We overreacted!
-
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.
-
wrote on 18 Apr 2020, 01:58 last edited by
I have to say, I'm less likely to listen to people telling me to get back to work when they were previously the same people claiming the disease was no worse than the flu, and that we should just carry on as normal because, after all, people die all the time and I'll probably get killed in a car accident anyway.
-
@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?
wrote on 18 Apr 2020, 02:25 last edited by@Copper That's not "the balance." At all. Flattening the curve is not some kind of magical reset button.
This is tiresome, but whatever: Pretend it did flatten, and then, everyone went back to business as usual with no safety measures in place. If we did that, and the government got out of our way, the death rate would skyrocket in a matter of weeks, people would be shitting their pants, start to stay home, health care facilities would be beyond overrun, and the economy would tank anyway. We already know that bottom-up sequestration is a threat to the economy, it's already happened here with restaurants in every state prior to their respective shutdowns. We can't have it your way, even if we tried it.
Turns out the actual economists were right: there's no fixing the economy without dealing seriously with the public health risk.
-
wrote on 18 Apr 2020, 02:32 last edited by Copper
I think you miss the point of flattening the curve.
The point of flattening the curve is to keep from overwhelming the system.
It is not to overwhelm the system as you describe.
The goal is not to stop death.
And the only alternative is not to do something stupid as you describe.
-
wrote on 18 Apr 2020, 02:36 last edited by
No, I get it fine, thanks. I'm saying there's no point in flattening the curve if we get back to business as usual immediately thereafter. Obviously that'll cause another spike. It's going to take very serious measures not to overwhelm the health care system if people return to work, and we have none of them in place right now. Crying out "but the economy" isn't really going to do it.
-
wrote on 18 Apr 2020, 02:42 last edited by
I think you miss the point of flattening the curve.
Look at the flattened curve - there is no spike.
No the point is not to do something stupid and have a spike.
The point is to flatten it and then move on.
People will die.
-
I have to say, I'm less likely to listen to people telling me to get back to work when they were previously the same people claiming the disease was no worse than the flu, and that we should just carry on as normal because, after all, people die all the time and I'll probably get killed in a car accident anyway.
wrote on 18 Apr 2020, 02:44 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in We overreacted!:
I have to say, I'm less likely to listen to people telling me to get back to work when they were previously the same people claiming the disease was no worse than the flu, and that we should just carry on as normal because, after all, people die all the time and I'll probably get killed in a car accident anyway.
I love hearing it from people who don't even work themselves.
-
I think you miss the point of flattening the curve.
Look at the flattened curve - there is no spike.
No the point is not to do something stupid and have a spike.
The point is to flatten it and then move on.
People will die.
wrote on 18 Apr 2020, 02:48 last edited by@Copper said in We overreacted!:
Look at the flattened curve - there is no spike.
I never said there was.
@Copper said in We overreacted!:
People will die.
Good safety tip!
-
wrote on 18 Apr 2020, 03:10 last edited by
There is a touch of the General Lord Kitchener wanting to move his drinks cabinet 3 feet closer to Berlin.
-
wrote on 18 Apr 2020, 13:46 last edited by
It's all a balancing act.
If the hospital guys don't go back to work fairly soon, there will be a lot less healthcare in the near future.
-
wrote on 18 Apr 2020, 14:15 last edited by
It seems to me that where people can work from home, they should. And a lot of people can do, with a few adjustments, at least partially.
-
It's all a balancing act.
If the hospital guys don't go back to work fairly soon, there will be a lot less healthcare in the near future.
wrote on 18 Apr 2020, 14:22 last edited by Mik@Jolly said in We overreacted!:
It's all a balancing act.
If the hospital guys don't go back to work fairly soon, there will be a lot less healthcare in the near future.
DING DING DING. That's likely the first place we need to open up. Strangling the health system's revenue stream will not save lives in the long run. They are also the industry most able to cope with safety measures.
-
wrote on 18 Apr 2020, 14:45 last edited by
I have to say, if I had a non-urgent medical appointment at this point I think I'd re-schedule whether the place was open or not.
-
wrote on 18 Apr 2020, 14:50 last edited by
Normal appointments are still going on. I have one next week via telemedicine. It's mostly the hospital services that are hurting.
This will boost telemedicine, which I think is good.
