A Perspective on Risk from the 1890s

 

The picture is of the 1891 Bowdoin College varsity Tug-of-War team that I stumbled upon while web-surfing amidst the sheer boredom of the Great Closing.

The sport was an Olympic event until controversy at the 1920 games persuaded the Committee to drop the sport. The no-sleeve or one-sleeve look was probably quite a jock style statement.

Unlike college athletes in 2020, those young men presumably completed their competitive season without shutdowns even though the overall health risks that year were vastly greater than we currently experience even in the midst of a “pandemic.”

In the 1890s, an outbreak of bubonic plague (The Third Pandemic) killed an estimated 10 million in Asia and thousands elsewhere, even some in the USA. Hundreds of thousands still died in Europe and the Americas from smallpox every year. As many as five thousand children in the US died from whooping cough every year. Chicago experienced a flu outbreak that doubled the city’s normal death rate in the summer of 1890. Tuberculosis, typhoid fever, yellow fever, dysentery from various causes, and “intermittent fever” killed many Americans (especially children) every year. Going outside on a city street or just drinking a glass of water was a risky adventure that we moderns would never undertake without precautions.

But life persisted somehow. Have we lost perspective about risks? Do we think that we are no longer subject to them and hide when reminded of their existence? An event that, at its worst, will not add more than a fraction of a percentage point to the nation’s death rate has driven us into hiding and obeisance to some of the most mediocre people our society has ever produced. We may have “herd immunity” to diseases that used to kill millions but have we become a herd in the process?

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 37 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Old Bathos: Going outside on a city street or just drinking a glass of water was a risky adventure that we moderns would never undertake without precautions.

    That’s why alcohol.

    Old Bathos: Have we lost perspective about risks?

    Most people have, yes.

    Old Bathos: Do we think that we are no no longer subject to them and hide when reminded of their existence?

    Most folks are going along to get along, but that only works up to a point.

    • #1
  2. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Old Bathos: An event that at its worst will not add more than a fraction of a percentage point to the nation’s death rate has driven us into hiding and obeisance to some of the most mediocre people our society has ever produced.

    I like your general point, but this is an exaggeration.  The US death rate is about 8.88 per 1,000, so we expect annual deaths of about 2.9 million.  The roughly 45,000 COVID-19 deaths so far is 1.5% of the annual total.

    My latest estimate is that the ultimate death toll will be around 425,000 in the US (with broad uncertainty, and this is for more than the first wave).  If correct, this would be closer to 14-15% of annual deaths.

    It is quite possible that a significant proportion of people who are classified as having died from COVID-19 would die anyway, from something else, as the data suggests that fatalities tend to occur among the old and sick.  I haven’t seen this quantified yet.

    • #2
  3. Joshua Bissey Inactive
    Joshua Bissey
    @TheSockMonkey

    I have long suspected that societies grow more risk-averse as they “advance,” whatever we mean by that term. For me, this always brings to mind those videos of celebratory gunfire at Mid-Eastern weddings. Another is the relatively recent insistence that kids wear helmets when riding bicycles around the neighborhood. Back in the 80s and 90s, when I was riding my bicycle for miles at a time, bicycle helmets were readily available at Wal-Mart, but we didn’t give much thought to wearing them. Maybe if we were doing some kind of trick-riding, or something.

    • #3
  4. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Old Bathos: An event that at its worst will not add more than a fraction of a percentage point to the nation’s death rate has driven us into hiding and obeisance to some of the most mediocre people our society has ever produced.

    I like your general point, but this is an exaggeration. The US death rate is about 8.88 per 1,000, so we expect annual deaths of about 2.9 million. The roughly 45,000 COVID-19 deaths so far is 1.5% of the annual total.

    My latest estimate is that the ultimate death toll will be around 425,000 in the US (with broad uncertainty, and this is for more than the first wave). If correct, this would be closer to 14-15% of annual deaths.

    It is quite possible that a significant proportion of people who are classified as having died from COVID-19 would die anyway, from something else, as the data suggests that fatalities tend to occur among the old and sick. I haven’t seen this quantified yet.

    I think your death estimates are too high. The bug is widely out there. The percentage of highly vulnerable people is necessarily dropping. The likelihood of better treatment protocols and far less overall pressure on providers also greatly improves the odds. Somebody needs to explain why over 80% on the Teddy Roosevelt and the Diamond Princess were exposed but the bug did not even get going enough to generate specific new antibodies.  Based on family behavior, the bug is far more likely to mutate into something softer than something worse. 

    Lastly, the CDC just predicted a major deadly winter second wave. Given their track record, thst virtually guarantees we are well past the worst and for good.

    • #4
  5. Misthiocracy held his nose and Member
    Misthiocracy held his nose and
    @Misthiocracy

    < devil’s advocate mode = on >

    In the 21st Century society individuals are much more interdependent than they were in 1891.  In 1891 people were far more responsible for their own survival, therefore they were better equipped to endure periods of deprivation.  In the 21st century we depend on massive interconnected networks to provide the necessities of life, therefore any disruption to those networks can cause much greater damage than similar disruptions in 1891.

    The trade-off is that while folk in 1891 were more self-sufficient and resilient, life in 1891 was also much more miserable for a much greater proportion of the people.  Going back to a 19th century level of self-sufficiency would require also going back to a 19th century level of misery (i.e. the sort of misery that provided the impetus for Karl Marx’s disastrous theories).

    < devil’s advocate mode = off >

    • #5
  6. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    The percentage of highly vulnerable people is necessarily dropping.

    Too soon, man. Too soon.

    • #6
  7. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    The percentage of highly vulnerable people is necessarily dropping.

    Too soon, man. Too soon.

    I wonder how many deaths were just postponed by the lockdowns? And how many we scripted going forward via poverty and stress? And how many deaths were statistically inevitable but we just altered the spot on the form that cites a COD?

    I see the death rates leveling off everywhere. Governors will take credit but I think the bug has its own rhythms. As it becomes clear that the bug is not as lethal as feared and that it is fading we will be like those herds of zebras or wildebeest that stop running and return to grazing after the lions catch one them which is like an all-clear for the rest of the herd.

    • #7
  8. sawatdeeka Member
    sawatdeeka
    @sawatdeeka

    On another topic, the young man sitting on the right in the picture looks eerily like an actor in some period films. I think one was a new version of Howard’s End.  Ah, here he is–Joseph Quinn

    • #8
  9. Misthiocracy held his nose and Member
    Misthiocracy held his nose and
    @Misthiocracy

    Addendum to my previous musing:  There are still places on the planet today where the people approach something akin to the self-sufficiency and resiliency of 1891.  Places like Mongolia and Nunavut have effectively zero cases of COVID-19 because it’s much easier for them to shut down their borders quickly and completely than it is for the rest of us.  Now, ask yourself, do you want to live in Nunavut or Mongolia or do you prefer to live in a place where decadent luxuries like supermarkets and indoor plumbing aren’t limited to the very rich?

    • #9
  10. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    I guess I’ll stick this here because of the picture–but maybe it should be a QOTD.

    Has anyone ever heard the unattributed claim that “The Civil War began and ended in Brunswick, Maine”?

    Well, Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote Uncle Tom’s Cabin at Bowdoin when hubby taught there.  And one Joshua Chamberlain, a Bowdoin teacher on “sabbatical” in a Maine regiment, was the recipient of the Confederate surrender at Appomattox.

    No hijack intended. 

    • #10
  11. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    I guess I’ll stick this here because of the picture–but maybe it should be a QOTD.

    Has anyone ever heard the unattributed claim that “The Civil War began and ended in Brunswick, Maine”?

    Well, Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote Uncle Tom’s Cabin at Bowdoin when hubby taught there. And one Joshua Chamberlain, a Bowdoin teacher on “sabbatical” in a Maine regiment, was the recipient of the Confederate surrender at Appomattox.

    No hijack intended.

    In my first draft I alluded to some of Bowdoin’s interesting history but it did not survive the follow-up from Mr. Occam.

    • #11
  12. Headedwest Coolidge
    Headedwest
    @Headedwest

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    I have long suspected that societies grow more risk-averse as they “advance,” whatever we mean by that term. For me, this always brings to mind those videos of celebratory gunfire at Mid-Eastern weddings. Another is the relatively recent insistence that kids wear helmets when riding bicycles around the neighborhood. Back in the 80s and 90s, when I was riding my bicycle for miles at a time, bicycle helmets were readily available at Wal-Mart, but we didn’t give much thought to wearing them. Maybe if we were doing some kind of trick-riding, or something.

    In my lifetime a farmer (or anybody, actually) could walk into a store and buy dynamite and fuses.  It was on the buyer to know how to use it.  

    I have a postcard picturing a truck full of nitroglycerine driving down the main street of a town in the oil region of Pennsylvania.  (The oil producers used it to “shoot the well” — an early form of fracking.)  The risk of driving a load of nitroglycerine around for a living seems excessive, but they did it.  A sharp enough impact on the container would set it off.

    So, yes, people assumed more risk not that many years ago.

    • #12
  13. Samuel Block Support
    Samuel Block
    @SamuelBlock

    Ole’ B!

    As always, I like your style. My guess, as a relative newcomer to humanity, is that so many have become devoid of a sense of meaningfulness – that is to say, there own sense that what they’ve been up to has been of some value to posterity is lacking. Whatever there tendencies might be, they assume they’ve got something to add, and, as a result, they’ve got another crisis that they must live through in order to finally figure out what it is that they have to contribute. 

    Thankfully, you are graced by the presence of millennials, like myself, who can educate you on complicated concepts – like privilege!  

    What we Awoken Ones understand is that disease is bad. We don’t like it, and – like seriously – someone should do something about it! We appreciate the systemic structures of societal systems….. so, naturally, we are unsurprised by the disproportionality of the way CoViD has senselessly attacked non-white communities that refused to overreact to something that CNN belatedly acknowledged to be a big deal. 

    But it is worth noting that we are a venomously vindictive bunch of youngsters! It ought to go without saying that we’ll complain endlessly about how you adults failed us if you don’t manage to fix all of this!

      — What’s my opinion, you ask? 

    Let them eat Toaster Strudel!  

    (Or, we “Conservatives” can start making a stink…)

    • #13
  14. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    I have long suspected that societies grow more risk-averse as they “advance,” whatever we mean by that term. For me, this always brings to mind those videos of celebratory gunfire at Mid-Eastern weddings. Another is the relatively recent insistence that kids wear helmets when riding bicycles around the neighborhood. Back in the 80s and 90s, when I was riding my bicycle for miles at a time, bicycle helmets were readily available at Wal-Mart, but we didn’t give much thought to wearing them. Maybe if we were doing some kind of trick-riding, or something.

    There have been studies that show the more protection a person has, the greater the risks he will take. Similar to how narrow, tree-lined streets will cause people to drive slower versus wide open streets. 

    • #14
  15. Headedwest Coolidge
    Headedwest
    @Headedwest

    There is another aspect to risk; better protective equipment probably leads you take more risk.  Case in point: football helmets.

    In the 1950s and 1960s football helmets were not really very protective.  Today, the helmets are much better by objective standards.  Yet, football players get as many (or more, maybe; there is an issue of measuring) concussions.  How can that be?

    I would argue that good helmets induce players to take more risks.  It allows them to “head hunt” by using their helmet as a weapon against a ball carrier.  Note how many times you see a defensive player NOT tackle the ball carrier; instead they go in head first to blow him up with the idea that they can possibly dislodge the ball or (if you are a cynic like me) injure the ball carrier.  Often the arms are not used much at all.

    This is not how football used to be played.  A few years ago, I spent many, many hours (that could have otherwise been used productively) watching youtube clips of NFL games in the 50s and 60s.  The interesting thing about this was that the defensive tackling was nothing like it is now.  Nobody ever lead with their helmet against an opponent.  They tackled by wrapping up the ball carrier with their arms.  With the helmets of the era, it would hurt a lot to use it as a spear, so they didn’t do it. So it seems to me that the “blow up” non-tackle is probably the result of improved helmets. And that is not good for your health.

    Caveat: I have to say that I don’t know on balance if they were better off in the past in terms of brain injuries.  They did avoid using their helmets as weapons, but certainly they had accidental helmet collisions.  That, plus the lack of medical care for head injuries may be a bigger factor than the style of tackling.

    But it is an example of where improved safety equipment allows for more risky behavior.  People have made similar arguments for seat belts, air bags, and improved handling and braking systems in cars.

    • #15
  16. SpiritO'78 Inactive
    SpiritO'78
    @SpiritO78

    Headedwest (View Comment):

    There is another aspect to risk; better protective equipment probably leads you take more risk. Case in point: football helmets.

    In the 1950s and 1960s football helmets were not really very protective. Today, the helmets are much better by objective standards. Yet, football players get as many (or more, maybe; there is an issue of measuring) concussions. How can that be?

    I would argue that good helmets induce players to take more risks. It allows them to “head hunt” by using their helmet as a weapon against a ball carrier. Note how many times you see a defensive player NOT tackle the ball carrier; instead they go in head first to blow him up with the idea that they can possibly dislodge the ball or (if you are a cynic like me) injure the ball carrier. Often the arms are not used much at all.

    This is not how football used to be played. A few years ago, I spent many, many hours (that could have otherwise been used productively) watching youtube clips of NFL games in the 50s and 60s. The interesting thing about this was that the defensive tackling was nothing like it is now. Nobody ever lead with their helmet against an opponent. They tackled by wrapping up the ball carrier with their arms. With the helmets of the era, it would hurt a lot to use it as a spear, so they didn’t do it. So it seems to me that the “blow up” non-tackle is probably the result of improved helmets. And that is not good for your health.

    The facemask adds to the level of comfort with hard hits too. Take away the mask and guys will take fewer chances. They certainly won’t lead with their head on tackles

    • #16
  17. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    I think that tackling low years ago was because it is a far more effective way to bring a runner down. It was gospel to the coaches I had as a kid. They also taught how to hi-low block a rusher which was dangerous as hell.  

    In the very old days, there was considerably more violence and death. See the 1905 reports of college football.

    But I agree that the hi tech protections on increasingly larger and faster men means that the still-vulnerable parts of the anatomy (e.g., brains, tendons and cartilage) are more likely to sustain damage.

    • #17
  18. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Misthiocracy held his nose and (View Comment):
    Now, ask yourself, do you want to live in Nunavut

    There was a time when I would have jumped at a chance to live in Nunavut, if I could have convinced my wife. But I wouldn’t have wanted to spend the rest of my life there. I had seen an ad for a system administrator job in a very remote medical facility in the Alaskan arctic, and thought I would have been very qualified. But my wife was not interested.

    • #18
  19. OmegaPaladin Moderator
    OmegaPaladin
    @OmegaPaladin

    Public health has been defined as successive definitions of what is unacceptable.  Lots of kids died in 1890, and people accepted it, not because they liked seeing their children die, but because they knew there was nothing they could do to stop it.  If someone had been shooting the same number of kids with a gatling gun, the 1890s US would have killed the man as soon as possible.  There are lots of diseases that used to be completely incurable, but are currently largely curable or treatable.  Right now, people believe they can do something to stop COVID-19.

    Old Bathos: Have we lost perspective about risks?

    People are horrible about perceiving risks.  Witness anti-vaxxers, anti-nuclear environmentalists, and anti-GMO types. 

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    I wonder how many deaths were just postponed by the lockdowns?

    Well, in the end there is no permanently saved life, just more years on the Earth, more time clawed from the Grim Reaper.  Personally, I think it would be awesome to live forever, but I don’t see it in the cards.

    • #19
  20. Charlotte Member
    Charlotte
    @Charlotte

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):
    Personally, I think it would be awesome to live forever

    Really?? Why?? The idea (of me living forever, not you) gives me the willies.

    • #20
  21. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):
    Personally, I think it would be awesome to live forever

    Really?? Why?? The idea (of me living forever, not you) gives me the willies.

    “Forever” would cause problems for the young ones.  So we should just be satisfied with longer. 

    • #21
  22. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):
    People are horrible about perceiving risks. Witness anti-vaxxers, anti-nuclear environmentalists, and anti-GMO types. 

    Yes, and it’s all of us really. We all have irrational fears.

    I dislike air travel, although not enough to be considered phobic. But, it’s totally irrational given I’ll hop in the car (and with these gas prices, I wish I had somewhere to go!!) and drive 70 mph in traffic without much thought — a much riskier activity than air travel. Risk assessment is not a human strength. 

    We even have a family member who retired from risk management who is convinced she has a one in three chance of dying in the hospital from something contracted there. Maybe with COVID in the mix that’s slightly more accurate, but I doubt it.

    • #22
  23. Aaron Miller Inactive
    Aaron Miller
    @AaronMiller

    Was germ theory generally believed in the US before the 20th century?

    Even today, the accusation of “germophobe” exists because there is great division among people about the degrees of danger germs pose and what lifestyle adaptations are merited. In the 1890s, common people probably ignored however many “experts” warned about pandemic germs. 

    It’s always a little sad when one generation dismisses as completely intolerable the simpler habits of previous generations. How did Grandma ever clean without Lysol and bleach by the barrel?

    • #23
  24. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Aaron Miller (View Comment):

    Was germ theory generally believed in the US before the 20th century?

    Even today, the accusation of “germophobe” exists because there is great division among people about the degrees of danger germs pose and what lifestyle adaptations are merited. In the 1890s, common people probably ignored however many “experts” warned about pandemic germs.

    It’s always a little sad when one generation dismisses as completely intolerable the simpler habits of previous generations. How did Grandma ever clean without Lysol and bleach by the barrel?

    It has sometimes surprised me how well people understood dangers of infection from epidemic diseases, even without a germ theory. Their understanding was often fatally flawed, but there was much that was understood. I’m currently reading a history of the Revolutionary War in which smallpox inoculation plays a small role. George Washington was in favor of inoculation, but there were times and places where American soldiers were ordered not to receive inoculation. So they sometimes disobeyed orders and inoculated each other using techniques that weren’t as safe as they could have been even for those days.

    A lot of my bicycling involves rides to the places of anecdotes from the 1832 Black Hawk War. A worldwide cholera epidemic, the worst one to hit the United States, is part of that story. Cholera came to Michigan along with the soldiers sent to take over the fighting. General Winfield Scott expected it would happen, but didn’t completely know what to do about it other than isolate the soldiers when they got to Chicago, so they wouldn’t infect the militias and army that were already in the fight.  But on the way he stopped at Detroit to get some weapons from the federal armory at Dearborn, and cholera came to Michigan, too.  The early settlers of Michigan were terrified by it, and tried to suppress the spread of cholera with roadblocks on the Chicago Road, but it spread anyway. One of the survivors of a large family that was mostly wiped out is buried a few miles from our house. The bacterium was easily spread through fecal material in water supplies. Better personal hygiene would have helped in a lot of cases. 

    • #24
  25. Misthiocracy held his nose and Member
    Misthiocracy held his nose and
    @Misthiocracy

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy held his nose and (View Comment):
    Now, ask yourself, do you want to live in Nunavut

    There was a time when I would have jumped at a chance to live in Nunavut, if I could have convinced my wife. But I wouldn’t have wanted to spend the rest of my life there. I had seen an ad for a system administrator job in a very remote medical facility in the Alaskan arctic, and thought I would have been very qualified. But my wife was not interested.

    Alaska and Nunavut are very different paradigms.  Alaska has trees, and soil, diverse wildlife, and regular transportation via air, sea, and highway to facilitate trade.  Nunavut is rock, ice, sea mammals, and limited transportation to import supplies and with virtually no export products to speak of.

    • #25
  26. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    It does seem that the more we are able to moderate risks the more we expect to be able to eliminate risks. Because we have seen so much success with medical and pharmaceutical technology in recent years, we today tend to expect medical and pharmaceutical technology to solve everything. Children’s playgrounds are now safer than they were years ago because of better grip on structure surfaces and more impact-absorbing surfaces underneath. But that increase in safety leads at least some people to believe that it is now possible to eliminate all risks of playground injury. 

    I am more familiar with safety in auto racing than in football. In worldwide auto racing, fifty years ago death was an almost weekly occurrence. Safety features added to cars and to race tracks mean that deaths are now relatively rare, to the point that many spectators are shocked when a death does occur. 

    And those same safety features do encourage race car drivers to drive faster and to take more risks because the probability of serious injury or death is still lower than it was before the safety features were introduced. 

    • #26
  27. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Misthiocracy held his nose and (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy held his nose and (View Comment):
    Now, ask yourself, do you want to live in Nunavut

    There was a time when I would have jumped at a chance to live in Nunavut, if I could have convinced my wife. But I wouldn’t have wanted to spend the rest of my life there. I had seen an ad for a system administrator job in a very remote medical facility in the Alaskan arctic, and thought I would have been very qualified. But my wife was not interested.

    Alaska and Nunavut are very different paradigms. Alaska has trees, and soil, diverse wildlife, and regular transportation via air, sea, and highway to facilitate trade. Nunavut is rock, ice, sea mammals, and limited transportation to import supplies and with virtually no export products to speak of.

    Alaska is different, but the Alaskan arctic is not quite as different. Not quite the same, either. I would not have been interested in living in Alaska below the Arctic Circle. A sister of mine lived at Fairbanks for a few years, but I wanted to go further north. One of our best family trips was to the Canadian arctic, but that was before Nunavut existed. We got to the Arctic Circle at the summer solstice, or maybe it was the day before, and took a midnight charter flight from Inuvik up to Tuktoyaktuk. I seem to remember some brush in the river bottom, but it was north of anything you could call a tree. I used to devour stories of life north of the treeline, or even out on the Arctic ice, so it was pretty exciting to actually get to go there and drag my wife, kids, and parents along, too. The first ocean our two boys ever saw up close was the Arctic.

    One of the requirements in the job ad had to do with being able to interact with the native people. I figured that my experience going to high school on the edge of an Indian reservation gave me some experience on that score, too. Our principal told my parents that I was the only one in school who got along with both the Indians and the whites. But they were almost all strangers to me when I started, and I wasn’t observant enough to notice any real racial tensions until he mentioned it.

     

     

    • #27
  28. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    It does seem that the more we are able to moderate risks the more we expect to be able to eliminate risks. Because we have seen so much success with medical and pharmaceutical technology in recent years, we today tend to expect medical and pharmaceutical technology to solve everything. Children’s playgrounds are now safer than they were years ago because of better grip on structure surfaces and more impact-absorbing surfaces underneath. But that increase in safety leads at least some people to believe that it is now possible to eliminate all risks of playground injury.

    I am more familiar with safety in auto racing than in football. In worldwide auto racing, fifty years ago death was an almost weekly occurrence. Safety features added to cars and to race tracks mean that deaths are now relatively rare, to the point that many spectators are shocked when a death does occur.

    And those same safety features do encourage race car drivers to drive faster and to take more risks because the probability of serious injury or death is still lower than it was before the safety features were introduced.

    I used to go to Watkins Glen NY years ago. In its early years, they did Grand Prix racing through the town which was incredibly risky to bystanders and buildings as well as the drivers. By the 1970s it was probably far more dangerous to be among the drunks in the peripheral crowds than to be competing on the track.

    • #28
  29. CarolJoy, Above Top Secret Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Above Top Secret
    @CarolJoy

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio&hellip; (View Comment):

    Old Bathos: An event that at its worst will not add more than a fraction of a percentage point to the nation’s death rate has driven us into hiding and obeisance to some of the most mediocre people our society has ever produced.

    I like your general point, but this is an exaggeration. The US death rate is about 8.88 per 1,000, so we expect annual deaths of about 2.9 million. The roughly 45,000 COVID-19 deaths so far is 1.5% of the annual total.

    My latest estimate is that the ultimate death toll will be around 425,000 in the US (with broad uncertainty, and this is for more than the first wave). If correct, this would be closer to 14-15% of annual deaths.

    It is quite possible that a significant proportion of people who are classified as having died from COVID-19 would die anyway, from something else, as the data suggests that fatalities tend to occur among the old and sick. I haven’t seen this quantified yet.

    All the recent surveys ar showing something quite opposite your 425,000 deaths.

    It looks like in California, some 12% of us have already had COVID 19. (Citation at end of comment)

    Most of us probably are not aware of when we had it – symptoms are mild unless an individual is really troubled by it.

    90% of the deaths in California are actually COVID as a contributing factor, that is, the virus hit the deceased  hard due to being extremely elderly, having COPD, major heart problems, uncontrolled diabetes, cancer or some other serious ailments.

    The two doctors in this report have done the math and it indicates that the death rate from COVID is 0.03 percent – which is still rather nasty, with 3 deaths per ten thousand of all cases. But that is a far cry from the 7 deaths per 200 cases that brought us into this pandemic status.

    The other thing, the doctors examined two separate societies and how Sweden remained open while Norway remained shut down. But both  approaches ended up with a proportionately similar mortality rate -So once that fact is established,  it is obvious we do not need this shelter in place.

    Also they mention all the bigger players who agree with them, like Hospital admins, County Public Health Officials and others. The big problem holding everything up is Gov Gavin Newsom.

    https://bakersfieldnow.com/news/coronavirus/accelerated-urgent-care-provides-statistical-update-on-covid-19

     

    • #29
  30. CarolJoy, Above Top Secret Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Above Top Secret
    @CarolJoy

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):
    People are horrible about perceiving risks. Witness anti-vaxxers, anti-nuclear environmentalists, and anti-GMO types.

    Yes, and it’s all of us really. We all have irrational fears.

    I dislike air travel, although not enough to be considered phobic. But, it’s totally irrational given I’ll hop in the car (and with these gas prices, I wish I had somewhere to go!!) and drive 70 mph in traffic without much thought — a much riskier activity than air travel. Risk assessment is not a human strength.

    We even have a family member who retired from risk management who is convinced she has a one in three chance of dying in the hospital from something contracted there. Maybe with COVID in the mix that’s slightly more accurate, but I doubt it.

    Which part of air travel upsets you most? Take offs, landings or the  whole thing?

    As far as the family member, I think if you were analyzing risks inside hospitals all the time, it would make you leery of being in one.

    I became compulsive about hand washing while doing elder care. It was not just the constant admonishments from people about hand washing being important, it was also the stress I sometimes dealt with. Soon after going into semi-retirement, I left the compulsive hand washing behind.

    I also think it is sort of funny the emphasis on not touching your face, while people will touch their feet and their shoes and then what?

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.