So, Good news?

jhfstyle24 said:

NorthwestFresh said:

WestlinnDuck said:

It's the difference between 2 million deaths upon which the lockdown calls were made and the 100,000 that will end up being less than the Asian flu in 1958. That's the context and what it means is that the dems are happy to break the lives of tens of millions of Americans to get Biden elected.

I’d take 2 million dead over the Middle-class being destroyed. That was the point of this shutdown, right?

Well, that is the question no one really wants to answer. The problem is no one puts anything in context or looks at the big picture.

Our best estimate is that a maximum of about 80% of the population could contract COVID. About 242 million people, if we take the worst case (which we will do, for the purpose of perspective).

If the .3% fatality rate is true and holds, that’s about 800k deaths (too lazy for maff). There are estimates of heart and lung damage in survivors - no one really knows exactly, but let’s use the highest estimate I have seen, which is 19 people with heart or lung damage for every death. I don’t know if it’s true, but this is a worst case scenario. That would mean approximately 15,200,000 with heart and lung damage to go along w the 800k deaths (again, worst case scenario).

So you’re looking at that. With the benefit of hindsight, we can now see what a shutdown does to the economy.

And now we ask the question: Ok, so our absolute worst case nightmare scenario comes true. Is it worth 800k deaths and 15.2 mill with heart and lung damage to keep the economy open and avoid the permanent loss of millions of jobs?

I highly doubt the 15.2 mil figure there is accurate - let’s say it’s 3 persons with damage for every death (a much more reasonable figure, IMO).

Is it worth 800k deaths plus an additional 2.4 million people with heart and lung damage to keep the economy open?

From what you see out of most public discourse, Democrats will answer no and Republicans yes - part of why this is such a divisive topic.

Keep in mind that’s the worst case scenario. If, say, “only” 100 mil are infected before a vaccine is in mass production, the numbers are completely different. We have had something like 30-40 mil infected at this point by most estimates.

There’s also the other question that could lead to a case for a lockdown: at what point do we overwhelm healthcare systems and cause a spike in death rate and in deaths due to other causes? We simply can’t know.

Most people will take parts of this to fit their “narrative” on COVID, but fact of the matter is no one wants to look at the big picture - and if they do, no one wants to be the one deciding between a worst case scenario of hundreds of thousands of American lives lost and millions more left with damage, or an economy ravaged perhaps beyond recovery in any form we would recognize (automation will drive much of any eventual recovery).

In other words, politicians are saying: Do I want to be held responsible for a bunch of deaths or a bad economy that ruins the livelihoods of many?

And no one wants to make a firm answer, because either way you’re an asshole.

Tl;dr it would be great if everyone just took a look at the big picture

Sledog said:

HHusky said:

WestlinnDuck said:

We aren't getting to 800k deaths. We would be in much better shape if we had a functioning citizenry instead of a bunch of frightened sheep. Nine million school age children in Cali and not one death. Keep the schools shut down because?

School age children kick start the economy how?

And I remember when you had us not getting to 100,000 deaths.

by letting there parents go to work instead of watching them at home. Many can't afford sitters day care etc.