5 ms·

The implication of the OP is that 1% is nothing to worry about. I’m putting it in terms that may illustrate just how big that risk is compared to other areas wh

by dools 5y ago

The implication of the OP is that 1% is nothing to worry about. I’m putting it in terms that may illustrate just how big that risk is compared to other areas where we wouldn’t accept those risks. The implication of your post is that 1% of people dying isn’t an issue so long as they are old or fat. But anyway let’s take your statistic of 10 people per 100,000. Now imagine a sports venue where every 5 games 10 people died of food poisoning but far more got really sick and some even required hospitalisation. Would you choose to eat the food at that venue when you went there?

ekianjo 5y ago
> Now imagine a sports venue where every 5 games 10 people died of food poisoning but far more got really sick and some even required hospitalisation. Would you choose to eat the food at that venue when you went there? Now imagine driving. You see where your line of reasoning does not make sense anymore? Everything we do in life carries risks.
- victorhooi 5y ago
  Right, and imagine if somebody invented a simple injection that reduced road deaths...how many people do you think would be interested in this? Do you have any idea how many millions of dollars car companies invest every year into making cars marginally safer? Even if you somehow assume everybody working at a car company is somehow immoral - imagine the profit motive if they invented a car that reduced your risk of dying by 75%? People would be clamouring to license the technology. Yes, we all want to drive, but if you could let us still drive, and be safer... The amount of crazy conspiracy theories around COVID, and how it's about government control, or big pharma is mind-boggling. It's a pandemic - we've had them before, except this time, we have science, and invested billions of dollars into research to get a vaccine. Sure, it's not 100% effective, but by this point in time, we have a fairly good idea that it's benefits heavily outweigh the risks across the population. And the vaccine is free...
  - exodust 5y ago
    > imagine if somebody invented a simple injection that reduced road deaths...how many people do you think would be interested in this? Good to see a road safety analogy that doesn't replace injections with seat belts or speeding signs. But the injection would not be popular if it were mandated for all drivers. Even for those not at high risk at becoming drowsy, or whatever the injection addresses to reduce deaths. Particularly if more than one injection was required, and further boosters after that, with imperfect protection, and special certificates needed. People would resist. > The amount of crazy conspiracy theories around COVID, and how it's about government control... Yes there's some over-cooked conspiracies. But in Australia, our state government has mandated the vaccine for more than a million workers. Office workers, all workers not working from home. Plus no entry to cafes, haircuts etc. Everyone must carry proof of vaccination, preferably via the government's app. There is no option to get a negative test and visit your work or other places. There is no option for proof of natural immunity. It's vaccination or nothing. "Government control" is not easy to brush aside after 250 days in lockdown. Even though we are 70% double-vaxxed, we must wear masks outside, and could lose jobs if not vaccinated. If not "government control" would you be willing to accept "over-zealous" at least? Or do you stick with "greater good" and "necessary public health measures"?
- justin66 5y ago
  > Now imagine driving. You see where your line of reasoning does not make sense anymore? Everything we do in life carries risks. According to that analogy antivaxers and antimaskers are drunk drivers, making things more dangerous for other people through their own stupid decisions. (Except drunk drivers are considerably lower in number, and not contagious... you can take an analogy too far.)
- dools 5y ago
  Have you looked at how few people die from road deaths, and then compared that with the extent to which we go to prevent road deaths?
LurkingPenguin 5y ago
> The implication of your post is that 1% of people dying isn’t an issue so long as they are old or fat. Nowhere did I state or suggest that it's not a big deal if old and "fat" (your words, not mine, interestingly) people die. The fact that the death rate is magnitudes of order higher in countries where over 40% of the population is overweight is not a tidbit of no importance. It's hugely important because it reflects the disparity of risk that exists in groups with certain comorbidities. Other figures are just as stark. For instance, according to the CDC, 513 children 0-17 have died from COVID during the entire pandemic. Obviously, all of those 513 lost lives had value but if you ignore the fact that 745 times more people 75 and over have died from COVID than those aged 0-17, you will miss the forest for the trees. In short, how can we have an honest discussion about COVID risk without acknowledging that the risk is very clearly not equal in all individuals? > Now imagine a sports venue where every 5 games 10 people died of food poisoning but far more got really sick and some even required hospitalisation. Would you choose to eat the food at that venue when you went there? How are these figures at all comparable to COVID? If we're going to have an intelligent conversation about COVID risk, pulling numbers out of thin air and using irrelevant comparisons isn't constructive.
- dools 5y ago
  I was using your numbers!
  - LurkingPenguin 5y ago
    Food poisoning is a horrible comparison because anyone can be done in by food poisoning. If I'm not in a high-risk COVID group, my odds of becoming seriously ill when I eat contaminated food is much higher than my risk of being hospitalized or dying from COVID.
    - dools 5y ago
      But I used your reduced risk numbers based on reduced risk factors of 10 in 100,000! I’m saying you wouldn’t accept the same level of risk if it were food poisoning

by dools 5y ago

ekianjo 5y ago

> Now imagine a sports venue where every 5 games 10 people died of food poisoning but far more got really sick and some even required hospitalisation. Would you choose to eat the food at that venue when you went there? Now imagine driving. You see where your line of reasoning does not make sense anymore? Everything we do in life carries risks.

victorhooi 5y ago
Right, and imagine if somebody invented a simple injection that reduced road deaths...how many people do you think would be interested in this? Do you have any idea how many millions of dollars car companies invest every year into making cars marginally safer? Even if you somehow assume everybody working at a car company is somehow immoral - imagine the profit motive if they invented a car that reduced your risk of dying by 75%? People would be clamouring to license the technology. Yes, we all want to drive, but if you could let us still drive, and be safer... The amount of crazy conspiracy theories around COVID, and how it's about government control, or big pharma is mind-boggling. It's a pandemic - we've had them before, except this time, we have science, and invested billions of dollars into research to get a vaccine. Sure, it's not 100% effective, but by this point in time, we have a fairly good idea that it's benefits heavily outweigh the risks across the population. And the vaccine is free...
- exodust 5y ago
  > imagine if somebody invented a simple injection that reduced road deaths...how many people do you think would be interested in this? Good to see a road safety analogy that doesn't replace injections with seat belts or speeding signs. But the injection would not be popular if it were mandated for all drivers. Even for those not at high risk at becoming drowsy, or whatever the injection addresses to reduce deaths. Particularly if more than one injection was required, and further boosters after that, with imperfect protection, and special certificates needed. People would resist. > The amount of crazy conspiracy theories around COVID, and how it's about government control... Yes there's some over-cooked conspiracies. But in Australia, our state government has mandated the vaccine for more than a million workers. Office workers, all workers not working from home. Plus no entry to cafes, haircuts etc. Everyone must carry proof of vaccination, preferably via the government's app. There is no option to get a negative test and visit your work or other places. There is no option for proof of natural immunity. It's vaccination or nothing. "Government control" is not easy to brush aside after 250 days in lockdown. Even though we are 70% double-vaxxed, we must wear masks outside, and could lose jobs if not vaccinated. If not "government control" would you be willing to accept "over-zealous" at least? Or do you stick with "greater good" and "necessary public health measures"?
justin66 5y ago
> Now imagine driving. You see where your line of reasoning does not make sense anymore? Everything we do in life carries risks. According to that analogy antivaxers and antimaskers are drunk drivers, making things more dangerous for other people through their own stupid decisions. (Except drunk drivers are considerably lower in number, and not contagious... you can take an analogy too far.)
dools 5y ago
Have you looked at how few people die from road deaths, and then compared that with the extent to which we go to prevent road deaths?

LurkingPenguin 5y ago

> The implication of your post is that 1% of people dying isn’t an issue so long as they are old or fat. Nowhere did I state or suggest that it's not a big deal if old and "fat" (your words, not mine, interestingly) people die. The fact that the death rate is magnitudes of order higher in countries where over 40% of the population is overweight is not a tidbit of no importance. It's hugely important because it reflects the disparity of risk that exists in groups with certain comorbidities. Other figures are just as stark. For instance, according to the CDC, 513 children 0-17 have died from COVID during the entire pandemic. Obviously, all of those 513 lost lives had value but if you ignore the fact that 745 times more people 75 and over have died from COVID than those aged 0-17, you will miss the forest for the trees. In short, how can we have an honest discussion about COVID risk without acknowledging that the risk is very clearly not equal in all individuals? > Now imagine a sports venue where every 5 games 10 people died of food poisoning but far more got really sick and some even required hospitalisation. Would you choose to eat the food at that venue when you went there? How are these figures at all comparable to COVID? If we're going to have an intelligent conversation about COVID risk, pulling numbers out of thin air and using irrelevant comparisons isn't constructive.

dools 5y ago
I was using your numbers!
- LurkingPenguin 5y ago
  Food poisoning is a horrible comparison because anyone can be done in by food poisoning. If I'm not in a high-risk COVID group, my odds of becoming seriously ill when I eat contaminated food is much higher than my risk of being hospitalized or dying from COVID.
  - dools 5y ago
    But I used your reduced risk numbers based on reduced risk factors of 10 in 100,000! I’m saying you wouldn’t accept the same level of risk if it were food poisoning