Camus was taken from us too soon. He's mostly responsible for the majority of my philosophical worldview.

10% would be affected in any meaningful way and realistically 1% would die not 10.

I wonder if In 100 years because of various advances in science life expectancies go to 100 are we going to find it unacceptable for people to die naturally.

I hope we reach a technological level that prevents natural aging and death. That would be pretty awesome.

running the real numbers it gets a bit wonky.

let's say 1% of americans die. so like 3 million for a round number.

and let's say 75% of those 3m are age 60 and above. so we have 2.25m age 60+ deaths.

and let's say 90% of them vote, 2.025m voters gone.

and let's say 75% of the 60+ voters would have voted for Trump, 1.52m votes lost for the Trumpster. versus 506k lost for dnc and others.

ooff size large.



idk, if given the binary choice between unending life in a literal sense and death i'd take death.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Mar 18 2020 08:04am

That's the best part though. You could always choose to die, nobody can realistically take that right away from you. Also, you could always just opt to stop whatever treatment is required, since these things couldn't be permanent.

I think when i get introspective i know if i couldn't die, i'd selfishly choose to live on forever. even if quality of life diminished greatly i'd likely hold on in the hope they fix that as well. and i dont like the idea of not being able to stop myself from that. i think even if i wanted to die deep in my heart there would also be a fear of death so great id never pull the trigger. ive known for a long time im incapable of suicide, even as i know i dont want to live forever. i dont fear death at an old age, i only fear it at a young age.

In my very reasonable news:


Some countries take the risky gamble of collective immunity


WHO is calling on European countries to take bolder action against the Covid-19. But not all countries have the same strategy. Some such as the United Kingdom and the Netherlands are taking the risky gamble of collective immunity. Collective immunity is when there have been enough people affected by an infectious disease to protect the entire population. It sounds paradoxical but in fact it is quite simple. If you get sick, and you heal, you develop the antibodies that cause even if you get sick again, it won't affect you and you won't infect others. If there are enough people like you in the population, the virus can no longer find a host to infect and the epidemic gradually ends.

A contested strategy, however:

In the case of Covid-19 there is no vaccine yet and before embarking on this strategy, it is important to know the disease. Are you really immune once you catch it? This question is still pending. In addition, this strategy means that there are sick and even dead people in the most vulnerable. In the case of Covid-19 it could go up to 3% of infected people tell us some epidemiologists. In addition, on the European continent, if some countries let the virus spread, they cancel the efforts of those who seek to contain it by confining their population. This is why this health strategy is controversial.

.

Perhaps these countries risk being banned worldwide for a very long time (as side effect of that strategy)

those numbers are far too high imho.

but yeah, with realistic numbers, that might still mean a net margin loss of 500k or so voters for Trump (half of the 1m you came up with). and more importantly, pivotal states like Florida could be hit particularly hard.


still... in an electoral sense, the deep recession is a much bigger problem for Trump than the effect of his electorate dying at disproportional rates from the coronavirus.