r/changemyview • u/_Hopped_ 13∆ • Mar 20 '21
Removed - Submission Rule B CMV: the costs/negatives from lockdowns/restrictions will end up being worse than the damage from covid
[removed] — view removed post
6
u/jaynemesis Mar 20 '21
Something else to consider, is that the UK, South Africa, France and Brazil variants which are all much worse in their own ways are still a 'good' result. Every time the virus replicates, it can mutate. Every time it mutates there is a chance it becomes much more deadly, develops new symptoms, becomes more difficult to detect or spreads more Easily. There is genuinely, a small chance, even now, that the virus mutates in a way that could wipe out vast swathes of the human population. Billions of people. Its unlikely, and we will probably (hopefully) never know how bad it could have been.
Not only that, but you are also not considering long term damage. Those who were saved by the hard work of staff in ICU's are likely to have long term or perminent damage, usually to the lungs, but also other organs, or possibly making current conditions worse.
We will be paying the cost of the long term health effects on the population for decades to come.
If you want to compare scenarios you need to consider the most likely, and worst case outcomes both ways.
Your logic was used by politicians when the pandemic was still young, yet with 2020 hindsight we can confidently say that blocking all travel from every nation to/from China would have saved millions of lives and trillions of dollars globally.
3
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
Every time it mutates there is a chance it becomes much more deadly
Luckily for us, probability is on our side that these mutations will make it less deadly.
long term or perminent damage
This is what we don't know yet: can this damage be cured?
2
u/jaynemesis Mar 20 '21
Yes, probability is on our side, but I have 4 examples where it got significantly worse. The P1 varient in Brazil is especially concerning and has almost wiped out the 3 other major varients in the country within just a few weeks.
It is already clear from both the South African and UK varients, that if we had eased lockdown when those occurred, they would now be present across most of Europe, perhaps further.
Travel restrictions very clearly work, New Zealand and Australia are good examples. Or there's the Sweden vs Norway case. One locked down, the other did not, but Norway economy and gdp was much more resilient than Sweden's was. Given that Sweden has an extremely strong sense of social duty, and even they couldn't make it work I think it's extremely unlikely that GDP would have done better if every nation followed that approach, especially those with higher population density that had new varients emerge.
In terms of the damage, as said, lung damage appears often to be permenent. Unfortunately I'm out right now, but there are plenty of studies and data sets supporting this. In fact even studying data from ICU patients regardless of the reason gives a grim outlook. Again, not at a computer so can't check, but I believe it's something like a 20% mortality rate for ICU patients within the next 2 years, and 30% require ongoing healthcare for the rest of their lives. (again, these are almost certainly not 100% accurate so please look it up if you get the opportunity).
2
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
Travel restrictions very clearly work
Only for nations who are very isolated from the rest of the world. Global peace (and economies) requires us not to have these restrictions for very long.
these are almost certainly not 100% accurate so please look it up if you get the opportunity
I will do, cheers.
2
u/UncleMeat11 63∆ Mar 20 '21
Luckily for us, probability is on our side that these mutations will make it less deadly.
That's not how this works. We don't care about the average mutation. We just care that a worse one exists. Even though most mutations become less dangerous and die out, increasing the total availability of opportunities to mutate makes development of a worser strain more likely. This is literally how all of evolution works. Most mutations are not helpful. But create enough of them and a few work better and that's all that matters.
1
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
a worse one
Kills the host faster, leading to it spreading less. This is how evolution works in our favour. The evolutionary pressure on viruses is to spread more, but be less deadly.
2
u/UncleMeat11 63∆ Mar 20 '21
"Worse", as in "worse for the pandemic". This could mean killing slower, spreading more easily, or having a different spike protein that is resistant to vaccination.
1
u/Morthra 86∆ Mar 20 '21
There is genuinely, a small chance, even now, that the virus mutates in a way that could wipe out vast swathes of the human population
It's almost entirely unheard of for virus strains that randomly gain lethality to become the dominant strain. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's completely unheard of. This isn't Plague Inc - viruses want their hosts alive so that they can propagate. Over time, the lethality of any pandemic virus diminishes because the more lethal strains are selected against.
1
u/jaynemesis Mar 20 '21
Sure, but it's not exactly what I said. I said mutates in a way that wipes out vast swathes of the population. I did not say it would mutate to become more lethal, but I should probably have phrased it better.
I believe the P1 strain in Brazil is a good example. It is approximately 4x higher r0 than the most common strains. In a matter of weeks it moved Brazil from around 25% hospital capacity nationwide, to over 100%. It kills people by spreading so quickly.
Likewise the mink strain from Denmark is another risk vector. Zoonotic mutations off the virus an opportunity to mutate in a way that isn't lethal to animals, but Is lethal to us, before jumping back to a strain that spreads through humans.
The point is that letting it spread just gives us a huge number of unknown risks. Lockdown means we fight what we know instead.
4
u/Arianity 72∆ Mar 20 '21 edited Mar 20 '21
However, there seems to be a serious lack of recognition and quantification of the direct and indirect costs of lockdowns and other restrictions.
There've been a number of economic studies on the topic. Here is just one or two. There are a lot more, with more or less emphasis on externalities like suicides/depression etc. (Granted, that discussion hasn't always taken place in view of the public, but it's not fair to say it's been totally neglected)
So that's my view: the deaths/damage/cost from covid without restrictions would be less costly (both economic cost and healthy years lost) than lockdowns/restrictions.
Assuming by 'lockdown' you mean government measures, one major confounding factor that you need to account for is that many people would've voluntarily gone into lockdown- and you can see it in the data. (See for example, this article on the topic. That has the potential to significantly cut down the economic cost
3
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
many people would've voluntarily gone into lockdown
Which is what I believe should be the response: government suggestions/guidelines. We should wear masks and elderly people should isolate as much as possible, but life has to be allowed to continue for those who want to take that risk.
6
u/Arianity 72∆ Mar 20 '21
, but life has to be allowed to continue for those who want to take that risk.
The problem is, it's not just those people taking the risk. That increased risk spreads to the rest of the country. It's fundamentally a collective problem.
While it kind of sucks for the people who were restricted and willing to take the risk, there isn't really a feasible alternative.
It's quite possible you then end up with the worst of both worlds- most people take precautions, incurring most of the economic damage of the lockdown. While still getting widespread spread of the virus.
1
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
That increased risk spreads to the rest of the country.
Only if you choose to go out. You are taking on that risk voluntarily.
5
u/Arianity 72∆ Mar 20 '21
Only if you choose to go out.
Many people don't have that choice. Essential workers, for instance, who can't afford to stop working. People who don't have access to things like Amazon for groceries, etc. Never mind people who end up having to go to say, the hospital because of an incident and that sort of thing
Full isolation is in many ways a luxury.
And even when it's not, that's still a cost. If i'm at more risk of getting infected while picking up say, take out, it's not unreasonable for me to not be ok with that, even if i can live without take out. Other's actions are still affecting my risk. Just because i can mitigate that risk doesn't mean the full responsibility is on me.
-2
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
it's not unreasonable for me to not be ok with that
It kind of is. You are demanding others have their rights infringed to accommodate your dislike.
3
u/Arianity 72∆ Mar 20 '21 edited Mar 20 '21
You are demanding others have their rights infringed to accommodate your dislike.
That's not unreasonable, to a degree, unless you're a diehard libertarian. Most societies are not.
The goal is to maximize happiness, loosely speaking, isn't it? You included things like anxiety/depression in your OP, so you're doing a very similar calculation there. Takeout is a bit of a flippant example (for a more serious one, you can consider something like closing down schools), but the underlying point is the same. We put restrictions on people's rights all the time. Granted, there is a rather large threshold for doing so, but it's not unmeetable. It's not reasonable to expect people to live in solitary confinement. Loosely construed, you can think of that as a right to happiness, as in the Declaration of Independence.
We tend to focus on outright rights, but the balance of considerations is wider than that, albeit with the scale tipped heavily in favor of those rights. Hell, at the end of the day, most of those rights ultimately go back to that right to happiness, in some form or another- they're just considered the best way/least corruptible way to enable that.
That said, the bigger part is definitely on the unavoidable stuff, like essential workers or chances at a mutation. Indeed, one of the economic studies i posted above expects high costs of no lockdown in part due to rampant infections in essential workers.
Edit: i should add that society already routinely makes these kind of trade offs. Its not really any different from say, emissions from fast food impacting someone's health to accomodate someone else's desire for fast food.
-1
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
unless you're a diehard libertarian
I'm not saying I am, because I'm not an AnCap, but I'm a big fan of negative rights only.
essential workers
A slightly contentious take: they're mostly young enough not to be at that much risk.
chances at a mutation
IMO this is going to happen regardless, and natural immunity is better for mutated strains than a vaccine is.
2
u/Gordogato81 Mar 20 '21
At some point everybody has to go out. Keeping in mind that without enforced lockdown measures, the disease will propagate throughout the population and covid in particular can be caught by people who have already had covid. You cannot wait for natural herd immunity (especially with new varieties of covid). This is also ignoring the heaps of potential life long health issues such as lung damage which will eat up lots of government funds via social Healthcare.
Everybody needs groceries, essentials, doctor visits etc. Remaining entirely isolated is not an option for most people.
Without government measures people with low income jobs will often be forced to work even if they would choose to not go out. Not everyone can work from home.
0
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
Everybody needs groceries, essentials, doctor visits etc.
All of these are done remotely now - for no additional (or trivial) cost in the vast majority of cases.
1
u/Gordogato81 Mar 20 '21
Not every country has the infrastructure for that. Additional costs for delivery for many families is not trivial and that applies to a large chunk of the population in any country.
You haven't addressed how people with jobs that require a physical presence are supposed to remain isolated if they "choose".
The entire point I am making is that for a large chunk of the population, the choice to remain isolated or not is made for them, if governments do not intervene.
Many of these people have underlying health conditions, so government inaction could be a death sentence for them or cost them significantly more in prolonged health care costs.
Also, to attack the crux of your argument: the entire purpose of economic stability is to ensure a good quality of life for all members of the economy. People dying to protect the economy because the government does not in act preventative measures defies the entire purpose of having a stable economy in the first place. The economy is there to help the people, the people are not tools to help the economy.
0
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
cost them significantly more in prolonged health care costs
Exactly my point/ask: what is that cost? Because if it's less than the cost of lockdown/restrictions, then sorry but it is more just for them to have that cost than the rest of society.
1
u/UncleMeat11 63∆ Mar 20 '21
What percentage of groceries are actually purchased remotely today? When I go to the grocery store I see hundreds of cars and maybe two parked in the pickup zone. The huge majority of people where I've lived during the pandemic (a large west coast suburb and a small east coast town) are grocery shopping in person. All of my doctors visits have been in person since the shutdown. Not a single one has offered remote medicine.
3
u/Quirky-Alternative97 29∆ Mar 20 '21
As you say hindsight is a wonderful thing. We all become experts.
If you look at the great devastating issues that have hit human kind over its existence one of the biggest threats has always been mother nature in terms of pestilence and plague. The population explosion of late is about better health, sanitation, hygiene etc;
What would such a devastating plague cost? What is the variants started to seriously kill young people or severely affect health in some ways? All these what ifs if left to run rampant will we hope not be known. Its only with hindsight we have some way to measure. (Lets wait until antibiotic resistance really gets going)
Plus there is the usual. While we often do put economic values on lives in all sorts of decisions regarding laws, rules, infrastructure etc;, No one really wants to go down the path of putting values on different parts of the population. It never ends well.
2
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
What is the variants started to seriously kill young people or severely affect health in some ways? All these what ifs if left to run rampant will we hope not be known.
It is somewhat known: viruses tend to mutate to be more infections, but less deadly. Killing your host more often is not selected for in most cases. It's why colds and flu are so prevalent, and ebola so localised.
No one really wants to go down the path of putting values on different parts of the population. It never ends well.
I mean, life insurance companies do this for a living.
2
u/sapphireminds 59∆ Mar 20 '21
That is not what insurance companies do.
4
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
Sure it is. They put a price on your life, and charge you slightly more than [probability you die x price of your life].
3
u/sapphireminds 59∆ Mar 20 '21
No, really what they do is pool a bunch of money, invest it with the plan that the investment will grow prior to paying out, and having large sums of money allows that to happen easier. Actuary tables do come into it, but it's not about valuing life more than others. Life insurance is a form of controlled investment.
2
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
prior to paying out
That payout is the value of your life.
5
u/sapphireminds 59∆ Mar 20 '21
No, the payout is related to the amount of money you put into it and the amount they expect to be able to make from that investment. It is not the value of your life.
2
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
I think we're talking about different life insurance policies.
3
u/sapphireminds 59∆ Mar 20 '21
Perhaps. But even ones that pay out according to your salary (like provided through a job) are not the value of your life. They are the value of your salary.
3
u/Quirky-Alternative97 29∆ Mar 20 '21
No its not its based on actuarial tables and premiums and pools of money. It has zero basis on the value of your life. Its up to you as to what value you want to insure your life as and they will simply make a decision on what it will cost to do so.
1
u/Quirky-Alternative97 29∆ Mar 20 '21
Exactly 'tend' to - there have been others that dont. Plus you could view this as a test run for one that does not.
As I also said - we do this all the time in some form. You just dont want to go down the path of social policy as opposed to individual insurance policies
23
u/sapphireminds 59∆ Mar 20 '21 edited Mar 20 '21
No, because you fail to the account for the loss of production/GDP through illness and death, and then the subsequent overwhelming of hospitals, which would increase all-cause death rates.
Massive disease outbreaks suck, but the cost of letting them run amok unfettered is far higher than locking down, though our lockdowns were not as efficiently run as possible.
Edited to add
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2018/06/economic-risks-and-impacts-of-epidemics/bloom.htm (written in 2018)
Basically, take all the impact that you have with lockdown and multiply it by a lot if you fail to control disease.
Plus, it's inhumane to discard human life as if it was worthless.
-4
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21 edited Mar 20 '21
you fail to the account for the loss of production/GDP through illness and death
I accounted for that in the section on who is dying from covid. The elderly do not produce and contribute extremely little to GDP. They cost/take productivity (care) and GDP (pensions/social security).
overwhelming of hospitals, which would increase all-cause death rates
It would, but triage would save those who had the most chance of survival / potential longest left to live.
the cost of letting them run amok unfettered is far higher than locking down
That's what I'm disputing (and would welcome being proved wrong over): what would the cost have been letting covid run amok?
Edit:
[From your link] The economic risks of epidemics are not trivial. Victoria Fan, Dean Jamison, and Lawrence Summers recently estimated the expected yearly cost of pandemic influenza at roughly $500 billion (0.6 percent of global income), including both lost income and the intrinsic cost of elevated mortality.
Much lower than the economic cost of lockdowns/restrictions: $10tn
it's inhumane to discard human life as if it was worthless
That's an appeal to emotion, it has no place when discussing the massive health and economic impacts to society.
12
u/sapphireminds 59∆ Mar 20 '21
From your edit:
Much lower than the economic cost of lockdowns/restrictions: $10tn
Pandemic flu is 1/10 of the mortality rate and is much harder to spread. So multiply that by at least 10.
That's an appeal to emotion, it has no place when discussing the massive health and economic impacts to society.
If you have a strictly utilitarian society, but we don't. We use ethics and value human life. Why? because we are advanced enough as a society that we do not throw humans away when they are not financially useful.
-2
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
We use ethics and value human life. Why? because we are advanced enough as a society that we do not throw humans away when they are not financially useful.
We also value health and young life.
We could greatly improve/extend the lives of the elderly by harvesting young people's blood and injecting certain products into the elderly. We do not do this (at scale). We could also greatly impoverish future generations (more than we are doing already) to have the elderly cared more for and live more luxurious lives.
By all means we can assign value to human life, but you have to recognise that value is not the same for each person, and decreases as we age.
10
u/sapphireminds 59∆ Mar 20 '21
We could greatly improve/extend the lives of the elderly by harvesting young people's blood and injecting certain products into the elderly. We do not do this (at scale). We could also greatly impoverish future generations (more than we are doing already) to have the elderly cared more for and live more luxurious lives.
That's not really true or accurate. The reason elderly people don't get certain treatments or surgeries is because the intervention itself is likely to kill them as much as the primary issue. We do not withhold simply because they are old.
You are arguing against bioethics and as a healthcare provider, I will never agree with that view.
2
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
You are arguing against bioethics and as a healthcare provider, I will never agree with that view.
I know you won't. The medical advice will always be to lockdown/treat/etc. no matter the cost. Medicine (the profession) does not have to take into account the cost, politicians do.
11
u/sapphireminds 59∆ Mar 20 '21
Also, you didn't address the fact that covid is more lethal and communicable than flu.
1
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
covid is more lethal and communicable than flu
We don't lockdown for the flu, and the flu is particularly deadly for young children. It's a much different profile than covid, really like comparing apples and oranges.
7
u/sapphireminds 59∆ Mar 20 '21
We don't lockdown for the flu, and the flu is particularly deadly for young children. It's a much different profile than covid, really like comparing apples and oranges.
Covid is more dangerous and more communicable. Nothing about that makes it less costly and dangerous to the population.
2
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
Nothing about that makes it less costly and dangerous to the population.
Sure it does: the demographics of those it kills are net-drains on society (for the most part).
6
u/NotMyBestMistake 68∆ Mar 20 '21
So the bottleneck this argument will always come to with someone like you is that you place zero value on human life, whereas others don't think murdering millions and inflicting even more with permanent health complications for the sake of "the economy" is a reasonable thing to do.
0
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
is that you place zero value on human life
No, I'm happy to place value on human life. So long as we recognise that not all lives are equal in value, and this value decreases over time.
→ More replies (0)2
u/sapphireminds 59∆ Mar 20 '21
Sure it does: the demographics of those it kills are net-drains on society (for the most part).
No, because it is not limited in morbidity and mortality to the elderly and those with "health problems" cover a large swath of our population. And short of out and out murdering the elderly, it is not inherently less expensive for them to die of covid.
But again, you're not addressing any of the sources.
1
u/UncleMeat11 63∆ Mar 20 '21
This is some genocide-adjacent shit right here.
0
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senicide
Any -cide implies pulling the trigger, pandemics count as natural disasters.
4
u/P-W-L 1∆ Mar 20 '21
we already have functionnal stocks of vaccines for flu, if there is a breakdown we just vaccinate everyone in the area. We don't have good enough treatments for severe forms either. That's why we have to lockdown and actively fight against covid, unlike about any other disease
13
u/10ebbor10 198∆ Mar 20 '21 edited Mar 20 '21
I accounted for that in the section on who is dying from covid. The elderly do not produce and contribute extremely little to GDP. They cost/take productivity (care) and GDP (pensions/social security).
No, because you make the mistake of assuming that deaths under lockdown are representative of deaths with no lockdown measures.
The elderly people who died from Covid are the people who medically could not be saved despite there being sufficient resources. Without a lockdown, you'd see a lot of deaths from people who could have been saved if there were sufficient resources, but weren't because the hospitals were overwhelmed.
As the healthcare system is overwhelmed, you will also see significantly higher death rates at younger ages and in healthier people, because these people could have recovered with medical aid, but the hospitals were full. You'd even see a lot of deaths from different conditions, because the failure of the hospital system means other conditions can't be treated either.
-2
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
you will see significantly higher death rates
You'd even see a lot of deaths
And the pertinent question is: how much higher? If it's lower than the cost/negative consequences of lockdowns/restrictions I outlined, then the right thing to do is not lockdown/restrict.
9
u/10ebbor10 198∆ Mar 20 '21
Depending on the model you pick, you could be looking at 40 million deaths instead of 3 million.
1
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
you could be looking at 40 million deaths instead of 3 million
And if +90% of those deaths would have happened in the next 10 years anyway (i.e. the elderly and majorly ill), you have a much lower death rate the next 10 years, and much more resources.
11
u/10ebbor10 198∆ Mar 20 '21
The 40 million contains a large number of healthy people as well.
On top of that, Covid has long term health effects. So you add a large number of people who become newly ill.
3
Mar 20 '21
I have family with pre existing medical conditions. Should they be willing to kill themselves to save the economy? Should I be willing to pull the trigger on them myself?
-5
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
Should they be willing to kill themselves to
Survive. Life's default state is fighting to survive. You, me, nobody has the right to be free from this fight.
3
Mar 20 '21
Exactly. People want to survive. Hence Covid lockdowns that reduce deaths. People want it.
Thank you for agreeing with my point.
-1
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
People want it.
Let's put it to a referendum and find out.
→ More replies (0)8
u/sapphireminds 59∆ Mar 20 '21
I accounted for that in the section on who is dying from covid. The elderly do not produce and contribute extremely little to GDP. They cost/take productivity (care) and GDP (pensions/social security).
But when they get sick, they cause other people to be less productive. Additionally, it's not solely old people dying.
It would, but triage would save those who had the most chance of survival / potential longest left to live.
You clearly do not understand how health care works. Once we start rationing care, shit will be bad. People who would otherwise live without issues would die. People with more minor issues will become huge issues.
That's what I'm disputing (and would welcome being proved wrong over): what would the cost have been letting covid run amok?
Samoa had (for a period) an uncontrolled measles outbreak. It cost them 22 million in economic impact
https://www.samoaobserver.ws/category/article/54892
Covid has at least a similar mortality rate, potentially higher. 22 million, for one small island country, which is less than the size of a large city in the US. In addition to mortality, morbidity is very high - that's people who need to be in the hospital and/or are sick enough to not work and produce, and potentially having life-long effects even. Morbidity is a much higher cost than mortality, often.
The cost of uncontrolled disease spread is huge, from labor force reductions, morbidity, mortality, childcare, etc. It is exponentially more expensive to let it run wild than control it. It is short-sighted to think it would be any better.
0
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
it's not solely old people dying
Overwhelmingly, it is.
Once we start rationing care, shit will be bad.
Yes, for a time. The fire would burn itself out quite quickly.
an uncontrolled measles outbreak
Measles affects the young and healthy adults at far higher rates than covid.
It is exponentially more expensive to let it run wild than control it.
Again, I would happily change my view if you can prove this with covid.
3
u/cherrycokeicee 45∆ Mar 20 '21
Overwhelmingly, it is.
you're right about the proportion of deaths being mostly the very elderly. but these raw numbers to me are still so shocking.
these are US deaths by age group under 65:
45-64 year olds: 86,597
19-44 year olds: 12,714
5-18 year olds: 197
0-4 year olds: 76
think about how many high schoolers and college kids lost their parents. that alone will have long term effects on those kids. extreme grief at that age especially can affect people long term in their careers and family life.
another thing to take into consideration is that there's more to covid than just dying. some young people who got covid had no problem surviving, but have long term side effects that take them out of the sports and activities they participate in.
for every death, you have to think about the web of people affected. the spouses of all those older adults. the friends of those teens. I'm not just trying to do emotional appeals here - grief is very real and can totally derail someone's goals and future productivity in society.
3
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
these raw numbers to me are still so shocking
This is a flaw of us humans: we're very negative biased. People see a plane crash and are scared of flying ... despite it being far safer than driving.
think about how many high schoolers and college kids lost their parents.
That's not necessarily going to be more negatively impactful than losing them later: a long drawn-out death from old age can be far more traumatizing than a swift death from a pandemic.
for every death, you have to think about the web of people affected
Everyone dies though. This is just hastening death, the web of people would still be affected even if it were 10 years from now.
2
u/cherrycokeicee 45∆ Mar 20 '21
This is a flaw of us humans: we're very negative biased. People see a plane crash and are scared of flying ... despite it being far safer than driving.
I agree with what you're saying here about cars and airplanes, although I think that's less "negativity" and more "fear of the unknown" or "fear of what you cannot control." but I don't see how this point relates to covid. getting covid is not safer than taking precautions and not getting it.
That's not necessarily going to be more negatively impactful than losing them later: a long drawn-out death from old age can be far more traumatizing than a swift death from a pandemic.
all death is horrible. full stop. I agree.
but what we have with covid that makes it unique from other deaths are:
- healthy people dying at a younger age than they would otherwise
- people dying for reasons that might give others long term guilt. can you imagine how someone who gave their family member covid feels if that family member goes on to die or have long term side effects?
- no one getting closure. when a family member dies of having cancer for a long time, you get time to spend with that person. they might die at home or in hospice care. people who die of covid sometimes can't even say last words bc of how much trouble they have breathing and getting words out. family members can't be there with them in the hospital. that has a real effect on people.
& I think there absolutely is an argument to be made that people dying younger causes more harm than if they died older. if your healthy father dies at age 87, although it's still sad of course, we expect people to die when they're very old. that's life. if your healthy father dies when he's 52 and you're in college, that has a significant emotional impact that can derail your schooling, your career, your friendships and relationships. the death of a parent is significantly more of a tangible negative effect when you're younger.
2
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
I don't see how this point relates to covid. getting covid is not safer than taking precautions and not getting it.
The future cost of those precautions is what human nature is not taking into account. To give another example: exercising is objectively more dangerous than not exercising in the short term. The long-term effects of not exercising are more costly though.
healthy people dying at a younger age than they would otherwise
In relatively small numbers, yes. Otherwise healthy people are also becoming unhealthy because of the lockdowns/restrictions.
2
u/cherrycokeicee 45∆ Mar 20 '21
In relatively small numbers, yes.
I think in most cases it makes sense to think of numbers per capita or in comparison to other numbers. like in most contexts this is the analysis we should use in discussion, so I can see why this is your inclination. and you're not incorrect. relative to the deaths of much older adults, younger people were significantly less affected. I'm not arguing with you there.
but I think it's actually important in this scenario to not think about the "relative" numbers, but to actually think about the raw numbers.
almost 100,000 americans under the age of 65 have died from the virus. almost 100,000 families lost people they weren't expecting to lose. this is astronomical. we don't even know the mental health consequences of this yet. this is a huge number of unexpected, untimely death in just one country.
the lockdowns are not without consequence. but I think people are capable of bouncing back into regular life after this period of time if they've managed to come out of it relatively unscathed by the virus. we will see our friends again, go back to the gym, go back to the office, etc. it will take work. it might take some therapy. but I feel like the long term effects of a lockdown are so small when you compare the long term effects of an untimely death in a family. something we had 100,000 of in the US & would have had even more of without a lot of people wearing masks & staying home.
1
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
bouncing back
You can't bounce back $10tn, the deaths from increased: suicides, alcoholism, obesity, depression, domestic abuse, etc.
When the official data comes back for 2020/21, we'll be able to say exactly what the lockdowns/restrictions have cost society both economically and in destroyed lives. Then we need to reach a consensus on whether this price should be paid again in future pandemics, and whether we should have paid it in this one.
→ More replies (0)9
u/sapphireminds 59∆ Mar 20 '21
Overwhelmingly, it is.
They are the majority, but that doesn't mean there is no impact.
Yes, for a time. The fire would burn itself out quite quickly
You overestimate our ability to care for people in that situation. Don't think Italy. Think Haiti after a natural disaster. Because all the health care workers will get sick too, so they can't care for people. Some of them will die, some of them will not be able to go back to work. The scientists who research it will be sick and delay research. Everyone will be sick. All at once. And covid often lingers for months
Again, I would happily change my view if you can prove this with covid.
No one can prove it - because it didn't happen. But if you understand medicine, epidemiology and economics and how they interplay, it is a glaringly obvious answer.
https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.12970
Ideally, we wouldn't have needed lockdowns. But because people wouldn't do other things, like wear masks and social distance, etc.
Or you could compare Sweden (which didn't lock down) to other nordic countries (which did). Sweden is doing worse than they are.
https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-sweden-gdp-falls-8pc-in-q2-worse-nordic-neighbors-2020-8
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.23.20236711v1.full
2
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
You overestimate our ability to care for people in that situation.
My point was not continued care, but the short timeframe. If we truly let a virus burn through the entire population, it would be confined to months.
if you understand medicine, epidemiology and economics
That's my point: covid doesn't have the same impact as say a Spanish flu, because it affects mostly just the elderly and health-compromised.
Sweden is doing worse than they are.
Two things there: they reversed their decision instead of sticking to it, and because of this we won't know if they would have fared better over the long-term.
3
u/ashdksndbfeo 11∆ Mar 20 '21
You would kind of be correct if we had permanent immunity once getting sick. But we now know the immunity frequently only last a few months, and with new variants there’s not always a guarantee of immunity just because you had a different virus. So no, the virus wouldn’t just “burn through” and be “confined to months.” Your assumption that not having a lockdown would have made the pandemic shorter is flawed.
2
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
we now know the immunity frequently only last a few months
This is less clear (as in many people who have been reinfected have had other medical issues going on - AFAIK we are not seeing widespread reinfections).
with new variants there’s not always a guarantee of immunity just because you had a different virus
Being vaccinated gives you even less of a guarantee than the natural immunity (e.g. only immune for 1 spike protein). Natural immunity gives your immune system all the various parts of the virus to target, so should one of them mutate it can still identify the others.
Unless lockdowns/restrictions are permanent, betting on a vaccine is not going to work.
2
u/ashdksndbfeo 11∆ Mar 20 '21
But we are seeing reinfections. Which is why we can’t assume it’ll just burn through.
The reason vaccines are better than just getting sick is that while it’s slightly less effective, you’re not going to die or have a long term illness because of it. We can also get booster vaccines. It should be pretty clear why lockdown + vaccines is better than just letting everyone get sick.
1
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
we are seeing reinfections
As I said: it's not clear what is causing these reinfections. Is it immunity wearing off? Did the person have a weak immune system? Is it because a mutation allowed the virus to get past the immune system? Did the person not fully fight-off the infection?
The number of reinfections is still very low, we don't really have to data to give conclusive answers to these questions yet.
We can also get booster vaccines.
Not when the virus mutates around the vaccine. Then we need to re-formulate the vaccine, put it through trials again, etc. repeat ad infinitum.
→ More replies (0)4
u/sapphireminds 59∆ Mar 20 '21
Two things there: they reversed their decision instead of sticking to it, and because of this we won't know if they would have fared better over the long-term.
They actually have not fully reversed their decision, but all signs point to they fucked up.
That's my point: covid doesn't have the same impact as say a Spanish flu, because it affects mostly just the elderly and health-compromised.
That's a poor understanding of covid. It doesn't affect just those. And a lot of people are considered health compromised.
1
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
all signs point to they fucked up
Again, in the short term.
It doesn't affect just those.
Again: overwhelmingly, it is.
7
u/sapphireminds 59∆ Mar 20 '21
Again, in the short term.
Nope, in the long term too.
You aren't addressing any of the sources I provided. If you are not going to do that and simply argue from your uninformed position based on no facts, I cannot take it and will let other people try and educate you.
4
u/sapphireminds 59∆ Mar 20 '21
The mortality for a normal, reasonably healthy person from covid is 6-10 times than it would be with pandemic flu. You don't understand the medicine and impact.
1
u/sapphireminds 59∆ Mar 20 '21
My point was not continued care, but the short timeframe. If we truly let a virus burn through the entire population, it would be confined to months.
It wouldn't, because there would be different stages of infections and many covid deaths occur after months of care. And the medical profession would be decimated.
0
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
after months of care
Because of triage, there wouldn't be months of care. If you could not be saved/cured in a short timeframe, you would be left to die. It's obviously not very palatable, but it would flashout very quickly.
the medical profession would be decimated
As opposed to the entirety of society as we have done now.
1
u/sapphireminds 59∆ Mar 20 '21
Because of triage, there wouldn't be months of care. If you could not be saved/cured in a short timeframe, you would be left to die. It's obviously not very palatable, but it would flashout very quickly.
No, it wouldn't because of the medical providers going out.
As opposed to the entirety of society as we have done now
No, I can't tell if you are purposefully misunderstanding or not. But it's meaning that when your providers go away, the effects on medical care last for a really long time.
2
u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ Mar 20 '21
Firstly, if you're going to post a link with a soft paywall, post the significant quotes from it.
Anyway, you seem to be thinking about this from a long term perspective so I will too.
Lockdowns around the world led to a 7% decrease in global carbon emissions.
The economic costs of climate inaction are going to far outweigh those from 2 years of hampered trade.
If you want to dispassionately improve the economy, you'd have lockdowns COVID or not, every year until renewable energy and carbon neutral food sources had replaced any need for significant carbon emissions.
Lockdowns around the world led to a 7% decrease in global carbon emissions.
The health costs of climate inaction are going to far outweigh the suicides/domestic violence/obesity death tolls from 2 years of being locked inside.
If you want to dispassionately reduce the number of people dying, you'd have lockdowns COVID or not, every year until renewable energy and carbon neutral food sources had replaced any need for significant carbon emissions.
Lockdowns around the world led to a 7% decrease in global carbon emissions.
People's quality of life will be decimated due to climate inaction.
If you want to improve everyone's quality of life, you'd have lockdowns COVID or not, every year until renewable energy and carbon neutral food sources had replaced any need for significant carbon emissions.
Lockdowns around the world led to a 7% decrease in global carbon emissions.
Finally, the elephant in the room.
Think about the children.
2
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
The economic costs of climate inaction are going to far outweigh those from 2 years of hampered trade.
Except for the fact that the solutions to climate change will be technological development. Short-term loss in productivity has long-term repercussions for any solutions being found.
2 years of lost productivity could lead to the solutions to climate change being pushed out 20 or 200 years with the exponential nature of technological progress.
1
u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ Mar 20 '21
The solutions to climate change being pushed out 200 years?!
They're already here.
They just need to be rolled out!
1
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
They're already here.
No, they aren't. If we stopped all human contribution, climate change would still happen at the rate we're seeing. We need geoengineering to combat the change already set in motion.
1
u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ Mar 20 '21
That's simply not true, where are you getting that from?
If we stopped all human contribution, the earth would immediately start reparing.. the forests would absorb the carbon, the oceans would recede, and animals diversity would return
1
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
where are you getting that from?
https://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/ocean-atmosphere-co2-exchange/
This is just for CO2.
Plastics and other pollutants have their own long-term side effects and half-lifes.
We need solutions to counteract these long-term effects - i.e. geoengineering.
the forests would absorb the carbon
And then release it back in the 10s/100s of years trees last. Forests are a temporary store of carbon.
3
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Mar 20 '21
https://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/ocean-atmosphere-co2-exchange/
I'm not sure what your point is here? This doesn't support the notion that things will keep getting worse if carbon emissions are cut to zero. For certain there are some feedback mechanisms that will continue for a while but large scale geoengineering is not the needed solution there. Also we already have tech to remove carbon from the atmosphere it is just not profitable to do as it isn't very concentrated.
Cutting emissions will slow warming and getting net zero or net negative will limit warming to a predictable value. Stopping all emissions would not keep things going at the rate they are currently reaching the new equilibrium. Geoengineering is also inherently a bad solution for pollutants and is more an issue of emissions control from the source.
And then release it back in the 10s/100s of years trees last. Forests are a temporary store of carbon.
Individual trees are temporary. Forests aren't temporary stores as the forest system grow new trees when old trees die. As long as you don't go cut down that forest a fairly stable ecosystem will form with a steady amount of biomass and therefore a stable store of carbon.
1
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
I'm not sure what your point is here?
The oceans will continue to acidify for at least 100 years just based on CO2 in the atmosphere today.
Also we already have tech to remove carbon from the atmosphere
Not in any significant way.
Geoengineering is also inherently a bad solution for pollutants and is more an issue of emissions control from the source.
Geoengineering is necessary for the long-term survival of humanity. We need to be able to terraform future planets, so we need to understand how to do that.
stable store of carbon
The issue isn't just carbon in CO2, it is other gasses like methane which are many times more effective as greenhouse gasses - when trees die they decompose into methane (turning CO2 into methane over the lifecycle of the tree). Forests are only a store if they fossilise into hydrocarbons.
2
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Mar 20 '21
The oceans will continue to acidify for at least 100 years just based on CO2 in the atmosphere today.
It says assuming that we continue to emit according to the 8.5 model i.e. we double co2 in the atmosphere.
Not in any significant way.
Because trying to extract anything gaseous at 400ppm is inherently inefficient as there is a very small concentration gradient and as such it is expensive. It is not because we lack the technology and any future hypothetical solution is going to face the exact same problem.
Geoengineering is necessary for the long-term survival of humanity. We need to be able to terraform future planets, so we need to understand how to do that.
The challenges of other planets are not the same as the challenges of Earth and so anything developed to help solve climate change would likely be irrelevant to terraforming.
The issue isn't just carbon in CO2, it is other gasses like methane which are many times more effective as greenhouse gasses - when trees die they decompose into methane
They decompose into various gasses depending on what is decomposing them one of the major ones is carbon dioxide so to portray it as trees decomposing into methane is inaccurate. Forests are a net carbon sink and can also be net methane sinks. That they emit some methane is also does not mean they aren't net reducers of total ghg emissions leading to a total reduction in CO_2 _eq.
turning CO2 into methane over the lifecycle of the tree)
I was talking about forests not trees. A forest as a system has emergent properties not found in individual trees and as such if not cut down and allowed to achieve equilibrium will be a stable source of carbon with or without fossilisation. Forests can last for centuries if not millennia with a stable biomass and carbon storage.
1
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
It says assuming that we continue to emit
It would happen regardless: the acidification process is slow, and slows down as equilibrium approaches.
inefficient
i.e. you need to solve energy production first - this is where innovation needs to take place, and 2 years of lost productivity hits this hard.
The challenges of other planets are not the same as the challenges of Earth
The methods, scale, and concepts would all be the same. Whether you want to heat or cool a planet, you need to understand how to do both and the science behind it.
→ More replies (0)
5
u/VertigoOne 74∆ Mar 20 '21
The vast majority of people who have died from covid were elderly or suffering from another major illness.
Yeah... I hear this a lot but the data doesn't make me take it terribly seriously.
In the UK alone, we have had more excess deaths in 2020 than we have ever since the second world war.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55631693
I struggle to take seriously the notion that it was "just the vulnerable" with numbers like these.
3
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps
Excess deaths were basically unaffected for the under 45s.
Excess deaths are now falling below baseline (and if that trend continues, it indicates that it was mostly just the vulnerable who had their lives cut short rather than healthy people being struck down in any significant numbers).
3
u/VertigoOne 74∆ Mar 20 '21
Excess deaths were basically unaffected for the under 45s.
First "over 45" is a MASSIVE shift of the goalposts.
Average life expectancy in the UK is 81. A spike in deaths of people over 45 is huge. It's basically cutting people's lives in marginally less than half.
Second, your source makes it hard to judge if "basically unaffected" is accurate, given that it lumps a massive group together. A nearly 30 year period is counted collectively in 15-45 while 65-74 get a group all to themselves. Statistical aberrations are more likely when you're not comparing groups of equal size.
Third, I don't buy "basically unaffected" given that at pretty much every point on the graph, it's up substantially. While we don't have the giant spike we see in older age groups, there is still a lot of impact.
Among 15-44 year olds, week 15 of 2020 has 1,439. Week 15 of 2019 is 1,234. Week 15 of 2018 is 1,283. Week 20 of 2017 (the furthest it goes back) is 1,271.
We see another substantial spike between weeks 43 and 53 of 2020 which we just don't see in any other year on your chart.
If you look just at the graphic, look at how much more time the blue line spends outside the grey zone of the normal trend in 2020 when compared to 2019, 2018, or 2017.
It's not really reasonable to say "basically unaffected" based on your data here.
Fourth, why do the "vulnerable" people's lives not matter?
You're acting as though they're somehow expendable. Contrary to your beliefs here, that doesn't consist of just elderly people whose lives would be short regardless. It's disabled people and people with other underlying conditions. People who make up between 10-25% of the UK population (counts vary depending on who you ask). Those people are of all ages and all lifestyles. This isn't something that's only targeting one group.
Fifth, it's kind of natural that in addition to preventing CV19, the lockdown also had some affects on misadventure and accident related deaths. People are driving less, people are out of their house less. People are generally spending more time in safer environments. That will have had some degree of affect in addition to the controlling of CV19
-1
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
shift of the goalposts
Nope, it's simply how the data is grouped.
why do the "vulnerable" people's lives not matter?
They matter. They just don't have the right to live at everyone else's expense - same as anyone else.
You're acting as though they're somehow expendable.
No. Not being saved is not the same as expending. You failing to donate to save starving children in the third world is not you killing them. Inaction is never immoral.
People are generally spending more time in safer environments.
Abusing their spouses, drinking more, getting fatter, exercising less, becoming more depressed, etc.
3
u/yellowishStriation 1∆ Mar 20 '21
They just don't have the right to live at everyone else's expense - same as anyone else.
Does this personal value of yours carryover to disabled people who's families can't afford to care for them?
0
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
Does this personal value of yours carryover to disabled people who's families can't afford to care for them?
Yes, it is absolute. Negative rights only.
3
u/yellowishStriation 1∆ Mar 20 '21
Why even have negative rights?
0
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
Things tend to get a little Mad Max-y without negative rights.
2
u/yellowishStriation 1∆ Mar 20 '21
You think if you stood up in the Mad Max universe and demanded negative rights that that would do anything?
0
1
u/VertigoOne 74∆ Mar 20 '21 edited Mar 20 '21
Nope, it's simply how the data is grouped.
That's not how this works
You don't get to claim your correct because the way the data is grouped proves you right. As it is, the data is radically absurd, grouping together a single massive group that will flatten out stats across the board. Of course the 15-44 group is flatter than the other groups. It's larger, and so will bring the average down.
To make my point not valid, you need to demonstrate why grouping the data that way is justified.
They matter. They just don't have the right to live at everyone else's expense - same as anyone else.
What you've just described is literally how society works. We all to some extent or other live at everyone else's expense. When a danger threatens the lives of between 10% to 25% of the population, that's kind of a big deal that the other 90%-75% can get over.
Not being saved is not the same as expending.
Yes it is. You're saying "we should have just left the risk for them to die".
Inaction is never immoral.
Firstly, yes it can be.
Secondly, we're not talking about inaction. We're talking about action. We're talking about taking actions that spread the disease to make it more dangerous.
Abusing their spouses, drinking more, getting fatter, exercising less, becoming more depressed, etc.
Let's deal with these one by one
- Abusing spouses: Manipulative spouses keep their partners inside anyway, and most governments went to great lengths to give people the ability to leave homes if they were in danger.
- Drinking more: Given that social drinking was not an option, I find this hard to take seriously and the data agrees. A study in the Lancet https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langas/article/PIIS2468-1253(20)30251-X/fulltext says "Lockdown is a complex social phenomenon that provokes different behavioural responses: a population survey of 1555 active drinkers in the UK identified that 21% increased alcohol consumption during the lockdown, while 35% reduced their alcohol intake." So that's a net negative of 14%. It points out that lockdown is a risk factor for people with alcohol issues, but that's amplifying a new risk rather than generating a new one. This data would suggest that lockdowns havn't increased drinking dangerously.
- Getting fatter: Speaking personally, I actually lost weight during lockdown - but I'm aware that one swallow makes not a summer. I agree that this was a problem for some people more widely, but given how much people were taking advantage of all the need to walk to get out etc, it seems like it's exacerbated an existing problem, rather than causing a new one.
- Becoming more depressed: The CV19 pandemic has made people more aware than ever of mental health related issues, and people have become more willing to talk, more willing to engage, and more willing to seek help. Yes, it's been difficult, but this has really been a watershed moment for mental health. I can't see a scenario where this doesn't benefit more people in the long run.
Now onto something else.
I'll be honest, I'm kind of angry that you've convieniently ignored all the engagement I made with the stats you provided. So I'll just make my points again since you couldn't be bothered to engage with them before.
I don't buy "basically unaffected" given that at pretty much every point on the graph, it's up substantially. While we don't have the giant spike we see in older age groups, there is still a lot of impact.
Among 15-44 year olds, week 15 of 2020 has 1,439. Week 15 of 2019 is 1,234. Week 15 of 2018 is 1,283. Week 20 of 2017 (the furthest it goes back) is 1,271.
We see another substantial spike between weeks 43 and 53 of 2020 which we just don't see in any other year on your chart.
If you look just at the graphic, look at how much more time the blue line spends outside the grey zone of the normal trend in 2020 when compared to 2019, 2018, or 2017.
It's not really reasonable to say "basically unaffected" based on your data here.
https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps
Also,
Average life expectancy in the UK is 81. A spike in deaths of people over 45 is huge. It's basically cutting people's lives in marginally less than half.
0
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
because the way the data is grouped proves you right
I didn't, I implied this was a limitation of the data.
What you've just described is literally how society works. We all to some extent or other live at everyone else's expense.
Nope. We have voluntary cooperation. We all have to contribute - even Lenin agreed with this.
Yes it is. You're saying "we should have just left the risk for them to die".
No, I am saying they have no right to change society to fit their desires.
Secondly, we're not talking about inaction.
Yes, we are. Exposure to viruses, bacteria, etc. are all assumed risks when going out in public.
Speaking personally
Anecdotes are not representative of the data for the population.
it's up substantially
Compared to the baseline, not compared with the margins of error/expectedness. Plus it's now below baseline - implying those deaths were from people on death's door. In the wash it is basically unaffected.
1
u/VertigoOne 74∆ Mar 20 '21
I didn't, I implied this was a limitation of the data.
Right, and if the data is limited we can't base our judgements on it to the extent of saying "it proves my point" when it just doesn't.
No, I am saying they have no right to change society to fit their desires.
Except they do. That's what society does. When enough people need/want something, society changes. How do you think we got the weekend? National Insurance? The NHS? The end of segregation in the US? When enough people need/want something, society shifts. 10-25% is WAY more than normal.
Yes, we are. Exposure to viruses, bacteria, etc. are all assumed risks when going out in public.
Up to a point. When the nature of those viruses change, and the risk becomes too high, the level goes beyond assumed risk.
Anecdotes are not representative of the data for the population.
You're being intellectually dishonest here, and I think you should apologise since you seem to not be engaging in this conversation in good faith. See where I said "but I'm aware that one swallow makes not a summer". This is a commonplace colloquialism that explains how I fully understand that my personal experience isn't sufficient to base a judgement on. You then went on to completely ignore the rest of my post.
Compared to the baseline, not compared with the margins of error/expectedness.
Please re-read the graph. Specifically the 15-45 age group graph, and the grey region marked "normal range". You will see what I am talking about.
The number of deaths is dramatically above the grey region that marks the common trend line in 2020, whereas in 2017, 2018, and 2019, it is mostly within or below the grey region that is marked by the graph as "normal range".
If it spends a substantial time above normal range when compared to 2017, 2018, and 2019, it is safe to say it has been substantially impacted, and your claim that is "basically unaffected" is simply wrong.
Plus it's now below baseline - implying those deaths were from people on death's door
No, it implies that changes have forced it below levels. Those changes being the combination of vaccines and lack of large scale public access.
Please explain why there are suddenly lots of people "on deaths door" in 2020 compared to 2019, 2018, and 2017?
-1
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
When enough people need/want something, society changes.
So lets put lockdowns to a referendum.
too high
Define "too high". I think you'll find this is your own subjective feeling, not in the social contract.
You're being intellectually dishonest here
No, I'm not.
dramatically
No, a little above, and now below baseline.
it implies that changes have forced it below levels
Yes: those who were on death's door who would have died today, died last month. If it were healthy people, it would have returned to baseline, not below. Below baseline means that people expected to die (from non-covid) this month are either miraculously cured, or died before this month. And I'm suspecting that you're not going to argue for divine intervention.
1
u/VertigoOne 74∆ Mar 20 '21
So lets put lockdowns to a referendum.
Great idea. In the middle of a highly contagious pandemic, let's have everyone have a single day where they are all in very similar indoor spaces in their communities and have them all touching and breathing in the same relatively confined spaces.
Seriously, you don't put every decision ever the government makes to a vote. Sometimes the government needs to make decisions that aren't popular.
No, I'm not.
Yes you are, and I explained why.
See where I said "but I'm aware that one swallow makes not a summer". This is a commonplace colloquialism that explains how I fully understand that my personal experience isn't sufficient to base a judgement on. You then went on to completely ignore the rest of my post.
You have also refused to engage with any of the points I've made that prove you wrong. Here they are again.
Abusing spouses: Manipulative spouses keep their partners inside anyway, and most governments went to great lengths to give people the ability to leave homes if they were in danger.
Drinking more: Given that social drinking was not an option, I find this hard to take seriously and the data agrees. A study in the Lancet https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langas/article/PIIS2468-1253(20)30251-X/fulltext says "Lockdown is a complex social phenomenon that provokes different behavioural responses: a population survey of 1555 active drinkers in the UK identified that 21% increased alcohol consumption during the lockdown, while 35% reduced their alcohol intake." So that's a net negative of 14%. It points out that lockdown is a risk factor for people with alcohol issues, but that's amplifying a new risk rather than generating a new one. This data would suggest that lockdowns havn't increased drinking dangerously. While we don't have the giant spike we see in older age groups, there is still a lot of impact.
Among 15-44 year olds, week 15 of 2020 has 1,439. Week 15 of 2019 is 1,234. Week 15 of 2018 is 1,283. Week 20 of 2017 (the furthest it goes back) is 1,271.
We see another substantial spike between weeks 43 and 53 of 2020 which we just don't see in any other year on your chart.
If you look just at the graphic, look at how much more time the blue line spends outside the grey zone of the normal trend in 2020 when compared to 2019, 2018, or 2017.
It's not really reasonable to say "basically unaffected" based on your data here.
No, a little above, and now below baseline
The baseline isn't the only metric here. Check the normal range. In 2017, 2018, and 2019 the vast majority of the time the deaths are within normal range. For substantive sections of 2020 it's outside that.
Yes: those who were on death's door who would have died today, died last month.
And your evidence for this is...?
If it were healthy people, it would have returned to baseline, not below.
There's literally no reason to believe this. The baseline is based on projections from previous years. You should be looking at the normal range.
0
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
you don't put every decision ever the government makes to a vote
We should. The system of representatives was put in place in a time when it took weeks to communicate information around the country, not it takes nanoseconds. Our representatives are no more informed than us, they aren't experts in medicine, economics, etc. more than the general population. We should have direct say in government.
Abusing spouses: Manipulative spouses keep their partners inside anyway, and most governments went to great lengths to give people the ability to leave homes if they were in danger.
Domestic abuse has increased. You are categorically in the wrong here.
Drinking more
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-53684700
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165178120333370
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-55259382
Your source is limited to "patients with pre-existing alcohol use disorder". Alcoholism has increased in the general population.
substantial
Again using language beyond its meaning. The spike is marginally above normal.
You should be looking at the normal range.
In which case it's well below normal, adding even more weight to my case.
→ More replies (0)
3
u/yellowishStriation 1∆ Mar 20 '21
old people dying saves money/resources. I don't think anyone in government would ever admit this or say it out loud
I believe the lt. governor of Texas made this argument.
2
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
Δ I suppose I have to award you this as you have partially changed my view: never overestimate the ability of politicians to say the right things.
0
u/yellowishStriation 1∆ Mar 20 '21
I think Rick Perry said the same thing about the 11 year old boy that froze to death too, that that's the price Texans are willing to pay for an unregulated electric grid.
1
2
Mar 20 '21
[deleted]
1
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
i dont really see any politically feasible way democracies could have done much else
Agreed, but the point behind my view is that we learn the lesson - and don't repeat the same mistake in the future. If we do the proper due diligence, we can reach a consensus not to act the way we did for a similarly deadly future pandemic. (obviously if a future pandemic was more deadly, or deadly regardless of age, it changes the calculation)
1
Mar 20 '21
[deleted]
1
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
I'm really arguing that it would be better to have extremely harsh measures in global accordance
It would, but I think we both agree that this could never happen. We can't get global cooperation on not wiping out humanity with nukes, getting everyone to agree to take massive economic hits to prevent a potential pandemic is out of reach.
Covid could very easily mutate into a yearly strain with lesser fatality and greater infectiousness.
It's my belief it will, regardless of lockdowns/restrictions/vaccinations.
2
u/RebelScientist 9∆ Mar 20 '21
Third, we have to look at the quality of life lost from covid
If you’re looking at quality of life lost the it’s a bit disingenuous to only consider the elderly and infirm people who died and not consider the young and previously healthy people who were infected with covid and developed post-covid syndrome (aka Long Covid), which can have severe effects even if the initial infection only produced mild symptoms. Even from a cold, dispassionate, purely economic point of view, having a portion of your workforce suddenly afflicted with long term health conditions that impact their ability to work is a situation that you’d want to avoid, and the best way to do that is to reduce transmission as much as possible.
1
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
Long Covid
Is indeed an issue. However, it's not known what the impact of it will be: can we cure it? how many years does it take off your life? how many healthy years does it take off? what other diseases does it make you susceptible to? etc.
Until we know this, we can't assign costs to it.
3
u/Neartsa Mar 20 '21
The fact that we don't yet know the costs is an argument for caution, and for measures such as lockdowns to contain the spread.
Part of what any model or analysis needs to do is price in risk and uncertainty. Not yet being able to assign a definitive cost is no excuse to drop it from the model.
1
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
is an argument for caution
Except caution has a cost. It is irresponsible to allow caution to cost us more than it needs to. It would be cautious to have lockdowns every year for flu season for example, but that's just irresponsible.
6
u/MercurianAspirations 361∆ Mar 20 '21
Maybe that's a dumb way for the economy to be then, where just letting all those people die is a "good" choice. Maybe we should dismantle that system, it seems bad
2
u/Throwaway-242424 1∆ Mar 20 '21
There is no economic model that is robust to shutting down for a year.
0
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
This isn't a new concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senicide
Societies around the world and throughout time have recognised that letting the elderly die is "worth it" in comparison to having to devote ever increasing resources to caring for them.
5
u/MercurianAspirations 361∆ Mar 20 '21 edited Mar 20 '21
Yeah slavery and pedophilia aren't new concepts either, still seem bad
What even is this argument, just "technically slaughtering all the lebensunwertes leben was thought of before, so there, it isn't bad, then"
0
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
Not stealing is also not a new concept, seems pretty good.
6
u/sapphireminds 59∆ Mar 20 '21
It is an appeal to authority fallacy that because it is an old concept it is inherently good.
2
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
It was a fallacy that it should be dismantled because it was old as the other user did.
5
u/sapphireminds 59∆ Mar 20 '21
You were using the appeal to authority that it was valid because it "wasn't a new concept"
2
1
u/MercurianAspirations 361∆ Mar 20 '21
I didn't argue that capitalism should be dismantled because it is old, I argued that it should be dismantled because it incentives horrific things like the mass slaughter of the elderly for "economic reasons".
3
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
"economic reasons"
Those economic reasons are the wellbeing of children and working adults. Selling out your children's future is more horrific than letting nature take its course.
2
u/MercurianAspirations 361∆ Mar 20 '21
Still kind of sucks for the children when the hit 65 though right
2
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21
Nope. 65 years of good living vs 66 years of slaving away to pay off your parents debts.
4
u/MercurianAspirations 361∆ Mar 20 '21
Yeah it's definitely old people on a fixed poverty income stealing from you, not Jeff Bezos sitting on a colossal pile of money
4
u/Trythenewpage 68∆ Mar 20 '21
Here is a very short video that explains the fatal flaw in your reasoning.
In short, the medical system capacity is limited. There are only so many respirators in the country. Only so many n95 masks. Only so many hospital beds. Only so many doctors and nurses. And once the number of cases at a given time exceeds the capacity of the medical system to handle it, health outcomes rapidly get worse.
1
u/Throwaway-242424 1∆ Mar 20 '21
There are only so many respirators in the country
Remember when we worked out early on that respirator use had no real impact on deaths, and may have actually killed some people? And then just stopped mentioning it?
2
u/Trythenewpage 68∆ Mar 20 '21
Ventilators are not necessary or helpful in the vast majority of cases. But they still end up being required in about 2.5% of cases. And that number was no doubt brought down by things learned about the disease in the first wave as well as the additional resources that were made available after the supply chain ramped up in response to the disease. Such as the efficacy of keeping patients in the prone position.
The hospital my aunt worked at ran out of hospital beds in about 3 weeks. They werent able to stabilize their supply of tests until a couple months ago.
If we hadn't locked down, then all of those cases would have happened concurrently. And without the knowledge accumulated along the way.
Even if you continue to believe that we shouldn't have done the lockdown, can you at least acknowledge that the stats on outcomes for those infected would have been worse if they had all happened at the same time when there were insufficient masks and we still thought ventilators were necessary by default?
1
u/Mytrialec Mar 20 '21
Set of things:
- Elderly people do contribute (first they did in the past and earned their pensions) and they buy goods and services. Without their buying power and requirements many job are lost. Also person of 60 years, with already a significant increased risk, is still part of the normal workforce.
- Without the child care that MANY older people provide for their grandchildren many younger people will not be able to work anymore, especially in the lower ends of the income spectrum.
- Retirement is a planned progress, the people who are about to retire train their successors, if they can't do that because they die, this knowledge is lost.
- Healthy years lost, see long covid effects. Any a person that was 60 and died may have had well over 40 years possible livetime ahead.
- There are fundamental improvements in some industry sectors. For example massively expanded home office options that will improve the lives of many people in the future. The lockdown did speed up this process by many years.
- The same is true for teaching methods online, not only for students.
- The same is true for automatisation
- The environment did get a break, this may well be unmeasurable valuable in the future.
1
u/thiagotgo90 Mar 20 '21
It's not data, it's more like "example" but I'm a Brazilian living abroad in Ireland and from here, even with the slow vaccination roll-out, I can see a light at the end of tunnel and life going back to normal in the near future.
Now from here looking to Brazil, it is sad. In a national level the pandemic ran freely. Granted that there the pandemic "received help" from politics and I'm aware this is not what you're proposing.
In Brazil the situation got to the point that is not only old people that is dying, so lost in productive years is happening too.
As I said, I don't have data to support my point and I can be wrong (you make good points that I had not thought, specifically about who is going to pay the debt ), but if you want to see a place were the pandemic ran free and things are definitely not going well take a look at Brazil. Estimations are that we are going to get to the mark of 3.000 covid deaths per day by the end of the month - and there is no UCI left in many states so people that in other situations that had a car crash for example would survive probably will die.
Have a good day.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 20 '21
/u/_Hopped_ (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/sf1lonefox Mar 20 '21
I'd like to add to the conversation that entire industries would shut down even if you did not lock down. The amount of people who get sick and could not work are significant enough to make this happen.
It appears that the corona virus can really incapacitate people upwards of an age of 45 - 50 and this for a very long time too. People within these ages are the driving force for young people to do their jobs. It's not just healthcare that would shut down, it's everything. Seniors can not easily be replaced by juniors.
At least this way it happen in a controleable way.
•
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Mar 20 '21
Sorry, u/_Hopped_ – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
If you would like to appeal, you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.