Is this what the 21st century is going to be like?
| The issue was the intense strain it would put on hospitals and healthcare system. |
Or hell, how about this? I'll trade my bed for the option of going out. If I get sick, don't send me to the hospital no matter what. I think that's fair for everyone.
| It's highly improbable that a vaccine won't be made. |
| Or hell, how about this? I'll trade my bed for the option of going out. If I get sick, don't send me to the hospital no matter what. I think that's fair for everyone. |
You got out and you'll get others sick. Unlike other things, like voting, everyone matters. One person will come into contact with several, and they with several more, and it spreads like wildfire. I mean, it's not likely that more than a handful of people were directly infected when the virus evolved. But that's all it needed.
Moreover, are you banned from leaving entirely in Argentina or something? In the U.S., it's not like you're glued to your house. I go out every now and then. Sometimes for fast food, sometimes to visit a nearby family member.
| I don't know about that. What are you basing that on? |
A virus that has literally halted societies, it'll be found some kind of vaccine. Even if not the most effective, they'll end up releasing something that can help keep it under control.
| If it mutates rapidly like the cold then not only is there no possible vaccine, but people will get reinfected every year anyway. |
The flu virus mutates every year, and every year there's a new vaccine to get. A vaccine isn't impossible, just needs to be updated for newer mutations when they come along. Once they can create a vaccination for it, it's simply a matter of keeping it up to date.
Last edited on
| You got out and you'll get others sick. |
| Moreover, are you banned from leaving entirely in Argentina or something? |
[edit]Not to mention that it will all be for naught because there's just not enough money to maintain the isolation for long enough.[/edit]
| A virus that has literally halted societies |
| The flu virus mutates every year, and every year there's a new vaccine to get. |
Last edited on
| What's the problem? Let the people who don't care if they get sick, get sick, and let the people who do care stay inside. |
Well, people can't feasibly stay home all the time, they have to get stock up on food on at some point. Depending on where you're going you may infect others who haven't decided to waive these rights.
Moreover, you can't very well make some people stay inside and not others in this way. Especially as social animals who follow the crowd.. People will feel stupid for staying inside, not going to work, while so many others do. This isn't an effective way to stop a pandemic.
You don't care about disease X, so you go and catch it. You go home, and now grandma who's susceptible has it. Hell, you who weren't susceptible could died from it.
Clearly, this argument is coming straight from an emotional viewpoint, that you don't like the reaction governments took with the virus. Personally, I like knowing that a reaction like this is possible, and that an outbreak of a new virus can be caught so quickly. In an even more serious case, these measures taken could be absolutely crucial.
| What I'm concerned is with the damage this is doing to an economy that was already in the toilet. |
Nothing can be done about that now. Maybe we'll find this is actually good for the economy. Like when you have a field of crops and you burn them for a better harvest.
| Societies would have for the most part been fine if nothing had been done. |
How do you figure?:
https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2020/04/19/the-number-are-in-covid-19-is-worse-than-the-flu-and-is-now-a-leading-cause-of-death/
And these deaths are already minimized since people are mostly staying home - so the spread of the disease has slowed. The issue is that you seem to be too eager to brush the virus off. Most people will be fine, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be detrimental to society - it's not affecting an isolated group of people.
| You'd have to show that for almost all viruses vaccines are found. |
I'm basing the probability on the fact that there's a lot of scientists trying to find a vaccine, and there's a lot of pressure to do so. It's not likely that a vaccine (at least a somewhat functional vaccine) for the virus is impossible to create.
| Moreover, you can't very well make some people stay inside and not others in this way. Especially as social animals who follow the crowd.. People will feel stupid for staying inside, not going to work, while so many others do. |
| You don't care about disease X, so you go and catch it. You go home, and now grandma who's susceptible has it. |
| Clearly, this argument is coming straight from an emotional viewpoint |
| https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2020/04/19/the-number-are-in-covid-19-is-worse-than-the-flu-and-is-now-a-leading-cause-of-death/ |
Obviously during a highly infections epidemic people are going to start dying faster than usual of it, but that doesn't mean that the trend will sustain itself over time. Eventually everyone who could be infected has been infected and the disease burns out.
All signs point to a death rate of at most 5%, and more likely around 2%.
| The issue is that you seem to be too eager to brush the virus off. Most people will be fine, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be detrimental to society - it's not affecting an isolated group of people. |
| I'm basing the probability on the fact that there's a lot of scientists trying to find a vaccine, and there's a lot of pressure to do so. It's not likely that a vaccine (at least a somewhat functional vaccine) for the virus is impossible to create. |
Last edited on
It's amazing what rubbish the ignoranti can come up with by not engaging with a subject and just mouthing off at random, while at the same time making claims prefaced by phrases like 'I have no idea ... but ... '
Last edited on
Not everyone can do that, though. And honestly, there's a limit to how outlandish a scenario you can reasonably be expected to prepare for. Has it ever happened before that an economy was put on hold for weeks on end, let alone the economies of multiple countries simultaneously? Not that I know of.
And what are we even hoping for, here?
--------------
I know not everyone can afford to put back a chunk of money. Its not just the current scenario though, people get seriously sick or injured, wreck their cars, lose their jobs, etc. Having 2-3 months of not having to worry about a paycheck when that crap happens is amazing if you can swing it. Its just thinking ahead 101. Those who can't afford to save a small % of each paycheck... clearly wont be able to do this, and that makes such life events that much tougher. I see a lot of people claiming they can't afford this yet having expensive vacations, monthly phone and tv bills, and other waste. Its a choice, for many, and out of reach for only the worst off, if it were treated as a priority.
What are we hoping for? I was thinking, a vaccine? At some point they can pass those around to the elderly and at risk folks, and we can get back to normal.
And what are we even hoping for, here?
--------------
I know not everyone can afford to put back a chunk of money. Its not just the current scenario though, people get seriously sick or injured, wreck their cars, lose their jobs, etc. Having 2-3 months of not having to worry about a paycheck when that crap happens is amazing if you can swing it. Its just thinking ahead 101. Those who can't afford to save a small % of each paycheck... clearly wont be able to do this, and that makes such life events that much tougher. I see a lot of people claiming they can't afford this yet having expensive vacations, monthly phone and tv bills, and other waste. Its a choice, for many, and out of reach for only the worst off, if it were treated as a priority.
What are we hoping for? I was thinking, a vaccine? At some point they can pass those around to the elderly and at risk folks, and we can get back to normal.
Last edited on
| What are we hoping for? I was thinking, a vaccine? |
OK, anyone in legitimate travelling distance of the south of England can sign up for the University of Oxford and Imperial College vaccine trials:
https://covid19vaccinetrial.co.uk/volunteer
I (just about) make the prescribed age range, but the police would turn me round and fine me long before I got that far down the M6.
Not much use in the rest of the world; sorry @Helios!
https://covid19vaccinetrial.co.uk/volunteer
I (just about) make the prescribed age range, but the police would turn me round and fine me long before I got that far down the M6.
Not much use in the rest of the world; sorry @Helios!
| If literally everyone stayed inside it would be a mess. |
Yea, but it's the opposite of your proposal. It's different keeping necessary workers and no one else vs keeping everyone and saying, "If you think you'll get very sick, stay home." And at that point the government wouldn't care enough about you to do anything, so you'd end up just going to work.
| The government is taking advantage of people's fears to score popularity points by disingenously taking a "health at all costs" approach to the crisis. Demagogy at its finest. I'm not going to accept being called the emotional side of this argument. |
These decisions came from others who I like to think might know what they were doing. Trump was writing it off, and then he ended up making a big deal out of it and blaming his past decisions on the inaccurate information WHO gave him.
| That's so stupid. 9/11 was the leading cause of death in NYC for six hours or so. People didn't then start dying mostly from having planes crashing into them. |
How does that make sense? 9/11 was planes crashing into buildings. It's not like those planes are going to come back every year and those who come into contact with it will spread the plane. A virus doesn't just leave after it's infected everyone.
This particular virus is known to infect bats, who have a very strong immune response to viruses. In turn, this caused the viruses that infect bats to constantly genetically evolve trying to keep up with the bat's immune system. So this is a virus that has some deep-rooted potential to infect us in worse ways. Especially when the flu and this virus come together in the next wave, even those who aren't at risk will probably end up dropping.
| Eventually everyone who could be infected has been infected and the disease burns out. All signs point to a death rate of at most 5%, and more likely around 2%. |
The death rate is currently at almost 7%. Only about 26% of those infected worldwide have actually recovered as of now. Here in the U.S., the recovered to death ratio is almost 1:1. This is probably a smaller percentage than what it actually is, since many deaths can't be directly attributed to coronavirus (it may have indirectly caused the death or can't be known for certain if it was the cause).
Moreover, a 5% death rate isn't exactly small. Imagine having a 5% chance of dying every year JUST due to the virus - a percentage that just keeps getting higher the more you age.
| I'm not saying people people won't die. I'm saying even more people will die from the economic damage. |
Never heard of death by economic damage. Certainly it may bring things down, for a while, but it won't cause direct deaths.
| There was a lot of interest for 20 or so years in finding a vaccine for AIDS, yet nothing came of it, and millions of people died from AIDS. |
They didn't develop a cure, but they did develop a vaccine which they found to be effective for stopping someone from getting HIV if they're given it within 24 hours of exposure.
Moreover, they developed a drug you can take if you're a high-risk individual for HIV, practically makes it impossible to get HIV if exposed.
And if you have HIV, it's no longer a death sentence, you pop a few pills and the viral load goes down dramatically - to the point where they can't even detect it in your blood.
Again, some kind of treatment and vaccine would be better than having nothing - even if it's not fully effective.
| A virus doesn't just leave after it's infected everyone. |
| The death rate is currently at almost 7%. Only about 26% of those infected worldwide have actually recovered as of now. Here in the U.S., the recovered to death ratio is almost 1:1. This is probably a smaller percentage than what it actually is, since many deaths can't be directly attributed to coronavirus (it may have indirectly caused the death or can't be known for certain if it was the cause). |
While not every death by coronavirus will be accounted for accurately, it's definitely an easier number number to count than the total infected, since most infected are asymptomatic. Just assume every death from pneumonia is caused by coronavirus until a test proves otherwise.
| Moreover, a 5% death rate isn't exactly small. Imagine having a 5% chance of dying every year JUST due to the virus - a percentage that just keeps getting higher the more you age. |
| Never heard of death by economic damage. |
| They didn't develop a cure, but they did develop a vaccine which they found to be effective for stopping someone from getting HIV if they're given it within 24 hours of exposure. |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_of_HIV/AIDS#Vaccination
| Moreover, they developed a drug you can take if you're a high-risk individual for HIV, practically makes it impossible to get HIV if exposed. And if you have HIV, it's no longer a death sentence, you pop a few pills and the viral load goes down dramatically - to the point where they can't even detect it in your blood. Again, some kind of treatment and vaccine would be better than having nothing - even if it's not fully effective. |
| If it spreads so fast that it doesn't mutate fast enough to produce distinct enough strains, everyone gets infected by a handful of strains that have cross-immunization and there's no one else left to infect, at least until new people are born. |
This sounds beyond optimistic with this particular virus.
| You've never heard of someone dying as a result of being too poor to afford housing, healthcare, or food? |
No actually, definitely not as much as have died from this virus and the more who would have if it had spread while society was still doing it's thing. And Americans must be highly unsanitary because it spread through New York like wild fire.
| Assuming nothing else changes, it won't be like playing a round of russian roulette (spin+trigger) every year. |
Quite a bold assumption!
| What are you talking about? |
My bad, not a vaccine. It's some drugs that when taken soon after exposure will make it unlikely you'll get it. PEP.
| Don't move the goalpost |
But the school system taught me how to so well!
The goal is a vaccination for the virus, and it's probable that when the world puts their heads together, that they'll find one - even if only found to be effective to a certain degree. HIV is a different form of virus. HIV has a multitude of issues when it comes to creating a vaccine - like over 60 dominate strains that replicate more strains and that it attacks the very cells that are supposed to defend against it - that don't seem to apply to the coronavirus. It's not as likely that the coronavirus is going to be anywhere near as difficult as HIV to vaccinate.
The hope is that there can be a vaccination that works well. But more probable is a vaccination that stimulate the immune system enough to allow people to be able to fight it, even if it's not as effective.
You seem to be arguing that if a full vaccine is not highly probable or known to be possible, that we should let hospitals overflow and have it spread through the world like no one's business. An uncontained threat that we don't know what can do with no contingencies. I can't really get behind that.
I like the idea of humanity surviving, striving, and eventually colonizing several planets. Something like is an important learning experience for the whole world. They can gather data on how effective these measures are, and what needs to be done to be more effective should something more dangerous come in the future. Progress doesn't always seem or look like it.
They didn't develop a cure, but they did develop a vaccine which they found to be effective for stopping someone from getting HIV if they're given it within 24 hours of exposure.
There are a very small # of people who have been full cured. Its similar to the MS cure, and a couple of other diseases, a full immune system kill off and rebuild after virus is gone (or in the case of MS, the bad immune system cells). It is exceedingly expensive, risky, and not really offered (these few people were treated for something else and happened to have the other thing cured too, thus discovering an impractical way to do it).
Government in the US can do no right for this current situation. If we go about business as normal and people die, its government's fault. If we do a lockdown and people lose jobs etc, its government's fault. If a city lacks prep for dealing with these things, its the fed's fault. If anything goes wrong at all, its all the fed's fault and that of course means its the president's fault, because the president makes the laws and then signs off on them as a one man show (the reverse is true when the pres is taking credit for something that he did not do, it goes both ways in politics). Its the same old stupidity as usual, in other words, just a bit more highly focused (mostly because its an election year). I am not defending him, but if you read the papers, a month ago it was his fault for not doing a lockdown, and now its his fault for not ending the lockdown. No matter what is done, a bunch of armchair quarterbacks are there to say why it was the wrong thing. Politics is like watching a 3 ring circus except the clowns are not pretending to be morons.
There are a very small # of people who have been full cured. Its similar to the MS cure, and a couple of other diseases, a full immune system kill off and rebuild after virus is gone (or in the case of MS, the bad immune system cells). It is exceedingly expensive, risky, and not really offered (these few people were treated for something else and happened to have the other thing cured too, thus discovering an impractical way to do it).
Government in the US can do no right for this current situation. If we go about business as normal and people die, its government's fault. If we do a lockdown and people lose jobs etc, its government's fault. If a city lacks prep for dealing with these things, its the fed's fault. If anything goes wrong at all, its all the fed's fault and that of course means its the president's fault, because the president makes the laws and then signs off on them as a one man show (the reverse is true when the pres is taking credit for something that he did not do, it goes both ways in politics). Its the same old stupidity as usual, in other words, just a bit more highly focused (mostly because its an election year). I am not defending him, but if you read the papers, a month ago it was his fault for not doing a lockdown, and now its his fault for not ending the lockdown. No matter what is done, a bunch of armchair quarterbacks are there to say why it was the wrong thing. Politics is like watching a 3 ring circus except the clowns are not pretending to be morons.
Last edited on
The backlash is mostly coming because he seems like a child bouncing around with idea what the right call is. If he made a firm decision and stood by it, and gave a speech about how it will work, the criticism would likely haven't been as bad. Instead he keeps undermining his previous decisions, and then blaming everything/everyone else.
I'm not into politics, but I'd bet that after such a weak showing he won't win the next election.
I'm not into politics, but I'd bet that after such a weak showing he won't win the next election.
| This sounds beyond optimistic with this particular virus. |
| No actually |
| Quite a bold assumption! |
| You seem to be arguing that if a full vaccine is not highly probable or known to be possible, that we should let hospitals overflow and have it spread through the world like no one's business. |
Like I said, I think it's myopic. If you ask an epidemiologist, of course he'll tell you to stay indoors, in a plastic bubble. He studied how to prevent the spread of diseases, not how to maintain a stable society.
| I like the idea of humanity surviving, striving, and eventually colonizing several planets. |
| Look up the infection rates. It's capable of infecting millions of people in a single day |
The common cold or flu virus are capable of the same. The issue is having coronavirus + every other common virus during the season when everyone's getting infected. Biology is rarely straightforward logic.
| Okay, then. I suggest you poke your head to the real world. |
Not to sound too ignorant, but a lot of them choose to be homeless. Once I saw a group of homeless people going to what looked like a meeting and exchanging stuff. Offer them a job, I promise you they won't want it.. Even now, I see some fast-food places with a hiring sign. And there are organizations seemingly everywhere where you can go and they'll help you clean up, dust off a resume, and try to get you back into the workforce - but they just stick to the streets.
Many people in a position where they could DIE due to being too poor has probably put themselves in that position. I mean, I literally have a friend who's given free housing just for having children and not being able to afford it. The government is helping those who care enough to help themselves.
I'm not saying there haven't been victims who did everything right and still ended up on the street, but I you'd have be dealt some unlucky cards. But this is off topic.
| Why? Do you habitually get serious illnesses like diabetes, cancer, AIDS, asthma, etc.? |
Now that you mention it, we could have this disease kill all those with HIV/AIDS and then the virus will be eradicated.
Either way, plenty of healthy people have died - and they weren't fighting every strand of the flu and cold. I don't see why we can't be vigilant?
| I'm saying we're pursuing an untested strategy |
That's a horrible argument! All strategies are untested until they're used. And this is a strategy used before:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n1.html
Doing nothing would also have been a strategy, probably a poor one - then you'd probably come right back on this forum if/when the virus did something horrible and titling your post, "21st Century And They Didn't Worry About A New Pathogen Till It Was Too Late?"
| I'd rather take my chances with the virus. At least that's predictable. |
Predictable before or after others got infected which provided data?
| If you ask an epidemiologist, of course he'll tell you to stay indoors, in a plastic bubble. He studied how to prevent the spread of diseases, not how to maintain a stable society |
This reminds me of an argument in an anime. But the end result is that you can't maintain a stable society when you've got a potentially deadly virus going around. I don't understand why you think a virus well known to quickly alter it's genes and has now been able to infect humans isn't something to take seriously. There's no higher power that's going to protect us, we have to do that ourselves as a species. Maybe this is an over reaction - the issue is that you can know that until the threat passes. The same way you don't know if you'll die or not in Russian Roulette until you pull the trigger (I guess you won't know if you died, but you get the point).
| So idealistic. So naive. |
Is that a REAL issue? It's definitely possible, and I like to think humanity can attain it. Wars may never end, but even war is just people trying to progress. Here's a nice anime where something just like that has happened that I think you'd enjoy, but I'm sure you're sick of my anime talk by now:
Legend Of The Galactic Heroes Die Neue These
Last edited on
| The common cold or flu virus are capable of the same. |
| Either way, plenty of healthy people have died - and they weren't fighting every strand of the flu and cold. I don't see why we can't be vigilant? |
I don't think any of this is unreasonable.
| That's a horrible argument! All strategies are untested until they're used. |
| And this is a strategy used before: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n1.html |
To my knowledge, social isolation has never been implemented before. Quarantines? Sure. But isolating a community is more workable. Microeconomies can still continue in those communities.
| then you'd probably come right back on this forum if/when the virus did something horrible and titling your post, "21st Century And They Didn't Worry About A New Pathogen Till It Was Too Late?" |
| Predictable before or after others got infected which provided data? |
| But the end result is that you can't maintain a stable society when you've got a potentially deadly virus going around. |
| It's definitely possible, and I like to think humanity can attain it. |
Even travelling at the speed of light we would likely have to travel for hundreds of years. A lot of time for something to go wrong. Even if the ship could make the journey, we don't know which way to go. At the distances involved all we likely will ever be able to do is say "there's a rocky planet of such-and-such size orbiting this star in the habitable zone, and its atmosphere contains these elements". The planet in question could still be inhospitable and the enterprise would have been a waste of resources.
We'll never spread throughout space. At best we'll trade a comfy home planet for a shitty colony with no fossil fuels (thus no way to leave) and no fauna. "Trade" is a manner of speaking, because likely no living people will go on the ship. There would be no way to keep them alive for so long.
But I don't feel like arguing about this. Consider what I've said and reach your own conclusions.
By the way. completely off-topic, but I've been playing Half-Life 2 recently, and there's something about Source engine games that drives me crazy. For some reason they add the US layout to the list of active keyboards, and there's some strange combination of keys I hit that causes the layout to change (I know about shift+alt. It's not that). So I end up pasting some text and typing
""e| . It's maddening.
| That's the entire point of the problem. Coronavirus spreads more easily. |
? The entire problem is that a new disease popped out from another species and there's no vaccine, no immunity to it built up through evolution, and no way of knowing the full impact of what this virus will do.
The flu infected up to 56 million people in the U.S. alone in the last 6 months and killed up to 62,000:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-estimates.htm
The coronavirus in about 6 months (obviously starting with a smaller population that the flu has access to now) has infected almost 2.7 million worldwide yet killed 188,000 people. Almost a million of those infections are in the U.S. alone and over a quarter of the deaths are also in the U.S.
| If you've survived one infection and you don't develop a serious illness in the intervening time, you'll almost certainly survive a second infection. |
Let's say you survive it once, twice, hell, let's say you got infected 10 times by several people who all had different strains and your super immune system fought them all off using jet propulsion engines with swords attached.
Now you've got the flu, and coronavirus comes along as well. Double trouble. So now your body has two different kinds of viruses to kill off. And there's no reason to assume that just because you fought off one at a time (and who knows how many barely managed that compared to those who barely felt it) that you'll just be god-tier immune from dying.
We don't know how the viruses will interact in your body, how your body will handle it, and what the virus will mutate into.
| You don't know if it'll work until you've tried! |
They did try... In fact, back in the day they blew smoke up dead people's asses to see what it would do. Now adays, there are certain practices/techniques that we already know or assume will/won't work due to advances obviously. The issue with your argument here is that you're using knowledge which came BECAUSE people have done it to say why don't we do that - knowing it's a bad call. You can't know that the strategy being used now is bad.
What's especially bad about a situation like this is that doing this may have in fact been the only way to prevent something horrible, but you don't know because it was prevented.. The best you can do is see what happened to other who haven't followed the same cautionary measures.
| Microeconomies can still continue in those communities |
It was more about whether isolation was a good method for stopping the spread.
| Don't try to tell me what I'd do, because you have no fucking clue, buddy. If you're going to accuse me of being a hypocrite the conversation ends right here. |
Nothing to do with you being a hypocrite or predicting your actions, it was more a statement about humanity. I'm saying it's easy to criticize what others are doing.
"The folly of leadership is knowing that, no matter what you do, behind your back there are hundreds, certain that their own solution is the sounder one, and that your decision was the by-product of a whimsical dart toss." ~ Sebastian LaCroix
I usually like debating with you because I find you to be intelligent in a way that differs from me. But it also means there are some things we'll probably never see eye to eye on.
| Uh... Both? We understand how respiratory viruses spread in general |
I meant your chances of surviving the infection. It didn't take long after the initial spread of the virus for it to infect and kill several young people - like the young Chinese medical doctor who blew the whistle on the virus. So I'm assuming you're basing the idea that you wanna take your chances with the virus on the information gathered now that there's more insight about what population is most vulnerable.
Imagine school children spreading it and having a funeral outback for Tod. Probably for the best, no one liked Tod.
| Sure you can. There were way deadlier stuff going around way back when and the world kept turning. |
A 7 year old article:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-reutersmagazine-davos-flu-economy/flu-conomics-the-next-pandemic-could-trigger-global-recession-idUSBRE90K0F820130121
Your main issue was with the economy is what you stated before, but an outbreak always takes a toll. The difference now could be that it's a hard yet swift hit on the economy vs a long-drawn out toll on the economy. The issue, again, is that this is like a test.. You can't know the real effect of what's happening right now until you analyze it later once it's over.
| It all depends on how much of your workforce it kills or incapacitates at a given time |
I find this argument to be self-defeating. Your workers aren't going to sit around waiting to be infected - they're not the marines. If they find they're being used disposably they'll go on strike. Even now, mayors and governors have issued orders in some states here in the U.S. to reopen, and workers (even the companies that you'd think would want to start business up again) have refused.
| It will never work. Not unless we discover magic or something |
Colonizing other planets doesn't require light speed - maybe if we wanted to colonize our entire galaxy. Wormholes are interesting in that while there's no known way to create one, but physics shows it may be possible. Even if not, impossible things today can be possible in the future - new ideas that we couldn't imagine could be brought to light through some new discovery.
| "Trade" is a manner of speaking, because likely no living people will go on the ship. There would be no way to keep them alive for so long. |
If we're assuming light speed travel, then the passengers would experience no time. They wouldn't need anything to keep them alive because to them, the moment they left is the same moment they made it to their destination:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACUuFg9Y9dY
| But I don't feel like arguing about this. Consider what I've said and reach your own conclusions. |
I'm only arguing it's possible and I like to think we have the cognitive abilities to be able to do it. Perhaps we never will and we'll go extinct before we know it, but that possibility that we can one day truly understand the universe is fascinating and interesting.
| I've been playing Half-Life 2 recently, and there's something about Source engine games that drives me crazy. For some reason they add the US layout to the list of active keyboards, and there's some strange combination of keys I hit that causes the layout to change |
Well, I use a US layout and haven't played any of the half-life games (which I need to get to!), so I'm not of much help. If you're looking for a video game recommendation: Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines is an amazing game. It was made back in 2000, but the graphics are still pretty good. 20 years later and their finally making another one, can't wait!
| The entire problem is that a new disease popped out from another species and there's no vaccine, no immunity to it built up through evolution, and no way of knowing the full impact of what this virus will do. |
The problem of coronavirus is that it spreads very rapidly and hits harshly some proportion of those infected, so it's possible that a large number of people could simultaneously require hospitalization.
| Now you've got the flu, and coronavirus comes along as well. Double trouble. So now your body has two different kinds of viruses to kill off. And there's no reason to assume that just because you fought off one at a time (and who knows how many barely managed that compared to those who barely felt it) that you'll just be god-tier immune from dying. |
| It was more about whether isolation was a good method for stopping the spread. |
Presumably "stopping the spread" isn't the concern, but minimizing damage to society.
| Nothing to do with you being a hypocrite or predicting your actions, it was more a statement about humanity. |
I'm telling you right now: if the government had done nothing, I wouldn't have complained at all. In my opinion, someone's health is that person's responsibility, and no one else's. You're the one who's going to get sick, so it's your job, not society's, to take care of yourself.
I mean, we don't do the same for anything else. There's no exercise police coming to your house every day to force you to run for 30 minutes. There are no mandatory rations to ensure everyone is getting appropriate amounts of nutrients to stay in optimal health. Tobacco is not illegal.
So what's the deal? Where's the line drawn?
| I meant your chances of surviving the infection. |
| an outbreak always takes a toll |
"Oh, a giant rock fell on my car. Well, I'm going to try eating it and hopefully things will work out."
| The difference now could be that it's a hard yet swift hit on the economy vs a long-drawn out toll on the economy. |
| You can't know the real effect of what's happening right now until you analyze it later once it's over. |
There are things that are not worth testing.
| Wormholes |
| You're wrong. The same is true of ebola, and that's not a problem. It doesn't spread as quickly because it's very disabling on its victims and it kills very quickly and in a large proportion |
Ebola doesn't spread quickly because of the way it gets transmitted:
https://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/transmission/index.html
Coronavirus can become widespread, giving it plenty of chances to mutate into something worse.
| So what does this have to do with 5% being a high or low death rate? |
Nothing? I was replying to you saying surviving another infection is likely - which I had previously said that things may get worse when you're fighting the flu and corona at once.
| Nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. |
Sounds counterproductive - since there are many sites filled with people. If you wanted to save people or your economy, you've already ruined it. If you wanted to eradicate the virus, you've probably failed as well - who knows where it may have been lurking and you didn't know about.
| If it was simultaneously true that if someone had done X I said "they should have not done X", and if they hadn't done X I said "they should have done X" then I would have to be a hypocrite |
No. The difference is information. If both scenarios had you commenting on X with full knowledge and it was still the same, then you'd be a hypocrite. Saying an opposing statement to your previous view in light of new information would only make the older statement out of ignorance.
My point was that since it seems like no big deal, some will say they shouldn't have. But if they hadn't and it turns out it's horrible, most people would have criticized them for not doing so. The issue here is that you can't know for certain how bad it is right off the bat.
| if the government had done nothing, I wouldn't have complained at all. In my opinion, someone's health is that person's responsibility, and no one else's |
Your logic doesn't follow. A person's health IS one's own responsibility. However, does that mean if while you're going about your day I sneak around and shoot you in the back that's your fault - just because it was your responsibility to maintain your own health?
If you're born with a disease - that's your fault? Because you should have picked better genetic sequences?
If the government takes no action and a potentially deadly disease becomes widespread - it's kind of hard to avoid it. It's not that your health isn't your own responsibility, but the government has a huge influence over the odds of you getting a deadly disease/infection. Without proper policies, you'd find hospitals being the breading ground of new diseases! And when someone eventually gets it, it's their fault because they didn't walk around with a hazmat suit their whole lives?
| So what's the deal? Where's the line drawn? |
There's a difference between what you can and can't control with your health. You can't PRACTICALLY control if you get the flu/cold/corona - they're wide spread and you'll likely to get it at some point just because you interact with society. Your odds of being able to fight it off change according to how well your health is maintained by you - but that's far from the end-all-be-all of whether or not it'll kill you..
If the government found a pathogen that's potentially deadly and did NOTHING, I would be blaming governments and health organizations for not finding out about it and doing what was needed. This is preservation of our species. And what's happening now is important I'd say, because we're learning.
| The virus didn't come from outer space, dude. There's no need to behave as if every mutation is a complete unknown |
Again, it was the combination of effects this virus is capable of. It's killing at a higher rate than the flu (more than double) and it's sending people to the hospital since they need equipment to breath properly. Hospitals would be more packed than they already are had it spread through society if it was business as usual. You'd be dying of some other illness yet they can't find a bed for you because everyone's grandmother is on a ventilator.
| What's in discussion is not whether it's possible to nullify the damage of an accident, but whether some decision can make things much worse overall |
And I've been saying that you can't know until it's over. Many things can be counter-intuitive, and many things that seemed like a worst-case scenario can actually end up being the best. I think you're judging the situation without enough basis.
| I would not be surprised if unemployment rises by 10% here, and that's an effect that's going to take years to recover from |
The U.S. government here is throwing money at businesses so that they won't have to close their doors when people can return to work. So workers will hopefully return to their jobs as usual and unemployment won't be too drastic. I don't know what Argentina is doing.
| There are things that are not worth testing |
Drinking bleach and tap-dancing on your head is a random idea with no basis in anything. The decisions to keep people home was one made by many and is a relevant idea. Sorry, but if I had to choose blindly - I'd take the advice of people who do these things for a living. It's not that they can't be wrong, but their thoughts are guided differently, their goals are different.
| That's exactly the type of thing I was referring to when I said "magic". Either teleportation or violation of thermodynamics. I do not believe either will be achieved. |
Wormholes aren't magic. The universe has 3 dimensions, and they can theoretically be bent the same way you'd fold a piece of paper. We already know that space can already be altered by gravity. A black hole's gravitational pull bends space and time. You should have to find a way to do it intentionally.
This argument sounds like when people wanted to fly, go to space, or anything else important. People always argued it wasn't possible - and it usually comes down to the missing of some important information/inventions. There's still a lot of technologies yet to come, and lots to discover about the universe. So I'd say it's far from impossible.