4 ms·

So what's the line?? Is it 10 million? 1% of the human population? If so, why should it be 1% and not 0.1%? Because it seems more significant?

throwaway22032 5y ago
Depends on the situation. If we're faced with a situation in which we can collectively give up 1% of our lives to save 5%, I'd say that's worth mandating. 1% for 2%, I'd grit my teeth and say we need pretty solid data on that 2%. 1% for 1%, nah. I don't think coronavirus was even close to that, if you just look at the full lockdown and the reduced ones (e.in the UK and ignore all of the associated mitigations, that was ~1% of our collective lifespan given up. Did it save 1% of people? I don't think it was even close. And that's not even taking into account opportunity cost. Most of the 'savings' here comes from the fact that by locking down you're also barricading the vulnerable away.
- TheGRS 5y ago
  On the outset I think the ability for it to spread and cause general mayhem in the population was good enough reason to shut things down. The main cause for concern was overwhelming emergency systems. We need to remember that death is only one statistic. You would still visit the hospital as an alive, infected individual and put a strain on that system even when you fully recover and go home. Or to put it another way, even if the virus was not deadly at all, but it could take people out for a few weeks at a time, that would be reason enough to impose mask mandates, get a vaccine rolled out, tell people to work from home for awhile. Especially if people needed hospital services.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwaway22032 5y ago
    One of those things is not like the others. Offering people a vaccine is an obvious win. The only way in which it could not be is if the virus were so mild that the R&D and distribution cost weren't worth it. That's obviously not the case for coronavirus. The other things are just authoritarian desires that you're not able to even quantify. The fact that you'd delete my career and social bonds for the sake of a theoretical virus that might just put people in bed for a while means this discussion is over, I don't engage with terrorists, good luck.
    - TheGRS 5y ago
      Overreaction there for sure

throwaway22032 5y ago

Depends on the situation. If we're faced with a situation in which we can collectively give up 1% of our lives to save 5%, I'd say that's worth mandating. 1% for 2%, I'd grit my teeth and say we need pretty solid data on that 2%. 1% for 1%, nah. I don't think coronavirus was even close to that, if you just look at the full lockdown and the reduced ones (e.in the UK and ignore all of the associated mitigations, that was ~1% of our collective lifespan given up. Did it save 1% of people? I don't think it was even close. And that's not even taking into account opportunity cost. Most of the 'savings' here comes from the fact that by locking down you're also barricading the vulnerable away.

TheGRS 5y ago
On the outset I think the ability for it to spread and cause general mayhem in the population was good enough reason to shut things down. The main cause for concern was overwhelming emergency systems. We need to remember that death is only one statistic. You would still visit the hospital as an alive, infected individual and put a strain on that system even when you fully recover and go home. Or to put it another way, even if the virus was not deadly at all, but it could take people out for a few weeks at a time, that would be reason enough to impose mask mandates, get a vaccine rolled out, tell people to work from home for awhile. Especially if people needed hospital services.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway22032 5y ago
  One of those things is not like the others. Offering people a vaccine is an obvious win. The only way in which it could not be is if the virus were so mild that the R&D and distribution cost weren't worth it. That's obviously not the case for coronavirus. The other things are just authoritarian desires that you're not able to even quantify. The fact that you'd delete my career and social bonds for the sake of a theoretical virus that might just put people in bed for a while means this discussion is over, I don't engage with terrorists, good luck.
  - TheGRS 5y ago
    Overreaction there for sure