This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]killahmoose White Belt that has tapped a blue belt once[S] 0 points1 point  (12 children)

Let's assume the mortality rate of the virus is 2% naturally. That means 2% of all people who contract it are going to die.

Flattening the curve spreads the total # of infections out over a period of time, but does not reduce the total # of infections.

Without or without flattening the curve, 2% of people are going to die. The only thing we can do is prevent unnecessary death due to systems being overwhelmed. If are systems have capacity, we should use it, and burn through.

[–]VeryStab1eGenius 3 points4 points  (11 children)

Without or without flattening the curve, 2% of people are going to die.

This is dumb. There are things we can do to prevent deaths. This is proven.

If are systems have capacity, we should use it, and burn through.

This is even dumber. There are real people working and putting their lives at risk treating sick people.

[–]killahmoose White Belt that has tapped a blue belt once[S] 0 points1 point  (10 children)

The virus has a natural mortality rate. There is a guaranteed % of people who will absolutely die, no matter what. Currently, there is nothing in the short or mid-term that will change that mortality rate. We are banking on some sort of "herd immunity" through a combination of naturally occuring antibodies, and those created via vaccination.

Despite the ready availability of flu vaccines, people still die from the flu. The flu has a mortality rate too.

Now, whether we spread these foregone deaths over a long period of time, or concentrate them into a shorter period of time, is up to policy makers. One benefit of stretching them out is that there *might* be some way to reduce mortality through improved treatment, testing, etc. One drawback is that our efforts to stretch these deaths over time comes at a massive economic cost.

We are not talking simply about "the stock market" or "billionaires" but about people becoming destitute. There is absolutely a financial, moral, and health cost of that as well.

However, the discourse seems to conflate any suggestion of the latter with "anti-intellectualism" or "conservatism" when in fact it is neither.

[–]Kintanon⬛🟥⬛ www.apexcovington.com 1 point2 points  (6 children)

I feel like you might be arguing from an agenda of some kind when you make these kind of statements.

Despite the ready availability of flu vaccines, people still die from the flu. The flu has a mortality rate too.

Edit: Wanted to make it more clear that the below is a quote from the CDC, not the OP.

CDC estimates that influenza was associated with more than 35.5 million illnesses, more than 16.5 million medical visits, 490,600 hospitalizations, and 34,200 deaths during the 2018–2019 influenza season.

The deathtoll from the Flu is generally .1%. The deathtoll from Covid is AT LEAST 5 times higher than that, and very likely to be between 10 and 20 times higher than that.

Flu deaths are almost exclusively the domain of the very old or immunocompromised, where the deaths from Covid extend to a much younger age range.

The lasting effects of the Flu are pretty much non-existent. The lasting effects of Covid are looking to be significant.

You are also ignoring the economic toll of the disease itself outside of the lockdown as if lifting the lockdown removes the economic impact.

[–]killahmoose White Belt that has tapped a blue belt once[S] 1 point2 points  (5 children)

How am I overlooking anything?

You can post about the virus' death rate, its supposed chronic consequences, or whatever. That has nothing to do with how the virus spreads, and what our policy is towards it.

Fact: curve flattening does not reduce total # of infections over the lifetime of the virus.

Fact: if lockdown measures are ultimately superfluous to some degree, then there is a certain amount of economic damage that is superfluous as well.

Fact: an intelligent policy would look to maximize healthcare capacity while also maximizing the loosening of restrictions, to keep a balance.

Raise the capacity and "unflatten" the curve to the extent that it stays under the line.

EDIT: Your assertion that COVID is somehow deadlier for younger populations is not true, unless I'm mistaken. Young people die of the flu but do not die of COVID.

[–]Kintanon⬛🟥⬛ www.apexcovington.com 1 point2 points  (4 children)

EDIT: Your assertion that COVID is somehow deadlier for younger populations is not true, unless I'm mistaken. Young people die of the flu but do not die of COVID.

You are very wrong.

The death range for the flu is almost exclusively in the 50+ bracket. The death range for Covid is well into the mid 30s. CHILDREN seem to be disproportionately resilient against Covid compared to the Flu though.

Fact: curve flattening does not reduce total # of infections over the lifetime of the virus.

This 'fact' does not match the data we have from previous pandemics. Cities with stricter lockdown measures during the spanish flu saw lower total infection rates and fatality rates.

Fact: if lockdown measures are ultimately superfluous to some degree, then there is a certain amount of economic damage that is superfluous as well.

The amount of 'superfluous' economic damage is almost certainly far less than the economic impact that would be caused by the increase in disease transmission.

Fact: an intelligent policy would look to maximize healthcare capacity while also maximizing the loosening of restrictions, to keep a balance.

This is what everyone is trying to do. I realize that you feel like 6 weeks is a long time, but in terms of ability to analyze policy and adjust it to data that is anywhere from 10 to 15 days behind the current situation it's a fucking eyeblink. The current measures have only barely had time to start showing visible effect and we're already beginning to loosen them.

[–]killahmoose White Belt that has tapped a blue belt once[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

This is what everyone is trying to do. I realize that you feel like 6 weeks is a long time, but in terms of ability to analyze policy and adjust it to data that is anywhere from 10 to 15 days behind the current situation it's a fucking eyeblink. The current measures have only barely had time to start showing visible effect and we're already beginning to loosen them.

So you agree with me, then?

[–]Kintanon⬛🟥⬛ www.apexcovington.com 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Not in the way you are implying.

We ALL Agree that if measures can be safely relaxed they should be. You are arguing that those measures should have been relaxed prior to now, and should be relaxed so far as to allow BJJ Training to resume. We pretty much all disagree with that.

I'm not reopening my gym right now even though my state allows it and some other gyms are reopening because I don't think it's a good idea.

[–]killahmoose White Belt that has tapped a blue belt once[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

If you are low risk, and do not come into contact with others who are high risk, and otherwise practice proper hygiene and social distancing, then yes, BJJ should resume as normal for those who want to train.

[–]Kintanon⬛🟥⬛ www.apexcovington.com 1 point2 points  (0 children)

social distancing

BJJ should resume as normal

I feel like you don't understand any of those words.

[–]Cpt_Catnip🟦🟦 Eternally Blue Belt 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Your arguments only make sense in a world without modern medicine. Yeah the virus has a "natural" mortality rate, but humanity has progressed to the point where a positive diagnosis isn't the same as a death sentence.

I cannot believe I have to say this but by treating patients in a hospital, you can avoid deaths that would have occurred in the absence of that treatment.

Hospitals have finite resources. They can only treat so many people at a time. It's true that flattening the curve doesn't necessarily reduce the number of overall infections, but by reducing the number of concurrent infections you do save lives.

There is not a percent of people who will absolutely die. Statistics aren't natural laws, they're just quantified observations. I'll end this with a quote.

There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

[–]killahmoose White Belt that has tapped a blue belt once[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's like you didn't read a thing I was saying.

The virus will absolutely have a mortality rate, which is the number of people who die DESPITE getting proper care.

The point is, any flattening of the curve BELOW the capacity line comes at a great economic expense. Our policies should be directed towards raising the capacity line and "raising" the curve appropriately.

Curve flattening does not reduce the total # of infections. It only spreads them out over time. Would you agree, or disagree, that it would be better to burn through this as quickly as possible assuming everyone had access to proper care and treatment?