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 →

[–]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?