[jensv]

What about deaths due to smoking or obesity? Should we ban bacon and cigarettes?

"Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death. Worldwide, tobacco use causes more than 7 million deaths per year. If the pattern of smoking all over the globe doesn't change, more than 8 million people a year will die from diseases related to tobacco use by 2030.Mar. 23, 2020"

"Obesity has reached epidemic proportions globally, with at least 2.8 million people dying each year as a result of being overweight or obese. Once associated with high-income countries, obesity is now also prevalent in low- and middle-income countries.Jun. 9, 2021"

[gilbetron]

We did ban smoking in public spaces because of the same reasoning as with Covid - it's ok to do dumb things that affect yourself, but not if it affects others.

[josephcsible]

Why don't we ban driving? We'd save a lot of lives lost to car crashes. And a lot of those lives are passengers and pedestrians, i.e., "others".

[galago]

Driving is heavily regulated in terms of what kind of cars are legal and how and where they can be operated. Its just a matter of degrees and cost/benefit as assessed by the public. We don't ban driving outright but be ban all kinds of automotive use.

[josephcsible]

> Its just a matter of degrees and cost/benefit as assessed by the public.

That's the point, though: COVID lockdowns happened even though much of the public said the benefits of locking down weren't worth the costs.

[nwiswell]

> much of the public

Was it at least half of the public, though? Just because cars are a less contentious subject doesn't mean that public opinion doesn't ultimately dictate how they are regulated.

[lhorie]

Can we just take a moment to appreciate the irony of saying that the measures against covid "don't justify the costs" when the article literally says more people have died (either directly from covid or indirectly) during the pandemic than from smoking/obesity/car accidents?

The number of deaths even is lower than it could've been because countries implemented all sorts of draconian measures until vaccinations rolled out, so y'all appear to be simultaneously arguing that there should be more covid deaths cus freedom and/or we should make larger sacrifices to economic activity for lesser causes.

Either way, it strikes me as a weak argument.

[josephcsible]

> more people have died (either directly from covid or indirectly) during the pandemic than from smoking/obesity/car accidents

The word "indirectly" is the key there. A lot of the excess deaths were because of the measures against COVID, such as cancer cases that went undiagnosed while they were treatable because people had to cancel their checkups, or methanol poisoning because everyone was suddenly manufacturing their own hand sanitizer, often unsafely.

[cycrutchfield]

> A lot of the excess deaths were because of the measures against COVID, such as cancer cases that went undiagnosed while they were treatable because people had to cancel their checkups, or methanol poisoning because everyone was suddenly manufacturing their own hand sanitizer, often unsafely.

Such a claim simply beggars belief. Please cite some figures that back up your assertions.

[lhorie]

"A lot" is a modifier you can put in the front of whatever factor supports a given narrative. A lot of people got turned away by overwhelmed hospital staff. A lot of people live in China. A lot of people died in India (which has poorer medical infrastructure than US). A lot of US Republicans died for not following CDC advice. A lot of covid deaths happened in short spiky bursts.

One can weave a quite different narrative from those points (one that supports policies like Australia's or China's, for example)

[zacmps]

I find this thread quite amusing. Starting with covid we have examples of other things which cause large amounts of death, with the intention being to normalize these large-scale causes of mortality.

* Smoking: Is being phased out in much of the developed world, with various restrictions, taxes, etc

* Obesity: Widely recognized as a problem, with attempts such as sugar taxes, etc. Solutions are less widely agreed upon, but the fact that is a problem is not in question.

* Driving: Again, road toll is a known issue which we try to reduce. Driving itself should likely be reduced but the bigger motivation is climate related.

[josephcsible]

> Starting with covid we have examples of other things which cause large amounts of death, with the intention being to normalize these large-scale causes of mortality.

The intent isn't to normalize anything. The intent is to show that COVID is unique among things that cause large amounts of death in that for some reason, people are all too willing to sacrifice all of their freedom and privacy over it.

> * Driving: Again, road toll is a known issue which we try to reduce.

Yes, we try to reduce it. But not by saying "driving is illegal now because it kills people."

[nwiswell]

Because the modern world depends on the automobile, and from a utilitarian point of view the modern world has still had a positive effect on life expectancy.

Car culture should not be a foregone conclusion, though -- you are right about that. Many European nations -- the Netherlands being the typical example -- have done a pretty good job of fostering a bike culture in their cities. But us Americans sure love our cars, and so it's ultimately a political question, not a moral one.

[commandlinefan]

Well, not that I remotely agree with the ridiculous overreaction to COVID, world-wide, nor do I think any of this is reasonable, but you can’t give somebody smoking or obesity by sneezing on them - you can with Coronavirus. So it’s still apples to oranges.

[lambdaba]

Isn't it probable that people most at risk are also more likely to spread the virus? They would shed much more virus, wouldn't they? So it's not so simple, someone who has a better functioning immune system represents a lesser risk to others. Is there a counterargument? I do recall some studies acknowledge this, but I don't have a reference.

[mlac]

Yes - the counter argument is that people who are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic (think seasonal allergies or “it’s just a cold”) will go about their lives as normal. And this, for many, involves not washing hands after using the restroom, mild coughing and sneezing into their hand and touching things, and spreading germs through close conversations.

There were always people at the office that showed up with a fever, clearly exposing everyone on the bus and at the office, but for a large number of people, this is just one that we would have pushed through.

If you get covid with moderate symptoms, you (hopefully) stay home. People with severe symptoms go to the hospital or die. You don’t need to worry about those people being super spreaders. It’s the people that push through or feel mild symptoms and carry on without thought that are giving it to others, and those in turn may accidentally give it to the most vulnerable in their bubble.

And I hope when you or I get it, that it does feel just like a cold - or is even asymptomatic. But I know that for some percentage of the world it is not, and it will kill them.

This is probably too simple, but: Transmission = infectiousness x interactions. In your example, People with weak immune systems, who are more infectious, are less likely to have interactions.

[8note]

Relevance?