4 ms·
> Are there things we need to look at? Yes. But if someone doesn’t save your life then you won’t be around to argue about how they could have done it better. It
by slibhb 5y ago
> Are there things we need to look at? Yes. But if someone doesn’t save your life then you won’t be around to argue about how they could have done it better. It’s also pretty rich to claim the numbers don’t add up and substitute numbers that don’t add up either.
Using this argument, we can justify anything that was done in the past on the basis of "well, we're here to argue it over now, so it must have been the right thing".
> Currently we list 604 thousand Americans dead from COVID, that’s 0.18% of the entire population - not the infected population. Brazil is at 0.23%, and rising fast. Worldwide it’s almost 4 million out of 181M reported cases. That’s over 2% IFR.
Regardless of the exact number, isn't it a bit disturbing to you that, per the article, "Americans also estimated that the share of COVID-19 deaths for people between 18 and 24 was 8%"? The fact that we're so misinformed can't be a good thing, can it?
For my money, it's plausible that we massively overreacted (or misreacted) to covid. The opposite is also plausible though. It's a good thing that we're having this conversation and it's mildy creepy that we haven't been able to have it until now.
Finally, there's a question that always comes up with this topic: is it permissible for public employees to lie to the public in order to get them to do the right thing (or whatever they think the right thing is)? A lot of the anger over the government's handling of covid has to do with that. It isn't unreasonable to believe (as I do) that, consequences be damned, the government is obligated to tell the truth and should not lie to get people to act a certain way.
- prox 5y agoI don’t think it is weird we are talking about it now. The last year was mostly about getting through it, and only now can we start putting data in context. I can only say what is needed : a medicine is number one. Making society resilient against airborne viruses and we need absolute data on what tools we have to stop a virus in a room with people. But last but not least it’s also a behavioral problem (which you allude to from a different angle) where people are making decisions that allow the virus to spread. I talked to a red cross doctor and he said that distancing and masks in a hospital setting is pretty much enough to kill transmission. It was his opinion that truly honoring the guidelines would have stopped it.
- javagram 5y ago> Americans also estimated that the share of COVID-19 deaths for people between 18 and 24 was 8%"? The fact that we're so misinformed can't be a good thing, can it? The correct numbers have been available on the CDC website the entire time, unfortunately a lot of people either don’t care or don’t find it useful to memorize those statistics. Not great to see but I think it track’s with the public usually mangling other statistical numbers as well when surveyed. > A lot of the anger over the government's handling of covid has to do with that. It isn't unreasonable to believe (as I do) that, consequences be damned, the government is obligated to tell the truth and should not lie to get people to act a certain way. Agree, the fact that so many government leaders spent a year downplaying the danger of the virus and lying to their followers to try to win an election or for other political reasons should make people angry and upset. It’s always sad seeing the stories of someone who was led astray by those leaders and subsequently even refused the vaccine and died of Covid-19 because they had been convinced it was just a common cold that only killed nursing home patients.