COVID-19 - READ THE RULES BEFORE REPLYING

[StDragon]

What worries me more isn't death by COVID-19 insomuch as an economic death-spiral from the economy collapsing. Nations typically don't recover without some nasty revolution.

 

 https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/america-cant-go-back-to-work-because-the-cares-act-made-it-pay-more-to-stay-home-on-unemployment-benefits

 

If people don't go back to work soon, we're all screwed.

[Commodus]

32 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Just look at the number and don't say I am just going base off my experience. The stats clearly show that the people who are dying are overwhelmingly the people who are part of a vulnerable group. If you aren't apart of one then the likelyhood of you dying is low. I mean it's not like there isn't a country doing just what I am suggesting. Look at Sweden they have been just fine having their country open and functioning. If anything the places that are being heavily effected are nursing homes and someone going to work in a Tesla factory isn't going to suddenly spread it to the nursing home. The vast majority of deaths are people above 80 years old which is higher than the average person lives and the normal flu kills people in this demographic every year so what makes this any different? Should we shutdown the country every flu season just because old people die of the flu? I find it sorta ridiculous that people honestly believe that the death toll is going to be any different if we have it spread over the next 12 months vs having it all in the next three or so months. To make matters worse most predictions show that with the way things are going now with us all being on shutdown it will only make the resurgence in the fall worse. Then what are we going to do? Shutdown everything again? I mean the unemployment rate has reached the great depression level and supply lines are being stressed but I guess that doesn't matter because if you say that we should open things up you are now suddenly killing millions. I'm sorry but I don't buy it. Let the vulnerable stay home and let the people who can work remotely work remotely. Keep doing social distancing and other measures again the spread of the virus but don't shut everything down. Sure if we did nothing then it would spread like wildfire but if you keep measures like wearing face masks and social distancing and self quarantining of you are sick you can stop the spread without shutting everything down. Those numbers that say the death toll would be in the millions in the US are based off of incomplete statistics and also based on the assumption that nothing is done and people don't take precautions like social distancing and the like. 

Case fatality rates are much higher for COVID-19 than for the flu, so it's not just that people might be dying, it's that they're dying in far larger numbers than they would otherwise.  And call me crazy, but maybe society at large should provide some consideration for vulnerable groups instead of simply saying "either shut yourself off from the outside world for the next year or die."  They're not sacrificial pawns, they're people.

 

The jury's still out on Sweden.  It hasn't been calamitous, but the country's total infection and death counts are also far higher than its neighbours, even when considering relative population.

 

Those "people" who believe the overall death tally will be lower due to a spread are... oh, only the broader scientific community.  You do realize that epidemiologists base their careers around studying how viruses spread and calculating how certain measures will limit infection, right?  Why do you think you know more than they do?  I certainly haven't seen any significant talk of lockdowns making a bounce back worse.  Just the opposite, in fact.  Please point me to a credible report claiming that lockdowns will actually worsen a resurgence.

 

Yes, face masks, distancing and self-isolation help, but lockdowns play an important role.  Lockdowns control the overall distribution of the virus and reduce vectors that could still infect you, such as contaminated surfaces.  

 

And on the statistics, let me get this straight: you trust the scientists to refine their models based on precautions, but not recommendations for lockdowns based on those models, even as they adjust their data weeks into those lockdowns?  It sounds more like you only want science to tell you what you're comfortable with.

 

(Also, I will repeat my request that you please learn to use paragraphs, your replies give me headaches)

[NumLock21]

https://theintercept.com/2020/05/09/pence-aides-positive-covid-19-test-exposes-folly-white-house-aversion-masks/

 

 

[Commodus]

12 minutes ago, StDragon said:

What worries me more isn't death by COVID-19 insomuch as an economic death-spiral from the economy collapsing. Nations typically don't recover without some nasty revolution.

 

 https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/america-cant-go-back-to-work-because-the-cares-act-made-it-pay-more-to-stay-home-on-unemployment-benefits

 

If people don't go back to work soon, we're all screwed.

Well, first, that's not really true for many people... unemployment benefits are rarely good enough to make up for a middle-class salary.

 

And second, if unemployment does pay more than going back to work for lower-income people... maybe companies could try something radical and pay their workers a better wage, instead of trying to squeeze more blood from the proverbial stone?

[atxcyclist]

4 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Well, first, that's not really true for many people... unemployment benefits are rarely good enough to make up for a middle-class salary.

 

And second, if unemployment does pay more than going back to work for lower-income people... maybe companies could try something radical and pay their workers a better wage, instead of trying to squeeze more blood from the proverbial stone?

In the US there will always be jobs that don't afford people a comfy life in a big city, yet they are still necessary. Raising the wages for low-skilled jobs will eventually raise everyone's wages (who would work at a skilled job for less an hour than a McDonald's employee gets?), then the value of a dollar goes down and everything 'costs more', until eventually that low-skill worker is back in the same place once prices catch up. It sounds callous, but we cannot base our economy on what 'feels good' to implement. Also, many people earning low wages do get forms of government assistance that cover food, housing, and even some other things through a government debit card.

[StDragon]

3 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

In the US there will always be jobs that don't afford people a comfy life in a big city, yet they are still necessary. Raising the wages for low-skilled jobs will eventually raise everyone's wages (who would work at a skilled job for less an hour than a McDonald's employee gets?), then the value of a dollar goes down and everything 'costs more', until eventually that low-skill worker is back in the same place once prices catch up. It sounds callous, but we cannot base our economy on what 'feels good' to implement. Also, many people earning low wages do get forms of government assistance that cover food, housing, and even some other things through a government debit card.

Exactly. It by nature becomes an inflationary force when you have the government distort the market by injecting a supply of currency.

 

I'm ok with helping my fellow citizens in a time of need such as this. But I'll be damned if this becomes the new normal and they wish to sit on the sidelines while I'm out busting my ass to keep a roof over my head. If you're able bodied, suck it up and work!

 

As for companies that are taking advantage, we know who they are. It's time our elected officials start some trust busting. Competition is great for everyone. Companies can learn to compete for the labor pool as well.

[Deli]

39 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

In the US there will always be jobs that don't afford people a comfy life in a big city, yet they are still necessary. Raising the wages for low-skilled jobs will eventually raise everyone's wages (who would work at a skilled job for less an hour than a McDonald's employee gets?), then the value of a dollar goes down and everything 'costs more', until eventually that low-skill worker is back in the same place once prices catch up. It sounds callous, but we cannot base our economy on what 'feels good' to implement. Also, many people earning low wages do get forms of government assistance that cover food, housing, and even some other things through a government debit card.

They are suggesting a $15 minimum. A skilled job earns less than $15 an hour in the US? What kind of skilled job is that?

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, Deli said:

They are suggesting a $15 minimum. A skilled job earns less than $15 an hour in the US? What kind of skilled job is that?

 

In Australia A casual mcdonald's worker gets A$10-15 an hour.  Which equates to about the same as a full time walmart worker in the US.  

 

You can't have a stable economy in a time of crisis if your poorest full time workers can't afford health insurance when no free alternative exists. 

[atxcyclist]

2 minutes ago, Deli said:

They are suggesting a $15 minimum. A skilled job earns less than $15 an hour in the US? What kind of skilled job is that?

They currently make $8-10, and they want 50-80% more pay per hour to get to $15. Yes, outside of big cities a lot of people with legitimate working experience get $16-20 an hour all said and done, because that provides a comfortable life that the market can support in their community. Do you think they'd accept making $1-5 an hour more than a newly-hired grocery sacker or fast food employee? No. The market would adjust and they'd make 50-80% more an hour than they are now, so it would balance out quickly. Why apply yourself through massive amounts of hard work and learn a real craft/skill, when you can just muddle through your grocery sacking job and make about the same money, but not have to give a shit about your marketability and job security? 

[Deli]

2 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Just look at the number and don't say I am just going base off my experience. The stats clearly show that the people who are dying are overwhelmingly the people who are part of a vulnerable group. If you aren't apart of one then the likelyhood of you dying is low. I mean it's not like there isn't a country doing just what I am suggesting. Look at Sweden they have been just fine having their country open and functioning.

The naysayer loves to use Sweden as an example to open up. Sweden actually is doing much worse than the neighboring countries like Denmark and Finland. Even worse is, many European counties have a very clear downward trend of new cases for a couple of weeks or more. Sweden is staying at the plateau.

[Deli]

2 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

They currently make $8-10, and they want 50-80% more pay per hour to get to $15. Yes, outside of big cities a lot of people with legitimate working experience get $16-20 an hour all said and done, because that provides a comfortable life that the market can support in their community. Do you think they'd accept making $1-5 an hour more than a newly-hired grocery sacker or fast food employee? No. The market would adjust and they'd make 50-80% more an hour than they are now, so it would balance out quickly. Why apply yourself through massive amounts of hard work and learn a real craft/skill, when you can just muddle through your grocery sacking job and make about the same money, but not have to give a shit about your marketability and job security? 

In my country who work low skilled jobs only earn a bit more than who get welfare. I heard the same argument, who is going to do low skilled job when staying at home get almost as much? Those people exist. But the unemployment rate was only about 5% (before the COVID-19 epidemic) speaks a different story.

[atxcyclist]

25 minutes ago, Deli said:

In my country who work low skilled jobs only earn a bit more than who get welfare. I heard the same argument, who is going to do low skilled job when staying at home get almost as much? Those people exist. But the unemployment rate was only about 5% (before the COVID-19 epidemic) speaks a different story.

Welfare does have barriers to entry here, not everyone can get on it and the payout is a sliding scale to some extent. Low wage employment is much easier to accomplish. Even unemployment has a time limit though resetting that timer is not too difficult if someone knows how to play the game. The cost of living varies wildly here in the US, in one area $28k a year might be perfectly livable for a single person in a small house, but in another one $70k might be impossible to even live in a rat-hole apartment. That's a major reason why blanket minimum wage hikes in specific types of businesses are a bad idea; Rural and low-income areas probably cannot support those wage hikes as small businesses wouldn't make profit, but they also do not fix the problem in high income areas with extremely high costs of living.

 

People complain about those workers not making a living wage, but much of that workforce are college or highschool students, and they shouldn't be considered a job to make a livable wage in the first place. If you work in fast food you might have to rent an apartment with a few people, and not have a fancy smartphone, and you might have to drive an old car that you have to work on yourself. Expecting a plush life flipping burgers at a McDonald's or sacking groceries is ridiculous, there will be compromises you'll need to make in your life. I had a friend that in their twenties worked at a high-end clothing store, but rented an actual closet from someone and paid their share of the utility bills, that's just life and they made it work. 

[Rakanoth]

"The Coronavirus Epicenter Is Past Peak; It’s Time To End The Shutdowns":
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2020/05/10/the-coronavirus-epicenter-is-past-peak-its-time-to-end-the-lockdowns/

 

It is satisfying to see reasonable takes on this in major national publications.

 

The cynic in me says: they're right, why did it take this long for someone to share these well established facts in these publications?

 

The hopeful person in me occasionally peaks out and says: It's hard for people to admit they're wrong, but at least this is progress. Even if I would have ended this months ago, we're moving the right direction.

 

And then there's the part of me that just wants to rage mash the keyboard, because I'm human and still struggling because of this.

 

I'm quoting from the article:
 

Quote

At the very least, Manhattan can remain quarantine if need be, but what is the reason for Albany, Buffalo, and the small towns in upstate New York to remain closed?

Probably the same logic that prevents us from asking the vulnerable and elderly to voluntarily self-isolate while the rest of the healthy people (or the ones willing to take the risk) go back to their lives - it's unequal and it's unfair. The just world fallacy is alive and well. It’s also unfair that young and healthy people to have to lockdown and shut down their businesses and isolate themselves from friends and family when they have almost nonexistent risk of a serious sickness.

 

Haven't you heard? We're all in this together. Like a sinking ship! Crabs in a bucket, my friend.

 

sTaY hOmE sAVe LiVeS

 

So, want to know a more depressing fact?

 

I keep track of the UK data. They are on track for a 0.42% fatality. Had to assume that their number of tests/those that test positive is indicative of the general population.

 

I got bored and checked the US data. Using the same method, the US is on track for a 0.14% fatality. Or, some 567,282 deaths.

 

Now, please remember this number is calculated assuming no herd immunity, no treatment, no protection at all. This number assumes everyone in the US will get covid.

 

That seems like a lot, but, if you break down the data from the CDC website (lists deaths by age) and using statistica to work out the age distribution of the US population, you get these results:

 

• 0-14 years old: 128.88 fatalities. Percentage of population in that age bracket: 0.00021%. Percentage as total population: 0.0000394%. (Please follow the above pattern for all following age groups). 0.023% of all deaths.
• 15-24: 618.62 fatalities. 0.0014%. 0.00018%. 0.109%
• 25-34: 4085 fatalities. 0.0089%. 0.0012%. 0.720%
• 35-44: 10258 fatalities. 0.024%. 0.003%. 1.809%
• 45-54: 29,152 fatalities. 0.07%. 0.008%. 5.139%
• 55-64: 69,879 fatalities. 0.16%. 0.021%. 12.318%
• 65-74: 120,619 fatalities. 0.39%. 0.036% 21.263%
• 75-84: 154,992 fatalities. 1.007%. 0.047%. 27.322%
• 85+: 177,546 fatalities. 2.71%. 0.054%. 31.298%.

 

Also, so far, 5.7% of all deaths that have happened in the US have been a result of covid. Of worrying note is the 0-24 year death range. Nearly 12,720 people have died so far this year in this age range and yet 0.46% of them, or 58, have been from covid.

 

It's not just the healthy and young we are punishing - even the vast majority of elderly are being asked to undergo isolation for a comparatively small number of lives.

[Brooksie359]

2 hours ago, Commodus said:

Case fatality rates are much higher for COVID-19 than for the flu, so it's not just that people might be dying, it's that they're dying in far larger numbers than they would otherwise.  And call me crazy, but maybe society at large should provide some consideration for vulnerable groups instead of simply saying "either shut yourself off from the outside world for the next year or die."  They're not sacrificial pawns, they're people.

 

The jury's still out on Sweden.  It hasn't been calamitous, but the country's total infection and death counts are also far higher than its neighbours, even when considering relative population.

 

Those "people" who believe the overall death tally will be lower due to a spread are... oh, only the broader scientific community.  You do realize that epidemiologists base their careers around studying how viruses spread and calculating how certain measures will limit infection, right?  Why do you think you know more than they do?  I certainly haven't seen any significant talk of lockdowns making a bounce back worse.  Just the opposite, in fact.  Please point me to a credible report claiming that lockdowns will actually worsen a resurgence.

 

Yes, face masks, distancing and self-isolation help, but lockdowns play an important role.  Lockdowns control the overall distribution of the virus and reduce vectors that could still infect you, such as contaminated surfaces.  

 

And on the statistics, let me get this straight: you trust the scientists to refine their models based on precautions, but not recommendations for lockdowns based on those models, even as they adjust their data weeks into those lockdowns?  It sounds more like you only want science to tell you what you're comfortable with.

 

(Also, I will repeat my request that you please learn to use paragraphs, your replies give me headaches)

What are you even talking about? The reason why it would have a bigger resurgence in the fall if we continued to do shutdowns like this is because the population that is immune would be smaller. That is basic common sense and even has been talked about by health officials. It's why Sweden likely won't see as big of a resurgence in the fall. Also I am unsure what you even mean by stating that i said that vulnerable people should stay inside or die like this has anything to do with there being a shutdown or not. Let's face it if you are vulnerable and you choose to not stay sheltered then yeah your chances of death are going to go up but that is the case regardless if there is a mandatory shelter in place order or not. Also I do not think that the death tally will be less if we open everything up and keep the proper counter measures I just think it will roughly be the same because most of these epidemiologists you speak of have said that shutdowns likely won't stop the virus from reaching a large amount of people but rather the pace. I mean if they think 80% of the population are going to get it regardless of shutdowns but rather it would only change the time frame then what is the point unless we don't have the proper hospital capacity which we do in many places. Obviously if there are places that are hit hard then maybe it would be a good idea but just shutting everything down regardless of how big the problem is makes no sense. Let me make it fairly simple. You can shut everything down at the expense of peoples livelihoods to maybe save some lives but more than likely not do much at all or you can keep the economy going and try to minimize the spread in other means not destroying everyone's livelihoods. I mean at what point do you draw the line where the risk isn't big enough to warrant putting us into the next great depression? 

[WkdPaul]

17 hours ago, StDragon said:

*snip*

The second link (EU isn allowing itself to be censored) is quite misleading. The EU isn't censored. Any piece of media published INSIDE China is de-facto censored, there's nothing we can do about that really.

 

If it was an article published in the EU, then yeah, I would agree. But that's not the case. I mean, I'm not seeing people complain when the Chinese version of a US TV show or movie is edited (read censored), that's something for the Chinese market, so who cares really?

 

BUT, with that said, I totally agree with the rest, the influence China has gotten over the last 20 years is starting to get scary. Mainly because of their human rights track records and their heavy-handed censorship on ANY type of criticism. Funny though how it only works one way (they happily criticize other governments and will flex their "economical muscles" if there's any push back). It's both frustrating and sad to see really!

[StDragon]

21 minutes ago, wkdpaul said:

The second link (EU isn allowing itself to be censored) is quite misleading. The EU isn't censored. Any piece of media published INSIDE China is de-facto censored, there's nothing we can do about that really.

 

If it was an article published in the EU, then yeah, I would agree. But that's not the case. I mean, I'm not seeing people complain when the Chinese version of a US TV show or movie is edited (read censored), that's something for the Chinese market, so who cares really?

 

So the news about this sounds click-baity. But diplomatically I'd imagine to be a "big deal" because the original article was posted on the EU's embassy's website.

 

Now, the devil is in the details as to where that web server was physically hosted. But, technically an embassy is sovereign with extraterritorial jurisdiction. Meaning, that's a little tiny piece of EU land on China. Same holds true elsewhere. A Chinese embassy in the US is effectively Chinese soil in the US. When someone runs into an embassy, they can (more often than not) escape persecution to achieve refugee status.

[WkdPaul]

9 minutes ago, StDragon said:

 

So the news about this sounds click-baity. But diplomatically I'd imagine to be a "big deal" because the original article was posted on the EU's embassy's website.

 

Now, the devil is in the details as to where that web server was physically hosted. But, technically an embassy is sovereign with extraterritorial jurisdiction. Meaning, that's a little tiny piece of EU land on China. Same holds true elsewhere. A Chinese embassy in the US is effectively Chinese soil in the US. When someone runs into an embassy, they can (more often than not) escape persecution to achieve refugee status.

I think you missed part of the article ;

 

Quote

In the original piece published on the EU delegation's website, the ambassadors wrote that "the outbreak of the coronavirus in China, and its subsequent spread to the rest of the world over the past three months" had side-tracked pre-existing diplomatic plans.
But in the version that appears on the website of China Daily, a state-owned newspaper, the reference to the origin of coronavirus in China and its spread is removed.

So, the version on the EU's website was the full, complete, and uncensored version, the one published by the Chinese was the one that was edited and censored. I personally don't see anything wrong here in regards to how the EU behaved, blaming the EU and it's ambassador is completely misleading. The EU didn't allowed themselves to be censored, the Chinese government did the censoring when they published it on their website, not sure how the EU has any control over this?

[mr moose]

18 hours ago, Rakanoth said:

"The Coronavirus Epicenter Is Past Peak; It’s Time To End The Shutdowns":
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2020/05/10/the-coronavirus-epicenter-is-past-peak-its-time-to-end-the-lockdowns/

 

It is satisfying to see reasonable takes on this in major national publications.

 

The cynic in me says: they're right, why did it take this long for someone to share these well established facts in these publications?

 

The hopeful person in me occasionally peaks out and says: It's hard for people to admit they're wrong, but at least this is progress. Even if I would have ended this months ago, we're moving the right direction.

 

And then there's the part of me that just wants to rage mash the keyboard, because I'm human and still struggling because of this.

 

I'm quoting from the article:
 

Probably the same logic that prevents us from asking the vulnerable and elderly to voluntarily self-isolate while the rest of the healthy people (or the ones willing to take the risk) go back to their lives - it's unequal and it's unfair. The just world fallacy is alive and well. It’s also unfair that young and healthy people to have to lockdown and shut down their businesses and isolate themselves from friends and family when they have almost nonexistent risk of a serious sickness.

 

Haven't you heard? We're all in this together. Like a sinking ship! Crabs in a bucket, my friend.

 

sTaY hOmE sAVe LiVeS

 

So, want to know a more depressing fact?

 

I keep track of the UK data. They are on track for a 0.42% fatality. Had to assume that their number of tests/those that test positive is indicative of the general population.

 

I got bored and checked the US data. Using the same method, the US is on track for a 0.14% fatality. Or, some 567,282 deaths.

 

Now, please remember this number is calculated assuming no herd immunity, no treatment, no protection at all. This number assumes everyone in the US will get covid.

 

That seems like a lot, but, if you break down the data from the CDC website (lists deaths by age) and using statistica to work out the age distribution of the US population, you get these results:

 

• 0-14 years old: 128.88 fatalities. Percentage of population in that age bracket: 0.00021%. Percentage as total population: 0.0000394%. (Please follow the above pattern for all following age groups). 0.023% of all deaths.
• 15-24: 618.62 fatalities. 0.0014%. 0.00018%. 0.109%
• 25-34: 4085 fatalities. 0.0089%. 0.0012%. 0.720%
• 35-44: 10258 fatalities. 0.024%. 0.003%. 1.809%
• 45-54: 29,152 fatalities. 0.07%. 0.008%. 5.139%
• 55-64: 69,879 fatalities. 0.16%. 0.021%. 12.318%
• 65-74: 120,619 fatalities. 0.39%. 0.036% 21.263%
• 75-84: 154,992 fatalities. 1.007%. 0.047%. 27.322%
• 85+: 177,546 fatalities. 2.71%. 0.054%. 31.298%.

 

Also, so far, 5.7% of all deaths that have happened in the US have been a result of covid. Of worrying note is the 0-24 year death range. Nearly 12,720 people have died so far this year in this age range and yet 0.46% of them, or 58, have been from covid.

 

It's not just the healthy and young we are punishing - even the vast majority of elderly are being asked to undergo isolation for a comparatively small number of lives.

You need to leave epidemiology to the epidemiologists.   News articles are no substitute for real science and making assumptions about what is best for other people is down right immoral. 

 

Not sure if you are aware of this, but when you live in a country you are part of the community of that country, if you want the benefits of living in a community then you need to make the sacrifices that community needs to survive.  You can't sit back and demand all the benefits of communal living (supermarkets, manufacturing, basically anything that another human being provides), and then demand you be excluded from doing the hard stuff in a time of crises and expect others to do more of that so you don't have to.

 

Basically anyone who demands that only the at risk need to suffer isolation (which doesn't work when only part of the community does it any way) so that they can get on with life is immoral, selfish and not pulling their damned weight in society. 

[Deli]

19 hours ago, Rakanoth said:

 

It's not just the healthy and young we are punishing - even the vast majority of elderly are being asked to undergo isolation for a comparatively small number of lives.

Say this again when the US death hits 200,000.

[WkdPaul]

19 hours ago, Rakanoth said:

The hopeful person in me occasionally peaks out and says: It's hard for people to admit they're wrong,

I'm guessing this only works for others, not for you?

 

Case and point ;

Quote

but at least this is progress. Even if I would have ended this months ago, we're moving the right direction.

??? What do you mean "months ago", this all started in the end of January in the US, and as you said, the peak wasn't long ago ... So you would've stopped the quarantine just when the rate of infections were going up?

 

That's logical how exactly?

 

BTW, I'm not saying we should be in quarantine forever or even for another few weeks/months, your argument that's what people want when they say not to reopen NOW is rather disingenuous. Nobody wants this to continue, if you think it's the case, I suggest that you stop repeating what you've been parroting for the last 10 pages and start listening to what others are saying, because you're obviously not doing that.

 

 

We're still in the middle of it, we still don't know a LOT of things.

 

Being prudent is normal. As @mr moose said, being inside a community means you profit from all the advantages, but you're also at the mercy of the issues that arise. "You can't have your cake and eat it too".

 

Do not think for a second that I'm happy about the current situation, but I'm trying to hope for the best and will follow what the government asks of us to make sure it goes as smoothly as possible.

Edited May 12, 2020 by wkdpaul

[js23]

 

20 hours ago, Rakanoth said:

"The Coronavirus Epicenter Is Past Peak; It’s Time To End The Shutdowns":
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2020/05/10/the-coronavirus-epicenter-is-past-peak-its-time-to-end-the-lockdowns/

 

It is satisfying to see reasonable takes on this in major national publications.

 

The cynic in me says: they're right, why did it take this long for someone to share these well established facts in these publications?

 

The hopeful person in me occasionally peaks out and says: It's hard for people to admit they're wrong, but at least this is progress. Even if I would have ended this months ago, we're moving the right direction.

 

And then there's the part of me that just wants to rage mash the keyboard, because I'm human and still struggling because of this.

 

I'm quoting from the article:
 

Probably the same logic that prevents us from asking the vulnerable and elderly to voluntarily self-isolate while the rest of the healthy people (or the ones willing to take the risk) go back to their lives - it's unequal and it's unfair. The just world fallacy is alive and well. It’s also unfair that young and healthy people to have to lockdown and shut down their businesses and isolate themselves from friends and family when they have almost nonexistent risk of a serious sickness.

 

Haven't you heard? We're all in this together. Like a sinking ship! Crabs in a bucket, my friend.

 

sTaY hOmE sAVe LiVeS

 

So, want to know a more depressing fact?

 

I keep track of the UK data. They are on track for a 0.42% fatality. Had to assume that their number of tests/those that test positive is indicative of the general population.

 

I got bored and checked the US data. Using the same method, the US is on track for a 0.14% fatality. Or, some 567,282 deaths.

 

Now, please remember this number is calculated assuming no herd immunity, no treatment, no protection at all. This number assumes everyone in the US will get covid.

 

That seems like a lot, but, if you break down the data from the CDC website (lists deaths by age) and using statistica to work out the age distribution of the US population, you get these results:

 

• 0-14 years old: 128.88 fatalities. Percentage of population in that age bracket: 0.00021%. Percentage as total population: 0.0000394%. (Please follow the above pattern for all following age groups). 0.023% of all deaths.
• 15-24: 618.62 fatalities. 0.0014%. 0.00018%. 0.109%
• 25-34: 4085 fatalities. 0.0089%. 0.0012%. 0.720%
• 35-44: 10258 fatalities. 0.024%. 0.003%. 1.809%
• 45-54: 29,152 fatalities. 0.07%. 0.008%. 5.139%
• 55-64: 69,879 fatalities. 0.16%. 0.021%. 12.318%
• 65-74: 120,619 fatalities. 0.39%. 0.036% 21.263%
• 75-84: 154,992 fatalities. 1.007%. 0.047%. 27.322%
• 85+: 177,546 fatalities. 2.71%. 0.054%. 31.298%.

 

Also, so far, 5.7% of all deaths that have happened in the US have been a result of covid. Of worrying note is the 0-24 year death range. Nearly 12,720 people have died so far this year in this age range and yet 0.46% of them, or 58, have been from covid.

 

It's not just the healthy and young we are punishing - even the vast majority of elderly are being asked to undergo isolation for a comparatively small number of lives.

You also need to remember that just because someone did not die does not mean that "iT's jUsT a cOlD", there are people with lung and organ damage, damage that will last a life time, and that is the damage that we know of. For all we know it could lie dormant like the virus that causes chickenpox waiting to come back later in life.

 

It's easy to look at numbers and form an opinion, but you need to remember that each number is a person, and if it takes lockdowns to shave a couple thousand off of the total deaths, then I'd call that a bargain.

[Commodus]

14 hours ago, js23 said:

 

You also need to remember that just because someone did not die does not mean that "iT's jUsT a cOlD", there are people with lung and organ damage, damage that will last a life time, and that is the damage that we know of. For all we know it could lie dormant like the virus that causes chickenpox waiting to come back later in life.

 

It's easy to look at numbers and form an opinion, but you need to remember that each number is a person, and if it takes lockdowns to shave a couple thousand off of the total deaths, then I'd call that a bargain.

Echoing this sentiment.  It's weird that Rakanoth jerks off to the thought of "only" 567,282 people dying from the virus in the US, or nearly ten times the maximum estimated flu deaths for the 2019-2020 season.  We're not so naive as to think there won't be significantly more casualties if lockdowns ease in a responsible manner, but try telling hundreds of thousands of people that their lives must be sacrificed so Raka can go to the store sooner.

 

And as you hinted at, if there are over half a million people who could die from the virus if it reaches everyone in the US, there would be millions hospitalized in that country alone... and some of those would either suffer irreparable damage or spend years recovering.  I don't know about you, but I don't want to risk having crippled lungs, a stroke or even an amputation just so that we can pretend everything's back to normal.

[lewdicrous]

21 minutes ago, Commodus said:

"only" 567,282 people dying from the virus in the US

Imagine telling potentially over 560,000 families that their loved ones are expendable..

[Big Nav]

9 minutes ago, lewdicrous said:

Imagine telling potentially over 560,000 families that their loved ones are expendable..

imagine telling  millions people were going to forcefully shut down your ability to provide for yourself and your family because life has risks

[WkdPaul]

3 minutes ago, Big Nav said:

imagine telling  millions people were going to forcefully shut down your ability to provide for yourself and your family because life has risks

That's not what people are saying, at all. Again with the disingenuous comments.

 

Life has risks, but it's about mitigating them. The government has ways to provide for a few weeks, it did so for a handful of billionaires a decade ago, why can't it do it again for the general population now? That's what I don't get here.