Almighty God
Member
One of the things that bothers me about the government and media messaging about COVID-19 is the lack of nuance and critical thought applied to the messages about how people should calibrate their behaviors in order to prevent deaths and prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed.
To be more specific, the goals of masks, lockdowns, and social distancing as I understand them are to (1) Prevent as many deaths as possible, and (2) Prevent hospitals from becoming full. So, in theory, the number of cases does not matter as long as deaths and hospitalizations are minimized. In order to minimize the number of deaths and hospitalizations, each person should adjust their behavior accordingly in order to reduce the expected number of new hospitalizations that would occur as a result of them getting the virus. This expected number is a function of several variables, the most important being who this individual interacts with. For instance, a person who works in a nursing home has a much higher expected number of hospitalizations that would occur IF she contracted the virus, since the expected number of hospitalizations would be R_0 (expected number of people the virus is spread to) multiplied by the percentage of the people that would be hospitalized if they contracted the virus. As such, it makes sense for a person who works in a nursing home to take more precautions than a healthy person who lives alone and works from home, since the expected number of hospitalizations that would occur as a result of the nursing home worker contracting the virus would be significantly higher than a person who lives alone and works from home. Why? Because a healthcare worker interacts with dozens of vulnerable people on a daily basis, but a person who works from home does not.
So, what's the point of this? The only message I hear from health experts, the media, and governments, is a universal and equal plea to everyone to "stay home" and not interact with others. But, this implies that the expected consequences on society of contracting COVID are the same for everyone, which is demonstrably false as I just explained above.
To be more specific, the goals of masks, lockdowns, and social distancing as I understand them are to (1) Prevent as many deaths as possible, and (2) Prevent hospitals from becoming full. So, in theory, the number of cases does not matter as long as deaths and hospitalizations are minimized. In order to minimize the number of deaths and hospitalizations, each person should adjust their behavior accordingly in order to reduce the expected number of new hospitalizations that would occur as a result of them getting the virus. This expected number is a function of several variables, the most important being who this individual interacts with. For instance, a person who works in a nursing home has a much higher expected number of hospitalizations that would occur IF she contracted the virus, since the expected number of hospitalizations would be R_0 (expected number of people the virus is spread to) multiplied by the percentage of the people that would be hospitalized if they contracted the virus. As such, it makes sense for a person who works in a nursing home to take more precautions than a healthy person who lives alone and works from home, since the expected number of hospitalizations that would occur as a result of the nursing home worker contracting the virus would be significantly higher than a person who lives alone and works from home. Why? Because a healthcare worker interacts with dozens of vulnerable people on a daily basis, but a person who works from home does not.
So, what's the point of this? The only message I hear from health experts, the media, and governments, is a universal and equal plea to everyone to "stay home" and not interact with others. But, this implies that the expected consequences on society of contracting COVID are the same for everyone, which is demonstrably false as I just explained above.