Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-10-2020, 10:21 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,931

A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.


Attributed to Stalin, he might not have said it first.

But however, let us hypothesize that the Covid 19 does kill 5% of the world's population. Even 10%.

What good could come of this? Could any good come of it?
  #2  
Old 03-10-2020, 10:27 PM
Tatterdemalion is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 825
It might make my commute easier.

I kid. Sort of.
  #3  
Old 03-10-2020, 10:32 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,947
If it disproportionately kills the elderly and the weak, it might leave a younger, healthier population behind.

Not that that would be necessarily good, but it would probably have that effect.

Edit: May also lead to huge healthcare reform worldwide. And lead to more sanitary practices.

Last edited by Velocity; 03-10-2020 at 10:35 PM.
  #4  
Old 03-10-2020, 10:34 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 8,779
Invest in the casket biz. Look to the Spanish flu in 1918.
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #5  
Old 03-10-2020, 10:55 PM
pool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Inside
Posts: 4,981
Sure would help the environment, for a while anyway.
__________________
"You can do anything you set your mind to...But money helps"
  #6  
Old 03-10-2020, 11:27 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,523
It's not as dangerous as SARS, surprisingly. The problem is that it's more contagious, spreading person to person more easily. But the virus doesn't survive more than a few hours on the outside. I just hope panic doesn't clear out my local stores of my necessary staples like bottled spring water.
  #7  
Old 03-10-2020, 11:32 PM
Esprise Me is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 392
If it costs Trump the election...
  #8  
Old 03-11-2020, 12:19 AM
Leaper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In my own little world...
Posts: 12,773
I’m a little nervous at what OP chose to start this thread...
  #9  
Old 03-11-2020, 12:22 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esprise Me View Post
If it costs Trump the election...
If the virus is at the point where it is killing millions of people in America (which is what the OP postulates,) I don't think it would necessarily work in Democrats' favor. An epidemic that severe could give Trump a much more solid excuse to suspend elections (even if a president technically doesn't have that power.) And while rural regions may be largely unafraid to vote (due to much shorter voting lines at the polls,) the big urban centers might be afraid to congregate and turn out to vote, thus suppressing the blue vote somewhat.
  #10  
Old 03-11-2020, 12:34 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esprise Me View Post
If it costs Trump the election...
If you're at the stage where millions of Americans are dying, it could cost Pence the election. Or Pelosi. Or Grassley. Or Pompeo. Or Mnuchin. And so forth.
  #11  
Old 03-11-2020, 12:51 AM
PastTense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 8,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
And while rural regions may be largely unafraid to vote (due to much shorter voting lines at the polls,) the big urban centers might be afraid to congregate and turn out to vote, thus suppressing the blue vote somewhat.
Absentee voting by mail is an alternative in lots of places:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absent...#United_States
  #12  
Old 03-11-2020, 01:34 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,125
The 14th-century Black Death, which killed over one-third the population of Europe, is "credited" with reducing income inequality, easing the grips of feudalism and religious orthodoxy, and perhaps pushing toward the scientific advances of the 15th century.

But it may be futile to extrapolate from the Black Death to guesses about a 21st-century pandemic.
  #13  
Old 03-11-2020, 02:55 AM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 2,420
Stalin was glib. One death is a tragedy. One million deaths are one million tragedies, at least.

Stalin was right on another point. It's not who votes that counts; it's who counts the votes.

This applies to pandemics, too. It's not who dies that counts; it's who counts the dead.

Those who can't count an inauguration crowd can't be trusted to count viral victims.

Supporters, minions, and propagandists will flap whatever numbers look good.

"Figgers don't lie but liars figger." Don't expect this POTUS to change track.
  #14  
Old 03-11-2020, 03:27 AM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,846
The present estimation of COVID-19 is that it has a 3-4% death rate. WHich is about the same as the 1918 Spanish Flu.
Presuming a global infection rate of 20%.

8 billion people.
20% of all humans=1.6 billion.

4% death rate: 64 million deaths.

Compared with WW2, which took 55 million lives.

OTH, Spanish flu was 33% infection rate.

That comes to a 100 million deaths.

We.Are.Fucked

Last edited by AK84; 03-11-2020 at 03:29 AM.
  #15  
Old 03-11-2020, 08:15 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 42,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
The 14th-century Black Death, which killed over one-third the population of Europe, is "credited" with reducing income inequality, easing the grips of feudalism and religious orthodoxy, and perhaps pushing toward the scientific advances of the 15th century.

But it may be futile to extrapolate from the Black Death to guesses about a 21st-century pandemic.
The Black Death thing crossed my mind too.

the problem with such a comparison is that the economics of a feudal, agrarian society really don't translate well to a modern industrial world. In 1347, Europeans were poor to an extent that is difficult for a First World resident to comprehend today. They did their best and lived lives as full and as varied as we do, but they didn't have excess stuff, and the vast majority of economic activity was farming and so was immediately derived from arable land and pasture. The rapid death of a third of the population - the Black Death did all its damage in a span of just three or four years - instantly gave every remaining person a vastly larger share of the available land and food, and it's not that hard for a smaller population to farm the same amount of land.

Feudal society was, well, feudal, and almost everything was controlled by the nobility. With a much smaller pool of workers, there was little for it but to pay people more, drawing wealth from it having been pointlessly trapped and wasted by idle rich people.

Those effects would not happen to the same extent today. It would to a degree, but we aren't dependent on agriculture to the extent we were then.

One thing that might recur though - it kind of already is - is xenophobia. The Black Death was customarily blamed on whatever the least popular local outgroup was.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #16  
Old 03-11-2020, 08:32 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 19,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
The present estimation of COVID-19 is that it has a 3-4% death rate. WHich is about the same as the 1918 Spanish Flu.
Presuming a global infection rate of 20%.

8 billion people.
20% of all humans=1.6 billion.

4% death rate: 64 million deaths.

Compared with WW2, which took 55 million lives.

OTH, Spanish flu was 33% infection rate.

That comes to a 100 million deaths.

We.Are.Fucked
Breathe man... it's not as bad as all that.

Keep in mind that the 3% rate is just a crude number reached by dividing the total number of known infected by the total number of deaths. The expectation is that there are a LOT of unknown infected out there- people who just feel bad, think they have a cold or the flu, or who just didn't go to the doctor or get tested for whatever reason.

Taking all that into consideration, the expected actual mortality rate is thought to be under 1% and in the ballpark of a severe flu epidemic.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.105...elated_article
  #17  
Old 03-11-2020, 01:58 PM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Breathe man... it's not as bad as all that.

Keep in mind that the 3% rate is just a crude number reached by dividing the total number of known infected by the total number of deaths. The expectation is that there are a LOT of unknown infected out there- people who just feel bad, think they have a cold or the flu, or who just didn't go to the doctor or get tested for whatever reason.

Taking all that into consideration, the expected actual mortality rate is thought to be under 1% and in the ballpark of a severe flu epidemic.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.105...elated_article
So instead of twice as deadly as WW2 its only half as deadly.
I mean, I guess the bit about not as bad is accurate.
Somehow I am not feeling better.
  #18  
Old 03-11-2020, 02:04 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 13,500
Silver lining 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by pool View Post
Sure would help the environment, for a while anyway.
Silver lining 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esprise Me View Post
If it costs Trump the election...
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
The present estimation of COVID-19 is that it has a 3-4% death rate. WHich is about the same as the 1918 Spanish Flu.
Presuming a global infection rate of 20%.

8 billion people.
20% of all humans=1.6 billion.

4% death rate: 64 million deaths.

Compared with WW2, which took 55 million lives.

OTH, Spanish flu was 33% infection rate.

That comes to a 100 million deaths.

We.Are.Fucked
Absolutely fucked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Breathe man... it's not as bad as all that.

Keep in mind that the 3% rate is just a crude number reached by dividing the total number of known infected by the total number of deaths. The expectation is that there are a LOT of unknown infected out there- people who just feel bad, think they have a cold or the flu, or who just didn't go to the doctor or get tested for whatever reason.

Taking all that into consideration, the expected actual mortality rate is thought to be under 1% and in the ballpark of a severe flu epidemic.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.105...elated_article
3.8% was the last estimate from WHO. It is higher in some places than others. It is also higher in some age cohorts than others. Dr. Fauci today was saying that we were looking at millions of deaths in the US alone. If we do not take immediately take steps to flatten the curve, we are extremely fucked.

Last edited by Sunny Daze; 03-11-2020 at 02:05 PM.
  #19  
Old 03-11-2020, 02:11 PM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Breathe man... it's not as bad as all that.

Keep in mind that the 3% rate is just a crude number reached by dividing the total number of known infected by the total number of deaths. The expectation is that there are a LOT of unknown infected out there- people who just feel bad, think they have a cold or the flu, or who just didn't go to the doctor or get tested for whatever reason.

Taking all that into consideration, the expected actual mortality rate is thought to be under 1% and in the ballpark of a severe flu epidemic.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.105...elated_article
So instead of twice as deadly as WW2 its only half as deadly.
I mean, I guess the bit about not as bad is accurate.
Somehow I am not feeling better.
  #20  
Old 03-11-2020, 03:02 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Attributed to Stalin, he might not have said it first.

But however, let us hypothesize that the Covid 19 does kill 5% of the world's population. Even 10%.

What good could come of this? Could any good come of it?
Most people seem focused on the US, but personally the silver lining, if it happened, would be the fall of the CCP in China, for me at least. If not that, then perhaps countries moving away from such a dependency on China would be a good silver lining, moving companies out of China and limiting the power of the CCP. Perhaps another silver lining is underscoring how corrupt the WHO has become, and just in general what funding levels for organizations like the CDC should be and how important those groups are.

Other than that, there aren't a lot of silver linings I'm seeing. If this thing spreads out of control, even with a lower death rate than the 3% mentioned (and that varies wildly even in the same country, let alone country to country), it's going to be grim. The really scary thing about this one is that it's communicable even when people are asymptomatic. It was also given nearly 3 weeks to spread uncontrollably by China before they acknowledged it, and the CCP actively were squashing the story, even among their healthcare workers. We also don't really know the extent of the issue even now in China, as the WHO is basically just a CCP mouthpiece on this and we only have the CCPs stats as a lot of even the limited reporting by anything but state run media is almost not existent now.

I also haven't heard much coming out of North Korea, but based on how hard South Korea has been hit it's fairly scary to consider what might be happening there, especially since they were close to famine conditions again and their healthcare isn't exactly top notch. A weaken population, isolationist government with poor healthcare to the general public is a recipe for really bad things. Look at what's happening in Italy, and they are an EU nation with strong healthcare.

As for the US, I think we have a bigger outbreak than is apparent from the numbers alone, due mainly to the bottle neck in testing kits. We don't know what we don't know, and I think our own numbers will jump up. I think in hindsight, somewhere down the road we'll also find out that a hell of a lot more folks in China are infected than the official numbers are showing, because a lot of their drop in new cases came from a redefinition of what is or isn't infected...and also because the CCP wants it to be lower, so it's lower. The only seemingly good news is this thing doesn't seem to really be breaking out much in Africa. Russia also seems to be mainly immune, though that could again be because critical information is being blocked or stifled.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #21  
Old 03-11-2020, 03:24 PM
vislor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Iowa
Posts: 566
This is an article I got about the spread and rates and how China differs from Iran and San Francisco.

I can't say it made me feel better.

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coron...e-f4d3d9cd99ca
  #22  
Old 03-11-2020, 06:34 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 13,500
From the article that vislor posted:


Quote:
This is what you can conclude:
  • Countries that are prepared will see a fatality rate of ~0.5% (South Korea) to 0.9% (rest of China).
  • Countries that are overwhelmed will have a fatality rate between ~3%-5%
Put in another way: Countries that act fast can reduce the number of deaths by ten. And thatís just counting the fatality rate. Acting fast also drastically reduces the cases, making this even more of a no-brainer.
Countries that act fast reduce the number of deaths at least by 10x.


There is also this twitter thread about events on the ground in Italy:


Quote:
The current situation is difficult to imagine and numbers do not explain things at all. Our hospitals are overwhelmed by Covid-19, they are running 200% capacity

Quote:
Patients above 65 or younger with comorbidities are not even assessed by ITU, I am not saying not tubed, Iím saying not assessed and no ITU staff attends when they arrest.
The most useful suggestion comes in that thread: it makes sense to self-isolate now and not to wait for the government to act.
  #23  
Old 03-11-2020, 06:36 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 13,500
Apologies for the weird formatting in my last post. When I try to edit the post, it disappears. When I recreate it and post it, the formatting is screwy. Rinse and repeat.
  #24  
Old 03-19-2020, 07:33 AM
Saintly Loser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Stalin was right on another point. It's not who votes that counts; it's who counts the votes.
I thought that was Lyndon Johnson.
  #25  
Old 03-20-2020, 01:29 PM
panache45's Avatar
panache45 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NE Ohio (the 'burbs)
Posts: 55,834
Even if only 2% are dead, I'll be one of those 2%. A tragedy for me at least.
  #26  
Old 03-20-2020, 01:43 PM
Wesley Clark's Avatar
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
If it disproportionately kills the elderly and the weak, it might leave a younger, healthier population behind.

Not that that would be necessarily good, but it would probably have that effect.

Edit: May also lead to huge healthcare reform worldwide. And lead to more sanitary practices.
If we're being honest, killing off the elderly and the diseased would save money long term on welfare, social security and health care costs.

Also hopefully (but unlikely) since consumer demand has collapsed maybe we will get legislation to increase consumer demand. Laws that make jobs more stable, wages higher, etc. so people have money to spend.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #27  
Old 03-22-2020, 11:28 AM
Some Schmo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esprise Me View Post
If it costs Trump the election...
Since it was his specific audience who got the early news it was all a hoax, one would imagine the people least fearful and most likely to ignore preventative transmission advice would be his base. Also assuming his base is an older crowd (the Fox News audience), I'm guessing COVID-19 is going to have quite a say on the size of his support.

This may be the one instance where Trump can't talk his way out of his lies. The virus will serve as a pretty good fact checker.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:19 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017