We overreacted!
-
wrote on 17 Apr 2020, 19:03 last edited by
Curious as to how this Graph will look with deaths during the same time period (2020) of those other causes. (Heart disease, cancer)
-
wrote on 17 Apr 2020, 19:18 last edited by
When the 22 million unemployed (and growing) agree with you, you’ve won the argument.
-
wrote on 17 Apr 2020, 19:23 last edited by
Most of the people that I've seen who are the most outspoken aren't unemployed, unless we can extend that term to include people who don't actually do anything useful for a living.
-
That's all well and good jon, but I'm still going to mention car crashes. As a total fucking idiot with a teenage emotional quotient, my pride is permanently tied to my being right that this is no big deal.
wrote on 17 Apr 2020, 19:40 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in We overreacted!:
a teenage emotional quotient, my pride is permanently tied to my being right
There has been a lot of that recently.
It's to be expected I guess.
Still, I hope we can all learn from it.
-
wrote on 17 Apr 2020, 20:00 last edited by
-
wrote on 17 Apr 2020, 20:08 last edited by
Too many fucking morons.
-
wrote on 17 Apr 2020, 23:24 last edited by
A couple weeks to flatten the curve, fine.
OK, maybe a couple more weeks, fine, go ahead and flatten the curve.
But now some people are starting to sound like the goal is that nobody dies.
That is getting out of hand.
-
A couple weeks to flatten the curve, fine.
OK, maybe a couple more weeks, fine, go ahead and flatten the curve.
But now some people are starting to sound like the goal is that nobody dies.
That is getting out of hand.
wrote on 17 Apr 2020, 23:48 last edited by@Copper Variants of that idea dominate all conversation. I mean it's not like anybody wishing to be taken seriously can go around saying that a certain number of deaths are acceptable. So the whole social conversation is divorced from reason.
I suspect a lot of folk have become convinced that they are among the high risk cohort, when they are not.
-
wrote on 17 Apr 2020, 23:52 last edited by
And I wouldn't be surprised if some people think a certain number of bankruptcies are OK.
I know that thought is offensive to a lot of people.
Sorry, but this is tncr.
-
wrote on 17 Apr 2020, 23:55 last edited by xenon
The only tool in our chest right now seems to be isolation. Nothing else really works well (we don't have good testing, contact tracing, etc.)
We don't have options that help us flex risk and reward (and use an implicit or explicit cost per life metric).
At this point - either we we use the one tool in our chest or let it wash over us.
And yes that option is simultaneously the most and least we can be doing (if we want to do anything). So it can be interpreted as "we're not comfortable with losing one life" - because we're doing everything we can to avoid loss of life.
-
wrote on 18 Apr 2020, 00:00 last edited by xenon
Put another way - if there was a specific middle ground option between what we're doing vs. doing nothing - I think it would be pretty safe to bet the current administration would be yelling it from the rooftops.
I almost always fall on the side of "we're too loss-averse as a society" when it comes to security issues (e.g., TSA, mass surveillance, etc.). But I can't think of a single real thing we can actually do, except isolation.
-
wrote on 18 Apr 2020, 00:14 last edited by
Mandatory masks worn without shame or embarrassment since everybody else is wearing them too, will surely dent the curve, no?
-
wrote on 18 Apr 2020, 00:19 last edited by
Theoretically. I'm not sure we know the efficacy of masks.
I don't think we have masks for daily life for every man, woman and child.
I assume we're ramping up production like gangbusters - maybe we'll get there soon.
-
wrote on 18 Apr 2020, 00:19 last edited by Doctor Phibes
@George-K said in We overreacted!:
"Dr." Phil speaks:
I despise people who claim to be doctors when they're not.
-
@George-K said in We overreacted!:
"Dr." Phil speaks:
I despise people who claim to be doctors when they're not.
wrote on 18 Apr 2020, 00:23 last edited by George K@Doctor-Phibes said in We overreacted!:
@George-K said in We overreacted!:
"Dr." Phil speaks:
I despise people who claim to be doctors when they're not.
Phillip Calvin McGraw (born September 1, 1950), also known as Dr. Phil, is an American television personality, author, and former psychologist who is the host of the television show Dr. Phil. He holds a doctorate in clinical psychology, however, he is not licensed to practice. McGraw first gained celebrity status with appearances on The Oprah Winfrey Show in the late 1990s.
He's more of a doctor that "Doctor Jill Biden."
-
Put another way - if there was a specific middle ground option between what we're doing vs. doing nothing - I think it would be pretty safe to bet the current administration would be yelling it from the rooftops.
I almost always fall on the side of "we're too loss-averse as a society" when it comes to security issues (e.g., TSA, mass surveillance, etc.). But I can't think of a single real thing we can actually do, except isolation.
wrote on 18 Apr 2020, 01:26 last edited by@xenon said in We overreacted!:
But I can't think of a single real thing we can actually do, except isolation.
What is the goal?
Is it flatten the curve? Is that done?
If so, move on.
-
@Copper Variants of that idea dominate all conversation. I mean it's not like anybody wishing to be taken seriously can go around saying that a certain number of deaths are acceptable. So the whole social conversation is divorced from reason.
I suspect a lot of folk have become convinced that they are among the high risk cohort, when they are not.
wrote on 18 Apr 2020, 01:27 last edited by@Horace said in We overreacted!:
@Copper Variants of that idea dominate all conversation. I mean it's not like anybody wishing to be taken seriously can go around saying that a certain number of deaths are acceptable. So the whole social conversation is divorced from reason.
That's because you're drawing a silly line in the sand. It's not about X number of deaths being okay. If one person dies because we didn't do anything to protect him then yes, that's disgusting and we should damn well be ashamed of that. If several thousands die while enacting very real and serious efforts to protect all of us, then yes, okay, it's still a hit, but it's not a moral failing.
The goal is obvious: nobody dies while getting everyone back to work. Of course no one knows where the actual lines between safety, liberties, and the economy should be on this issue, it's way too complex. We're going to fuck up, and we'll make many arbitrary decisions that are going to piss people off. And lots of people will inevitably die anyway.
But the failing is not the death rate, it's the apathy. There's a difference between deaths caused by seriously trying to balance two very different calamities, and not caring about the deaths either because they're inevitable, or because people care more about the economy.
-
@Horace said in We overreacted!:
@Copper Variants of that idea dominate all conversation. I mean it's not like anybody wishing to be taken seriously can go around saying that a certain number of deaths are acceptable. So the whole social conversation is divorced from reason.
That's because you're drawing a silly line in the sand. It's not about X number of deaths being okay. If one person dies because we didn't do anything to protect him then yes, that's disgusting and we should damn well be ashamed of that. If several thousands die while enacting very real and serious efforts to protect all of us, then yes, okay, it's still a hit, but it's not a moral failing.
The goal is obvious: nobody dies while getting everyone back to work. Of course no one knows where the actual lines between safety, liberties, and the economy should be on this issue, it's way too complex. We're going to fuck up, and we'll make many arbitrary decisions that are going to piss people off. And lots of people will inevitably die anyway.
But the failing is not the death rate, it's the apathy. There's a difference between deaths caused by seriously trying to balance two very different calamities, and not caring about the deaths either because they're inevitable, or because people care more about the economy.
wrote on 18 Apr 2020, 01:37 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in We overreacted!:
There's a difference between deaths caused by seriously trying to balance two very different calamities, and not caring about the deaths either because they're inevitable, or because people care more about the economy.
I thought the balance was the flattened curve.
Was it flattened?
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in We overreacted!:
@George-K said in We overreacted!:
"Dr." Phil speaks:
I despise people who claim to be doctors when they're not.
Phillip Calvin McGraw (born September 1, 1950), also known as Dr. Phil, is an American television personality, author, and former psychologist who is the host of the television show Dr. Phil. He holds a doctorate in clinical psychology, however, he is not licensed to practice. McGraw first gained celebrity status with appearances on The Oprah Winfrey Show in the late 1990s.
He's more of a doctor that "Doctor Jill Biden."
wrote on 18 Apr 2020, 01:51 last edited by Doctor Phibes@George-K said in We overreacted!:
@Doctor-Phibes said in We overreacted!:
@George-K said in We overreacted!:
"Dr." Phil speaks:
I despise people who claim to be doctors when they're not.
Phillip Calvin McGraw (born September 1, 1950), also known as Dr. Phil, is an American television personality, author, and former psychologist who is the host of the television show Dr. Phil. He holds a doctorate in clinical psychology, however, he is not licensed to practice. McGraw first gained celebrity status with appearances on The Oprah Winfrey Show in the late 1990s.
He's more of a doctor that "Doctor Jill Biden."
I was actually alluding to the famous organist, Anton Phibes.
-
@Horace said in We overreacted!:
@Copper Variants of that idea dominate all conversation. I mean it's not like anybody wishing to be taken seriously can go around saying that a certain number of deaths are acceptable. So the whole social conversation is divorced from reason.
That's because you're drawing a silly line in the sand. It's not about X number of deaths being okay. If one person dies because we didn't do anything to protect him then yes, that's disgusting and we should damn well be ashamed of that. If several thousands die while enacting very real and serious efforts to protect all of us, then yes, okay, it's still a hit, but it's not a moral failing.
The goal is obvious: nobody dies while getting everyone back to work. Of course no one knows where the actual lines between safety, liberties, and the economy should be on this issue, it's way too complex. We're going to fuck up, and we'll make many arbitrary decisions that are going to piss people off. And lots of people will inevitably die anyway.
But the failing is not the death rate, it's the apathy. There's a difference between deaths caused by seriously trying to balance two very different calamities, and not caring about the deaths either because they're inevitable, or because people care more about the economy.
wrote on 18 Apr 2020, 01:52 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in We overreacted!:
@Horace said in We overreacted!:
@Copper Variants of that idea dominate all conversation. I mean it's not like anybody wishing to be taken seriously can go around saying that a certain number of deaths are acceptable. So the whole social conversation is divorced from reason.
That's because you're drawing a silly line in the sand. It's not about X number of deaths being okay. If one person dies because we didn't do anything to protect him then yes, that's disgusting and we should damn well be ashamed of that. If several thousands die while enacting very real and serious efforts to protect all of us, then yes, okay, it's still a hit, but it's not a moral failing.
The goal is obvious: nobody dies while getting everyone back to work. Of course no one knows where the actual lines between safety, liberties, and the economy should be on this issue, it's way too complex. We're going to fuck up, and we'll make many arbitrary decisions that are going to piss people off. And lots of people will inevitably die anyway.
But the failing is not the death rate, it's the apathy. There's a difference between deaths caused by seriously trying to balance two very different calamities, and not caring about the deaths either because they're inevitable, or because people care more about the economy.
You'd be lousy at triage.
