4 ms·

I'm quite confident people probably over-estimate their chance of dying in a plane crash by a few orders of magnitude as well. People are careful about their o

by birken 6y ago

I'm quite confident people probably over-estimate their chance of dying in a plane crash by a few orders of magnitude as well. People are careful about their own lives, which is probably a good survival mechanism. What specific policy are you suggesting? The more <40 year olds that get the virus, the more virus there is. The more virus there is, the more people who are spreading the virus, the more people who can get the virus, including people at very high risk of dying or being disabled from it. As far as I'm aware no place has let the virus spread uncontrollably, think everything was fine, and not lock down at some point. The policy clearly has to be somewhere in between fully locked down and fully opened up, and I'm not sure discriminating by age and health is going to be some magical solution.

henrikschroder 6y ago
> What specific policy are you suggesting? I think the biggest problem is the hyper-focus on a single cause of death. People look at the covid-19 death numbers, and have no idea how many people actually die in a normal year. And this causes people to focus on ensuring nobody dies of covid-19 to the exclusion of everything else. Yes, it absolutely sucks that a lot of vulnerable people in elder care facilities have died of it, but it's equally tragic that a lot of them have died of cognitive decline due to not being allowed to see their family and friends, or not being allowed to see each other. Or that people are dying or going to die because hospitals and patients alike are postponing care and checkups and routine surgeries, because they're afraid of hospitals being overrun with covid-19 patients, or because they're afraid hospitals will increase spread. I belong to the privileged class of people who can work from home, I've done it for years, and I live far away from friends and family, so I've been doing weekly video calls for years. The effect for me, personally, is pretty much zero. A lot of people who drive policy are like me, and therefore think lockdowns are no big deal. But lockdowns are absolutely miserable for a large amount of people. There's a very good reason that we're seeing violent anti-lockdown protests in several countries, because a lot of people are completely fed up with the restrictions. So, in terms of specific policy, I want governments to encourage and enable people to isolate and distance and keep themselves safe, but I don't want them to enforce it. People have to be allowed to make their own choices, their own risk analysis, and live with the consequences. As we already do for a lot of things. One example of encouragement is to have good sickpay policies in place, so that no-one feels they "have to" get to work even though they're sick or possibly infected, either out of social obligation or financial necessity. > and I'm not sure discriminating by age and health is going to be some magical solution. It's too hard to lock down and isolate a fraction of the population, therefore the solution is to lock down the entire population, except "essential" workers? This argument doesn't make sense to me.
- greesil 6y ago
  Yeah, this is a false dichotomy. There are other options other than lockdown vs no lockdown. You can have a social safety net and pay people to stay home. But if you're insistent that these are the only two options, look at Sweden. Their economy suffered despite not locking down last year because guess what, it turns out people don't want to go out and risk dying. So if your economy is doing to have mass unemployment, you may as well do that and avoid the death and injury. Or better yet, borrow at low interest rates and let people be unemployed but not destitute.
  - henrikschroder 6y ago
    > You can have a social safety net and pay people to stay home. But if you're insistent that these are the only two options, look at Sweden. I think that first sentence sounds like a great strategy, and it's perfectly in line with what I suggested. Coincidentally, that's exactly what Sweden did as part of its strategy. So I'm not so sure how Sweden is an example of the opposite? > guess what, it turns out people don't want to go out and risk dying. If people are voluntarily doing that, what's the point of having the government enforce the lockdown? > So if your economy is doing to have mass unemployment, you may as well do that and avoid the death and injury. Again, lockdowns aren't 100% free. They also cause death, injury, and misery. Suicides are up, domestic violence is up, cancer screenings are down, drug overdoses are up, alcoholism is up, depression is way up. Poor kids in the US who relied on school lunches as their only decent meal of the day are suffering nutritionally, and will lose years of their life because of malnutrition now. I have a friend who was sick with covid for months, and she's got a long way to recovery. I have a friend who just got out of the ICU after having been there a couple of weeks, he's in shit shape, but alive. That sucks. But I also have friends who were close to suicide because they were unemployed, isolated, and really depressed. That also sucks. There are no easy choices in this mess, and yet lockdowns are sold as an easy choice by people for whom it is easy, and failure to lock down is portrayed as some sort of moral failing, which is horrifying to me.
    - lostlogin 6y ago
      > Again, lockdowns aren't 100% free. They also cause death, injury, and misery. Suicides are up, domestic violence is up, cancer screenings are down, drug overdoses are up, alcoholism is up, depression is way up. In NZ the suicide rate dropped, despite a lockdown that was considerably more severe than done in many places. Possibly making this misleading, NZs suicide rate is atrocious to begin with. Yes, there was a hell of a lot of grim news and poor stats - but the below seems a little hard to to believe. They will lose years of life? > Poor kids in the US who relied on school lunches as their only decent meal of the day are suffering nutritionally, and will lose years of their life because of malnutrition https://www.mentalhealth.org.nz/assets/Suicide/Chief-Coroner-Suicide-Stats-2020-Media-Release.pdf https://www.mentalhealth.org.nz/assets/Suicide/Chief-Coroner...

by birken 6y ago

henrikschroder 6y ago

> What specific policy are you suggesting? I think the biggest problem is the hyper-focus on a single cause of death. People look at the covid-19 death numbers, and have no idea how many people actually die in a normal year. And this causes people to focus on ensuring nobody dies of covid-19 to the exclusion of everything else. Yes, it absolutely sucks that a lot of vulnerable people in elder care facilities have died of it, but it's equally tragic that a lot of them have died of cognitive decline due to not being allowed to see their family and friends, or not being allowed to see each other. Or that people are dying or going to die because hospitals and patients alike are postponing care and checkups and routine surgeries, because they're afraid of hospitals being overrun with covid-19 patients, or because they're afraid hospitals will increase spread. I belong to the privileged class of people who can work from home, I've done it for years, and I live far away from friends and family, so I've been doing weekly video calls for years. The effect for me, personally, is pretty much zero. A lot of people who drive policy are like me, and therefore think lockdowns are no big deal. But lockdowns are absolutely miserable for a large amount of people. There's a very good reason that we're seeing violent anti-lockdown protests in several countries, because a lot of people are completely fed up with the restrictions. So, in terms of specific policy, I want governments to encourage and enable people to isolate and distance and keep themselves safe, but I don't want them to enforce it. People have to be allowed to make their own choices, their own risk analysis, and live with the consequences. As we already do for a lot of things. One example of encouragement is to have good sickpay policies in place, so that no-one feels they "have to" get to work even though they're sick or possibly infected, either out of social obligation or financial necessity. > and I'm not sure discriminating by age and health is going to be some magical solution. It's too hard to lock down and isolate a fraction of the population, therefore the solution is to lock down the entire population, except "essential" workers? This argument doesn't make sense to me.

greesil 6y ago
Yeah, this is a false dichotomy. There are other options other than lockdown vs no lockdown. You can have a social safety net and pay people to stay home. But if you're insistent that these are the only two options, look at Sweden. Their economy suffered despite not locking down last year because guess what, it turns out people don't want to go out and risk dying. So if your economy is doing to have mass unemployment, you may as well do that and avoid the death and injury. Or better yet, borrow at low interest rates and let people be unemployed but not destitute.
- henrikschroder 6y ago
  > You can have a social safety net and pay people to stay home. But if you're insistent that these are the only two options, look at Sweden. I think that first sentence sounds like a great strategy, and it's perfectly in line with what I suggested. Coincidentally, that's exactly what Sweden did as part of its strategy. So I'm not so sure how Sweden is an example of the opposite? > guess what, it turns out people don't want to go out and risk dying. If people are voluntarily doing that, what's the point of having the government enforce the lockdown? > So if your economy is doing to have mass unemployment, you may as well do that and avoid the death and injury. Again, lockdowns aren't 100% free. They also cause death, injury, and misery. Suicides are up, domestic violence is up, cancer screenings are down, drug overdoses are up, alcoholism is up, depression is way up. Poor kids in the US who relied on school lunches as their only decent meal of the day are suffering nutritionally, and will lose years of their life because of malnutrition now. I have a friend who was sick with covid for months, and she's got a long way to recovery. I have a friend who just got out of the ICU after having been there a couple of weeks, he's in shit shape, but alive. That sucks. But I also have friends who were close to suicide because they were unemployed, isolated, and really depressed. That also sucks. There are no easy choices in this mess, and yet lockdowns are sold as an easy choice by people for whom it is easy, and failure to lock down is portrayed as some sort of moral failing, which is horrifying to me.
  - lostlogin 6y ago
    > Again, lockdowns aren't 100% free. They also cause death, injury, and misery. Suicides are up, domestic violence is up, cancer screenings are down, drug overdoses are up, alcoholism is up, depression is way up. In NZ the suicide rate dropped, despite a lockdown that was considerably more severe than done in many places. Possibly making this misleading, NZs suicide rate is atrocious to begin with. Yes, there was a hell of a lot of grim news and poor stats - but the below seems a little hard to to believe. They will lose years of life? > Poor kids in the US who relied on school lunches as their only decent meal of the day are suffering nutritionally, and will lose years of their life because of malnutrition https://www.mentalhealth.org.nz/assets/Suicide/Chief-Coroner-Suicide-Stats-2020-Media-Release.pdf https://www.mentalhealth.org.nz/assets/Suicide/Chief-Coroner...