D&D and the rising pandemic

Zsong · Jan 8, 2021

CleverNickName said:
The data does not support this.

Who’s data. Fauci, world health organization, bill gates.

CleverNickName · Jan 8, 2021

Zsong said:
Who’s data. Fauci, world health organization, bill gates.

If you don't know data from conjecture or rumor, this conversation can't even start.

Thomas Shey · Jan 8, 2021

CleverNickName said:
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 · Jan 8, 2021

Umbran said:
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 · Jan 8, 2021

Thomas Shey said:
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 · Jan 8, 2021

Zsong said:
Who’s data. Fauci, world health organization, bill gates.

Do they need to come pile the bodies in front of your door before you believe it?

Thomas Shey · Jan 8, 2021

CleverNickName said:
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).