But I did give all the numbers of how it was generated. I didn't say this is a predicted toll of the current covid. What my point was, was: one should not downplay a disease because there are e.g. "50% without symptoms". And I gave a hypothetical example where even 90% without symptoms could still mean millions of deaths from those that do get symptoms (please re-read my wording in the original comment, if you will).
> That number, once you finally refine it, through those filters, is going to be small, very small, much less than what the flu kills
So, let's focus on covid now (and not my prior hypothetical example, meant to point that "percentage of symptomatic patients is not the be-all-end-all criterium).
First, I'm not sure in the covid case the number is "going to be small, very small, much less than what the flu kills".
Why would that be? We already know that covid is several times deadlier than the flu. Why would this increased morbidity only apply to people with major prior conditions and not to everybody (including them, of course)?
That is, if covid is 5x more lethal than the flu, then it kills 5x more old/unhealthy people than the flu, but also 5x more young/"no major prior problem" people than the flu.
Of course it could still have a much heavier toll on the older/unhealthy. E.g. 90% older/co-morbid people dead and 10% younger/healthier people dead (which very much could be the case). But I have not heard anything to imply that the increased leathality is constrained to the old/unhealthy.
In other words: if the flu kills X young/healthy people every year, I'd expect the "more lethal covid" to kill N*X young/healthy people, where N > 2 or more.
But here's another philosophical point: I don't think it's OK for the unhealthy/older people to die prematurely, just because "they'd die sooner than most anyway". Even 1-5 years of extra life is welcome.
> That is, if someone has a known risk factor, a known comorbidity, then they can (and probably should) opt to self-quarantine.
That's not always the case in the modern city life, where you need to go to work and all kind of other responsibilities (lest they be homeless/foodless soon). Without some monetary aid, mandates regarding remote work (where possible), etc, that would be a problem.
E.g. where remote work is not possible and there's not a mask mandate, a person with a known comorbidity might need to work at some retail position or similar, and face people without masks that might give them the virus.
> when the general population is in no way responsible for those individuals' compromised health conditions in the first place.
I don't like to think of society as a bunch of individuals where nobody gives a duck (sic) about the others. I'd like a more caring society, where whether one is "responsible for those individuals' compromised health conditions" or not doesn't much matter, they still need to respect them.
> That tells me that you are not from the U.S. I wanted to be sure that this was the case; that's why I read most of your comments until I was certain; if you want proof, I can show you multiple examples of where your past HN comments, in one way or another, show this to be true.
Well, it's not some big secret, I've wrote this explicitly several times in past comments. E.g.:
"As a European (...)" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18979477
"I'm not an American (...)" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5871893
> If you don't live in the U.S. -- then why do you care so much about what happens in the U.S.?
For several different reasons.
First, this is a US-based message board, and most discussions center around the US perspective anyway. So when answering to an American, I'd point them with examples about the US. Other times when the topic is about EU/Europe I chime in with my suggestions to fellow Europeans...
Second, the US is the world's top dog (or has been for a good while), and US pop/tech culture is something most of my generation is well familiar with. So there's that. I'm probably more informed talking about US bands, for example, than about my local music scene. Or most kinds of US pop culture, or even businesses (I know more about Apple and Google than I do about any of my meagre country's web firms).
Third, I've visited the US dozens of times, have several friends and relatives there, and so on. I'd like to come soon, covid-permitting. So I have some fondness and interest.
> It's not like I go around writing messages to people that post messages about CoronaVirus in other countries and say stuff like, "Oh no, you're wrong, 20 trillion Elbonians will die!".
Don't American themselves do the same all the time? Have opinions about what other countries should or shouldn't do? To the point that their government often meddles with other countries or even invades them to put them right, so to speak (and/or get some oil/resources/trade advantages/local influence/etc).
> Why do you care so much?
Well, why the weasel words "so much"? I care to some degree to express an opinion. Don't know about that being "so much". Do you assume I care "so much" for everything I comment on HN? Which is quite a lot on lots of topics that strike my fancy? It's not like I'm some devoted activist on covid advocacy. In fact, since you've read some of my past comments, I hardly write about that.
> I post with my real name on HN; I'm quite sure there is no living person with the first name "Cold" and the last name "Tea", although, I have been surprised in the past with names that I thought were real that weren't, and vice-versa.
That's so racist an assumption of you, that's a sacred ancient name of my people, along with Coldbrew and Hotcocoa.
Well, alright, I guess my name is not coldtea. It's not a throwaway account though, I'm here discussing for over 10+ years.
I don't like to give my real name on most online forums, because these days all kinds of opinions are controversial, especially mine, which don't go with any particular (right/left/centrist) orthodoxy. I also don't particularly care for cancel-culture and those people histrionics, people putting too fine a comb to whatever somebody said (seriously or in jest or whatever) several years ago, etc., so that's another reason.
If you really want to know who I am (not any particularly famous unfortunately), and wont give it away publicly, we can exchange some private messages/emails :-)
> Hopefully I have not offended you in any way; if I have, you have my sincere apologies.
Not at all. As an Aspie I quite enjoyed the conversation being too detailed :-)
2/2
You can feel free to use an anonymous email account different from your own, to protect your identity.
I will not knowingly disclose your identity to anyone, however, you should understand that in this day and age, even gmail, which claims to be "secure" -- probably is not all that secure, so forewarned is forearmed, as they say.
That is, I can't guarantee that systems on my end (browser, computer, internet router, etc.) are secure (we see many hacks and data leaks these days, so you never really know where any given data is going to wind up), so if you'd like to talk, then please feel free to use a throwaway email account.
Next, you'll probably need to get through my spam filter.
Probably a simple message with something technology related in it (no URLs or such) would be the best way to do that.
Or, optionally, you could generate a temporary email address, and I could contact you.
Either way, I think we'd have an interesting discussion.
I'd point out that I'm not opposed to what you're saying; perhaps you can (with the correct discussion) "sell me" on various points (and perhaps conversely I can give you some additional viewpoints to consider).
You wrote: >"I'd like a more caring society,", and we definitely agree on that point!
So if you're up for it, feel free to contact me via email (keeping in mind that if you didn't get a response your email probably hit my spam filter -- maybe post a message here to this message chain to say "hey, I sent you an email with <XYZ> in the contents" (so I can search for it), and then we can continue this discussion via email!
-Peter
Greetings. Don't know how you've got to that erroneous conclusion, but I'll go with it :-)
> 328.2 million in the US have serious issues / death or eventual death -- DUE TO OLD AGE. That is, we are not biologically immortal.
Sure. How is that relevant though? We're talking about premature deaths here due to an illness.
The fact that we're not immortal doesn't stop us looking left and right before crossing the street -- or taking all kinds of other precautions (both at the individual, and at the community/government level).
To rephrase: we might not be immortal, but few are that cavalier about dying or eager to die sooner rather than later.
> If the average life expectancy for someone living in the U.S. is 78.93 years (in 2020) -- does this mean that other nations whose life expectancies are less than 78.93 years -- are guilty of killing their citizens early, because they don't follow the "best practices" of the U.S., that is, they don't do exactly what the U.S. does in its governance?
Well, I'm sure about those being the "best", since there exist nations with higher life expectancies.
I'd also say that:
(a) it should be a kind of goal for nations to have their citizens live more and better lives. Isn't better living conditions (from business cooperation and economy, to health, social life, safety, justice, etc.) a basic motivation behind having human communities in the first place (and subsequently things like nations)? I'm pretty sure e.g. Sierra Leone (life expectancy around 54) would want to do much better...
(b) it is however not a be-all-end-all goal, other goals (including preferred way of life, freedom, etc., can always have priority).
> Also, would it be justified then, for those nations to control and micromanage, basically take away all of their citizens' freedoms -- in the name of increasing the average life expectancy of their citizens?
No.
That said, a once-in-100-years pandemic with the potential to kill millions is hardly cause for concern about "micromanaging".
And, I'd like to point out, nobody proposed to "take away all of their citizens' freedoms" (in any democratic country faced with covid), as far as I know. Not even most. Just some, and just for the period necessary to handle the crisis.
> How does the old saying go? "Those who are willing to trade a little bit of their freedom for security -- deserve neither" ?
Well, that's how an old saying goes. But for me it's not some ultimate god-given wisdom about the matters of freedom and safety, just a rough guideline.
On the other hand, those who aren't willing to trade a little bit of freedom for security, might find out they're invaded, enslaved, sick, dead, living in an anarchy (the bad kind, where the more powerful do what they please and there's chaos in the streets, not the friendly "no government" one), and so on, depending on the respective danger they wouldn't trade some freedom to handle.
In other words: freedom doesn't come for free. It requires some sacrifice, and it's bounded by conditions (including safety concerns). Plus, of course, it should not risk/hurt the freedom of others.
Of course someone could say: "I don't care for all that, I want absolute freedom". But others, assuming that person lives in a society, aren't necessarily to agree to that.
1/2