LogFAQs > #961435662

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So, some people being asymptomatic does not mean some people won't be. Good. That invalidates your "If you increase total cases by 10%, you increase symptomatic cases by 10%" argument.

What aren't you understanding here? If 50% of cases are asymptomatic, 50% are symptomatic, 10% get hospitalized, and 1% die (hypothetical numbers for easy math), and you have 10,000 cases, you're going to have 5,000 asymptomatic, 5,000 symptomatic, 1,000 hospitalized, and 100 dead (give or take reasonable margins of error). If you have 20,000 cases, you're going to have 10,000 asymptomatic, 10,000 symptomatic, 2,000 hospitalized, and 200 dead (again, give or take).

The odds don't change. If you increase your sample size without changing the odds, you increase the number of "successes" (in this case, hospitalizations) proportionally. That's basic math, and I don't know why you're so hung up on the existence of asymptomatic people as though they invalidate basic math. In order to reduce overall hospitalization rates, it is necessary to reduce overall case rates. That's going to be true no matter how many cases are asymptomatic or otherwise don't need hospitalization.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Yet they get the negative effects of a lockdown all the same. Why should they be effected when the virus alone is harmless to them?

Because it's impossible to determine that until after they've already been infected for 2+ weeks, by which point it's far too late to make any decisions on the matter. Infection control policies have to be proactive, otherwise they can't do anything.

Moreover, asymptomatic people can still infect others, so even if they personally don't need hospitalization, going about their business while infectious is likely to create further hospitalizations. This is a matter of public health, not personal.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I have, that person refuses treatment.

That does not happen on any meaningful scale and can be safely ignored. Even if it did, unless that person is also choosing to isolate (effectively enforcing a lockdown on themselves), they risk infecting others and hospitalizing them
.
SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Lockdowns effect a larger scale than that of people who need hospitalization. The effect of economic and societal impacts will also persist longer than their immediate medical needs.

Death lasts infinitely longer than any economic/social impacts ever will.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I care about people in a different way than you do. I want them to have a good quality of life. I think the current situation would be improved if more people had the attitude that they'll live how they want or die trying. I see no point in prolonging life if that is denied to them. I don't want lockdowns because I care about people. Wanting lockdowns because other people should take responsibility for your health is the position of a selfish person.

Aiming to live life to its fullest isn't a bad philosophy, but it needs to be tempered with some common sense so you aren't taking unnecessary risks. You're not going to jaywalk across a busy six-lane road to save the few minutes it would take to walk to the nearest lights/crosswalk, because that would be stupid. Similarly, you're not (at least I hope you aren't) going to drive through a red light with a dozen pedestrians mid-crossing to save yourself a minute of waiting, because that time saved isn't worth the risk to their lives. Those are extreme examples, clearly, but they illustrate the bottom line that there are limitations on how far that mindset should be taken.

Should the entire world be placed under house arrest indefinitely for the sake of containing the virus? No. That would be unreasonable and probably wouldn't even work that well even if you could figure out the logistics of it all. Should the entire world spend a few months limiting their physical contact with others to only what's essential in order to get case numbers under control, then gradually resume normal activity levels with a few extra precautions in place to make sure cases don't explode beyond what can be handled by their local health care system (reinstating restrictions as needed to control any large spikes)? That's a better approach.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Covid has killed more people than both world wars.

Covid's bad and all, but it very much has not. The global death toll to date is 5.44 million, WWI killed ~40 million, WWII killed ~80 million. Covid's on roughly the same scale as the Holocaust, which killed somewhere between 4 and 7 million.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

And if you locked down properly, there wouldn't be a need to do it properly now. There's only long term problems because you insist on not following proper procedure.

I certainly won't deny that many parts of the world could have done a much better job of locking down, but the idea of a perfect lockdown that eradicated the virus within a month was never anything more than a fantasy. The logistics involved in making that possible are just too far beyond any government, let alone actually enforcing it well enough to have the desired effect.

BEERandWEED posted...
You are erroneously attributing the spread to the non-vaccinated. The vaccinated are also spreaders.

The unvaccinated are more likely to be infected, more infectious once they are infected, and remain infectious for longer. A disproportionate amount of the spread can absolutely be attributed to them (at least, pre-Omicron). Not all of it, certainly, but given that anti-vaxxers are also generally more likely to ignore masks, distancing, and gathering restrictions, there's a lot to blame them for.

Quite simply, this is a war against Covid, and Covid claims anyone that doesn't fight against it for its own side. If you're not with us, you're against us.