|
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: your ID is just a number
Nonsense!
CP looked into his heart...
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Do'h ! You Homer'd in on that one right away.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting. I just looked, and there is an "Other" setting for "Your Country", so you could try that. Maybe I'll try it myself, because the farm where a dairy cow gets milked isn't relevant to this site.
|
|
|
|
|
1,539,153 Deaths caused by smoking this year
770,064 Deaths caused by alcohol this year
1,692,170,966 Overweight people in the world
755,020,768 Obese people in the world
Three very unnecessary products, tobacco, alcohol and fast food, take more lives than COVID-19 ever will.
When will they be banned? When are we shutting down the economy for those?
I know, the US already tried that with alcohol, but that's about a 100 years ago (not that I think it would be successful now).
Basically, what we're saying is that 177,000 deaths from COVID-19 is a real crisis, but 1,539,153 deaths from smoking (that's more than eight times as many) is fine.
The current measures will result in an economic crisis of proportions that we haven't seen before.
The 2008 crisis alone took more lives than COVID-19.
I guess more deaths is a fair price to save fewer lives.
I'm just a bit confused by the math of it all 
Of course all of this is less about numbers than it is about "how we feel".
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose you want to say "last year", as "this year" is not ended yet.
Anyways... I agree with you (ex-smoker here)
Lung cancer treatments are longer / more expensive than COVID treatments, nobody complains (probably because the taxes give a HUGE amount of money that would disappear if people wouldn't smoke)
And I mean worldwide, not a concrete country.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: I suppose you want to say "last year", as "this year" is not ended yet.
Actually, the website says "this year" so I assume that's 1.5 million deaths from smoking in a little under four months.
That seems about right, according to Fast Facts | Fact Sheets | Smoking & Tobacco Use | CDC[^] which states 7 million deaths per year.
The #1 preventable cause of death.
Yet we do nothing.
Well, that's not completely true, there are anti-smoking laws.
But it's nothing compared to what we're doing against the far less deadly COVID-19.
Here's a comparable website for alcohol: Alcohol Facts and Statistics | National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)[^] (although it's USA specific).
"making alcohol the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States. The first is tobacco, and the second is poor diet and physical inactivity."
According to the WHO alcohol causes 5 million deaths a year worldwide[^].
Maybe people "choose" to smoke, drink or eat unhealthy so we'll allow it.
I have no data on deaths from passive smokers or casualties from drunk drivers.
So I wonder, if we can fight COVID-19 so vigorously and are apparently willing to sacrifice the economy and many more lives to save statistically few lives, why can't we do the same with tobacco, unhealthy food and alcohol?
I guess COVID-19 floods the intensive care while the others do not and that makes all the difference?
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Actually, the website says "this year" so I assume that's 1.5 million deaths from smoking in a little under four months.
...
which states 7 million deaths per year.
Ok... then numbers look fine.
Sander Rossel wrote: Maybe people "choose" to smoke, drink or eat unhealthy so we'll allow it.
And I suppose that is the biggest factor, people "want" to do it.
Sander Rossel wrote: So I wonder, if we can fight COVID-19 so vigorously and are apparently willing to sacrifice the economy and many more lives to save statistically few lives, why can't we do the same with tobacco, unhealthy food and alcohol?
You don't get the illness voluntarily and people is more aware of the dead possibility, because it comes much faster. With the other things it is a very slow process. This makes a big difference in how people perceive it.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: With the other things it is a very slow process. This makes a big difference in how people perceive it.
This is it.
If people died from cigarettes, fast food or alcohol within a couple of weeks things would be different.
That's the same reason why so many people are opposed to better environment laws, they cost money now while the effects will never become visible (because we wouldn't know how things would be without them).
That, and because people don't actually believe global warming is a thing, but that's another discussion.
Still, staggering numbers 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You want the Math? OK, paper napkin time...
There are 7.7 billion people in the world.
Covid-19 has a fatality rate of somewhere between 5% and 0.1%.
If 70% of people get it (the percentage estimated for 'herd immunity') then 5.39 people will catch it.
5% of 5.39 is 0.2695 billion or 269.5 million.
0.1% of 5.39 is .00539 or 5.39 million.
I would say the actual fatality rate is likely to be between 1% and 0.5%, so we are talking between 25 and 50 million lives.
That is assuming all of the critical cases get critical care.
If critical cases do not get critical care then the fatality rate among them is 100%, otherwise it is between 10% and 20%.
This means that if the health care system gets overrun you can multiply the death toll by 5-10, giving between 125 and 500 million lives.
|
|
|
|
|
Fueled By Caffeine wrote: Covid-19 has a fatality rate of somewhere between 5% and 0.1%.
Seeing the official statistics I would say the % are higher.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: Seeing the official statistics I would say the % are higher.
It's really hard to tell, because many countries only report deaths if the victim tested positive and died in hospital, and others have other restrictions; and while the number of asymptomatic people is now known to be high, it will be a while before we know how high.
But it's possible that neither figure will ever be known with dead-on balls accuracy, so statistical analysis might prove to be more accurate (but we won't know for sure that it is).
That said, this is scientific doubt, so don't be swayed by people who misrepresent that as "no-one knows what they're talking about" doubt
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
This was exemplified in one article commenting it: If a patient with covid-19 has a heart attack and dies from the heart attack, you may say that was the cause of death. But the covid-19 probably had weakened him significantly - maybe he could have survived the heart attack if he hadn't had the covid-19. If covid-19 was the underlying cause for his body's inability to handle the heart attack, should it then be counted as a covid-19 death even though the "direct" cause was the heart attack?
A similar problem: In this country, about 1000 people die from flu every year. Because of the corona restrictions, we have had very little spreading of flu this spring, so we have fewer people dying from it. A share of those who die from covid-19 would probably have died from the flu, but covid-19 protected them from that death, and instead let them die from covid-19. How should we count that?
This article stated that different countries and states have very different ways of classifying deaths.
Numeric figures other than deaths are also collected according to varying practices: Yesterday, I learned that in Norway, when you are diagnosed with covid-19, you are counted for the "Total Cases". If you do not go to hospital, but stay at home and recover by yourself, there is no system for registering that you have recovered; that is only counted for those recovering in hospital. So you will forever be considered an "active case" e.g. in the Worldometer survey, even the day corona virus is totally extinguished.
For comparing it to another virus, the measles: Before a vaccine was developed, we "did it the Swedish way", building up a herd immunity. Apparently, in Norwegian tribes, those with a genetic disposition for dying from measles had done so hundreds of years ago; kids could handle it. So whenever a kid caught measles, all his friends who had not yet suffered through it came to visit him to get infected, "to get it over with". We knew that catching it as an adult was far more dangerous. Official statistics say that every year (before the vaccine), 30,000 cases of measles were reported. That is about half of the population; approx 60,000 children are born every year. But... First, when I was a kid, everybody caught measles sooner or later. Second: It was a common thing, expected and usually handled at home. Why would we report it to the health authorities? How would we report it? I am far from sure that I am one of the 30,000 reported the year when it was my turn! I am quite sure that there were many thousand cases that were never reported. It was probably done by the doctor, and if no doctor had to be called, there was no reporting.
For the ordinary flu, there is no system for reporting that you are through it; those making the statistics simply assume that if you don't die from it, a few months later, you have recovered. Even if the authorities had set up a system for recovery reports, it would be something unfamiliar to those recovering at home; they probably wouldn't use it.
So according to statistics, next to noone recovers in Norway. The 32 cases reported are hospital cases. It looks as if six out of seven who gets through covid-19 do it in a coffin... "You have lies, then you have d**n lies, and then you have statistics"...
|
|
|
|
|
Member 7989122 wrote: Before a vaccine was developed, we "did it the Swedish way"
I've been reading a lot on that in foreign news.
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
The "Swedish way" isn't about herd immunity, it's about having measures that are sustainable for a very long time.
"Flattening the curve" doesn't stop the population from getting the virus, it postpones it, either until we've reached herd immunity the natural way or we have a vaccine. Whichever comes first.
|
|
|
|
|
Those are surprising numbers, but it's mostly speculation. Between 0.1% and 5% is a huge margin.
Still, 50 million lives is only 0.65% of the total population.
While only a small percentage, that would double the deaths this year, except not everyone who dies from COVID-19 would not have died otherwise so the actual number is somewhat smaller.
Of course, with 500 million lives that quickly turns into 6.5% which is significant.
That's an absolute worst case scenario though.
Most young and healthy people only get mild flu symptoms, if any at all, and those aren't currently tested.
However, there have been reports that lockdowns have had a minimum effect.
That would mean the virus would somehow have stopped by itself, but that's, again, speculation.
However, if you look at the deaths we're going to face in the coming years because of the global economic crisis, the measures we've taken now may actually do more harm than good.
Between 2008 and 2010, 500,000 extra people died of cancer in the USA alone, simply because they were unemployed and couldn't afford healthcare.
People are now starving in Africa and Asia because the lockdown prevents them from working and getting their daily pay.
Suicides go up in times of economic recession, in 2009 this was 5000.
Of course, 5000 is a small number, but it indicates people are generally less happy and face more stress.
That could reduce life expectancy in the long term.
Of course I don't have exact numbers of the people saved, but it's not as simple as saying "x people did not die from COVID-19 so we saved x people."
Those x people account for y deaths elsewhere and all I'm saying is y may be as high or even higher as x, but we'll probably never know for sure.
Meanwhile, it should be relatively easy to save 7 million people every year by banning tobacco (unfortunately, it's not THAT easy, I know).
All in all, I'm really glad I don't have to make the decisions here 
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: there have been reports that lockdowns have had a minimum effect
It can be misperceived that way because lockdown was implemented a week or two too late, in all but a few countries, and the death rates that we've been seeing are the victims who were infected before lockdown.
When the death rates drop, it's not because the virus has gone away, it's because the lockdown effect has caught up, and less people are infected.
E.g. New York should be moving into a "recovery" stage, about now (if too many people didn't badly breach the lockdown), but without the lockdown, the current figures would continue until herd immunity was achieved in New York -- i.e. until everyone who might possibly be killed by the virus is dead, leaving the thinned-out "herd" to survive (until the virus mutates, which it will, to kill another n% of the population).
A lot of people in Italy, Spain, and a few US states breached lockdown, in many cases very badly, so their recovery stages have been delayed -- and will continue to be delayed until a few weeks after everyone stops breaching, or until everyone who could die from it is dead.
Note that those delays are imposed not by the authorities, but by the life-cycle of the virus.Sander Rossel wrote: That would mean the virus would somehow have stopped by itself, but that's, again, speculation.
Not the kind of thing to take a gamble on, given that all evidence that we currently have points in the other direction.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Before banning things, consider the unintended consequences that emerged during Prohibition in the US. But politicians learn nothing, because the same consequences are still here thanks to the War on Drugs.
- rise of black markets that fund large-scale organized crime
- turf wars between crime syndicates
- poor quality products that kill users or make them seriously ill
- non-violent users imprisoned, ruining their lives
- police diverted from pursuing violent criminals
- law enforcement corrupted with bribes
- justification for an intrusive surveillance state
I could probably go on. It's also interesting to note that Prohibition required a constitutional amendment. But the US Constitution has been ignored for a long time now, so they didn't bother with an amendment to ban drugs. Recreational drugs, of course, because pharmaceuticals are a very different story.
What's "unnecessary" is also in the eye of the beholder. There are probably some things that you enjoy that are unnecessary, like having a cat when there are no mice or rats around.
|
|
|
|
|
My cat doesn't kill people (while I'm awake) 
Of course what you say is true.
But isn't it weird that we're all panicking over COVID-19 while tobacco kills 7 million people every year?
No one says I'll have a COVID-19 virus please, but at the same time we smoke a pack a day.
I mean, how hard is it to not start smoking? (apparently pretty difficult...)
If people were as panicky about smoking as they were about COVID-19, smoking would be banned within weeks with some smoking license or free nicotine gum or whatever for those already addicted.
It's not about the unnecessity of things, but about the dangers.
|
|
|
|
|
We don't smoke a pack a day. Individuals choose whether to smoke. Each person weighs the risk of activities in which they can engage.
If social distancing wasn't mandated, some people would practice it to be safer, and others wouldn't. There would be businesses that enforced it and others that didn't. For the most part, governments have decided to enforce a one-size-fits-all policy, which is quite typical of what they do. Some people agree with it and others think it's overdone. The trade-off is between saving an unknown number of lives and seriously damaging the economy. Governments don't want to be blamed for deaths and think that money-printing can fix economic downturns, so their choice is unsurprising.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: I'm just a bit confused by the math of it all
How dare you bring logic to an emotional situation. 
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure whether you're serious or not, but I hope, against better knowing, that our great leaders use some form of logic in their decision making
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: I'm not sure whether you're serious or not,
Just being silly.
Sander Rossel wrote: great leaders use some form of logic in their decision making
The problem is that nobody really knows enough about this virus. But everyone is too scared to be wrong so they are following everyone else and shutting everything down. Not sure if that is logical or not.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
ZurdoDev wrote: The problem is that nobody really knows enough about this virus. But everyone is too scared to be wrong so they are following everyone else and shutting everything down.
This!
The question is when the medicine is worse than the cure?
I don't know, but the problem seems to be that neither does anyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
