@earl-of-trumps saidThis.
"... err on the side of caution".
The problem is, there are two problems and two cautions that need evaluating.
Ruining the economy will eventually kill more people - or at least permanently immiserate their lives than COVID.
Lockdown advocates frame this as better safe than sorry.
But lockdowns are also sorry; not safe.
It's evil vs. evil, not evil vs. safe.
16 Oct 20
@kevcvs57 saidI'm okay with capacity limitations on gyms, but shutting them down is overkill.
Nobody is discouraging exercise indoors or outdoors. They are discouraging heavy breathing indoors whilst in large groups for pretty obvious reasons.
I think if masks were made absolutely mandatory in every public space and private workplace except for those with official exemptions for severe conditions then we could open up our economies to a much greater degree.
I'm not saying this is your position, but parks and hiking trails have been shut down in huge numbers (including where I live). to me, that's insanity. If you agree, then we're on the same page on that.
I see no need for a mask mandate when outdoors and able to socially distance. To say that someone should mask up when walking alone in a park is unscientific and counterproductive.
@kevcvs57 saidThere may not be a greater evil to an individual than dying, but there are much greater evils to society than one person dying.
So your a utilitarian?
Is there a greater evil than dying?
More to the point the UK has put the nightingale hospitals on standby, because health chiefs are telling them to. Its not necessarily those dying of covid that are going to overwhelm the health services but those who need icu treatment and ongoing out patient treatment, potentially for years to come.
We do not k ...[text shortened]... pulation for the sake of the economy.
For sure governments are getting stuff wrong, they always do.
As for saving the hospital system, it's unlikely that lockdowns are necessary to do so. If the NY hospital system held in March when there were no precautions in effect until March 22 and nobody had any immunity, I can't imagine that any hospital system would buckle despite common sense precautions.
Show me a scholarly opinion that capacity limitations, limited mask mandates and other low cost precautions are insufficient to avoid the hospital system from being overwhelmed and we'll talk. "Letting it run rampant" is not the only alternative from lockdown.
@mchill saidThat's fine. You should do what's best for you in your best judgment.
If you're under 70 and relatively healthy, it's exceedingly unlikely that this poses a danger to your life.
You and no1marauder both seem to make valid points, personally I think the truth is somewhere between the two. Unlikely that this poses a danger? perhaps, but I'd prefer to err on the side of caution.
I only object to your telling my children that they can't go to school or play with their friends at the local park.
16 Oct 20
The thing that gets me is, why can't lockdowns be voluntary, with the idea being,
as long as you know the risks you run - which vary from person to person, allow
people to decide for themselves if they want to go out, and let all people decide
if they want to lock down.
Government looks at it as - one size fits all. That is wrongful, IMO
16 Oct 20
@sh76 saidI only object to your telling my children that they can't go to school or play with their friends at the local park.
That's fine. You should do what's best for you in your best judgment.
I only object to your telling my children that they can't go to school or play with their friends at the local park.
Calm down SH - I've not told your children to do anything of the kind.
@sh76 saidWhy should we consider your ideas more seriously than public health professionals?
I'm okay with capacity limitations on gyms, but shutting them down is overkill.
I'm not saying this is your position, but parks and hiking trails have been shut down in huge numbers (including where I live). to me, that's insanity. If you agree, then we're on the same page on that.
I see no need for a mask mandate when outdoors and able to socially distance. To say that someone should mask up when walking alone in a park is unscientific and counterproductive.
Someone walking alone anywhere can suddenly encounter another person and if either has COVID then there is a risk of spreading the disease. Wearing a mask is a minor inconvenience under the circumstances existing as compared to the possible consequences of not wearing one.
17 Oct 20
@earl-of-trumps saidBecause there's a deadly contagious disease that has killed over a million people worldwide still spreading throughout the US.
The thing that gets me is, why can't lockdowns be voluntary, with the idea being,
as long as you know the risks you run - which vary from person to person, allow
people to decide for themselves if they want to go out, and let all people decide
if they want to lock down.
Government looks at it as - one size fits all. That is wrongful, IMO
We should do whatever public health professionals tell us is necessary to stop its spread as much as possible.
And for six months you've been told that simplistic messaging is a false choice; the economy will never recover to its previous levels until the pandemic is under control. The lockdowns aren't the cause of the economic slowdown; the pandemic is.
Until you accept that truth, your and sh's fairy tales are just going to get people unnecessarily killed for little or no societal benefit.
17 Oct 20
@no1marauder said"What" public health professionals. In Victoria, Australia 500 doctors have petitioned the Government to open up based on the damage that they see.
Why should we consider your ideas more seriously than public health professionals?
Someone walking alone anywhere can suddenly encounter another person and if either has COVID then there is a risk of spreading the disease. Wearing a mask is a minor inconvenience under the circumstances existing as compared to the possible consequences of not wearing one.
The Government chooses those that believe what they believe then follow "them". 17.9M died last year of cardiovascular diseases, barely anyone bats an eyelid. 9M died of starvation and, nought to see here, the WHO guesstimates that death from starvation will double as a result of extreme lockdown measures, not a prob though, only from poor countries.
look the other way, nothing to see here. And if you are rational, nary even a virus. 1,100,000 deaths from the WHO's best guess of 780,000,000 cases. thats 0.14% dying "with" covid, not "from" of the 10% that have/had it.
The world seems to have embraced fear, wearing it as a badge of honor, not me, I only fear the sudden realization of how little control I have over my own life.
Masks? fair enough, if you are scared, you wear it. lockdowns, well past their use-by date.
17 Oct 20
@no1marauder saidThis virus is not as deadly as you make out, I see no evidence. such a low low rate, I am shaking in my boots, not.
Because there's a deadly contagious disease that has killed over a million people worldwide still spreading throughout the US.
We should do whatever public health professionals tell us is necessary to stop its spread as much as possible.
And for six months you've been told that simplistic messaging is a false choice; the economy will never recover to its previous le ...[text shortened]... h's fairy tales are just going to get people unnecessarily killed for little or no societal benefit.
@no1marauder saidMost people that get C19 report wearing masks. There is no evidence masks are effective. That is why the Dutch did not make them mandatory except in mass transit and such.
Why should we consider your ideas more seriously than public health professionals?
Someone walking alone anywhere can suddenly encounter another person and if either has COVID then there is a risk of spreading the disease. Wearing a mask is a minor inconvenience under the circumstances existing as compared to the possible consequences of not wearing one.
Despite that, the Netherlands has less C19 deaths per capita than the UK.
17 Oct 20
@metal-brain saidhttps://californiaglobe.com/section-2/new-cdc-study-finds-majority-of-those-infected-with-covid-19-always-wore-masks/
Most people that get C19 report wearing masks. There is no evidence masks are effective. That is why the Dutch did not make them mandatory except in mass transit and such.
Despite that, the Netherlands has less C19 deaths per capita than the UK.
17 Oct 20
@sh76 saidsh: If you're under 70 and relatively healthy, it's exceedingly unlikely that this poses a danger to your life.
https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf
This was originally submitted in May, before we were using convalescent plasma, Dexamethasone, mab treatments and Remdesivir (in fact, it was right in the heart of the hydroxychloroquine era).
Long story short, the paper infers a median COVID infection fatality rate of 0.23% (or about 1/15 of the scary 3.6% number ...[text shortened]... re under 70 and relatively healthy, it's exceedingly unlikely that this poses a danger to your life.
As of June 17th, about 20,000 people under the age of 65 had died from COVID in the US. https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/06/23/coronavirus-covid-deaths-us-age-race-14863
That was when the death toll was around 100,000.
Another 21,462 in the age group 65-74 had also died. Conservatively saying 1/3 were 65-69, that means something like 25-30% of COVID deaths are among those under 70.
Given the official figures now (which are almost certainly undercounts but accepting them for the sake of argument) that would suggest that about 60,000 Americans under the age of 70 have died from COVID in about 8 months.