is 180000 dead due to coronavirus an acceptable loss to not shut down the economy?

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 53
Topic's author
#1
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
there was a poll that said most republicans said it was an acceptable loss. most dems said it's not. 

i would say it is an acceptable loss in the bigger picture. but it still didn't need to be that way. if people wore masks and social distanced and such better, we could be like other countries where they didn't have such a high rate of death. one thing i dont know, though, is how their economies look, or how open for business their economies are. 
#2
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
are 3 million Americans dying every year an acceptable loss?
#3
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,300
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
Or we could've done what Sweden did and never shut down. They pretty much have nothing to worry about over there and the herd immunity strategy seems to be working.
#4
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
loaded question
#5
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
@Dr.Franklin
@ebuc
are 3 million Americans dying every year an acceptable loss?
#6
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Greyparrot
in what way
#7
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Because I would like to know what the threshold of yearly American deaths is before we decide to imprison the population in their homes.
#8
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Greyparrot
good question
#9
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Dr.Franklin
CDC numbers:

As a base number before Trump..

In 2015, a total of 2,712,630 resident deaths were registered in the United States—86,212 more deaths than in 2014.

During Trump:

In 2019 (pre Corona) Number of deaths: 2,813,503

Now we don't know what the actual final CDC count is for total American deaths for 2020 yet, but assuming we could add 200,000 due to Covid without taking any deaths away from other co-morbidities in 2020...

2020 deaths might look like 3,000,000 (although it's probably going to be alot closer to 2,900,000) considering the number of total deaths seems to increase by around 80,000 per year normally due to population increases.

So what I am asking is that 2,800,000 deaths means we can go to work normally but 3,000,000 deaths means we do not go to work normally?

Is this the actual threshold?
#10
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Dr.Franklin
And why that number? What is so fucking special about 3,000,000 ?

And what is so special about a COVID death compared to the 99% of deaths from other sources? Are those other Americans not just as dead regardless?
#11
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Greyparrot
i agree
#12
lady3keys
lady3keys's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 210
1
2
6
lady3keys's avatar
lady3keys
1
2
6
-->
@Greyparrot
And what is so special about a COVID death compared to the 99% of deaths from other sources? Are those other Americans not just as dead regardless?
The difference I'm afraid,  is that without the shutdowns that occurred all over the world, the death toll would have risen much, much higher (in theory of course since the shutdowns DID occur).  The difference lies in how many ON TOP OF what already occurs regularly is okay.  Many deaths cannot be prevented and many can, but are difficult to put in place (such as gun laws, etc . . ).   The difference is that the high numbers come from ALL DISCIPLINES, all diseases, all crimes, all normal old age ailments.  The powers that be cannot allow a SINGLE disease to contribute so significantly to a new total.  Now maybe the shutdowns were not necessary, maybe they helped greatly.  That is another argument.  But I understand why they happened.
#13
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
The difference I'm afraid,  is that without the shutdowns that occurred all over the world, the death toll would have risen much, much higher (in theory of course since the shutdowns DID occur)

Or we could've done what Sweden did and never shut down. They pretty much have nothing to worry about over there and the herd immunity strategy seems to be working.

#14
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@lady3keys
We also don't know how many deaths can be attributed to the lockdowns until we get the final tally for 2020 on suicides and other health declines from atrophy, poor eating, and depression. We really don't know that the cure was worse than the disease until we see the final total deaths for 2020.

Then we can assess if the quality of life dropped much more disproportionally than the quantity of life in 2020. 

If you don't want to wait on the science, you can just vote the guy in that wants us to go back to work instead of sitting around at home.
#15
lady3keys
lady3keys's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 210
1
2
6
lady3keys's avatar
lady3keys
1
2
6
-->
@Greyparrot
Or we could've done what Sweden did and never shut down. They pretty much have nothing to worry about over there and the herd immunity strategy seems to be working.
Really?  

Sweden's COVID Policy Didn't Create Herd Immunity

COVID-19:  Herd Immunity in Sweden Fails to Materialize
#16
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@lady3keys

Fake news wants to spin their own narrative, but you can read this graph and make your own judgement.
#17
lady3keys
lady3keys's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 210
1
2
6
lady3keys's avatar
lady3keys
1
2
6
If you don't want to wait on the science, you can just vote the guy in that wants us to go back to work instead of sitting around at home.
With over 183,000 deaths and rising, I think I will not.  And I always go with the science.
#18
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@lady3keys
With over 183,000 deaths and rising, I think I will not.  And I always go with the science.

And the other 2,800,000 deaths meant nothing to you before coronavirus or Trump? That's okay, because 340,000,000 Americans agreed with you before the media manufactured the popular outrage.

Meanwhile, your favorite anti-Trumper miss Pelosi flips the bird at your 183,000 number as she slinks away, unmasked from her beauty salon.
#19
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@n8nrgmi
Great static. Do you also know that America has 330M people. Do you also know that only 3% of Americans die from contracting COVID. Let's play the statistic game then shall we?

#20
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Fake news wants to spin their own narrative, but you can read this graph and make your own judgement.
According to your graph Sweden is doing worse though...
#21
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
Meanwhile.

Your favorite anti-Trumper, Miss Pelosi.

Flips the bird at your 183,000 number.

As she slinks away unmasked.

From her beauty salon.
Poetry.
#22
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
You're right though.

Death is inevitable.

And 183,000 is an emotional number.
#23
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
They are doing better than some EU countries and worse than France. The point is that not locking down didn't turn them into the New York death house, who sent sick people to retirement homes.

The lockdown was totally unneccesary.
#24
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Greyparrot
No I meant that according to your graph they are just doing terrible, worse than pretty much everyone. Only three others doing worse than them according to you. Not sure if that is accurate, I am just going off of your info.
#25
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
worse than pretty much everyone. 

That's weird. I was unaware that Italy, Spain, UK, New York, and New Jersey were pretty much no one.

But I guess when you are looking for groupthink, "everyone" is a subjective term for sure.

The point is that not locking down didn't turn them into the New York death house, or  the New Jersey slaughtertorium for old people.

It also didn't cause them to become the death camps of the UK, Spain, or Italy.

If your argument is to say that a no lockdown policy is objectively dangerous, group-thinking the term "everyone" is a bad way to go about it.

It's also insanely lazy.
#26
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
There are over 200 countries in the world so yeah, doing worse than all but 3 is pretty bad.

(200 is a lot bigger than 3, so "pretty much everyone" is accurate. At least according to the info you are giving. If you are giving inacurate or cherry-picked data that's on you).

Like I said though, just going off the info you gave, which says only 3 places are doing worse than Sweden.
#27
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Horrible, lazy arguments, as expected.

Carry on with your lazy groupthinking and extrapolation of data to your "everyoneness"

That's on you if you want to pull shit out of thin air and extrapolate data not on the chart then slap the "everyone" label on your fantasy data to fit your narrative. 

If your argument is to say that a no lockdown policy is objectively dangerous, group-thinking the term "everyone" is a poor way to go about it.

which says only 3 places are doing worse than Sweden.

That's 2 more places than I needed to prove my point.
#28
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Greyparrot
That's 2 more places than I needed to prove my point.
That's not how statistics works. Google the term "cherry-picking". I am sure you have heard the term and even used it to dismiss arguments you disagree with before but today is the day you go find out what it actually means.

Take your time. The forum will still be here when you return.
#29
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
I only needed one to prove my point. Cherry picked or not.

It's not my problem you can't understand what my point is. That's your disability.
#30
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If your argument is to say that a no lockdown policy is objectively dangerous, group-thinking the term "everyone" is a poor way to go about it.