https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm...
Beware the myopia that sensationalist news coverage tends to encourage.
Never forget all the lives lost. Not just the 3000+ we lost on that horrible day (RIP), but the millions more around the world lost in the wake of the actions we chose, as a nation, to take in the "war on terror".
No, they inflict massive negative externalities on society through healthcare.
> while being a bit more careful with covid will potentially prevent sickness in a lot of people.
Classic Safety-ism. Even today, 20 years after 9/11 and we are still paying a ludicrous price for this logic.
> The ludicrous and horrible price - of wearing masks?
Of shutting down schools? of closing borders and separating families, which since you want to trivialize things I didn't bring up, a 3 year old in my family was separated from her mother for a year and a half.
I didn't specify wearing masks.. but no one knows what the effect will be of kids wearing masks all day. They are at a time of critical development & learning to read faces, non verbally communicate etc. It may turn out to have a terrible price.
Social distancing, closing schools, etc. were proven methods that showed the difference between cities with horrible losses and much better outcomes for the Spanish Flu. (Edit: Washington had his troops in the revolutionary war quarantined, separated, and inoculated when small pox became a problem. ) We knew all that.
This weekend, we are mourning the tragical losses of a terror attack that cost the lives of 3000 innocent people. Because of people like you, who call proven measures against COVID ‘safety-isms’ we lose that many people every other day.
If anything, we clearly didn’t do enough ‘safety-isms’.
That is baseless speculation.
> Social distancing, closing schools, etc. were proven methods that showed the difference between cities with horrible losses and much better outcomes for the Spanish Flu.
Where is the source? And that was a completely different disease, which had the worst outcomes for young people, so maybe taking pre-cautions for them made sense.
> Because of people like you, who call proven measures against COVID ‘safety-isms’ we lose that many people every other day.
You should take your dogmatism & personal attacks to another forum, where it is welcome.
> we lose that many people every other day.
Tragic, but they are elderly, chronically sick and had a life expectancy of less than 5 years. Also tragically under accepted normal & non idealogical circumstances, we loose around 8,000 people a day in the US.
Even if the U.S. had managed to simply reach the average of the world of 0.058% mortality, i.e. competing against such beacons of healthcare and wealth as the Congo, the U.S. outcome would have been a mere 190k, i.e. 470k souls saved.
Unless you're suggesting that U.S. Americans are somehow inherently inferior to people in other countries, or that the health care system is the world's worst, one would think that the differences will lie in policy and different measures would have changed the outcome.
I'll leave it as an exercise to you to draw a fairer comparison, maybe by comparing to OECD countries rather than all of them.
Astounding, how generous you are with other people's lives. Dogmatism is overlooking the data and holding on to your misbelief. You will know more about that than I do, I am afraid.
> competing against such beacons of healthcare and wealth as the Congo
The Democratic Republic of the Congo has had 1.23 deaths per 100k population from Covid [1]. Why do you think the US has 200x deaths per population than the DRC ?
> Unless you're suggesting that U.S. Americans are somehow inherently inferior to people in other countries
Yes people are not all the same, and those different factors effect outcomes. The US has a large populations that are elderly, chronically sick, urban, highly mobile etc, were tested for covid, etc.
Saying hundreds of thousands of people could have been saved in the US is highly speculative.
Many people, including little children, are expected to wear these masks 8 hours a day.
You have no idea what damage you are causing for the lower classes, the less fortunate, and American public school children.
Nor do you understand the effect this has had on the campaign for mass vaccination.
I can assure you this is significant. Minority enclaves in my city (Chicago), largely regard masks as "white people bullshit". I work in these communities.
It's not a stretch to see why they apply that same logic to vaccine mandates (even if the vaccines would be beneficial for most of their community).
Many people, such as doctors, nurses, certain manufacturing jobs wear masks for much longer stretches of time, for many decades already. They are fine, it works really well.
But you are right, I do not understand the effect of mask wearing on vaccination. Care to elaborate?
I still fail to see the extraordinary “burden” “hardship”, “sacrifice” of - wearing a mask as a proven way to save lives?
Would you feel better if there was some medal attached, maybe “Great Hero of the Fight against COVID”?
Quite amusing to me that you jump to that. It speaks volumes about what motivates you.
Are you ready to finally admit you were mistaken about covid vs influenza mortality in children? And to retract your slanderous statements that I was "lying", "spreading propaganda"?
I know it's much easier to snipe at me with snide comments like the one above. If that's all that you're interested in, rather than a substantive discussion, well, that wouldn't surprise me given the totality of our interaction over the past few days.
Good thing the US doesn't have socialized healthcare and private insurers generally exclude preexisting conditions.
> Classic Safety-ism. Even today, 20 years after 9/11 and we are still paying a ludicrous price for this logic.
Funny how the "safety-ism" after 9/11 was pushed by the Republicans and now the Republicans are complaining about Democrats pushing safety measures against Covid.
Except y'know most of these measures actually drastically reduce transmission (tho I agree some are ill-conceived, like I'm not sure curfews do anything but encourage people to meet indoors where transmission risk is significantly higher). Banning shampoo bottles was mostly theatrics.
Bonus:
> no one knows what the effect will be of kids wearing masks all day
I'm going to avoid the bait to reference mask wearing in Asian countries, but sure: that sounds like an important reason to crack down on Covid hard and fast rather than go back an forth on half-assed policies and artificially expand the duration of the crisis and risk a perpetual cycle of masks and vaccinations as poorer communities keep generating resistant mutations.
So I take it you support the mass production of vaccinations and free distribution to developing countries to bring down infection numbers world-wide and protect the US from foreign mutants? If perpetuating this pandemic could traumatize an entire generation of children, maybe this should be considered a national defense emergency and the US should invest a few more billions and rally its allies to do the same. Open up the patents to also get the countries on board that are distrustful of US-supplied vaccines.
Or are you trying to argue that Covid isn't that bad or that it's better if we let children catch it because they have a lower mortality?
So your answer is to go sophist ad-hominem, by putting me in a group you find unfavorable rather than addressing the content of what I said. Am I letting the terrorist win or am I killing grandmas ? therefore you can justify x.
> Except y'know most of these measures actually drastically reduce transmission
This is very un-specific, but aside from vaccinations & living in a country with island like borders, very little has been definitely shown to reduce spread.
> maybe this should be considered a national defense emergency and the US should invest a few more billions
I'm not especially against that, even though I do think that unfortunately in practice these things risk end up just being vehicles for cronyism rather than tackling the core issue.
Try nearly zero. Much lower than other common pathogens like flu and RSV. Which is why the UK is not recommending mass vaccination of teenagers aged 12-15, or any children younger.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58438669
This is why many argue that the focus on covid in children is largely about the irrational fears of parents and educators who have not seriously looked at the data.
Stop spreading lies like the lower COVID mortality compared to flu. It’s disgusting.
Stop lying about what the article says, it’s not about the national recommendation of a country (that famously botched their response).
“Nearly zero” means nothing for societal outcome, certainly for mortality. What is the number of people infected, “nearly zero” of which die? Then these numbers become meaningful.
More children have been shot in Chicago in the past year than have died from covid in the entire country.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9979619/More-childr...
I'm finished communicating with you. You're not participating in this discussion in good faith.
I assume you're embarrassed that you're so confused about the data.
For your second point, after you torture what the article actually says into a alleged national policy of the UK, I suggest you read up on exponential growth. It reminds me of the discussions in this country in March 2020, when everything was written on the wall, but people looked at absolute numbers and proclaimed that it’s not going to be a problem.
See, if you were simply lying about how expensive your car is, I couldn’t care less. But it’s propaganda pieces like yours that kill people, currently at a rate of half a 9/11 per day, all of it completely avoidable.
Go ahead. I'll wait.
https://freopp.org/comparing-the-risk-of-death-from-covid-19...
"Based on that analysis, what is striking is that those under the age of 15 are at significantly lower risk of death from COVID-19 than of the flu. Under our assumptions, for example, children under the age of 15 have a 1 in 155,535 chance of dying of influenza, but a 1 in 1.2 million chance of dying of COVID-19."
"For toddlers, the relative risk is even more pronounced. We estimate that Americans between ages 1–4 are 3.4 times more likely to die of influenza than of COVID-19."
In an attempt to head off your inevitable criticism that I'm citing "conservative propaganda", here's an article from New York Magazine making similar arguments:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/07/the-kids-were-safe-f...
"according to the CDC, among children the mortality risk from COVID-19 is actually lower than from the flu. The risk of severe disease or hospitalization is about the same."
"the infection fatality rate for those aged 5 to 9 is less than 0.001 percent"
Note that these same sources also espouse that children are safe because of their lower infection risk but then go and compare the mortality rate to the entire population to come up with grandiose claims. When looking at the actual official UK numbers (i.e. comparing deaths after a confirmed infection to confirmed infections) child mortality is indeed significantly lower but only by a factor of 10 compared to adults. This paints a far grimmer picture than all this talk about there being a multiple orders of magnitude difference.
It's also worth pointing out that the vaccine supply is limited, so the question of whether children should be vaccinated is one of prioritization. If children already have a low likelihood of infection and have better outcomes than the average adult, it makes more sense to use that vaccine on an adult than a child.
German media also suggests the decision for the German vaccination authority to not recommend a third round of vaccinations at the moment is similarly driven by the idea that it's more important to make sure everyone has some level of immunization than that some people have a very high level of immunization: the goal is to control spread, not to protect individuals. Note that the German authority has greenlit vaccinations for 12+ year olds, so their risk evaluation seems to consider the likelihood of children spreading the virus or potentially developing chronic conditions in the future to be significant enough. Of course you can't compare these risks directly due to differences e.g. in the school systems and pandemic-related accommodations.
And? They still kill people and clog the healthcare systems around the world. Worse a lot of those are aggravated by obesity and smoking, all of which not only are voluntary actions but also generate profits. Also obesity is contagious: http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1646997,0...
Also average Covid death age is only 4 years lower than the pre-pandemic life expectancy in the US. And what is the biggest aggravating factors for Covid-19? Obesity and smoking.
You pass on your way of life to your children. Your friends and family reinforce each other's decisions every time you make a meal, make plans, etc.
This stuff is all vitally important. And in fact, we would have lower rates of covid fatality if a larger percentage of our population took this seriously.
Luckily getting a shot is really really easy, so we do have a lot of influence over deaths from COVID.
Arguably, retrofitting every important building in the country to be well ventilated is a challenge on a similar scale to changing our deeply ingrained unhealthy cultural habits.
I was getting take out a couple of weeks ago and a woman brought her coughing child to the restaurant, which doesn't seem great, so I have noticed people being less alert now that a significant portion of people has been vaccinated here.
>Arguably, retrofitting every important building in the country to be well ventilated is a challenge on a similar scale to changing our deeply ingrained unhealthy cultural habits.
Yeah, I hadn't looked at it that way, but that's indeed a big task.
Actually there has been a lot of research showing obesity as a social virus is contagious.
In contrast, heart disease and cancer are much more expensive to mitigate. Regular exercise reduces the incidence of some heart diseases for the average person by about ~50% (estimating from the graph) [2]. We have no cheap way of reducing cancer incidence (besides vaccines for some viruses that cause cancer) — for example, intervening in cases of substance addiction is expensive.
So even if your comparison was correct (it's not), how is it relevant? Are you trying to argue that the government should compel people to completely alter their lifestyles before they should mandate masks or vaccines? That makes no sense, because 1) preventing cancer requires mandating vaccines and 2) the interventions are orders of magnitude more expensive.
Or, are you trying to suggest that the deaths of 650,000 people (in the US) are insignificant because there are some aggregate diseases that kill more? And therefore, because we can't stop all death, it's pointless to try to even mitigate some death?
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...
[2] https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/01.CIR.00000488...