Quote (ofthevoid @ Mar 17 2020 08:00pm)

I don't have a rosy attitude, i do however think that overreacting to this is just as dangerous. I personally know many people that are dependent on weekly paychecks and that have been told their place of employment is shut down for at least 2 months. There could be a domino effect that brings our society to it's knees and the 20% unemployment rate you brought up is just one example.

Idk, maybe because i work in spreadsheets everyday and use basic stats fairly regularly but i understand that the 2.2 mil figure is a worst case scenario with a low probability derived from hypothetical that are completely unrealistic, so to quote that as a headline is misleading and irresponsible because it causes unneeded panic and skews public opinion to overreacting. What will most likely happen is whats called the expected value, which is the sum of all the potential scenarios weighted by their probability. It's like me going to my boss and telling him we can lose our ass if 14 different variables are worst case scenarios which will result in billions in negative cash flows without letting him know that out of 100,000 simulations that happens twice.

Your problem is you're too conditioned to listen to the experts that you've become mentally lazy in critically thinking about the world yourself. Just like the experts told you 100% Russia collusion and you posted about it everyday while i laughed and didn't bother to keep up on something that was so obviously political if you could just see the forest from the trees.

Quote (thundercock @ 18 Mar 2020 01:11)

The goal is to not be Italy. It's quite possible that we already acted too late but I'm hopeful. I imagine my WFH situation will be this way for a minimum of 8 weeks.

Quote (fender @ 17 Mar 2020 22:48)

Quote (IceMage @ Mar 17 2020 08:32pm)

Nobody is arguing that the 2.2 million number is what's expected... it's the projection based on no mitigation/suppression, and then they deal with how mitigation/suppression might affect that number.

I simply look at the objective facts, analysis from experts, and form opinions based on that. You aren't providing a factual argument against the study I posted... you're saying what they predict is extremely unlikely, without backing it up with anything. Kneejerk minimizing, clearly emotionally based.

Quote (ofthevoid @ Mar 17 2020 07:50pm)

I looked at the study. It shows that if you're under 50 you have a survival rate of 99.85%, which gets even higher as the age is lower. If you are under 60 the survival rate is 99.4%.

Objective reality is 3000 people died in Wuhan, a region of 11 million people. Objective reality is even in Italy, a place that got hit much worse because they have a much older population, they have 2500 deaths in the northern region which is like 25 million people. Now of course that 2500 will grow but it's highly unlikely that it will somehow be 50x or 100x China's expected outcome. Those are good expected outcomes for what the virus death toll will look like, not 2.2 million if no mitigation happens even though we knew at least some mitigation efforts would happen even a month ago.

Quote (ofthevoid @ 18 Mar 2020 01:50)

I looked at the study. It shows that if you're under 50 you have a survival rate of 99.85%, which gets even higher as the age is lower. If you are under 60 the survival rate is 99.4%.

Objective reality is 3000 people died in Wuhan, a region of 11 million people. Objective reality is even in Italy, a place that got hit much worse because they have a much older population, they have 2500 deaths in the northern region which is like 25 million people. Now of course that 2500 will grow but it's highly unlikely that it will somehow be 50x or 100x China's expected outcome. Those are good expected outcomes for what the virus death toll will look like, not 2.2 million if no mitigation happens even though we knew at least some mitigation efforts would happen even a month ago.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Mar 17 2020 09:10pm)

You're moving the goalposts.

You're criticizing the 2.2m number on the basis that countries which took drastic steps to stop the spread didn't have high mortality, even though you're fully aware the 2.2m number is a zero mitigation number.

Quote (ofthevoid @ Mar 17 2020 08:21pm)

To quote 2.2 M when we already know drastic measures are being implement is nonsensical and fear mongering. Even if less severe measures were implemented that is greater than zero mitigation. Something as little as hand washing and taking vitamins is greater than 0 and would reduce that 2.2.

Point is, the global panic reaction to this is looking like it will cause a recession. I'm reading articles from bankers than say we are almost certain that a recession is coming which is magnitudes worse for 90% of the population than catching this virus.

Quote (ofthevoid @ Mar 17 2020 08:21pm)

To quote 2.2 M when we already know drastic measures are being implement is nonsensical and fear mongering. Even if less severe measures were implemented that is greater than zero mitigation. Something as little as hand washing and taking vitamins is greater than 0 and would reduce that 2.2.

Point is, the global panic reaction to this is looking like it will cause a recession. I'm reading articles from bankers than say we are almost certain that a recession is coming which is magnitudes worse for 90% of the population than catching this virus.