|
|
|
|
|
|
by SpicyLemonZest
2208 days ago
|
|
|
Sorry, I may have been unclear. I'm not saying the risk adds up to zero somehow; it's the risk you face over a normal year, in addition to the actual risk of living through 2020 which you'll still face. In other words, if the virus spread to everyone in the US this year, we'd expect to see 2 normal years worth of deaths this year. The health system does need to be prevented from collapsing, but that can be achieved with measures much less severe than "no socializing". Strict lockdowns may have been necessary before, but they're not necessary now, which is why they're being rolled back pretty much across the globe. |
|
|
No again, as I've argued, you just can't use averages across the whole countries to estimate individual increase of risk so simple as you suggest, as your statement was
"on the individual level, it's about the same risk of death as you face over a normal year."
Everybody knows his own risk, and it's surely not "2 normal years" for most of the people. I've given the examples for somebody who is young but not suicidal, for somebody who is young, fit and with diabetes, for somebody who is fit but older etc. What you argue is plainly wrong calculation:
According to your logic, if the average number of children per grown up person in my country is 1.2 I should personally have 1.2 child. It doesn't work that way. In reality, one person knows that he will never have children, another that she will have 2 etc.
Edit: responding to the reply below this writing: "What I see people saying" .. "That every single person in the country should live a life of isolation for the next year to minimize the chances they get the coronavirus." -- who is claiming that and where actually? And even if you "see that" somewhere (not on HN I'd guess) it doesn't change the fact that you claimed an "individual risk" of "2 years" for practically everybody, which is, as I believed I've proven up to now, obviously wrong.