Coronavirus
Coronavirus
Out of context: Reply #4126
- Started
- Last post
- 6,418 Responses
- whatthefunk3
- "without carrying that math to its conclusion"
You don't say!palimpsest - Anyone who claims this rate of death is acceptable is probably a morally corrupt and ethically void human without a soul worth redeeming.monospaced
- "Only 1%" is ok for diseases that are hard to contract. Covid-19 is so easy. If the entire world hadn't shut down, we'd be looking at around 70 Million dead.********
- ...which is greater than the total number of humans who die in a typical year of all causes.********
- We also do not yet know how COVID antibodies work. At a 1% death rate, what happens if you can get COVID three or four times?********
- Does the death rate increase or decrease for people the second time around? What about the third?********
- I don't know what rate of death can be considered acceptable. It's a shame we have resorted to counting lives to convince some.palimpsest
- If we can contract COVID-19 multiple times, and if the fatality rate holds at 1% or higher, mankind could be near extinct within a decade. It's just math.********
- But if it's that what it takes, the numbers are too damn high!palimpsest
- Of course, everything changes as that would play out, and we're obviously taking things very seriously (as societies.)********
- Be very grateful that armchair scientist morons on reddit don't set health policy or even influence it with their dumb "1%" posts.********
- We send boats & helicopters if there's hope of saving one life lost at sea.
Why should this be treated differently? It shouldn't.palimpsest - We're armed against C19 now, so I find it hard to entertain this could be apocalyptic.
The next one though? Imagine this thing had Ebola-like symptoms.Nairn - Actually, that's stupid. if it did have Ebola-like symptoms, every case, town, state, country, region would be locked down. C19 is more insidious.Nairn
- but imagine the next one had a delayed 10%+ death rate, over all ages.Nairn
- OP is spot on but @nb births? half the cases are < 25 y/o with very few deaths. > 65 y/o make up < 20% of the population and count for 90% of deaths...kingsteven
- killing the elderly, yes. eradicating man kind, no.kingsteven
- It's just the math on 1%, if we did nothing and let it blast through the population AND if the antibodies don't last AND if 1% held up after all the old people********
- Which yeah none of that is at all likely to come true. Just pointing out how 1% is still a big deal.********
- You may have noticed the world has completely changed to reduce the spread. There are few flights, no cruises, cities on rotating lockdown, tons of masks...********
- and yet we're at the point where we're disregarding the facts in order to explain 1% compound interest to folks who can't divide by 100?kingsteven
- its clear that countries that prepared + prioritised lives over the economy at an early stage have far less deaths and far less economic damage. it's ridiculouskingsteven
- to be in a situation where it's left to individuals who find 1% acceptable to curb the spread, it's not ridiculous to think we're lucky its only 1%kingsteven
- "without carrying that math to its conclusion"