28 ms·

> shut down for the survival of your species Do you really believe the survival of our species is at stake? There have been 1754 covid-19 deaths per million p

> shut down for the survival of your species Do you really believe the survival of our species is at stake? There have been 1754 covid-19 deaths per million people in the USA since the start of the pandemic [0], a seemingly reliable number. That works out to 1 out of 570 people that have died of covid. Mostly older and less healthy folks. Part of the problem may be that not everyone is that scared. Living in democracies we need to respect that. [0] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

sangnoir 6y ago
> That works out to 1 out of 570 people that have died of covid. Mostly older and less healthy folks. Your assumption is that what the USA went through, with the shutdowns is the worst-case scenario. I posit that it is not - things could have been far worse in terms of death, as well as second- and third-order effects on the economy, jobs and food security.
- mikem170 6y ago
  You said "the survival of the species" was at stake. Are you telling me that you stand by that comment? Do you really think this coronavirus might have killed off our species? There is zero science supporting this. In fact, to the contrary, experts from the beginning expected this to peter out on its own [0]: > 2019-nCoV joins the four coronaviruses now circulating in people. “I can imagine a scenario where this becomes a fifth endemic human coronavirus,” ... “We don’t pay much attention to them because they’re so mundane” > Odds: Moderate. “I think there is a reasonable probability that this becomes the fifth community-acquired coronavirus,” Adalja said, something he expanded on in his blog. Webby agreed: “I have a little bit of hope that, OK, we’ll put up with a couple of years of heightened [2019-nCoV] activity before settling down to something like the other four coronaviruses.” > Odds: Pretty good. What we may be seeing “is the emergence of a new coronavirus … that could very well become another seasonal pathogen that causes pneumonia,” Your statement about "survival of the species" seems outlandish, according the the science I read. Your above reply "things could have been worse" is not an adequate defensse of such an alarmist statement. Do you have any references supporting your position? oit appears so far that you do not. You should keep in mind that not everyone shares your paranoia and want to get on with as much of their lives as possible. We live in democracies and other people will rightfully object to you imposing your views on all of them without better justification. [0] https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/04/two-scenarios-if-new-coronavirus-isnt-contained/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/04/two-scenarios-if-new-cor...
  - sangnoir 6y ago
    > You said "the survival of the species" was at stake. That wasn't me saying that; I'm not gp. I was only objecting to your comment that implicitly assumed a linear effect, and therefore concludes that things wouldn't have been bad without shutdowns >> That works out to 1 out of 570 people hat have died of covid. I do not think the "survival of the species" was at stake, but our 2020 lifestyles were at stake. Things could have gotten much worse, in a non-linear, exponential manner.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - mikem170 6y ago
      My apologies! I didn't mean to mix you up with the original comment I was replying to. I did specifically object to the characterization of the pandemic as a threat to the surivial of the species. I'm glad you agree!
- fogihujy 6y ago
  Worst case would be healthcare systems collapsing, and a majority of essential workers falling ill, dying, or simply refusing to go work. It would possibly cause severe supply chain disruptions, which in its turn could result in local food shortages, civil unrest and so on. If such a situation would be allowed to spiral out of control, it could very well result in a systemic collapse, especially on a local or regional level. On a global level, it's less likely. Systemic collapse does not mean societal collapse or the end of humanity, or even civilization. The collapse will be a horrible affair and it might take centuries to get back on track if things get real bad. Humanity would still be around, though, and we're not threatened as a species.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - mikem170 6y ago
    I'm glad you agree that covid-19 is not a threat to our species! Why did you bring up systemic collapse? You made some pretty broad statements. Things like food shortages and civil unrest happen all the time, for lots of reasons. There's Syria, Somalia, the former Soviet Union, the Arab Spring, everywhere a war is fought, etc. It wouldn't be surprising for this pandemic (and/or lockdowns) to tip some country over the edge, somewhere. But maybe not. Hasn't happened yet. I think it's curious that you had to throw a new worst-case scenario out there. I hear you saying "ok, the species will survive, but we could, worst case, collapse, horrible, for centuries". What are you thinking? Do you think something like that might happen in a developed country? Or in India? Wouldn't hospitals just triage patients, letting the old and sick die? Aren't most health care workers already vaccinated? Is it reasonable to think that a disease that has killed less than 0.175% of the population (USA, 1 in 570), mostly older and/or sicker, could possibly cause the collapse of important supplies or cause food shortages? Do you ever wonder why some people seem to have a tendency to dwell on worst case scenarios, even ones that are pretty marginal? I assume that it's because we are emotional creatures, and fear is a powerful emotion. Probably good for the survival of the species :-)
    - fogihujy 6y ago
supernovae 6y ago
It doesn't matter how I framed it... take it however you want. Here in texas, people were lined up for miles to buy guns because we were borderline on the edge of failing. People were stocking up food, toilet paper, supplies. We weren't talking about taking care of each other, we were focusing on gimmics we thought would help us survive what many expected to be collapse. We had a failed presidency, we had a failed response, millions lost their jobs, millions of people lost incomes... I don't think people realize how bad it got and just how quickly we forget and forgive those who were in charge that led us down the path that almost led to certain failure. So yeah, our species may have survived if you want to frame it as such to debate the words used more than the reality of what the words meant. I intentionally chose the words I said because it was a disaster and to be honest, we still haven't really learned from it.
- mikem170 6y ago
  You intentionally chose the words you said, but it doesn't matter how you framed it? Ok, maybe we should back up. I objected to your "survival of your species" characterization of the pandemic, but am happy to agree to leave that aside, some hyperbole in the heat of the moment I guess. I wasn't sure, because it appears there are people who feel that way. Like you said, people overreacted, buying guns, stockpiling, afraid to leave the house, etc. Some people are still overreacting, expecting the worst at every turn. As the science and data continue to roll in we find that this is not as bad as was once feared. Lately I've been reading the recent articles/studies on how this is an airborne aerosol, which means the cloth masks everyone have been wearing may not have made much of a difference. The CDC now appears to be trying to talk people down, letting them know that surface transmission is not a significant factor, that we don't need to wear masks outside, etc. It's may be the case where find out in the end that the lockdowns were a waste of time and that aggressive contact tracing was the only thing that worked. This thread got into talking about democracy and lockdowns. A lot lot of people don't think this is as big a disaster as you do. 1 out of 570 people dead, skewing older with comorbidities, doesn't strike many people as a disaster. Many people don't accept the premise that the lockdowns are worth it, and therefore don't want to spend the money supporting those same lockdowns like you suggested. They would rather live their lives as close to normal as practical. They don't feel the need to assign political blame for a pandemic that caught almost the entire planet by surprise. They have a vote, the same as you. They feel just as strongly as you. Difficult situation, eh?

sangnoir 6y ago

> That works out to 1 out of 570 people that have died of covid. Mostly older and less healthy folks. Your assumption is that what the USA went through, with the shutdowns is the worst-case scenario. I posit that it is not - things could have been far worse in terms of death, as well as second- and third-order effects on the economy, jobs and food security.

mikem170 6y ago
You said "the survival of the species" was at stake. Are you telling me that you stand by that comment? Do you really think this coronavirus might have killed off our species? There is zero science supporting this. In fact, to the contrary, experts from the beginning expected this to peter out on its own [0]: > 2019-nCoV joins the four coronaviruses now circulating in people. “I can imagine a scenario where this becomes a fifth endemic human coronavirus,” ... “We don’t pay much attention to them because they’re so mundane” > Odds: Moderate. “I think there is a reasonable probability that this becomes the fifth community-acquired coronavirus,” Adalja said, something he expanded on in his blog. Webby agreed: “I have a little bit of hope that, OK, we’ll put up with a couple of years of heightened [2019-nCoV] activity before settling down to something like the other four coronaviruses.” > Odds: Pretty good. What we may be seeing “is the emergence of a new coronavirus … that could very well become another seasonal pathogen that causes pneumonia,” Your statement about "survival of the species" seems outlandish, according the the science I read. Your above reply "things could have been worse" is not an adequate defensse of such an alarmist statement. Do you have any references supporting your position? oit appears so far that you do not. You should keep in mind that not everyone shares your paranoia and want to get on with as much of their lives as possible. We live in democracies and other people will rightfully object to you imposing your views on all of them without better justification. [0] https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/04/two-scenarios-if-new-coronavirus-isnt-contained/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/04/two-scenarios-if-new-cor...
- sangnoir 6y ago
  > You said "the survival of the species" was at stake. That wasn't me saying that; I'm not gp. I was only objecting to your comment that implicitly assumed a linear effect, and therefore concludes that things wouldn't have been bad without shutdowns >> That works out to 1 out of 570 people hat have died of covid. I do not think the "survival of the species" was at stake, but our 2020 lifestyles were at stake. Things could have gotten much worse, in a non-linear, exponential manner.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - mikem170 6y ago
    My apologies! I didn't mean to mix you up with the original comment I was replying to. I did specifically object to the characterization of the pandemic as a threat to the surivial of the species. I'm glad you agree!
fogihujy 6y ago
Worst case would be healthcare systems collapsing, and a majority of essential workers falling ill, dying, or simply refusing to go work. It would possibly cause severe supply chain disruptions, which in its turn could result in local food shortages, civil unrest and so on. If such a situation would be allowed to spiral out of control, it could very well result in a systemic collapse, especially on a local or regional level. On a global level, it's less likely. Systemic collapse does not mean societal collapse or the end of humanity, or even civilization. The collapse will be a horrible affair and it might take centuries to get back on track if things get real bad. Humanity would still be around, though, and we're not threatened as a species.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- mikem170 6y ago
  I'm glad you agree that covid-19 is not a threat to our species! Why did you bring up systemic collapse? You made some pretty broad statements. Things like food shortages and civil unrest happen all the time, for lots of reasons. There's Syria, Somalia, the former Soviet Union, the Arab Spring, everywhere a war is fought, etc. It wouldn't be surprising for this pandemic (and/or lockdowns) to tip some country over the edge, somewhere. But maybe not. Hasn't happened yet. I think it's curious that you had to throw a new worst-case scenario out there. I hear you saying "ok, the species will survive, but we could, worst case, collapse, horrible, for centuries". What are you thinking? Do you think something like that might happen in a developed country? Or in India? Wouldn't hospitals just triage patients, letting the old and sick die? Aren't most health care workers already vaccinated? Is it reasonable to think that a disease that has killed less than 0.175% of the population (USA, 1 in 570), mostly older and/or sicker, could possibly cause the collapse of important supplies or cause food shortages? Do you ever wonder why some people seem to have a tendency to dwell on worst case scenarios, even ones that are pretty marginal? I assume that it's because we are emotional creatures, and fear is a powerful emotion. Probably good for the survival of the species :-)
  - fogihujy 6y ago

supernovae 6y ago

It doesn't matter how I framed it... take it however you want. Here in texas, people were lined up for miles to buy guns because we were borderline on the edge of failing. People were stocking up food, toilet paper, supplies. We weren't talking about taking care of each other, we were focusing on gimmics we thought would help us survive what many expected to be collapse. We had a failed presidency, we had a failed response, millions lost their jobs, millions of people lost incomes... I don't think people realize how bad it got and just how quickly we forget and forgive those who were in charge that led us down the path that almost led to certain failure. So yeah, our species may have survived if you want to frame it as such to debate the words used more than the reality of what the words meant. I intentionally chose the words I said because it was a disaster and to be honest, we still haven't really learned from it.

mikem170 6y ago
You intentionally chose the words you said, but it doesn't matter how you framed it? Ok, maybe we should back up. I objected to your "survival of your species" characterization of the pandemic, but am happy to agree to leave that aside, some hyperbole in the heat of the moment I guess. I wasn't sure, because it appears there are people who feel that way. Like you said, people overreacted, buying guns, stockpiling, afraid to leave the house, etc. Some people are still overreacting, expecting the worst at every turn. As the science and data continue to roll in we find that this is not as bad as was once feared. Lately I've been reading the recent articles/studies on how this is an airborne aerosol, which means the cloth masks everyone have been wearing may not have made much of a difference. The CDC now appears to be trying to talk people down, letting them know that surface transmission is not a significant factor, that we don't need to wear masks outside, etc. It's may be the case where find out in the end that the lockdowns were a waste of time and that aggressive contact tracing was the only thing that worked. This thread got into talking about democracy and lockdowns. A lot lot of people don't think this is as big a disaster as you do. 1 out of 570 people dead, skewing older with comorbidities, doesn't strike many people as a disaster. Many people don't accept the premise that the lockdowns are worth it, and therefore don't want to spend the money supporting those same lockdowns like you suggested. They would rather live their lives as close to normal as practical. They don't feel the need to assign political blame for a pandemic that caught almost the entire planet by surprise. They have a vote, the same as you. They feel just as strongly as you. Difficult situation, eh?