Math

[ThomasPowers]

Some people have jobs that are truly "essential"  and expose them to people who choose to be out and about and so their risk is predicated on the actions of others.

I would prefer to stay home in semi complete lockdown; however I have to keep my employer provided  health insurance due to being a diabetic. Just had an item where the co-pay after insurance is US$1100 every 3 months on top of the current copays. I'll have to do without if I can't find a more cost effective method to source it. (Unfortunately Mexico has very few Insulin pump users and so such items are not available across the border.) 1.5 years to go before Medicare!

[billyO]

19 hours ago, Buzzkill said:

In your scenario, BillyO, you are only pointing the gun at other people who have also chosen to take the risk

I may be misunderstanding your point BK, but this is true only if you live alone and never interact with others.  As George pointed out:

16 hours ago, George N. M. said:

BK:  The problem is that the equation is fairly simple when it involves yourself,

 

19 hours ago, Buzzkill said:

If you think the risk is too great for you or others around you to leave the house, attend gatherings, or eat in public then don't do it regardless of whether it's "allowed." 

If only it were that easy.  If everybody had their own small farm where they could provide their own food, this might be possible.  Unfortunately that isn't the world we live in.

[Buzzkill]

One of us is not understanding the other.  

If you decide that for you and your family it's too risky for you to venture out in public then you won't be interacting with anyone out in public.  I'm assuming that also would apply to those with whom you reside if you are the decision maker in the household.

If I decide that the risk level for me and those I live with is acceptable if I go out into public places then you and I will never meet.  You'll be at home while I'm doing whatever I do in public.  People who have assessed the situation the same as you will also be at home and not be exposed to those out in public.  Anyone with whom I mingle will have chosen to take the same risk that I chose.  You would be not be more or less threatened by my actions because you would not be interacting with me or anyone who chose the same risk level that I chose.

The job angle is a little trickier, but if you are convinced the virus would probably kill you if you are exposed, then survival should trump the comparative inconvenience of being unemployed.

It's a bit like the people who want to use cheap mystery steel instead of known steel for an expensive time consuming endeavor - or those who want to build a propane forge out of non-insulating firebrick because it's cheaper.  You may need the income, but if you die that income doesn't help much.  Short term benefit compared to long term consequences have to be taken into account.

The other side of the coin also has to come into play.  One side of the argument is that our actions affect other people so we should alter our actions for that reason.  The other side of the argument is that those who are more concerned (some might argue unreasonably concerned) expect everyone else in society to completely change their behavior to satisfy that level of concern - even if it's not actually warranted.  If this were no more problematic than the common cold could you justify all the measures?  What about the flu?  At what threshold does it become reasonable to expect everyone in society to adhere to significantly life changing measures in order to decrease the rate at which something moves through the population?  In the end roughly the same number of people will be hospitalized and the roughly the same number of people will die whether we spread it out over 2 months or 18 months.  The outcome is more or less set.  The timing is all we can have any real expectation of changing at this point - unless somehow vaccines can be verified, manufactured, and distributed faster than has been predicted.

 

[ThomasPowers]

Except for some people; working may cause death and not working and having no health insurance may cause death.   Pretty much the definition of between a rock and a hard place.

Before the pandemic, we lost a diabetic friend who had been shorting his insulin due to not being able to afford it.  The cost of insulin doubled between 2012 and 2016 and has  continued to increase since then.  For type 1 diabetics there are no alternatives. From the American Journal of Managed Care: "Back in 1996, when Eli Lilly's Humalog first came out, the price for a 1-month supply of insulin was $21. As of 2001, that exact vial's price increased by $14 to $35. Now, in 2019, that vial is said to be around $275."

I am going to bow out now; there is enough stress in my life already.

[Irondragon Forge ClayWorks]

6 hours ago, Buzzkill said:

the same number of people will die whether we spread it out over 2 months or 18 months. 

Not necessarily as new treatment options evolve, especially in the hospital setting. Doctors are learning new and better treatment options every day.

[ThomasPowers]

Also do you think that a limited staff taking care of 200 patients does as well as one taking care of 20?

[Buzzkill]

IF&C, advances in medical care are not dependent on social protective measures.  Those will happen regardless.  We're already in a pretty good place as far as that goes now, but it will get better.   Keep in mind that the average age of those who die due to Covid-19 related issues is still in the high 70's and the vast majority of those people have one or more serious underlying health issues.  For a lot of people in that category pretty much any additional health problems could be fatal, whether it be Covid-19, the flu, some other virus that affects the respiratory system, or even the common cold.  The reason the focus is on the number of new cases of the virus right now and not the number of deaths is simple:  it's not as deadly as was originally thought and we've already developed fairly good treatments especially when we can catch it early.  In New York City and a few other places we got caught with our proverbial pants down. That is no longer the case.  I said "roughly the same number of people" because I know there could be slightly fewer deaths due to improving treatments. However, we should also take into account the effects of the "lockdown measures."  Suicides, substance abuse, domestic abuse, and depression are all at elevated levels as a result.   In addition there are quite a few businesses that will be permanently closed as a result.  As was pointed out, we do not live in a vacuum.  It's disingenuous to only consider one side of the equation.

TP if that were the case it might be an issue.  It just isn't true in the overwhelming majority of the country.  In my area they were putting medical personnel on furlough due to a lack of patients in the hospitals.  They were literally laying people off because there weren't enough sick people in the hospitals to justify full medical staff after putting non-critical surgeries and procedures on hold.  This was a common theme throughout a lot of the country with the main exceptions being large cities.

The stated reason for all the measures was to keep the healthcare system from being overwhelmed.  As a sector it was never even close to being overwhelmed, although there were some hotspots which came close to it for a couple weeks.  At the outset there were no illusions about stopping the spread of the virus.  We were just trying to slow it down enough where we could deal with the resulting hospitalizations.  We did that, or the the natural course of things didn't exceed our quickly increased capacity.  Either way it's still going to spread through the population, but the narrative has changed to "beat the virus" for all practical purposes.  To me that's akin to suggesting you can "beat aging."   You may be able to slow its effects to some extent, but it is something that we will endure rather than vanquish. The question for me then becomes, "When you consider all the factors including health, economic, psychological, etc. what is the best way to endure with the least amount of long term damage?"  That question does not have an easy answer since it will change from person to person depending on which factors are highest in each person's hierarchy of importance.