[umvi]

> Opening things back up prematurely, without sufficient testing, is just going to get people killed.

Yep, some people will die. That's unavoidable. Tens of millions die every year. Hundreds of millions will die per year in a few decades. That's life.

If you are at-risk, you should continue to avoid contact with others. But there's currently no cure for covid-19 other than your own immune system. The sooner the disease runs its course, the sooner we can return to normal. Sheltering in place forever means you prolong the propagation of the disease to excruciatingly long timescales.

[pmiller2]

No, it's entirely avoidable. I'm referring to unnecessary deaths from COVID-19, which, as we've seen here in California, and the Bay Area specifically, have not hit numbers suggested by initial models because we implemented shelter in place.

I don't see anything more to your argument than what the woman standing with a sign saying "I want a haircut" is saying. Your attitude is dangerous. People will die unnecessarily if state leaders do as you suggest. This is what the modeling says, and you have offered nothing to suggest otherwise.

[postalrat]

Are you willing at all to consider the models were flawed and shelter in place is only delaying deaths a few months?

[pmiller2]

Not until you can demonstrate that to me.

[6nf]

Lets wait a few months and see

[_y5hn]

Are you willing to educate yourself about R?

[fzeroracer]

Bold of you to assume that a disease can just run its course and then end. Would you say the same thing about the Chickenpox or some of the earlier flu pandemics we've seen? Are you willing to bet on a far deadlier second wave not occurring?

[umvi]

> Bold of you to assume that a disease can just run its course and then end.

Not that bold, since it is how most diseases/viruses work (with a few exceptions like HIV, and there's no reason to assume covid-19 is an exception)

> Would you say the same thing about the Chickenpox

Yes, chickenpox is one-and-done. Once you've had it, you (basically) can't get it again.

> Are you willing to bet on a far deadlier second wave not occurring?

Yes - "Survival of the fittest"

If there is a second wave, it will only affect survivors of the first wave, and as far as I can tell, the vast majority of first-wave survivors had mild-to-no symptoms. Kids are barely affected at all, it seems.

[pmiller2]

> Yes - "Survival of the fittest"

Are you suggesting that people who have the ability to isolate themselves at home while still earning a living are somehow "fitter"? As I suggested before, your argument as a whole amounts to nothing more than the woman who waves the sign saying "I want a haircut". Is your life more important than your barber or stylist's? If not, why are you asking them to risk it for you?

[umvi]

No, I'm suggesting those that are most vulnerable to covid-19 (old, immuno-compromised, etc) will die off in the first wave and won't be around if there is a second wave. You can't die twice. Thus the mortality rate would plummet.

[pmiller2]

And, that's exactly why we're sheltering in place.

Which do you value more: those peoples' lives, or corporate profits?

[umvi]

Ok, that's a bit of a loaded question, and also a false dichotomy.

Obviously economic stability is more valuable than lives to a certain extent because it generates wealth for generations.

I don't think you grasp the gravity of the economic situation. It's not just "corporite profits" being lost. Tens of thousands of people are losing their jobs, businesses, livelihoods, etc, and that number is growing every day. The vast majority of Americans are not software engineers that can work remotely. A paltry $1000 stimulus check isn't going to help the millions of poor feeling the economic pressure. Many will commit suicide before this is over.

[fzeroracer]

Okay, I guess I have to explain some things here.

> Not that bold, since it is how most diseases/viruses work (with a few exceptions like HIV, and there's no reason to assume covid-19 is an exception)

This is objectively wrong and I'll lead into why in the next point.

> Yes, chickenpox is one-and-done. Once you've had it, you (basically) can't get it again.

Chickenpox is not one-and-done. If you catch chickenpox, the virus remains latent and can manifest itself as Shingles.

And to explain a bit of history here: I'm not talking about a second wave of the current strain. I'm talking about a deadlier strain. That was what my reference was to earlier flu pandemics and I highly suggest you do a bit of reading on that. The Spanish flu had mutated to a far deadlier version during the second wave and spread all over the world.

For all the comparisons people make with the flu virus, people seem to ignore that viruses can come and go in waves. The flu did not 'end', it mutates every season and the reason why we're able to keep it under control is because of widespread vaccination preventing it from growing exponentially. You claim that's how most diseases work, but that's not how the flu works. The danger of letting the coronavirus run rampant is severely understated by our complete inability to control it right now.

[umvi]

> Chickenpox is not one-and-done. If you catch chickenpox, the virus remains latent and can manifest itself as Shingles.

The boils covering your entire body is one and done. Shingles is far less severe by comparison (my sister had it in high school and it was just a painful rash on her side that went away after a few weeks- and yes, it was definitely confirmed to be zoster despite her young age) and only reactivates in a small percentage of people who had chickenpox. Shingles kills basically no one compared to chickenpox.

> The danger of letting the coronavirus run rampant is severely understated by our complete inability to control it right now.

There's tons of evidence suggesting the mortality rate is way over-estimated right now and the amount of total cases is way higher than the number of confirmed cases due to people getting it and showing very few, if no, symptoms. This is nothing like the black plague. Hardly anyone is dying, even in places without shelter in place.

[pmiller2]

I believe you are conflating the case fatality rate with the infection fatality rate.

> Kilpatrick, from UC Santa Cruz, said that if the estimates from New York stand up to scrutiny, the infection fatality rate in New York City would be approximately 0.8%.

> [...]

> Epidemiologists at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, for example, analyzed data from the Diamond Princess, the ill-fated ship on which more than 700 passengers got infected. Researchers adjusted for the fact that cruise passengers are older than average and estimated the coronavirus’ infection fatality ratio as 0.6%.

[...]

> Now let’s talk about the flu. Comparisons to the flu keep coming back like a many-headed hydra, and they roared back last week with a vengeance.

> The estimates I’ve seen for influenza IFR range from about 0.14% on the upper end to 0.04% on the lower end. So if the IFR for this coronavirus ends up being around 0.5%, that’s still many times worse than the flu.

[...]

> Marc Lipsitch, head of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health’s Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics, has estimated that ultimately 20% to 60% of the population could be infected with COVID-19. By comparison, because of immunity provided by flu shots and past infections, only about 10% to 20% of the population gets sick with influenza every year, according to Kilpatrick.

> Kilpatrick sketched out what this meant: “If it’s five times deadlier than the seasonal flu, and three times as many people are going to get it, that means we’re going to get 15 times as many deaths. And 15 times 30,000, which is the middle-of-the-road kind of a seasonal flu year, that’s 450,000 deaths — about half a million deaths — that’s a pretty big, scary number, I think.”

All quoted text is from https://www.propublica.org/article/what-antibody-studies-can...

Is 450,000 people "hardly anyone"? More importantly, what matters more to you: their lives, or corporate profits?