A Hypothetical... How is this different from the Covid Argument?
2 responses | 0 likes
Started by TimNew - May 15, 2020, 3 a.m.

There are over 40,000 deaths every year in the US from motor vehicle accidents.

We must ban all operation of all motor vehicles for 14 days or until this death rate declines dramatically.

Then,  we can permit certain people to start driving (elderly and young are diproportionately represented in the death rate).

Motor vehicles cannot be operated at more than half the posted speed limit and must maintain a distance of at least 100 yards from all other motor vehicles in operation.

If you don't agree with these guidlines, obviously you feel that driving is more imporatant than human life and you are fine with  over 40,000 deaths per year.   


By TimNew - May 16, 2020, 1:25 p.m.
Like Reply

So,  I guess the answer is  "Not a bit"..   

By metmike - May 16, 2020, 1:30 p.m.
Like Reply

Thanks Tim!

There is a risk/reward considering with many things that we do.

COVID is really bad for sure. Especially deadly for the elderly and sick. But the ability of our brains to calculate  rational risk/reward  choices and scenarios has been greatly distorted by emotions.

Those emotions emanate from news reports(some intentionally sensationalized-some, like from CNN and NYT based on fake news) that cause us to think COVID is 10 times worse than it is.

Here's one way to put it into perspective.

We will shortly have 100,000 deaths from COVID. A couple of months ago, there were some models/people predicting the potential of 1,000,000 deaths..........10 times that.

What should be the difference in actions(risk) for preventing 100,000 vs 1,000,000 deaths. If you are completely shut down for both, same actions, then you are risking just as much for the lower number(everything) and getting 10 times less reward/benefit for it.

It should be a no brainer to not risk and in fact lose everything for 100,000 deaths(they will obviously go higher as the year goes on).

So the question is, at what death rate does it make sense to lose everything for?

1,000,000+ might not even be enough if we are talking rational decisions. That's 3% of the population. The worst part would be the collapse of our medical care system which MUST be avoided, so that  potential element MUST be dialed in when you start racking up extremely high rates.

So, considering the fact that we peaked, the health care system was able to do a good job(thanks health care workers) and numbers are not 10 times higher, why would we not be reopening?

Fear that makes people "think like" the risk is 10 times higher, maybe even 100 times higher than it really is for you if you are not old and sick.