Board 8 > The quarantine isnt really benefitial to most Americans

(+) Yeah! (+)

Let's think about it in a logical and not an emotional approach.

Let's say we lost 200k lives. If our current workforce now is just around half the country what does 200k lives do to that exactly?

More so if you factor in how the virus predominantly kills the enderly and weak. Or generally people who no longer are contributing to society or the economy very much anymore.

We need to think about 330 million vs 200k

Wow nobody's ever thought of this idea before
---

My Utilitarian Thesis: The more devoutly any person is devoted to the ideals of Utilitarianism, the less worth they happen to have to society on an economic, scientific, cultural or personal level.
---

benefitial

---

The trolley problem except we're trying to run over people on every track.

---

is this sephyg's new alt

---

FFDragon posted...

The trolley problem except we're trying to run over people on every track.

It's a hard choice I'll admit

The vast majority of people
A few people.

Who do you save

Me, a villain in a cartoon show:

More so if you factor in how the virus predominantly kills the enderly and weak. Or generally people who no longer are contributing to society or the economy very much anymore.

---

failmask posted...

It's a hard choice I'll admit

The vast majority of people
A few people.

Who do you save

the few (ive never seen anyone refer to hundreds of thousands of people as a few before) people youre saving from death, the vast majority youre saving from... something less than death.

Its like if switching the track the trolley is on also magically turns the trolley into something that wont kill the people it runs over
---

Operating fully on logic without any empathy or compassion would be pretty terrible. I mean you might as well suggest we euthanize anyone born with severe disabilities because theyll never contribute to society and wont live long anyways

Capitalism: the topic

---

You are talking about millions of lives, not 200k.

---

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/8-gamefaqs-contests/78520107/936532920
---

I much rather have an experimental vaccine be implemented first before some places get out of lockdown, for like the rural US, getting folks out of quarantine would be a good idea but not for NY or LA without at least an experimental vaccine available.
---

Everyone sounds gangsta like this until they actually get the virus

---

Yeah let's kill millions of people so we can be spared the horrid fate of having more time to watch movies, read books and play video games

---

FFDragon posted...

The trolley problem except we're trying to run over people on every track.

https://imgur.com/P9ki92R


---

I volunteer you as tribute to the virus.

---

... the topic isn't even detailing any supposed cost of the quarantine and what you think its faults are

it's like just "200k old deaths, we'll be fine"................... which is even ignoring that 200k deaths is the hopeful number if optimal social distancing measures are followed, but even still it's insane

---

failmask posted...

It's a hard choice I'll admit

It doesn't sound like it's a hard choice for you, tbh.

i mean we're also accidentally saving thousands from car crashes, rethinking the cubical farm model, may lower rents due to airbnb abuse being exploited, are laughing at celebrities, respecting jobs that used to be considered worthless trash, refinding the value of family, cleaning up the air, all in addition to saving the elderly.

---

Xiahou Shake posted...

Yeah let's kill millions of people so we can be spared the horrid fate of having more time to watch movies, read books and play video games

Man so true.

Why do people even have jobs in the first place? Why did we wait so long to do this?

---

It doesn't work like this. If you can save lives you do it. Especially if we are talking about the whole world you know.

---

I was coming into this topic getting ready to discuss how majority of Americans to seem to actual care about staying home and staying safe.

Was not expecting it to be this dark.

---

BetrayedTangy posted...

I was coming into this topic getting ready to discuss how majority of Americans to seem to actual care about staying home and staying safe.

Was not expecting it to be this dark.

Welcome to board 8.
---

oh this guy got his account warned

shocking

---

Well, at least his name is accurate.

---

according to profile activity he made a similar topic on CE that got modded

---

i mean it's an account made 10 years ago with 96 karma. even for alt accounts to troll on this is pretty low tier.

---

Wanglicious posted...

i mean we're also accidentally saving thousands from car crashes, rethinking the cubical farm model, may lower rents due to airbnb abuse being exploited, are laughing at celebrities, respecting jobs that used to be considered worthless trash, refinding the value of family, cleaning up the air, all in addition to saving the elderly.

There is definitely going to be a cost. Decades of poverty is going to hit people.

---

oh there's definitely gonna be a cost, yeah.
i just figured i'd respond the benefits in a shitpost way.

---

BetrayedTangy posted...

I was coming into this topic getting ready to discuss how majority of Americans to seem to actual care about staying home and staying safe.

I can't help but laugh at this. My town is still operating basically like normal and I know it's not the only one. People don't fucking care unless it affects them directly.

---

Yeah, a majority of people absolutely would not be staying home if they didn't have to

---

Waluigi1 posted...

I can't help but laugh at this. My town is still operating basically like normal and I know it's not the only one. People don't fucking care unless it affects them directly.

Same goes for almost anything in life though

My town is basically same as always. If it weren't for them closing stuff down, I doubt it would be exactly the same across the board.

---

I think it boils down to everyone is willing to make sacrifices in theory but then a lot of people think that's just for everyone else or them doing it just once won't hurt. So they have to be forced into doing it.

I joke about it with the missus that the Texas Roadhouse car park is just as full every day when I drive past after work as it is under normal circumstances. If anything they are probably making more money as they seem to be getting the same amount of traffic except will be running it with far less overhead I imagine. It's baffling how crazy busy that place continues to be since it is only there, nowhere else in the area is the same

The problem here is all these people are not actually thinking logically, TC.

So we have to invent a way to remove all the people's emotions.

---

Uhhhh... 200,000 is the death toll we'll have while taking precautions. If we did what you suggested (aka nothing), over 3 million Americans would die. And it wouldn't be just the elderly.


---

Ngamer64 posted...

Uhhhh... 200,000 is the death toll we'll have while taking precautions. If we did what you suggested (aka nothing), over 3 million Americans would die. And it wouldn't be just the elderly.

My back of the envelope math for "do nothing" is 6-10 million: R0 of ~2.5 gets you to ~60% infected before herd immunity brings the effective R below 1, and then a 3-5% fatality rate because the vast majority of people won't be getting treatment. And that's before adding in everyone who'd die of other stuff because they couldn't see a doctor.

---

*Clicks TC's user profile without reading the first post*

[Low karma, Warned]

Figured as much.

---

still no cure or vaccine yet for covid-19 so staying quarantined at home is excuseable being the lesser of two evils rather than risk being insolated in a puny hospital room with no wifi

puseecat692 posted...

still no cure or vaccine yet for covid-19 so staying quarantined at home is excuseable being the lesser of two evils rather than risk being insolated in a puny hospital room with no wifi

So what happens in 2 weeks when they let us out and these no vaccine anyways all we did was delay the massive death toll by a whooping 2 weeks

LadyVyxx posted...

So what happens in 2 weeks when they let us out and these no vaccine anyways all we did was delay the massive death toll by a whooping 2 weeks

The lockdowns probably can't be lifted in two weeks. We need to first develop the capacity to reliably and quickly test anyone who shows symptoms, trace their contacts, and then test them too, isolating anyone who's infected. Once we have that capability the most costly society-wide measures can be lifted (but others like large event bans will have to remain).

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

The lockdowns probably can't be lifted in two weeks. We need to first develop the capacity to reliably and quickly test anyone who shows symptoms, trace their contacts, and then test them too, isolating anyone who's infected. Once we have that capability the most costly society-wide measures can be lifted (but others like large event bans will have to remain).

Not gonna happen. If we lift it before a vaccine or enough immunity, it just comes back. We need enough to get infected this round that when we open back up and people get infected that we can feasibly just operate as normal due to not overwhelming the hospitals.

Of course that's probably impossible in a single round.

---

That will both take longer to do than developing a vaccine and will still result in an unacceptable amount of death. Even if with treatment the fatality rate is only .5% (it looks more like it's probably ~1%), 60% of all Americans being ultimately infected is still a million deaths.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

That will both take longer to do than developing a vaccine and will still result in an unacceptable amount of death. Even if with treatment the fatality rate is only .5% (it looks more like it's probably ~1%), 60% of all Americans being ultimately infected is still a million deaths.

Let me make this easier to understand. So, let's say right now 250k New York are confirmed infected by the end of this wave. Let's assume 50% asymptomatic+ didn't get diagnosed on top. So 375k infected total.

New York population is 19 million.

So, nearly 2% of the population was infected and "immune".

So you are gonna say well wave 2 comes and 98% are still left to be infected. Sure, but... Now 2% of the population can't infect or carry which by nature social distances already. You will still have pockets, but the numbers won't rise like the first wave overwhelmingly due to the already infected. By then, you have more beds and ventilators already ready to go. Proper PPE. You don't need to social distance as much barring maybe major events.

So the second wave comes and maybe 2% get infected again but over a longer time period without lockdowns and medical data on working medicines or such. Now you have 4% infected. So on and so on with each wave getting longer to infect and easier to manage to the point that you don't have to worry at all about the curve.

---

failmask posted...

It's a hard choice I'll admit

The vast majority of people
A few people.

Who do you save

Its funny how few people will die to save others but how ready they can be to suggest others die for them.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Let me make this easier to understand. So, let's say right now 250k New York are confirmed infected by the end of this wave. Let's assume 50% asymptomatic+ didn't get diagnosed on top. So 375k infected total.

New York population is 19 million.

So, nearly 2% of the population was infected and "immune".

So you are gonna say well wave 2 comes and 98% are still left to be infected. Sure, but... Now 2% of the population can't infect or carry which by nature social distances already. You will still have pockets, but the numbers won't rise like the first wave overwhelmingly due to the already infected. By then, you have more beds and ventilators already ready to go. Proper PPE. You don't need to social distance as much barring maybe major events.

So the second wave comes and maybe 2% get infected again but over a longer time period without lockdowns and medical data on working medicines or such. Now you have 4% infected. So on and so on with each wave getting longer to infect and easier to manage to the point that you don't have to worry at all about the curve.

I understand the idea, but if each cycle takes, say, a month (in actuality it will likely be longer) that's 30 months to geet up to the ~60% of the population you need for herd immunity, which is longer than our (admittedly optimistic) vaccine timeline. In the meantime, a ton of people will have died and the economy will have been shut down for a substantial fraction of the time anyway.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I understand the idea, but if each cycle takes, say, a month (in actuality it will likely be longer) that's 30 months to geet up to the ~60% of the population you need for herd immunity, which is longer than our (admittedly optimistic) vaccine timeline. In the meantime, a ton of people will have died and the economy will have been shut down for a substantial fraction of the time anyway.

You won't have to lockdown in subsequent waves. Maybe wave 2. Definitely not in waves after it.

---

Corrik7 posted...

You won't have to lockdown in subsequent waves. Maybe wave 2. Definitely not in waves after it.

Why wouldn't you

If you're saying we've infected 4% after wave 2, R is still 96% of R0 in wave 3. Since R0 is definitely above 1.04, you still get exponential growth.

---