Wuhan Coronavirus: Lockdowns, Quarantines, Cancellations

[Never Scored]

What is your life worth to you?

Obviously no one wants to die. This is an appeal to emotion as opposed to trying to think about the situation rationally plain and simple. We allow people to do things which cause others to die all the fucking time, so it's a totally asinine thing to say. Over 10,000 people die in drunk driving accidents every year. We could potentially save them by outlawing alcohol. No one needs alcohol. Why is it legal?

Yes. What a stupid question.

If you think this is a stupid question you are incredibly niave. When you're talking about the lives of a small minority vs. the quality of life of everyone else, obviously there is a point where the quality of life of others carrys more weight than those who die. We wouldn't drive cars or allow anyone to own a gun were that not the case. America could put an upper limit on the number of calories people can consume, ship the extra preserved food in cans to starving nations and potentially save 20 million people right now. Obviously there is some point where we judge that the value of a few lives lost is outweighed by the quality of life of the general population. Where is that point? If 300 million people have to lock down for a decade to save what turns out to be a million is that justified?

Let me put it another way...

Let's say you're god. You have the power to redistribute lifeforce. Would you feel justified in taking two years off the end of ten people's lives to make the life of one person twenty years longer? Why?

 

[rando0675309]

Yes. Until there's a vaccine.

I don't care. This is a global event which is trying everyone. Being asked to stay inside pales in comparison to both what is actually happening to people who are infected and what might happen if the infection spreads faster.

None of those things matter if you're hospitalized or dead.

Yes. What a stupid question.

You really think it's reasonable for everyone to be under house arrest for the next two years because of a coof that primarily kills fatties, invalids, and old people? And you think people will be ok with that indefinitely because some Ivy League egghead (who is going to get paid and pampered regardless of what happens) tells them too?

I think it's more likely western civilization will do what society did since time immemorial and toughen up and realize again natural selection is a thing, and deal with accordingly. Because this is retarded.

 

[FuckedUp]

I think it's more likely western civilization will do what society did since time immemorial and toughen up and realize again natural selection is a thing, and deal with accordingly. Because this is exceptional.

Yeah, I've been saying this is pretty much going to be the anti-9/11.

 

[Never Scored]

Let's say the average person dying of COVID-19 had ten good years left. If absolutely everybody is infected and the CFR is 1.5%, that's 4.9 million Americans dead, so 49 million life-years.

For the people inconvenienced by the country shutting down, we have to discount the years they lose, because they are in fact still alive. Let's say they are enjoying life at 90% of the normal rate. That's 33 million Americans losing 10% of their lifestyle, so 33 million life-years.

These back-of-envelope calculations are based on highly questionable assumptions, but calculations like these can add some rigor to the discussion.

I like what you're getting at and I agree it's useful, but I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to argue the number is 90% the normal rate. You're not even allowed to socialize your kids.

 

[Pargon]

You really think it's reasonable for everyone to be under house arrest for the next two years because of a coof that primarily kills fatties, invalids, and old people?

If you think that's why the stay-at-home orders are in place then I think you're being willfully obtuse and arguing with you is pointless.

some Ivy League egghead

And there's the confirmation.

toughen up and realize again natural selection is a thing

Sure thing. After you.

Obviously there is some point where we judge that the value of a few lives lost is outweighed by the quality of life of the general population.

You've just made this very easy because the quality of life of the general population will be very negatively affected if the virus is permitted to run rampant, which is the giant glaring point every other idiot crying about slippery slopes is doing their utmost to ignore.

 

[rando0675309]

If you think that's why the stay-at-home orders are in place then I think you're being willfully obtuse and arguing with you is pointless.

And there's the confirmation.

Sure thing. After you.

I'm well aware why the stay at home orders are in place - to gain time to build hospital capacity and find some treatments. Now that's it's being done and capacity has been gained those not in the line of fire should be able to live their lives again.

And for the record IDGAF about the coof. If Winnie the WuFlu had a CFR of Smallpox or TB (which society didn't shut down for) I would be more concerned. Otherwise I'm gonna take precautions and live my life. If I die from it, I guess I was really unlucky because I don't have any risk factors for adverse outcome.

 

[Pargon]

capacity has been gained

If you think this has even begun to have been accomplished you are woefully misinformed.

(which society didn't shut down for)

And which an argument could have been made, in retrospect, that it would have been better had society done so.

I'm gonna take precautions and live my life

By all means, do so, but your right to do so does not supercede the right of others not to be placed in danger, and the best way to ensure that is to maintain distance from others. What will you do if you catch it living your life and you are asymptomatic? How many do you stand to risk infecting then?

 

[Never Scored]

You've just made this very easy because the quality of life of the general population will be very negatively affected if the virus is permitted to run rampant, which is the giant glaring point every other idiot crying about slippery slopes is doing their utmost to ignore.

If researchers are not able to come up with a viable vaccination within a couple of years, what do you propose we do? Do you think any length is unreasonable?

I don't know why you're calling me an idiot. I'm not necessarily anti lock-down. I'm anti indefinite lock-down with no exit plan. I think that's a reasonable stance. I think the virus ripping through the population and killing three million people over the short term will do less long term harm to more people's lives than say, a five-year lock down.

 

[Pargon]

killing three million people

Still hung up only on the fatality rate. I'm not bothering with you, or with this argument, any more.

 

[Never Scored]

Still hung up only on the fatality rate. I'm not bothering with you, or with this argument, any more.

If no viable vaccination can be found do you agree with an indefinite lockdown? Yes or no.

 

[It's HK-47]

If it's going to kill 3,000,000 people before herd immunity sets in, it really needs to pick up the pace. Worldwide, we're not even in the triple digits yet (China isn't included because all of their numbers are fake), and all of the models that were predicting an untold amount of death and devastation even if we followed Social Distancing to the letter are starting to look hyperbolic and ridiculous. How many times have they walked those numbers back now? I remember it being like 2 million in the U.S., then 400,000, then 200,000, and the last I saw they revised it to something like 25,000 dead in this country. That's kind of a significant drop in--

Wait this is the lockdown thread

An indefinite lockdown is absolutely impossible to maintain even if we wanted to completely destroy ourselves. People are only putting up with it for now because there's an expectation that it's going to taper off. If that doesn't happen, they'll stop staying at home and no amount of enforcement is going to stop it because there won't be anyone making money to pay the salaries of the emergency services.

After a certain point, the solution becomes significantly worse than the cure, but at the same time I don't really understand why this argument has boiled itself down to the two extremes. This isn't a binary choice between killing your grandma and never going back outside ever again. There's a few other options buried somewhere in between those two, I would think.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

Are you advancing the idea that the Northeast and the West Coast are geographically creating authoritarian leftists?

See, I blame the Puritans. Their small hive-mind witch-hanging communities clustered in dark forests and engendered "for God's will" draconian invasive government. Those same dark forests kickstarted the US shipping industry in the 19th Century, which meant the seafarers were mostly descended from Puritans, and were the first Americans to colonize the West Coast. . .


Wait. It *IS* sort of geographic, isn't it?

Almost all of the United States' problems have come from New England/Upstate New York (plus the West Coast, nowadays) and the Deep South, the latter more historically. The former is inclined to totalitarian utopia-building and the latter to barbarism.

Let's say the average person dying of COVID-19 had ten good years left. If absolutely everybody is infected and the CFR is 1.5%, that's 4.9 million Americans dead, so 49 million life-years.

For the people inconvenienced by the country shutting down, we have to discount the years they lose, because they are in fact still alive. Let's say they are enjoying life at 90% of the normal rate. That's 33 million Americans losing 10% of their lifestyle, so 33 million life-years.

These back-of-envelope calculations are based on highly questionable assumptions, but calculations like these can add some rigor to the discussion.

Very interesting calculations. As it happens, I was talking to a professor recently who's teaching students about the statistical value of life, using Coronavirus as an example. But I'm not in his class or anything so I don't know what specifically they were doing.

 

[MediocreMilt]

After a certain point, the solution becomes significantly worse than the cure, but at the same time I don't really understand why this argument has boiled itself down to the two extremes. This isn't a binary choice between killing your grandma and never going back outside ever again. There's a few other options buried somewhere in between those two, I would think.

I guess it depends if they think they can put the genie back in the bottle to a point that either contact tracing works again or there's an effective treatment that's made it through trials. Sounds a little overly though.

Really, much as I wish this had been handled better from the start, the longer this goes on, the more keeping people under lockdown sounds like communism-levels of "you can make it sound good on paper, but human nature will never allow it to work in the real world."

 

[Mrs. Addams]

The lockdown's not gonna last. Due to the fact that it's actually working, people out here in CA only half-believe in it, and are bending the rules as far as they can. Meanwhile, my Arizona friends don't see the fallout at all and are sending me conspiracy videos. Also the number of stupid rules and lack of public impute ("No eating fast food together in your separate cars in parking lots" and a refusal to close down streets for people to walk further apart) is frustrating everyone.

My pet theory is that the governor can't relax the lock-down because politics BS, but that people breaking it more and more will eventually lead to herd immunity.

 

[Dolphin Lundgren]

Maybe it depends on the area. I'm seeing people take the virus seriously in my area, there's less cars driving around and less people walking out and also everyone's wearing masks. People are also keeping a social distance. It'll be interesting if anyone respects the order to stay inside since they're claiming it'll get really bad this week.

 

[Mrs. Addams]

I do think it'll last a few more weeks before the breakdown really starts. A lot of people are scared.

 

[Jump]

We had a nice warm sunny day here today. Lockdown is basically over.
People have been cooped up all winter then add this on top. I knew it wouldn't hold long. With people out of work they are just treating it like a staycation.

 

[ditto]

My pet theory is that the governor can't relax the lock-down because politics BS, but that people breaking it more and more will eventually lead to herd immunity.

An effective total lockdown (and no herd immunity) plus no vaccine would mean that there would always be a consistent fear of another outbreak. That's going to be depressing and exhausting to the extreme.

Can't imagine would this have worked in the pre-1990s with no internet and limited TV and radio.

 

[GenociderSyo]

The lockdown won't be able to continue indefinitely before some people actually do snap. Being socially isolated can actually harm people who are already mentally ill. For example, at extremes at moment I'm dealing with people who have severe anxiety who are now becoming agoraphobic because of the lockdown since it reinforces the behavior. The schizophrenics are beginning to have more positive symptoms including command hallucinations in people who never had them (these are the types that can lead to more averisve behaviors).

They could fix this be stating this is when it may end we will update this day, but even then its human nature for people to be social at some point they will rebel and ignore.

 

[PotatoSalad4711]

An indefinite lockdown is absolutely impossible to maintain even if we wanted to completely destroy ourselves. People are only putting up with it for now because there's an expectation that it's going to taper off. If that doesn't happen, they'll stop staying at home and no amount of enforcement is going to stop it because there won't be anyone making money to pay the salaries of the emergency services.

After a certain point, the solution becomes significantly worse than the cure, but at the same time I don't really understand why this argument has boiled itself down to the two extremes. This isn't a binary choice between killing your grandma and never going back outside ever again. There's a few other options buried somewhere in between those two, I would think.

Exactly this. Whether we agree or disagree on a lockdown, it’s unattainable. People will get restless and say “screw it” eventually. While the roads here are relatively empty, there are already people who just won’t listen and refuse to stay home for two weeks. No one is going to deal with this for months (years? LOL).