log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D and the rising pandemic

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Just how everyone runs and cowers from it.

It has killed 360,000 people in the US. More than one in a thousand. Right now, it is killing more than 3,000 people per day. And that's with what meager protections we have in place. You want us to do less?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

NotAYakk

Legend
Just how everyone runs and cowers from it. One out of every 7 people in the 19th century died of tuberculosis. And then there was measles, whooping cough, small pox, wars and more. I think we have raised a society of cowards that will be let authoritarians lock them up while their livelihoods are being destroyed and we are put into another Great Depression. That’s my opinion of these reactions to the pandemic.
Yes, and know what else the 19th century was? Really poor.

And part of that poverty was because ... of death by disease.

There are places that said "whatever, we'll stay open" ... their GDP fell by more than places that took it seriously, and more people died.

Now, until around this moment in time, defeating Covid-19 would be impossible. Even 10 years ago - maybe even 5 - we'd lack the technology to do it.

So cowards who surrender to it, and say "we might as well let people die, not my problem" are sort of understandable. They lack the courage and vision to see we can beat this pandemic.

And parts of the world have beaten it. Your part of the world, maybe not, but that isn't because it wasn't worth the effort or whatever. Maybe your part of the world maybe just wasn't good enough to pull off victory. Losers... well, they lose. Often they then tell a story about how their loserhood is great.

Not to say that having lots of dead meant you are a loser; you could have been ambushed by it before we had a clue what to do, like NYC, Wuhan or Italy; of course, SK also got ambushed about as early. Or you could lack the economic strength to pull off what was needed (note that relatively poor economies seemed to have pulled it off (Vietnam, and some parts of Africa, for example)).

You can take pride in your failure, or you can learn from it and become a better place. Because this isn't going to be the last pandemic. And the next one might be worse.

Parts of the word hit hard by SARS (a previous pandemic we stopped dead before millions died) where much more ready for this one. Because they had the courage and fortitude and foresight to actually have plans, then to execute plans, and then to beat it.

...

To be clear, I'm not running and cowering from it. I'm protecting everyone else by staying distant. Especially in the early parts of the pandemic, my personal risk from it was really low, but the collective risk from letting it spread was just as bad as now.

We have math. We know the costs of letting it run loose -- about 1% of the world dead, as hospitals are overrun. We know the costs of letting it slow burn -- about 0.5% dead, as about half of those who would have died are saved by health care. Right now Canada is fighting to end with 0.1% dead, saving the lives of about 300,000 people over the alternative of surrender. Other places pulled off basically 0% dead.

I personally think those lives where worth my crappy year.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
We have math. We know the costs of letting it run loose -- about 1% of the world dead, as hospitals are overrun. We know the costs of letting it slow burn -- about 0.5% dead, as about half of those who would have died are saved by health care. Right now Canada is fighting to end with 0.1% dead, saving the lives of about 300,000 people over the alternative of surrender. Other places pulled off basically 0% dead.

I personally think those lives where worth my crappy year.

To put some numbers on this...

The US population is about 330 million people. As we currently understand it, to hit herd immunity and finally stop the pandemic, we'd need about 80% of the population to have gotten it. That's about 264 million people who would have to get sick.

At a 1% fatality rate, that's two and a half million dead. If it happens in a big rush, the death rate rises to more like 2% as health care services get overwhelmed. Which results in 5 million people dead.

Thank you. I will take some lean years and inconvenience over 5 million of my fellow citizens dead. That's not cowering. That's just recognizing those 5 million people matter. Economics can be managed. Dead cannot.
 

Mallus

Hero
Just how everyone runs and cowers from it. One out of every 7 people in the 19th century died of tuberculosis. And then there was measles, whooping cough, small pox, wars and more.
Yes. And at some point in history the average human life expectancy was below 30. At one point we were all subsistence farmers. Before that, hunter-gatherers.

Were you trying to make a point applicable to life now (in a developed country like the US)?
 

Zsong

Explorer
It has killed 360,000 people in the US. More than one in a thousand. Right now, it is killing more than 3,000 people per day. And that's with what meager protections we have in place. You want us to do less?
That’s a nothing number and a fraudulent number. There are 7 billion people on the planet. Tuberculosis was far worse and people went out and took care of their families.
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
That’s a nothing number and a fraudulent number. There are 7 billion people on the planet. Tuberculosis was far worse and people went out and took care of their families.
Nothing is zero.
360K is infinitely higher than nothing.

You want to make a point about percentages and history, but suggesting that hundreds of thousands of lives are "nothing" isn't the way to do it.
 

Zsong

Explorer
Nothing is zero.
360K is infinitely higher than nothing.

You want to make a point about percentages and history, but suggesting that hundreds of thousands of lives are "nothing" isn't the way to do it.
I am saying the number is fraudulent and exaggerated. And is being used to take away our freedoms and rights and property while politicians are drunk with power and big corporations are getting wealthy and destroying small businesses. And people are losing their homes and livelihoods.
 


CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
I am saying the number is fraudulent and exaggerated. And is being used to take away our freedoms and rights and property while politicians are drunk with power and big corporations are getting wealthy and destroying small businesses. And people are losing their homes and livelihoods.
The data does not support this.
 

NotAYakk

Legend
I am saying the number is fraudulent and exaggerated. And is being used to take away our freedoms and rights and property while politicians are drunk with power and big corporations are getting wealthy and destroying small businesses. And people are losing their homes and livelihoods.
It is probably an undercount of how many died.

In every serious outbreak, they sort of run out of time to test people who die before they get to hospital. We saw this in Italy, we saw this in Washington, we saw this in NYC.

The US population growth rate is the lowest it has been since the 1918 flu. These aren't phantom deaths.

Right now, 0.2% of everyone in the Dakotas is dead from Covid 19.

On top of this, dozens of countries are seeing piles of dead people. Doctors from all over the world are witnessing overpacked wards with people dieing from Covid.

How big of a conspiracy do you think this is that is exagerrating it? Is it 90% of medical professionals, every major world power, every department of health, every epidemiologist? Because that is what it would take to fake this.

The deaths from covid 19 are underestimated, because we know people die from it in ways that aren't "catch pneumonia and die". The deaths we catch are mostly those.

I mean:
1610067773067.png
how in the world would you FAKE THAT.
 



Thomas Shey

Adventurer
I'm having trouble articulating, which happens when I'm emotional.

I'm trying to say that any failure in a virus control plan will lead to an outbreak, so if the goal is to stop outbreaks you have to focus on preventing all failures. To borrow the car analogy, imagine if a crash would occur no matter what failed on the car....brake pads would be just as vital as the radio in that case, and it would be silly to argue for better radios while ignoring every other system.

I don't know how to build a fail-proof car, and I know that there is only so much that can be done. I'm trying to suggest that all known failures be addressed with equal fervency. Pointing fingers doesn't really work here.

Anyway, that's what I was trying to get across. I'll move on.

I think this assumes all failure points are equally frequent and equally important. I don't think that's supportable.
 

Thomas Shey

Adventurer
To put some numbers on this...

The US population is about 330 million people. As we currently understand it, to hit herd immunity and finally stop the pandemic, we'd need about 80% of the population to have gotten it. That's about 264 million people who would have to get sick.

At a 1% fatality rate, that's two and a half million dead. If it happens in a big rush, the death rate rises to more like 2% as health care services get overwhelmed. Which results in 5 million people dead.

Thank you. I will take some lean years and inconvenience over 5 million of my fellow citizens dead. That's not cowering. That's just recognizing those 5 million people matter. Economics can be managed. Dead cannot.

Probably worse; if you completely overwhelm the medical system, besides saveable COVID cases dying, you also lose people who you'd normally save at risk from other causes because they don't get treated as promptly or properly as they could be. That's bound to already happened to some degree, we just don't know how to attach proper numbers to it.
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
I think this assumes all failure points are equally frequent and equally important. I don't think that's supportable.
Yeah, that's the assumption I am making. But I'm also assuming "failure" means "outbreak," too, which makes the first assumption more supportable (but still not perfect). Failure is hard to describe for some folks, too. Some people only consider a plan to have failed if the stock market drops by a certain number of points, for example.
 


Thomas Shey

Adventurer
Yeah, that's the assumption I am making. But I'm also assuming "failure" means "outbreak," which not everyone agrees on either. Some people only consider a plan to have failed if the stock market drops by a certain number of points, for example.

I'm arguing a failure of the medical process is more severe but less likely, and a failure of the politics is more likely if less severe (only because if you don't know how to properly address the problem, it doesn't much matter if you have the will to or not, but if you know how, even the lack of political will will leave the tools for at least some people to take precautions).
 




Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top