2 ms·

> You may, and indeed we have, shut it down if a large part of the population were at risk of hospitalization or death I wouldn't really call 1% of the populat

by umvi 6y ago

> You may, and indeed we have, shut it down if a large part of the population were at risk of hospitalization or death I wouldn't really call 1% of the population "a large part" of it. It's just, our healthcare capacity relative to the size of the overall population is miniscule. So even a disease that threatens .1% of the population with death and 1% with hospitalization is enough to overwhelm the healthcare system. And apparently policy makers aren't willing to let people die due to overwhelmed hospitals - they would rather shut down the entire economy than let that happen. History will tell if that was the right decision. Almost nobody notices or remembers blips of abnormally high "excess deaths" for a particular year, but everyone notices and remembers economic depressions that last a decade.

orra 6y ago
> So even a disease that threatens .1% of the population with death The IFR for COVID is likely ten times that, at least in societies with decent numbers of older people. > Almost nobody notices or remembers blips of abnormally high "excess deaths" for a particular year This isn't a bad flu season in a 5 year cycle. The excess deaths caused by COVID last year are not just 'abnormally high'. They're more like once in a lifetime abnormally high.
- umvi 6y ago
  > The IFR for COVID is likely ten times that, at least in societies with decent numbers of older people. Right I purposely picked a disease less deadly than covid that could still overwhelm the healthcare system > This isn't a bad flu season in a 5 year cycle. The excess deaths caused by COVID last year are not just 'abnormally high'. They're more like once in a lifetime abnormally high. Right, and I still maintain that those excess deaths will be largely forgotten within the next few years or so by the majority of the populace. 500k excess deaths in 2020 followed by several years with fewer than normal deaths (since an abnormal amount of old people that otherwise would have died weren't around to die). Great Depression 2.0 on the other hand is something that wouldn't be forgotten for a lifetime for the people that live through it.
  - mplanchard 6y ago
    This kind of cavalier attitude towards half a million people dying bothers me, particularly when it’s very likely that our death totals are significantly higher than they could have been with better adherence to guidelines, better guidelines to begin with, etc. Those excess deaths won’t be so quickly forgotten by people who have lost family and friends. Should we be pragmatic in public policy? Of course. You can’t prevent all the deaths, and we’ve got to keep individuals and businesses afloat as well as we can. But we need to go into these discussions with clear eyes about the real cost that each of those lost lives represent, both in a compassionate sense and in a practical sense (a not insignificant proportion of those dying were still working, still contributing to society, were young with many productive years ahead of them, etc.). I really don’t think we’ll look back on this and think, “Eh, a half a million people died, oh well,” particularly not with a more historical lens, but I could definitely be mistaken.
    - orra 6y ago
      > I really don’t think we’ll look back on this and think, “Eh, a half a million people died, oh well,” particularly not with a more historical lens, but I could definitely be mistaken. Agreed, it's horribly callous.
    - umvi 6y ago
      > This kind of cavalier attitude towards half a million people dying bothers me > I really don’t think we’ll look back on this and think, “Eh, a half a million people died, oh well,” Well, we look back on the past 2 decades (2000-2020) and think "eh, 700k+ people (mainly the elderly) have died from influenza, oh well." But actually most people don't even think that. Most people just... don't even keep track of how many people die of the flu because they don't care. Why would covid be any different 20 years from now? To be honest most people probably wouldn't even care how many people were dying of covid if the media wasn't shoving the statistic in everyone's face 24/7. Just like most people don't care to know how many people die in the USA per year in general (~3 million) and what the breakdown of those deaths are in terms of causes.
      - 6y ago

by umvi 6y ago

orra 6y ago

> So even a disease that threatens .1% of the population with death The IFR for COVID is likely ten times that, at least in societies with decent numbers of older people. > Almost nobody notices or remembers blips of abnormally high "excess deaths" for a particular year This isn't a bad flu season in a 5 year cycle. The excess deaths caused by COVID last year are not just 'abnormally high'. They're more like once in a lifetime abnormally high.

umvi 6y ago
> The IFR for COVID is likely ten times that, at least in societies with decent numbers of older people. Right I purposely picked a disease less deadly than covid that could still overwhelm the healthcare system > This isn't a bad flu season in a 5 year cycle. The excess deaths caused by COVID last year are not just 'abnormally high'. They're more like once in a lifetime abnormally high. Right, and I still maintain that those excess deaths will be largely forgotten within the next few years or so by the majority of the populace. 500k excess deaths in 2020 followed by several years with fewer than normal deaths (since an abnormal amount of old people that otherwise would have died weren't around to die). Great Depression 2.0 on the other hand is something that wouldn't be forgotten for a lifetime for the people that live through it.
- mplanchard 6y ago
  This kind of cavalier attitude towards half a million people dying bothers me, particularly when it’s very likely that our death totals are significantly higher than they could have been with better adherence to guidelines, better guidelines to begin with, etc. Those excess deaths won’t be so quickly forgotten by people who have lost family and friends. Should we be pragmatic in public policy? Of course. You can’t prevent all the deaths, and we’ve got to keep individuals and businesses afloat as well as we can. But we need to go into these discussions with clear eyes about the real cost that each of those lost lives represent, both in a compassionate sense and in a practical sense (a not insignificant proportion of those dying were still working, still contributing to society, were young with many productive years ahead of them, etc.). I really don’t think we’ll look back on this and think, “Eh, a half a million people died, oh well,” particularly not with a more historical lens, but I could definitely be mistaken.
  - orra 6y ago
    > I really don’t think we’ll look back on this and think, “Eh, a half a million people died, oh well,” particularly not with a more historical lens, but I could definitely be mistaken. Agreed, it's horribly callous.
  - umvi 6y ago
    > This kind of cavalier attitude towards half a million people dying bothers me > I really don’t think we’ll look back on this and think, “Eh, a half a million people died, oh well,” Well, we look back on the past 2 decades (2000-2020) and think "eh, 700k+ people (mainly the elderly) have died from influenza, oh well." But actually most people don't even think that. Most people just... don't even keep track of how many people die of the flu because they don't care. Why would covid be any different 20 years from now? To be honest most people probably wouldn't even care how many people were dying of covid if the media wasn't shoving the statistic in everyone's face 24/7. Just like most people don't care to know how many people die in the USA per year in general (~3 million) and what the breakdown of those deaths are in terms of causes.
    - 6y ago