Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's very simple. More than .14% of the population of NYC is already dead. If you want to figure out the lower bound of the mortality rate there, and if you accept the sample that says that 21% of the population has been exposed, the mortality rate is at least .7. We know it's higher, but that's not the point. The guy who wrote that article has impressive credentials, but he is not thinking very hard about his numbers. The math is not hard.
So we're doing that thing again where you explain that you're reacting to something stupid someone said somewhere else? You posted an article from the Hill, IIRC, and I responded to it. Yes, the risk will be lower than some unspecified hyperbolic prediction that someone else said somewhere else. So what?
Obviously, we don't have enough testing to really know basic facts about the disease's spread, which ought to be cause for concern, not a lacuna to fill with reassuring speculation.
Dude, think about what you are saying for just a second. If people are dying in greater numbers because they don't want to go to the hospital to get sick, in a public health sense those people are dying because of the pandemic, whether or not they're infected. It's like arguing that the people who jumped from the WTC on 9/11 weren't victims of terrorism.
Did you make that up yourself?
False. You should seriously think about changing where you get your news.
What is wrong with you?
If you disregard the people who get killed by the virus, the death rate is a lot lower. I will give you that.
I can't believe it's late April and you are still suggesting this is like the flu.
It's funny, when you talk about the death toll from flu, do you disregard the people who were exposed multiple times in dense cities, and who had co-morbidities, and who were healthcare workers? No, of course you don't. Because you're not trying to minimize that number.
The debate seems to be between people who think it makes sense only to re-open when the number of cases drops, we have better testing capabilities, and we can contact trace people who get sick, and the people like yourself who are too impatient to wait for those things and who are saying, fuck it, let's go.
50,000 dead already and "this isn't going to kill a whole lot of us."
If there were a flood and it killed 40% of the population of Allentown, Pa., would you say, look at the bright side -- this isn't going to kill a whole lot of us?
Not sure why you try so hard to be contrarian.
We are all taking risks right now. There is no zero-risk strategy. If you want to try to persuade people that you are weighing the risks and benefits right, you need to start by not bullshitting about how low the death rate is.
|
1. We’re talking about the % of people the disease kills. The WTC analogy is inapt and you know it.
2. We are not waiting and cannot wait for contact tracing. Drive that through your skull. We don’t have that kind of time. (Don’t like that? Take it up with those lenders you’re so keen on protecting. Ask them how they’ll feel about choking down six months of 20% default rates. Get back to me with their responses.)
3. If we were talking about the death rate from the flu, I would absolutely include the analysis of co-morbidities, along with all other adjustments. In fact, we do exactly that already. Whenever we talk of flu deaths, we note they’re mostly confined to the compromised and elderly. So please, don’t raise a facile argument like that and pretend you’re saying something of value.
4. I’m not saying fuck it, let’s go. You continually ignore that because you can’t deal with the fact that I am actually arguing for continuing social distancing as much as possible. If you wish to argue with the “fuck it, let’s go” point, argue with Less.
5. 500,000 dead is nothing compared to what you’ll get if we don’t start incrementally, carefully, reopening. You’re one of the dimwits who’s only looking at the immediate health crisis side of the ledger. Wanna know what a depression is? A fucking health crisis. Mass death over a longer time period. You’re so myopically focused you don’t even see that all you’re doing is shifting the dates of deaths. X over near term vs. XXX over the longer.
ETA: You haven’t said as much, but I’d assume you favor a one size fits all approach. Please tell m I’m wrong and you’re not dumb enough to think we need to keep Bumfuck Falls, SD on lockdown until the numbers fall in Maryland.
ETA2: Thus is all academic. It’s reopening incrementally starting next month whether you like it or not. I hope it opens slowly and carefully, but Less may be predicting the future more accurately.
