3 ms·

Please stop the "someone you know or love" emotionalizing, it makes rational discussion impossible by making people overestimate risks. Anyway: > many more pe

Please stop the "someone you know or love" emotionalizing, it makes rational discussion impossible by making people overestimate risks. Anyway: > many more people would actually die because of this. Numbers, please? > 1 person dying out of 1'000'000 is not much on a spreadsheet, until that one is someone you know or love. ...with a probability of 1/1000000, which still isn't much. Nothing tricky about it.

loup-vaillant 5y ago
The point is, without proper care, the mortality rate of this virus raises from 1% to 5%, give or take. And that's without taking into account the long term consequences of the survivors (I've heard for instance that about 10% or so of the infected get a long, version of the disease, that render them unable to work for months). Now the probabilities are rather low because we make sure the virus doesn't spread too much (we lock everything down whenever it does). If we didn't however, we'd infect most of the population, hospitals would be overwhelmed, and we'd end up culling more than 3% of the world's population. Mostly elderly for sure, but still. Even if we stick to actual numbers, let me give you the example of France. I'm r where I live, and the crisis was… let's be prudent and say "not expertly managed". We have over 109K deaths now. With our population, that's about 1.7 deaths per thousand people. Most of us here know some people who watched a close one die. It is much.
- anoncake 5y ago
  > The point is, without proper care, the mortality rate of this virus raises from 1% to 5%, give or take. Incorrect. That's the CFR. The actual mortality rate (IFR) is between 0.5-1%. And that's without any useful treatment. > And that's without taking into account the long term consequences of the survivors There is no evidence that these aren't extremely rare. Of course everyone is panicking when they're misinformed like that!

loup-vaillant 5y ago

The point is, without proper care, the mortality rate of this virus raises from 1% to 5%, give or take. And that's without taking into account the long term consequences of the survivors (I've heard for instance that about 10% or so of the infected get a long, version of the disease, that render them unable to work for months). Now the probabilities are rather low because we make sure the virus doesn't spread too much (we lock everything down whenever it does). If we didn't however, we'd infect most of the population, hospitals would be overwhelmed, and we'd end up culling more than 3% of the world's population. Mostly elderly for sure, but still. Even if we stick to actual numbers, let me give you the example of France. I'm r where I live, and the crisis was… let's be prudent and say "not expertly managed". We have over 109K deaths now. With our population, that's about 1.7 deaths per thousand people. Most of us here know some people who watched a close one die. It is much.

anoncake 5y ago
> The point is, without proper care, the mortality rate of this virus raises from 1% to 5%, give or take. Incorrect. That's the CFR. The actual mortality rate (IFR) is between 0.5-1%. And that's without any useful treatment. > And that's without taking into account the long term consequences of the survivors There is no evidence that these aren't extremely rare. Of course everyone is panicking when they're misinformed like that!