3 ms·

You are comparing the dirty real world with an idealized “only pay those at risk” scenario. Anyone over 35 had a pretty high death rate - as you said due to com

You are comparing the dirty real world with an idealized “only pay those at risk” scenario. Anyone over 35 had a pretty high death rate - as you said due to comorbities but how many of those were clearly identifiable? Additionally, imagine the optics of “anyone fat can stay home while the rest of you have to go in to work.” How would that work in practice? And finally, populations did not fully isolate. How much more quickly would things have soread (and overwhelmed the healthcare system) if folks just went about their business? How likely is it that the “not at risk” population (now with higher likelihood of having covid do to freer movement) would stay away from those at risk? I’m not disagreeing with some of the ideas you put forth, but your comment comes across as absolutely certain. The world doesn’t work with that kind of certainty - we can’t all even agree on what did happen/work. Heck - lots of people don’t think the vaccine itself is necessary! I can tell this subject frustrates you. One way to help yourself be less frustrated (and more correct!) would be to think more probabilistically and accept that all of the options are bad ones, and your preferred intervention might have been better but it also might have been worse. The world is dynamic and we don’t have any counterfactuals that we can use as comps.

dgfitz 3y ago
I agree. I do feel strongly about this, and my stance is absolutely not completely thought out. I appreciate your comment and I agree with the thrust of it. I shouldn’t make comments when I’m anxious or irritated. Thank you for your rational response to my not-so-rational post.
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  Since it was my comment you originally took great umbrage at, I would also like to point out that the order of magnitude difference between COVID deaths for over and under 65 looks to be about 1.3 (log(over 65 deaths)-log(under 65 deaths)): https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#SexAndAge https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#Se... https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=log%28868831%29+-+log%28236303%29 https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=log%28868831%29+-+log%2... The risk obviously trends upward as you get closer to 65, but quite a lot of people under that aged died with what you might think of as people having taken excess precaution. This also excludes other forms of harm short of death, such as the increased risk of heart attack, stroke, and developing of diabetes that have been shown to occur post COVID. As the parent pointed out, we have no idea how this would’ve have played out with even less caution, but I think it’s difficult to argue that things would’ve necessarily been better given these statistics.
  - dgfitz 3y ago
    I do not agree with your last sentence, at all. I also don’t think it is worth my time or yours to debate it. I’ve stated that I need to and am willing to keep an open mind about all of this. You doubled down. Take care.
    - bugglebeetle 3y ago
      Insisting that words like “orders of magnitude” have meaning that aren’t consistent with what you stated is not “doubling down.” But I agree that someone incapable of acknowledging this is not worth engaging with.

dgfitz 3y ago

I agree. I do feel strongly about this, and my stance is absolutely not completely thought out. I appreciate your comment and I agree with the thrust of it. I shouldn’t make comments when I’m anxious or irritated. Thank you for your rational response to my not-so-rational post.

bugglebeetle 3y ago
Since it was my comment you originally took great umbrage at, I would also like to point out that the order of magnitude difference between COVID deaths for over and under 65 looks to be about 1.3 (log(over 65 deaths)-log(under 65 deaths)): https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#SexAndAge https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#Se... https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=log%28868831%29+-+log%28236303%29 https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=log%28868831%29+-+log%2... The risk obviously trends upward as you get closer to 65, but quite a lot of people under that aged died with what you might think of as people having taken excess precaution. This also excludes other forms of harm short of death, such as the increased risk of heart attack, stroke, and developing of diabetes that have been shown to occur post COVID. As the parent pointed out, we have no idea how this would’ve have played out with even less caution, but I think it’s difficult to argue that things would’ve necessarily been better given these statistics.
- dgfitz 3y ago
  I do not agree with your last sentence, at all. I also don’t think it is worth my time or yours to debate it. I’ve stated that I need to and am willing to keep an open mind about all of this. You doubled down. Take care.
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    Insisting that words like “orders of magnitude” have meaning that aren’t consistent with what you stated is not “doubling down.” But I agree that someone incapable of acknowledging this is not worth engaging with.