The worst Corona could have done
-
[DELETED] This isn't about young healthy people getting sick, this is about preventing the spread of a pandemic and limiting it's growth rate to that which medical facilities can cope with. Because it kills 3.5% of all infected persons, and if everyone on the planet gets infected that's around 250,000,000 people who die as a result. The slower it spreads, the better medical facilities can handle it, and the lower the death rate. And large (or even medium sized) groups of young people are a damn fine way to spread this around, particularly since it seems you can be infectious without showing symptoms. So stop whining about what are in the broad scheme of things minor hiccoughs, and think about your duties to your fellow human beings...
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
OriginalGriff wrote:
. Because it kills 3.5% of all infected persons,
That number keeps changing. And it's way lower among healthy and younger people so that number on it's own doesn't really mean much.
OriginalGriff wrote:
and if everyone on the planet gets infected that's around 250,000,000 people who die as a result.
And if everyone on the planet gets infected with the regular seasonal flu 4-8 million people would die (which is hugely significant) but nobody cares (except for those directly affected.) 2 real problems that no one seems to be concerned with. 1. All this crazy hand-sanitizing is only going to INCREASE the odds of people getting it. Corona virus has been around forever and we won't eradicate this strain either. So, when people go back to normal there will be so many with weakened immune systems due to overdose of hand sanitizer that they will be more susceptible to it. 2. We are a shrinking world and this will happen again. Shutting down the world for a few months is hardly the answer.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other. Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
-
Historically, virus epidemies have often hit populations differently, depending on their genetics. New World natives were severly hit, often fatally, by viruses brought by the immigrants, but to them only causing a light cold. It is probably considered racist to point out the fact that in quite a few functions of society, the genetic distribution of those doing the job does not reflect the distribution in society as a whole. Some groups are overrepresented in jobs like management positions in cultural life, industrial leaders, toilet cleaners, taxi drivers, airplane pilots and fruit pickers. We do not yet have enough information to tell if the corona death toll varies with genetic disposition. It could be. If the variation between popualation groups is strong, it could severely affect some functions of society far more than others, even if the average death toll is not that bad. I don't know which would be worse: Loosing half of the airline pilots, half of toilet clearners or half of the managers of cultural life. Neither represent a significant percentage of the population, but the effect on society might be dramatic. (Obviously, the same population groups overrepresented e.g. as toilet cleaners are also overrepresented in other kinds of jobs, which would most likely be hit with similar strength. So to consider possible effects of corona hitting population groups with different intensity, we must look at all the kind of jobs that have a significant overrrepresentation of the group that may be hit badly.)
I see your point. But my point was: What is worse? To loose 50% of the 75+ old people or to loose 30% of the young people?
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
. Because it kills 3.5% of all infected persons,
That number keeps changing. And it's way lower among healthy and younger people so that number on it's own doesn't really mean much.
OriginalGriff wrote:
and if everyone on the planet gets infected that's around 250,000,000 people who die as a result.
And if everyone on the planet gets infected with the regular seasonal flu 4-8 million people would die (which is hugely significant) but nobody cares (except for those directly affected.) 2 real problems that no one seems to be concerned with. 1. All this crazy hand-sanitizing is only going to INCREASE the odds of people getting it. Corona virus has been around forever and we won't eradicate this strain either. So, when people go back to normal there will be so many with weakened immune systems due to overdose of hand sanitizer that they will be more susceptible to it. 2. We are a shrinking world and this will happen again. Shutting down the world for a few months is hardly the answer.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other. Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
ZurdoDev wrote:
2. We are a shrinking world and this will happen again. Shutting down the world for a few months is hardly the answer.
And next time the virus could be even worse...
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
ZurdoDev wrote:
2. We are a shrinking world and this will happen again. Shutting down the world for a few months is hardly the answer.
And next time the virus could be even worse...
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
Nelek wrote:
And next time the virus could be even worse...
Exactly. And shutting the world down for even longer next time is not a solution.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other. Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
-
I see your point. But my point was: What is worse? To loose 50% of the 75+ old people or to loose 30% of the young people?
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
Or: What is worse? To loose 90% of the toilet cleaners? To loose 90% of the bus drivers? To loose 90% of the CEOs of your country's medium to large companies? (as well as 60% of the Board of those companies) To loose 90% of the fruit pickers? Once you start defining groups, telling that this group is more valuable that group, you should ask: What about other groups, maybe more focused? Is "young" by itself the right criterion? How about young criminals - are those the one you want to save? Young drug addicts? What if pot was like poison to corona, so that pot smokers survived? What if the genetic disposition for becoming a homosexual was linked to something making those persons immune to corona, would that be OK with you? If native Americans turn out to be immune - or turn out to be extra sensitive - does that make any difference to you? What is semites (such as Arabs) turn out to be immune - or turn out to be extra sensitive - does that make any difference? Is age the only important criterion for selecting / applauding who shall survive, and the rest isn't so important? It is a criterion very simple to point out, but is it the best? If you could decide (hypothetically, since you have no such power, and we know that this isn't reality), either that all aryans, young and old, survive, but the majority of semites (such as Arabs) are taken out by the virus, or that young aryans and semmits (such as Arabs) come through it, but elderly aryans and semites die? Let me say that I know quite a few who would not trade their old grandma for a young Arab. Maybe you could call that racial prejudice, but even the United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights state (Article 16.3) "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State" - this is very close to giving you explicit right to protect your family. (The declaration does not define "family" clearly - in some societies it could be a two-generation parent/child familiy, in others, it could be a multigenerational family.) I think that this is sufficient to justify that you give priority to your grandma.
-
Nelek wrote:
And next time the virus could be even worse...
Exactly. And shutting the world down for even longer next time is not a solution.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other. Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
Next time the virus might shut down the world for even longer ... Or maybe not "the world". Maybe just the industrial, white man's world. Like viruses brought by white man to the third world, more or less shutting down native cultures permanently. What if the next virus has a similar effect but turned the other way around: Colored people, latinos, navtives go unaffected or experience it as a minor cold, but it hits white man like a bullet? What effect would that have on society?
-
Next time the virus might shut down the world for even longer ... Or maybe not "the world". Maybe just the industrial, white man's world. Like viruses brought by white man to the third world, more or less shutting down native cultures permanently. What if the next virus has a similar effect but turned the other way around: Colored people, latinos, navtives go unaffected or experience it as a minor cold, but it hits white man like a bullet? What effect would that have on society?
-
Or: What is worse? To loose 90% of the toilet cleaners? To loose 90% of the bus drivers? To loose 90% of the CEOs of your country's medium to large companies? (as well as 60% of the Board of those companies) To loose 90% of the fruit pickers? Once you start defining groups, telling that this group is more valuable that group, you should ask: What about other groups, maybe more focused? Is "young" by itself the right criterion? How about young criminals - are those the one you want to save? Young drug addicts? What if pot was like poison to corona, so that pot smokers survived? What if the genetic disposition for becoming a homosexual was linked to something making those persons immune to corona, would that be OK with you? If native Americans turn out to be immune - or turn out to be extra sensitive - does that make any difference to you? What is semites (such as Arabs) turn out to be immune - or turn out to be extra sensitive - does that make any difference? Is age the only important criterion for selecting / applauding who shall survive, and the rest isn't so important? It is a criterion very simple to point out, but is it the best? If you could decide (hypothetically, since you have no such power, and we know that this isn't reality), either that all aryans, young and old, survive, but the majority of semites (such as Arabs) are taken out by the virus, or that young aryans and semmits (such as Arabs) come through it, but elderly aryans and semites die? Let me say that I know quite a few who would not trade their old grandma for a young Arab. Maybe you could call that racial prejudice, but even the United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights state (Article 16.3) "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State" - this is very close to giving you explicit right to protect your family. (The declaration does not define "family" clearly - in some societies it could be a two-generation parent/child familiy, in others, it could be a multigenerational family.) I think that this is sufficient to justify that you give priority to your grandma.
Member 7989122 wrote:
It is a criterion very simple to point out, but is it the best?
Is the natural one. In your examples, if one of your groups is genetically predisposed or inmune it is a natural selection. I don't mind to try to help them, as I don't mind to try to help the elders. I have a problem if we focus in helping them to the point that other people are then in disadvantage, because all the resources are busy with the elder ones. And my father (78) agrees with me. And what if you have to choose between your grandma and a friend of the school time? or a cousin? or your nephew? I know I would say "sorry grandma"
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
That's a lot of "mights." :zzz:
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other. Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
ZurdoDev wrote:
That's a lot of "mights."
Then don't look at his answer to me a bit above... :-D :rolleyes:
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
ZurdoDev wrote:
That's a lot of "mights."
Then don't look at his answer to me a bit above... :-D :rolleyes:
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Or: What is worse? To loose 90% of the toilet cleaners? To loose 90% of the bus drivers? To loose 90% of the CEOs of your country's medium to large companies? (as well as 60% of the Board of those companies) To loose 90% of the fruit pickers? Once you start defining groups, telling that this group is more valuable that group, you should ask: What about other groups, maybe more focused? Is "young" by itself the right criterion? How about young criminals - are those the one you want to save? Young drug addicts? What if pot was like poison to corona, so that pot smokers survived? What if the genetic disposition for becoming a homosexual was linked to something making those persons immune to corona, would that be OK with you? If native Americans turn out to be immune - or turn out to be extra sensitive - does that make any difference to you? What is semites (such as Arabs) turn out to be immune - or turn out to be extra sensitive - does that make any difference? Is age the only important criterion for selecting / applauding who shall survive, and the rest isn't so important? It is a criterion very simple to point out, but is it the best? If you could decide (hypothetically, since you have no such power, and we know that this isn't reality), either that all aryans, young and old, survive, but the majority of semites (such as Arabs) are taken out by the virus, or that young aryans and semmits (such as Arabs) come through it, but elderly aryans and semites die? Let me say that I know quite a few who would not trade their old grandma for a young Arab. Maybe you could call that racial prejudice, but even the United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights state (Article 16.3) "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State" - this is very close to giving you explicit right to protect your family. (The declaration does not define "family" clearly - in some societies it could be a two-generation parent/child familiy, in others, it could be a multigenerational family.) I think that this is sufficient to justify that you give priority to your grandma.
-
Quote:
To loose 90% of the toilet cleaners? To loose 90% of the bus drivers? To loose 90% of the CEOs of your country's medium to large companies?
If they're loose just tighten them! Oh! Wait! You meant "lose", didn't you? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I guess I did :-) English is not my native language, so even though I consider myself "reasonably" fluent in English, when I am in a hurry, I make mistakes like that. The good thing abot English is that it is used by so many people who master it poorly that you just nave to be reasonably tolerant. For e.g. Norwegian, there is far less traditional tolerance, and you may be frowned upon for minor details - details at the same level would go unnoticed in the English speaking world.
-
Rather choose the simple, sterotypical answers so that you don't have to consider complex issues such as "values". Stereotypes are real time savers!
You are taking it a bit too seriously right now. This message was just a joke (I recognize I should have used the joke icon though). Sorry if it has annoyed you.
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
