California no longer under lockdown - people freak out
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I pretty much don't disagree with any of that logic. Not having everyone get it all at once is good for all the reasons you've stated. I'm just saying how can you say the risk from covid is high? It's a few notches above the flu and decent amount below driving. I wouldn't call that a high risk to life is all I'm saying. It wouldn't be anything to be concerned about unless you're in a high risk group or interact with a high risk group. Taking the common sense guidelines to keep the spread manageable is the same as putting on your seatbelt and following the rules of the road, you shouldn't be scared of it much like you're not scared to drive to work.
The initial lockdowns made sense at the time to be able to hit the pause button and gather information and come up with a plan of attack. But we really didn't do any of that, which is the problem. We were just like these numbers are low now so let's slowly open back up again and hope covid doesn't notice. There was no plan developed. We pretty much wasted all that time with everyone yelling at each other over masks or yelling at people to stay home, the media just asking Trump "gotcha" questions and fearmongering instead of doing actual journalism. Just like every other issue it seems, we have to have everyone at one extreme or the other (covid is a hoax or the deadliest thing ever) when the middle is where the logical solution is 99.9% of the time. It was a total fuck up at the start and a total fuck on the "2nd start" as well. I was saying in April that you can open up at any time if you have a plan because if you don't we're just gonna end up back here again.
The logical solution was to pay people enough to stay home, outlaw firings for staying home, outlaw evictions, put houseless people in vacant hotels, give essential workers danger pay and organize the production of more PPE; the political strength of anti-mask and anti-lockdown bullshit goes way down when people aren't facing eviction or bankruptcy if they don't go to work (or, indeed, if their tenants don't). Our system in the United States puts profits before people and has people at the top of the government who feel a need to keep the expectations of the working class for government assistance very low, so we didn't do that. Instead we gave a gift to large corporations and a couple of insultingly inadequate one-time payments to everybody.
Okay, so now multiply the Covid death toll by 75 and you'll clearly see the difference in mortality.
Fucking hell.
According to the W.H.O., the traffic-related death toll was approximately 1.35 million in 2016, which seems to be the most recent global estimate. Meanwhile, the deaths from Covid to date (which really covers about a year and 1 month) are at the very least 2.1 million (it's likely to be far higher, given the Chinese government's willingness to massage data).
The death-rate from traffic is by far at its highest in developing countries, with poor road-safety laws. Traffic is over twice as likely to kill you in a developing country as it is in a wealthy European nation. And frankly, yes, if I was in a country with poor road-safety laws, I would be pretty reticent to drive. If it was avoidable I wouldn't.
On the flip-side, the countries with the highest likelihood of death from Covid-19 right now are... the UK and the US. I'm in the UK; most posters here are in the US. So if we're only talking about our own countries rather than global estimates, we're actually talking about the countries with the lowest risk from driving and the highest risk from Covid. So we're at a greater risk from Covid than driving. But even if we were to take the entire global annual death rate rather than country-specific stats, Covid would still be above traffic.
As I've already stated, everybody interacts with high-risk groups. Whenever you go to a supermarket or travel on public transport you're interacting with high-risk groups. Even your own posted article said that surface transmission was a risk in such environments.
You can't do that for a whole year or whatever the time frame is to get everyone vaccinated (develop + actually vaccinate). Yes, that shoud've been done for the 1st month or so but past that, you just can't keep that going for that long. It's why every other country has opened up already because it's just not possible to do that.
Covid is done by around summer of this year, there is no 75x. Even if literally everyone got infected, it has a 0.2% fatality rate, there's a limit of how many it can kill.
I was just going with the odds of dying in the US from a car crash, which is basically 1%. We are not at a greater risk from covid, you have a 0.2% chance of dying from covid IF you get infected (so that's not even factoring in the odds of not getting infected). You have a 1% chance in your lifetime from dying in a car crash in the US.
Going to the store and grabbing some groceries, you're not really interacting much at all with people in the store. You're not going to get it just walking through an aisle an infected person just walked by. Wearing masks and not being next to people for several minutes at time is all you really need to do in that kind of environment. We can prioritize the high risk groups as much as possible to stay home and out of the public instead of having EVERYONE stay home, which doesn't make any sense and then you wouldn't have to pay everyone to not work. Assisted living facilities are the most important to protect as something like 40% of deaths have come from there.
Where does this 0.2% come from?! Because +/-2 million divided by +/-100 million = +/-2%.
The case fatality rate and infection fatality rate are 2 different things. The case fatality rate is just official known cases over deaths, which is highly dependent on testing obviously. The infection fatality rate is estimated number of people that actually got infected by doing antibody surveys and whatnot. If the US actual infection count is just 5 times the official count (which is a rather low estimate), then the infection fatality rate is 0.336%. Millions of people couldn't get tested in the initial wave (we know that 20% of New York City was infected in freaking April), then there's like 30% of infections that are asymptomatic, you think those people are getting tested? Same thing with children obviously, you think people are getting their kids tested with no symptoms?
Here's a video about the infection fatality rate (median rate was 0.23%), which links to the WHO document about it in the description.
Why not?
Yes. One diminishes the need for PPE, the other produces more because some amount is necessary. Everything else in the sentence you misquoted was logical too.
EVERY OTHER COUNTRY OPENED UP ALREADY BECAUSE THEY AREN'T BEING RUN BY PEOPLE WHO THINK "PUTTING ON A MASK" IS THE EQUIVALENT OF CHATTEL SLAVERY.
Fucking hell, you just don't get it, do you? Countries who're opening up *either* had effective virus fighting strategies, INCLUDING ACTUAL STRICT LOCKDOWNS, or they're paying for it now.
It's cute how you think the USA is going to be better at vaccine distribution than any other part of our botched virus response.
Why are you comparing it to 75 years of car crashes to make it seem less dangerous? Compare like to like. Like, over 75 years, the flu is *much* more lethal than one year of covid. But we know that covid is more lethal than the flu
Because it costs tons and tons and tons of money to do so. With that money spent saving 0.2% of the population, you can spend it on other things that would save more people that die from other things. Plus, we have examples on how to deal with covid for basically no money that any country can copy (see Japan).
If all these other countries had all these effective virus fighting strategies, why is there only a select handful of that didn't have bigger 2nd waves than 1st waves?
Yes, the US did completely shitty placing 8th worst country in deaths per million. However, you still have to go 30 more countries down the list to find one that did JUST twice as good as the US did. The US tripped and face-planted into the concrete sidewalk multiple times and still there's 37 countries that couldn't even do twice as good and 7 countries that did worse. And there's plenty of developed nations in that list that did rather poorly. And there's quite a bit of countries with better public welfare programs that didn't do so hot and also couldn't have people stay home for a year straight either. It's just not a feasible option to keep people home for that long, that's why no one fucking did it.
Your literal chance of dying in a car crash in your life in 1%. You're chance of dying from covid if you get it in your life is 0.2%. How can you argue that 0.2% is higher than 1%? Would you rather roll a 100 sided die where 1 kills you or a 500 sided die where 1 kills you? I know which one I'm rolling.
Over half of the US population already got infected naturally (the tripping and falling and face-planting) and now we have the vaccine rolling out, reaching herd immunity isn't going to be that hard of a feat with just a decent vaccine rollout and we have months to get better at rolling it out plus more vaccines coming out that aren't 2 doses.
Here's an article from middle of January where Dr. Paul Offit said, "then I really do think that by June, we can stop the spread of this virus." Here's my post from October predicting no restrictions by next summer. It's not hard to see the writing on the walls when infections were going way back up (more infections is bad but good for herd immunity) and the vaccines, which expedite herd immunity, were right around the corner.
Except we didn't and won't. Doing something slightly inconvenient for the benefit of other people isn't something Americans *do*, if you haven't noticed.
Because people get complacent
Yeah. We didn't do it the most. Worked out great.
Yours might be. *I* know how to drive.
Your chance of dying from the flu (and related secondary infections) over 75 years is *much* higher than dying of covid. Why don't you argue that instead of car crashes? Is it because making the comparison between apples and apples shows how bullshit it is? Do you need that extra layer of obfuscation to stop the cognitive dissonance? Is it because the flu (and related secondary infections) mainly kill olds and you don't care about that?
You assume only the amount of infected is underestimated while we all know the amount of related deaths are too.
Please stop spreading bullshit. You can get Covid multiple times and the virus has already mutated to variants which behave differently and could (will?) further mutate. You have no clue whatsoever how many times someone could get infected over a lifetime and what the chances of dying from all those infections would be so stop comparing it to lifetime risk of driving a car. Compare it to the chances you'll die from a car crash over the course of 1 year.
Yep, wearing masks, social distancing, lockdowns etc. All these precautions also help mitigate other airborne diseases.
Which is why i hoped for masking to be normalized here like it is in Far East Asia. It won't cause "muh freedum", but it would be nice.
