3 ms·
For an event that can only happen to you once (to a first approximation), the risk is almost negligible. Moreover that or any other IFR number does not reflect
by unanswered 5y ago
For an event that can only happen to you once (to a first approximation), the risk is almost negligible. Moreover that or any other IFR number does not reflect an actual risk to any actual person — risk to young healthy individuals is negligible, even though risk to vulnerable persons is decidedly not.
- DanBC 5y ago> risk to young healthy individuals is negligible, No. https://twitter.com/Samanticka/status/1393188103586816001?s=20 https://twitter.com/Samanticka/status/1393188103586816001?s=... >> Think of a virus where 70% of kids are totally asymptomatic, less than 1% have severe symptoms, and less than 0.05% die. Phew that's no big deal for kids then! Don't worry about them! >> Oops actually it's polio in the 1950s
- unanswered 5y agoThis appears to be an appeal to emotion. The risk from polio was also almost negligible, if these numbers are accurate. Also, if as suggested by the wording these numbers are looking at the risk to kids then it's not a fair comparison anyways, as the 1% number (already hyperbolic) quoted for COVID is across both vulnerable and not-vulnerable populations. I for one do not find myself needing to display compassion for numbers as I reserve my compassion for actual human beings. To mangle Douglas Adams, being overly concerned about IFRs is to me extremely odd as on the whole, it isn't the ~~small green pieces of paper~~ statistics that are getting sick.