I'm sick of the fatuous question bilge masquerading as a question: "How many people would you be okay with dying?" Because the implied preferred response seems to be zero. And that's just nonsense.
YOU CAN'T PUT AN ECONOMIC VALUE ON THE LIFE OF A PERSON!

Sure you can. We do it every single day in this country.
Hey, thousands die every day on the roads. Let's lower the speed limit to 5 mph. That will guarantee that the number of traffic fatalities will drop to almost zero.
Of course, no one would be in favor of that because it would be an economic disaster. The cost imposed on society would be considered much, much greater than the number of lives saved.
"But car accidents aren't communicable!" - cry the unserious people.

Of course they aren't. Pointing out a cost benefit ratio is for illustration purposes. But hey, let's pick one closer to the case at hand.
Around 25k-60k (with some highs around 80k) die from the flu every year. Many vaccinate every year, but many do not. Thousands die from the flu every year nonetheless. If anyone suggested shutting down everything during flu season every year, they'd be shouted down.
"But this virus is more dangerous!" - they cry again

Yes, it does appear to be potentially more life-threatening. A few things though:
1) It appears that a number who get infected are either asymptomatic or have minor symptoms
2) The number whose symptoms become serious need treatment, but not most will recover without hospitalization
3) Those who require hospitalization, a percentage will die. That is a given.
But we have no idea yet if being infected and recovering means permanent immunity or not, nor do we know when an effective vaccine will be developed.
So that puts us on the possible path of shutting down everything for months at a time every single year. I mean hey, if your salary is guaranteed and you can work from home forever, kudos. Most people do not have that luxury.
And when the suicide rates drastically increase due to >40 million unemployment, I guess that's a price we're just supposed to absorb. Because that saved "just one life" somewhere else.
Mike Williamson made what I think is the proper analysis about our current actions in society. We haven't flattened the curve, or at least not that much. We've simply moved the hump on the curve to the right.
Herd immunity is a thing. For it to occur for this virus, about 60% will have to have become immune. And to become immune, they will have to have been exposed at some point.
What do we do? Keep everyone on lockdown until unemployment hits 30%-40%? Or do we find some middle path between IF IT SAVES JUST ONE LIFE and EXPOSE EVERYONE AND LET GOD SORT IT OUT? Because I've been advocating that middle path from the start.
But I've had my fill of the "Tell me how many dead you are comfortable with" people. It's a stupid, lazy and ignorant argument hiding it's vapid face behind a pretty, yet fake mask.
Sometimes, there isn't a good choice. Read "The Cold Equations" if you believe otherwise. https://photos.state.gov/libraries/hochiminh/646441/vantt/The%20Cold%20Equations.pdf
You can follow @physicsgeek.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: