• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Pro-Lifer says, "Let them die if it costs me money"

COVID-19 has become the #1 cause of death in the U.S.

Even if that is true (which it patently isn't) are we to remain in lock down until the number of deaths is more palatable ? Say 35K ? Or zero deaths after a vaccine is developed and administered ? How about the regular flu, which kills tens of thousands every year, do we address that also with lock downs every year from now on ?

I don't think you even understand what the purpose of the lock down was.
 
COVID-19 has become the #1 cause of death in the U.S.

Even if that is true (which it patently isn't) are we to remain in lock down until the number of deaths is more palatable ? Say 35K ? Or zero deaths after a vaccine is developed and administered ? How about the regular flu, which kills tens of thousands every year, do we address that also with lock downs every year from now on ? ?

Sorry but it is and has been for a while now. Note the date of the article.

COVID-19 is now the leading cause of death in the United States

Which makes me wonder if you're really paying attention and could be why you are so wrong so often.
 
After some simple google research, it appears that mortality increases during prosperity and increases during recessions.

https://www.history.com/news/great-depression-economy-life-expectancy

In the first four years of the Great Depression life expectancy grew from 57 to 62. That’s a huge jump for such a short period. But the reasons are still unexplained. From another website I found this:

View attachment 27194

What’s noticeable is that a lot of infectious diseases such as flu and pneumonia drop significantly. I would suspect that with less people working in crowded factories these diseases had a harder time spreading.

I couldn’t however find any good data on malnutrition though or starvation during that time in the US. Most commentators said that there was malnutrition, but few instances of actual starvation as was happening in the Soviet Union on a massive scale.

SLD

Did births drop significantly? Infant mortality was still a thing much more than today both before and during the depression - fewer dead babies entering the average night go a long way to explain the apparent increase.
 
Last edited:
His "arguments" are the equivalent of saying "I don't understand what the big deal is with this whole Chernobyl thing. There was no need to evacuate Pripyat! There's prime real estate there just waiting to be opened up again!"

Bad example--most of Pripyat is fine to live in by now.

"now."

Yes, now. The background radiation in Pripyat is well below that of other places that have been continuously inhabited for centuries. Indeed, it has been for some time.

There's no health reason why people shouldn't live there today.
 
Which makes me wonder if you're really paying attention and could be why you are so wrong so often.

It's you that doesn't pay attention. Firing off your silly little memes like they matter or anyone gives a shit.

Wow. Even IMAX doesn't have this scale of projection.
 
I skimmed a pile of posts, and skipped several pages. So apologies if some of this has already been covered.

1) Comparing COVID to Flu.

Yes, the flu kills on the order of about 12,000 people in the US per year. Currently, COVID deaths are at approximately 4 times that amount. Bear in mind that flu deaths are spread over a fairly long season, starting in early September and running through March or April (depending on part of the country and the temperatures). That's roughly a 9-month period, although it certain peaks between November and February. COVID, on the other hand, has resulted in over 40,000 deaths in about a month and a half. That's a considerable difference in mortality rate. There is no question that COVID has a higher case fatality rate than influenza does.

Flu has a relatively short incubation and transmission period. Most people are contagious immediately before they begin exhibiting symptoms, and during the first several days of illness. COVID, however, seems to be contagious for about a week prior to the infected individual showing any symptoms, and in some cases it's contagious for a couple of weeks in people who are asymptomatic. That makes it much easier for flu to be contained through normal behavior, and makes COVID much harder to avoid.

Influenza viruses, in general, last only a very short time outside of the human body. They deactivate pretty quickly on almost all surfaces. COVID-19 seems to be pretty robust, and seemingly can survive for many hours on almost any surface. This means it's a lot easier to pick up COVID even if you're not around someone sick, just from contact with everyday objects that someone has previously handled.

Flu symptoms generally last about a week, longer on rare occasions. Hospitalizations from flu are quite rare, and are frequently for people who are already at risk. Once hospitalized, a flu patient only stays in the hospital for a few days, at which point they've either recovered or have died. COVID symptoms last several weeks in many cases, and have a roughly 20% hospitalization rate for symptomatic patients. A hospitalized COVID patient has about a 33% chance of ending up in ICU. Hospitalized COVID cases are in the hospital for two to three weeks... and about half of ICU cases die.

Flu tends to be worst in older people and in very young children. Those are the ages most likely to be hospitalized and to die. COVID has had very little effect on children (who are largely asymptomatic and almost never die), but hospitalization is similar at all adult ages. Older people are significantly more likely to die from COVID than other ages.

Influenza mutates quickly, but generally, once a person has been exposed to a specific influenza strain, they develop long-lasting immunity to that strain. Coronavirus mutates slowly... but exposure to many coronaviruses does not confer lasting immunity. Coronovirus, along with rhinovirus make up the largest bulk of seasonal colds, and the lack of long-term immunity after exposure is part of why there's no vaccine for them.

So... to recap: COVID has already killed about 4 times as many people in less than two months than Influenza usually kills in an entire year. It is more contagious, and materially harder to avoid getting than the flu. There's a significantly higher likelihood of being hospitalized with COVID, and both the illness and the hospitalizations last significantly longer than with flu. To top it off, we have treatments for influenza that are highly effective, including seasonal vaccines. We have no vaccines or treatments for COVID-19. There's a reasonable likelihood that exposure to COVID-19 will not result in long-term immunity.

There is absolutely no question that COVID-19 is significantly and materially more dangerous than influenza.
 
2) Trade off between full lock-down and reopening the economy.

This is a prickly question. There's not really a right answer here. We're not going to have a vaccine for COVID-19 for several months, and likely we wouldn't be able to get it administered to the whole US population for about 18 months. That's not even considering the rest of the global population. This is going to last for a long time.

If we keep the economy closed for that long, the economic impact is monumental. Think famine and pestilence end of days monumental. This isn't even a matter of economic systems - this is a matter of highly interconnected and interdependent supply chains for a large part of the planet, many of which run on "just in time" processes. As smaller businesses fold, that has ramifications to all other parts of the global economy. We can't just stop, not for that long.

Keeping essential businesses open is just that - essential. But that also continues to put essential workers at risk of infection and of transmission to other people. We're not going to see "zero new cases" for a long time, regardless of what claims China makes. This is a highly contagious virus, with an illness that lasts for multiple weeks and has a 20% chance of hospitalization. We're going to continue to see essential businesses affected by COVID outbreaks. We're going to continue to see food processing plants shut down when their employees get infected.

Additionally, there are tolls to quarantine beyond merely the financial aspect. There's food insecurity, loss of homes, eviction, depression, anxiety etc. We're already seeing the rate of prescriptions of anti-anxiety and anti-depression medicines increasing. And we're already seeing an increase in people filing for unemployment, and we're seeing people losing medical insurance through their employers. Poverty is highly correlated with many illnesses including obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, suicide, and alcohol and drug abuse. I can only imagine that isolation plus poverty will be even worse.

Of course, the government could step in and find a way to support all those people. At present, however, the US government simply does not have the resources to do so. They can increase the deficit, borrow against the future, or print more money, but each of those is also likely to increase inflation. And if it increases too much, then we're at widespread poverty, food insecurity, and anxiety for everyone.

Either option has risks. Neither option is attractive. No matter which way you cut it, lots of people are going to suffer because of this pandemic. Trying to "return to normal" is going to cause a spike in COVID cases, many more deaths (including secondary deaths due to a lack of access to non-COVID necessary care), and massive economic strains on our health care system and everything related to it... and all of the collateral fallout from that. Keeping it on lockdown is going to cause poverty, illness, and a host of other causes of death.

The question really boils down to which (or what combination) you think is the lesser evil. There is no good option.
 
There is a partial solution: testing and contact tracing on a massive scale. How South Korea controlled its coronavirus outbreak - Business Insider
On Wednesday, South Korea's government published a report called "Flattening the curve on COVID-19: The Korean Experience," which summarizes the country's comprehensive coronavirus response over the past three months.

According to the report's authors, the "secret of Korea's successful response" was its use of information and communications technology to test widely, perform contact tracing, and disseminate information about the outbreak.

"South Korea successfully flattened the curve on COVID-19 in 20 days without enforcing extreme draconian measures that restrict freedom and movement of people," they wrote.
with highlights
Testing and information sharing improves quarantine efforts

...
Unlike China and the US, South Korea never implemented large-scale lockdowns, aside from shutting down schools and imposing a curfew in some cities.

According to the new report, that's because the government communicated how many people were infected in each geographic area and city in real-time, constantly updating national and local government websites that tracked cases and the number of residents tested. It also provided free smartphone apps that sent people emergency text alerts about spikes in infections in their local area.

...
Contact tracing is critical

In addition to a comprehensive telemedicine network, South Korea also implemented a well-organized contact-tracing program: After tests confirm a positive case, officials use interviews, GPS phone tracking, credit-card records, and video surveillance to trace an infected person's travel history, the The Washington Post reported.

The South Korean government then publishes anonymized data about where each patient went before they were diagnosed on a public website so others can check to see if they have been near a patient.
I like to talk about South Korea because it's a relatively open society with a reasonably democratic government, and for that reason, I find statistics from there to be much more trustworthy than statistics from China. From  Democracy Index, it scores a little better than the US (#23 at 8.00 vs. #25 at 7.96) China is still a one-party state, and not surprisingly, scores very low (#153 at 2.26). The best nation is Norway (#1 at 9.87) and the worst nation is North Korea (#167 at 1.08)
 
After some simple google research, it appears that mortality increases during prosperity and increases during recessions.

https://www.history.com/news/great-depression-economy-life-expectancy

In the first four years of the Great Depression life expectancy grew from 57 to 62. That’s a huge jump for such a short period. But the reasons are still unexplained. From another website I found this:

View attachment 27194

What’s noticeable is that a lot of infectious diseases such as flu and pneumonia drop significantly. I would suspect that with less people working in crowded factories these diseases had a harder time spreading.

I couldn’t however find any good data on malnutrition though or starvation during that time in the US. Most commentators said that there was malnutrition, but few instances of actual starvation as was happening in the Soviet Union on a massive scale.

SLD

Did births drop significantly? Infant mortality was still a thing much more than today both before and during the depression - fewer dead babies entering the average night go a long way to explain the apparent increase.

Infant mortality continued its decrease during the the Great Depression. But overall birth rates decline during economic shocks. https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/12/us/economy-birth-decline/index.html

SLD
 
I've got to ask, what has changed between the end of March and now? Is the virus less pervasive? Is there adequate testing? Has there been a vaccine distributed that I know nothing about? Seriously, what has changed that has made quarantine so untenable?
 
Back
Top Bottom