[seeTheAstroturf]

Death rates are at 0.5%, and it was worth shutting down the economy.

Car accident death rates are at 1%. Wait until people hear about that.

The bigger shock is when people realize that you can't stop the spread of a pandemic. You can flatten the curve to help hospitals. But soon we will find hospitals are more dangerous than staying at home due to infections and that respirators barely improve your chance of survival.

I hope medical loses their credibility big time. Their rejection of math and science in favor of tradition is horrifying.

[wila]

Chances of getting a car accident this year do not equal the chances of getting the virus within the same year.

Aka comparing the two makes no sense.

According to [1] in 2018 there was about 11 deaths per 100,000. So that's 0.011% instead of 1%.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...

[simion314]

So you assume that yourself are the number guy and know better, so what is the equation that will determine when lockdown is more efficient? what are the inputs in that equation ? Why car deaths would be a factor in why you should implement a lockdown. If you go to a hospital with a illness X would you like a response like "X kills less then cars in our country, until traffic laws are fixed we decided you can suffer and die from X, Have a ice death!"

[seeTheAstroturf]

I think it's fair to do death vs death. Especially if Corona disproportionately affects people who have lived 60+ years already. Car deaths affect people of all ages.

The economic collapse and scare has caused people to cancel or delay surgeries, dental work, physical therapy, buy newer and safer cars, home abuse has gone up, I imagine exercise has gone down, I wonder how alcohol use has changed.

You can quantify these with numbers.

[saalweachter]

> You can quantify these with numbers.

You can!

Using the age statistics from NY and the Social Security actuarial tables, we're currently losing something like 11.75-17.1 years of life per death, depending on whether you weight towards the life expectancy at the beginning or end of each age bracket. The current update to the "dialysis standard" for the value of a YoQL is $129,000, so we're currently losing $1.5-2.2 million per death.

If the true fatality rate is 0.66% (https://www.livescience.com/death-rate-lower-than-estimates....), and 70% of the population would catch it if it is not contained before "herd immunity" is reached, that would put the total number of expected deaths in the US at around 1.52 million. If we're expected something like 100-200 thousand people to die even with the measures currently being taken, then we're averting 1.4 million deaths and that amounts to a savings of about $2-3 trillion worth of human life.

If $2-3 trillion is suspiciously similar to the magnitude being thrown around for various "coronavirus relief bills", well, it's probably only a little bit of a coincidence.

[tripzilch]

> I think it's fair to do death vs death. Especially if Corona disproportionately affects people who have lived 60+ years already.

If you're going to claim that 60+ year lives are somehow less worth than younger ones, you better damn well be 60+ years old yourself. Otherwise you're just talking about sacrificing lives that aren't your own.

[ozim]

In 2017 deaths from road accidents in Italy 3378, that is number for the whole year. Since half of January in Italy died 17669 people because of virus...

People who are 50+ or 60+ are still productive members of society. They take care of children for young professionals, support them with their savings, bond family members that would otherwise do stupid stuff.

Lots of those young people will get psychical issues because their family members died. Like mother, father, grandmother and grandfather died at the same time because of virus. How much that can lead to alcoholism or suicides?

This kind of thing would not happen if there is social distancing in place. This kind of thing like wiping whole family elders at once happens rarely with car deaths.

[simion314]

But why cars? It would make sense if you are an extreme capitalist to put money in the equation, how much a life costs, how much lockdown costs, how much it costs to find a cure, how much it costs to let everyone sick die but it would make no sense to bring cars into this, think about it your calculation would be different depending on the country or state, like if you are in the country with horible driving bad luck now you will also die from covid.

[seeTheAstroturf]

Because we will always drive cars, and in 5 years there will be no coronavirus. Would it have been better to spend our resources on more complex airbag systems that would last as long as humans drive or a lockdown to save our oldest population for 3 years?

I think this math problem is easier than we would like, but politically it's unpopular.

[simion314]

Let's assume cars kill N people a month, and the next pandemic kill N-1 old people a month and cancer kills N-2 people a month. We do nothing until we solve the cars? What if it kills N-1 children we still do nothing?

I do not see the argument that the resources should go to cars, if you want to solve car accidents you can do it for free, I have the secrets here:

- don't give a diving license that easy. have decent tests

- if you are caught drunk you should never drive again

- if you are caught looking at a phone screen your license is gone for 10 years

- if you are speeding your license is gone for 10 years

- test the cars every 2 years to check they are safe and not polluting

- analyze the crashes find the causes and address them, if speeding is the issue find a way to enforce speed limits.

Do you have any evidence that if the lockdown did not have happened more lives would have been saved? Ironically probably less people died in car accidents so you need to find some domain where the number of deaths increased more then the lives saved,

[SuoDuanDao]

I think the point is, Forcing people to stay home is a solve against cars and coronavirus. The death rate for cars is higher, so why haven't we forced a lockdown to deal with car deaths? What makes the Coronavirus different, besides that it's been 100 years since we've had a serious pandemic?

[ozim]

What is the probability of someones mother, father, grandmother, grandfather and all uncles/aunts die at the same time because of car accidents?

If they all are now above 50 chances they might die because of this virus are quite high.

That is high price if one is losing his social grounding when he is 20 because he survived... Yeah he might get inheritance and have his young friends but I would not be happy if most of my relatives are dead.

[ozim]

He is not even that good as a number guy...

Current global stats as I write are: 1446242 confirmed, 83424 deaths which in my calculator is giving 5% not 0,5%

[zabana]

keyword here is confirmed. Many of us carry the virus and are untested (or "unconfirmed") so that 5% number is likely to massively decrease to around 0.5% at some point if (second keyword), governments decide to implement large scale testing.

[simion314]

But if you also would consider that without the lockdown the number would have been worse you need to adjust the numbers to reflect a larger infection rate and a collapsed health care where everyone with complication is dead.

[ozim]

I am going with train of thought were tested and confirmed were tested because they had high chance of getting virus. You don't test people who had no chance of getting a virus so I don't think those numbers are that much higher.

Second thing is that testing already was increased in a lot of places but last 2 days new cases number did not grow it stayed around the same.

[seeTheAstroturf]

Because everyone that has coronavirus was tested?