Quote (Black XistenZ @ 22 Nov 2020 19:07)

I'm fully aware of how callous it sounds, but it's the cold hard truth. Without the risk of a collapse of the hospitals, this "great cull" would seriously be considered by most governments, and many (not all) of them would go for it.

Quote (excellence @ 22 Nov 2020 19:13)

dunno why that user is complaining about “cults” when his ancestors surrendered willingly to one of the most murderous cults in human history

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Nov 22 2020 12:00pm)

If covid's IFR was 10 or 30% or so, instead of its actual 0.6% - and with little age stratification - then we would be under martial law and there wouldnt be much discussion or dissent about how to deal with the virus: quash it at any cost. The key crux with covid is that it poses a big threat for society, but not for most individuals. The personal risk from the virus is negligible for the majority of the population, and the major threat for them comes from a potentially overwhelmed healthcare system, not the virus itself.

I'm probably not gonna make a lot of friends by saying the following, but to put it very bluntly: if we could let the virus burn through the population without risking a collapse of all of healthcare, then doing just that would very well be on the table as one of several feasible options. (In this scenario, we would still be wearing masks and try to protect the vulnerable, but there would be no lockdowns and probably also no mandatory quarantines - life would go on almost as normal for the 0-50 year olds.) Since not everyone from the risk groups would catch the virus even in such a scenario, it would essentially amount to a death toll in the range of 0.3 - 0.4% of the popaltion, with the big majority of the diseased already very old, and the majority of them saddled with comorbidities and not that many expected life years left anyway. Compared to trillions upon trillions in economic damage and tens of millions of destroyed livelihoods, making this kind of sacrifice would be considered.


Covid is so divisive because it hits the "sweet spot" such that its health impact and the economic and social impact of the countermeasures fall in a range where the optimal tradeoff is unclear and up for debate. If the fatality rate was a bit lower, it would be on the level of "just" a bad seasonal flu, and we know that society doesnt shut down for those. If it was a bit higher, the tradeoff would unequivocally lean toward the health side of things.

Quote (Bazi @ 22 Nov 2020 20:26)

Which basically renders this post irrelevant because even with precautions healthcare is collapsing

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Nov 22 2020 02:14pm)

Which is due to a failure to execute the chosen strategy ("flatten the curve and wait for a vaccine"), rather than having chosen a fundamentally unworkable strategy. The fact that the healthcare systems in most European countries are able to hang on and persevere proves it.

But perhaps this discussion about tradeoffs and courses of action that I touched upon is too esoteric from a US perspective, where it's currently all about not going completely under.

Quote (Bazi @ 22 Nov 2020 22:08)

I’m talking about the US where this rhetoric doesn’t have a place tbh

But regardless, Multiple European countries have had multiple lockdowns now and still reached capacity as well, ie Italy so not sure what exactly your point is.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Nov 22 2020 04:21pm)

My original point in response to GarryGarry was that covid would actually be less divisive if it was more deadly. Then, I mused about how the secondary effect on the healthcare system, rather than the primary effect on the infected patients, is the more dangerous aspect of covid (from a macro perspective). My point is that this threat of a collapsing healthcare system is the real game changer which forces the lockdowns, not the ~0.6% IFR.

Italy is generally a mess. I love them and their country, but my god do they suck at organizing things, including hospitals...

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Nov 22 2020 04:21pm)

My original point in response to GarryGarry was that covid would actually be less divisive if it was more deadly. Then, I mused about how the secondary effect on the healthcare system, rather than the primary effect on the infected patients, is the more dangerous aspect of covid (from a macro perspective). My point is that this threat of a collapsing healthcare system is the real game changer which forces the lockdowns, not the ~0.6% IFR.


Italy is generally a mess. I love them and their country, but my god do they suck at organizing things, including hospitals...

Quote (Thor123422 @ 22 Nov 2020 23:56)

My hope is after this we send a ton of people to South Korea to learn from their pandemic response about how to handle future outbreaks. They really are the gold standard.

China is also a "gold standard" of sorts, but they did it with much more authoritarian measures that can't really pass here so maybe make a note of China but not take their lessons to heart.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Nov 22 2020 05:11pm)

East Asia has more experience with epidemics than the West. Particularly after the original SARS in 2003, they put comprehensive pandemic preparedness plans in place and really threw their full weight behind these efforts. I hope the West does the same once the current debacle is over.

Still, it must be noted that pervasive tracking of all citizens is an integral part of South Korea's approach, which would directly conflict with Western data privacy standards.
Another key ingredient of their success is an obedient populace that follows the rules and listens to its government. Also, East Asian socieites are far more conformistic in general. On all sorts of issues, there is tremendous social pressure on dissenters; those who break the rules and act egotistical are ostracized without mercy. Let's just say that this social factor of East Asia's success in battling covid does not exist in the West. And that's not just an "ignorant American hillbillies"-thing, Europe is not much different in this regard.

Quote (Thor123422 @ 23 Nov 2020 00:15)

Absolutely. We won't see as much success as they did even if we did all the right things.

However, we probably would have fared quite a bit better if we didn't dismantle our covid tracking infrastructure right before this hit, and refused to implement WHO testing protocols and manufacture our own tests, and didn't make masks a political issue, etc. etc.

We might not have been South Korea, but we probably would have avoided our almost entire second wave and a good chunk of our first wave.