. Why on earth would you even contemplate killing or permanently damaging over a million people, just in the UK alone? Do you really think that 90% of the remaining population will be cool with that and continue to lead a normal life amidst all of this? Even a good fraction of other people in the bottom decile for empathy might waver in their commitment to lead a normal and maximally economically productive life if they are (understandably) worried about the risks this brings to their own well-being.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago

Congratulations on totally missing the point. [ EDIT: the number I originally used for "requiring hospitalization" were way off. I've edited to reflect data from September provided by the CDC. The 20% -> ICU figure comes from the NYC experience in May, but seems roughly correct from other global hotspots ] Roughly 0.4% of those who catch COVID19 will require hospitalization. Of those, 20% will require ICU treatment. In the end, the entire human race will be exposed to SARS-COV-2. If that happens all on the same day, or week, or month or probably even year, no health care system in the world can possibly deal with the case load. Some of those who might have survived COVID19 with hospital care will die. But (and this is the important part) those with other medical conditions that timely and effective health care could have treated will also die. Trauma (e.g. car or tool accidents). Infectious disease. Cancer. Chronic health conditions. And in killing all these people, you've made nothing better for those who survive, because if you think the economy has gone to hell under current attempts to deal with it, you clearly cannot imagine it as the entire health care system melts down. COVID19 is not a personal health crisis. Most people will not die of it (even though hundreds of thousands will, which is not going to be much comfort to their families, friends, colleagues and neighbors. It is a public health crisis that threatens to overwhelm our health care systems and thus have far worse effects than just the disease itself.

Supermancho 6y ago
> Roughly 20% of those who catch COVID19 will require hospitalization. Where do you get this from? I do think, of those requiring hospitalization, there is somewhere around a <20% mortality rate (it seems to vary by region).
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  The number was very, very, very wrong. I've corrected it. My point remains intact, I think.
usaphp 6y ago
> Roughly 20% of those who catch COVID19 will require hospitalization. Of those, 20% will require ICU treatment. Where do you get these numbers from? California has about 50k new cases per day, with probably another 50k cases that were not tested. According to your stats 20k people will require hospitalization and 5k will require an ICU bed per day.

cawlin 6y ago

Just casually let ~150 million people die. Cool.

jlokier 6y ago

I suppose you are free to decide that 1.32 million people in the UK should die an avoidable death, so that others have an easier life for a few months. Yes it's a value judgement. But it's a particularly awful value to hold: - Advocating for the death of a million people when it's avoidable is abhorrent - It would be more than that, due to the collapse of health services, causing people who would currently survive to die instead - It would be more again due to the increased likelihood of viral mutations when left to run rampant - Also due to the collapse of health services, most deaths would be outside hospitals, i.e. at home, slowly suffocating to death - Some would survive with brain damage due to lack of oxygen at home - While dying, people at home would know if they could get a hospital place they'd probably survive, and avoid brain damage, but they can't get one - It wouldn't even boost the economy, because a million deaths is actually quite a drag on the economy, especially when most of them are dying at home with their families staying at home to look after them due to collapse of the health services - It would be horrendously traumatic; a lot of people would struggle to work afterwards after watching their family members, friends, neighbours and people they know die at home slowly from an avoidable cause - It would cause tremendous social division, as many of the traumatised people having watched their family members (& friends, etc) die, avoidably, would know it was caused by the actions of their own neighbours & local community, along with national decision-making to "sacrifice" those million - That's just deaths; survivors with long Covid would also be a large drag on the economy, struggling or unable to work, requiring support, and potentially expensive for the healthcare services and their familiies in later life if it's long-term organ damage as some fear. The numbers with long Covid would exceed the current number of official unemployed - Advocating for serious life-long disability for another several million people when it's avoidable is abhorrent too