you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]danuker 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Public health and the US constitution are incompatible. It should stay that way, that is the point of the constitution.

Edit: > nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Perhaps infecting someone with a disease is depriving them of "life, liberty, or property" by making them sick, requiring them pay for treatments, and perhaps killing them.

[–]astronautrob 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

The problem comes in when the "disease" is in fact not a public health concern, anymore than the reg flu, any other novel strain of flue, hunger, suicide, etc., Etc., Is and the government is using the crisis to take away freedoms. That can be veiled in the cloak of "public health" but it doesn't negate the fact that constitutional rights are basically being taken away for a boogie man. Similar to the cold war scare, 9/11, etc., These are moments that the gov deemed necessary to take away rights, enact "temporary" powers never are given back. The "reason" they deem necessary for taking these rights away is irrelevant. It doesn't matter. It will always change from one boogie man to the next. Right now it Corona, tomorrow it will be something else the 24 hour news cycle will tell you is important to pay attention to.

[–]danuker 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

The flu does not increase the risk of dying by 54% for a 24h period.

[–]astronautrob 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

That's a very arbitrary number. It also doesn't address the many other preventative causes of deaths that kill many more people even if you're going to believe the inflated mortality rate currently being circulated. Turn off the TV my friend.

[–]danuker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

How is it arbitrary? It's the official deaths confirmed by the Italian government. Do you have better data?

[–]astronautrob 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Using statistics only from Italy is arbitrary. You're picking which data set to use. You, or whoever did the "calculations" are arbitrarily picking what numbers to use. Even if that percentage is correct Italys numbers are high for a couple different reasons, we already know that. Try looking at something like the world mortality rate so far with novel COVID and compare that to past flu pandemics. That would be a better data set to look at. You probably saw that stat somewhere on TV or mainstream media. Again, turn off the TV. Italy has been posted on every media outlet because it has the most frightening numbers. The mortality rate for COVID is relatively low and most likely will even go lower once more people get it, are tested, and recover (which most people are). Even mortality rate is a little too narrow of a perspective if we're being honest. It doesn't take in to account age (which seems to be the biggest factor in whether COVID will kill you or not, just like almost every other disease). Either way to say getting COVID makes you 54% more likely to die is silly. To use numbers from only one country makes it even more silly. Saying getting COVID makes you 54% more likely to die is like saying getting in a car makes you XX% more likely to die on a given day. Is that a base percentage? Like does getting in a car make you 50% more likely to die and then say for instance it's raining that adds 15% and if you're drunk that adds 20%, etc.? That is just silly, it doesn't take in to account so many factors. Also again to use the numbers from one country makes the argument invalid.

[–]danuker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Fine, let's look at world data.

A. Deaths today: 133,863

B. COVID-19 deaths today: 4,737

So, right now, about (100 * A. / B. ) 3.5% of deaths are COVID deaths.

But the problem is, COVID deaths were growing exponentially for quite a while. On the 5th of April, total deaths increased by 7% over the previous day. (see "Change in Total (%)" on the page).

If it keeps going up exponentially by 7% daily, there's no reason why everyone would not end up like Italy.

Here's a video comparing it with past epidemics. Check out the daily death rates at 6:56 in the chart. On April 1st, 4895 people died worldwide of COVID, while swine flu's peak was 2050 per day.

[–]astronautrob 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

But it won't keep going up because everyone is not like Italy. The mortality rate will go down as more people recover, that's a fact. It is not a fact to saying getting COVID raises your chances of death by 54%, that's silly. Again, it doesn't take in to account things like age, which is a huge factor. Are you saying a 20 who gets COVID and a 80 year old both raise their chances of death by 54%? Again silly math. I won't dispute the fact people are dieing of COVID but age is a huge factor. For the most part it's not killing younger/middle aged healthy people. The people who are dieing from COVID are moslty older people and people with underlying health conditions. COVID has been one of the most "tracked" viruses in history, if not the most. The reporting of COVID deaths has been had some questions marks, doctors bring told to report cod as COVID even if there was no test done, etc. Those are both facts. But even putting those aside common sense would tell you that if any of the previous "pandemics" we're tracked as closely as this one has been the mortality probably would have looked a lot worse than it did. 3.5% mortality rate is not outrageous, especially when it's so segregated to one part of the population. But all that is a digression from my original point. Our original debate was about the 54% being arbitrary, which in using only a select data set makes it so. Trying to change the window to be about mortality rate doesn't make that fact any less true.

[–]danuker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I did not say the death rate does not vary by age. It does. But that is irrelevant, because government has to consider all people. So I consider the total risk of death.

My estimate isn't exact, I assume roughly the same death rate in US as in Italy. The difference is just 4 years in life expectancy. But people in the die sooner because they're sicker.

silly

No, you're silly. You keep going round in circles insulting me, and I have explained my reasoning.

Explain to me how is mortality rate different from risk of dying?

[–]astronautrob 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Idk if the internet is the right place for you my friend. Calling something silly is by no means an insult, I'm sorry if you feel somehow personally connected to this idea but it does not change the fact that it is silly. I haven't been going around in circles at all. My point was the number you put up, this "risk of dying" as you or whoever calls it, is based off of one country. It is a number based on an arbitrary choice of one data set over another, or the arbitrary choice of not including worldwide data. That makes it arbitrary, does it not? If you picked data from say Germany, the "risk of dying" would be a much lower percentage. So that makes the "risk of dying" number you put forth, 54%, arbitrary. You keep saying "my estimate" or "I assume". Why are you assuming? The numbers are clear if you just look at mortality rate. You want me to explain how mortality rate is different from the arbitrary percentage you threw out? Idk you tell me. Everyone knows how mortality rate is figured, you just did it in a previous post. It's a worldwide mortality rate, right? How is that different from a percentage that's based on data from one country...? Is that really a hard question to answer? It's worldwide data vrs data from one country. It's an equation, cases over deaths *100 or w.e that is. This "risk of dying" is just an arbitrary number based on one countries set of data. What is the "risk of dying" percentage when taking in to account other countries, not just italy?

Also I don't agree with the statement government has to consider all people. In reality they don't have to consider all people, and in most cases usually don't. Again, turn off the TV this holy than thou narrative is gross. The sheep are literally herding themselves.