The Coronavirus, not the beer

Carp said:
It is literally impossible to protect half the nation when the other half isn't doing anything to stop the spread.
Click to expand...

Using the very high end of the admin death projection (240,000) and dividing that by half the nation (150,000,000) would imply we are willing to completely dismantle society in an effort to stop a death rate of 0.0016%
 
sturg33 said:
Using the very high end of the admin death projection (240,000) and dividing that by half the nation (150,000,000) would imply we are willing to completely dismantle society in an effort to stop a death rate of 0.0016%
Click to expand...

I would make 2 points in response

1) The policy may result in 240,000 deaths. But the focus should be on how many lives are saved. I know it is squishy to rely on something unobserved that must be estimated. And reasonable people can disagree on how many lives will be saved. As an analogy we don't say speed limits are a good idea because X number of people died from car accidents. We say they are a good idea because Y number of lives were saved.

2) I really think the policy focus should be on how to get out from this terrible choice we confront of decimating the economy or having hundreds of thousands of lives lost. We should be looking for alternatives (and I firmly believe there are such alternatives) that allow for better outcomes from both an economic and humanitarian perspective. I'm afraid we have wasted a certain amount of time and as a result the tradeoff between lives and livelihoods has become more difficult.
 
Last edited:
Protesters demending that gyms be reopened

Protest by showing that gyms aren’t essential in anyway cause they show that they are exercising without them

[tw]1259867354206535681[/tw]
 
Last edited:
sturg33 said:
Using the very high end of the admin death projection (240,000) and dividing that by half the nation (150,000,000) would imply we are willing to completely dismantle society in an effort to stop a death rate of 0.0016%
Click to expand...

Holy **** you are an idiot. How can you have been whining about this stuff for so long and still not understand even the most basic facts?

240k was an under lockdown projection based roughly around the regular .4-1.4% IFR or whatever.

This is like a word problem a second grader could figure out, but you guys have been failing the pop quiz everyday for a month.
 
sturg33 said:
Using the very high end of the admin death projection (240,000) and dividing that by half the nation (150,000,000) would imply we are willing to completely dismantle society in an effort to stop a death rate of 0.0016%
Click to expand...

Your math is mind blowingly terrible. You work for a bank?
 
Well considering the forced lock down actuals and social distancing no mandatory lock down actuals are not all that different its you that isn't understanding.

If you could direct to one comment where we have said to act like there is no virus then ill leave the forum forever.
 
sturg33 said:
Go on...
Click to expand...

240k out of 150M is 0.16%, not 0.0016%.

Additionally, if 150,000,000 people get this then you are looking at a death toll of 500,000-2,000,000 or something roughly on that scale. Basically nobody has this yet, and we are already at 70k+.

The numbers you posted above are just flabbergasting. A completely stupid calculation that doesn't even conceptually make any sense.
 
Metaphysicist said:
Holy **** you are an idiot. How can you have been whining about this stuff for so long and still not understand even the most basic facts?

240k was an under lockdown projection based roughly around the regular .4-1.4% IFR or whatever.

This is like a word problem a second grader could figure out, but you guys have been failing the pop quiz everyday for a month.
Click to expand...

You saying everyone with any underlying issue is at risk here is also terribly disingenuous.

When people catch this, the mortality rate is very low.

The median age of death is something like 80 years old (dont have the number handy)

Also, as has been my point for months now... the virus isn't going away bc were all cowering in fear.

Unless you propose indefinite lockdowns until a mandatory vaccine is available, the virus will spread again until we become immune.

We are simply delaying the inevidible, while decimating the economy, individual rights, and the nation's mental and physical health. Not to mention cancelling school for millions of kids.

If you want board up in your home because you're scared, have at it. But the rest of the country is ready to move on with our lives. I'll make sure not to visit any nursing homes in the meanwhile
 
Not only are your assumptions ridiculous (240k deaths were not assuming 150 million infections), but 240k divided by 150 million is not .0016%. It's .16%
 
Maybe we should be evaluating life years when comparing things that kill people in evaluating their overall impact?
 
sturg33 said:
You saying everyone with any underlying issue is at risk here is also terribly disingenuous.

When people catch this, the mortality rate is very low.

The median age of death is something like 80 years old (dont have the number handy)

Also, as has been my point for months now... the virus isn't going away bc were all cowering in fear.

Unless you propose indefinite lockdowns until a mandatory vaccine is available, the virus will spread again until we become immune.

We are simply delaying the inevidible, while decimating the economy, individual rights, and the nation's mental and physical health. Not to mention cancelling school for millions of kids.

If you want board up in your home because you're scared, have at it. But the rest of the country is ready to move on with our lives. I'll make sure not to visit any nursing homes in the meanwhile
Click to expand...

None of this has anything to do with anything. Just libertarian magical thinking, mindless repeating talking points that people have repeatedly answered.

Now your math is stupid and wrong to boot. Embarrassing.
 
Metaphysicist said:
240k out of 150M is 0.16%, not 0.0016%.

Additionally, if 150,000,000 people get this then you are looking at a death toll of 500,000-2,000,000 or something roughly on that scale. Basically nobody has this yet, and we are already at 70k+.

The numbers you posted above are just flabbergasting. A completely stupid calculation that doesn't even conceptually make any sense.
Click to expand...

There is also the logical issue. A policy intervention has to be evaluated on the basis of lives saved. As I mentioned you can't say the speed limit is a good or bad idea because X number of lives were lost to highway accidents. You need to justify it based upon an estimate of how many lives would be lost without the speed limit or with a different speed limit.
 
nsacpi said:
There is also the logical issue. A policy intervention has to be evaluated on the basis of lives saved. As I mentioned you can't say the speed limit is a good or bad idea because X number of lives were lost to highway accidents. You need to justify it based upon an estimate of how many lives would be lost without the speed limit or with a different speed limit.
Click to expand...

As a philosophical question.

Is a 16 year old life lost worse than a 80 year old life m

Assuming either individual is not an extraordinary person.
 
Like literally you are repeating the stupid, absolutely moronic math mistakes thethe was trying to peddle a month and a half ago and was shamed into giving up. It is astonishing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top