Running the Risks: Providing Perspective For COVID-19

DevilsAdvocator

At the present time, in the first world, there’s currently estimated to be a 0.3–0.68% chance of death from COVID-19 infection, according to the WHO, per annum. And it's long since become clear that only c.25% of those who’ve been infected display any symptoms at all, with only 1–1.5% of actual COVID-19 cases being severe enough to warrant hospitalization here in the UK. And that even at the upper limit of estimated susceptibility to reinfection, of 17%/6 months (according to a new study, conveniently published and released to the global media within 10 minutes of Trump's 2nd impeachment, in spite of having been conducted and completed more than 4 months earlier)- by which criteria, if applied consistently, none of the vaccines currently being produced and distributed are even half as effective at conveying herd immunity than the virus itself, with the largest, most comprehensive and longest-running actual case study conducted thus far actually showing that NHS workers who'd been infected with COVID-19 were more than 99% less likely to contract COVID-19 again, and that NONE of the unlucky few who were reinfected displayed any symptoms whatsoever, or suffered any ill effects, upon reinfection by COVID-19- there’d only be a 50–50 chance of being re-infected once every 3yrs. Doing the math, even for the doom-mongers' absolute worst-case scenario figures- that equates to a risk of death by COVID-19 of 0.1–0.23% per annum, at the absolute maximum (as opposed to a minimum of 0.03–0.07% per annum, even in the event that 100% of the population gets vaccinated, with the highest rate of vaccine effectiveness currently advertised, of 95%/6 months). And there's also an absolute, lifetime risk, of no more than 1.6% (or 0.08-0.8% after you've been vaccinated, depending on which vaccine you're lucky/unlucky enough to get), of being infected severely enough to suffer potentially permanently debilitating after-effects (aka ‘Long COVID’).

Running the Risks: Providing Perspective For COVID-19

And of course, that would be with the assumption that literally everyone on earth would be infected with COVID-19, instantly and automatically, as soon as their immune systems (or the vaccines) no longer protected them from it. In actuality, after factoring in the actual spread of COVID-19, and the fact that, even if 100% of the global population were to eventually contract COVID-19, given that it's only contagious for c.10 days after symptoms first appear, and is less contagious than the flu for asymptomatic carriers, no more than 1% of the general population could ever be actively transmitting COVID-19 at any given time; reducing the actual, practical risks of death, and permanent injury, posed by COVID-19 by roughly 20-40 times. So then, how does all of this actually add up? One Micromort is a unit of risk, defined as one-in-a-million chance of death, which can be used to measure riskiness of various day-to-day activities. A microprobability is a one-in-a million chance of some event; thus a micromort is the microprobability of death. To put just how deadly COVID-19 is into perspective, shedding light on the true scale of the "unprecedented", and "existential" threat it poses to all of our survival- after crunching the numbers, COVID-19 comes out with a value of 115 micromorts/annum, at the absolute maximum (in which case, it'd also still have a minimum value of 35 micromorts/annum even after a successfully completed 100% vaccination program, conveying universal herd immunity to the global population). Or, based upon the science, an absolute minimum of 75-80 micromorts over the course of the average person's entire lifespan. So then, let's take a look at a few other activities which pose just as great a risk to people's lives, to provide some much-needed context:

Running the Risks: Providing Perspective For COVID-19

At COVID-19's maximum estimated risk-to-life of 115 micromorts/annum for the general population, that's just 7% more than the risk-to-life of 107 micromorts/annum which you'll incur just by walking the recommended distance of 10,000 steps per day- with an estimated risk of death (by accident- e.g, falling, collision etc.) of 1 micromort for every 17 miles, or 34,000 steps, that you take on foot. And if you're jogging or running, rather than walking, you'd better watch out! Doing so increases the risk factor by 4-5 times, adding 1 micromort for every 7,500 steps you jog, and rendering the average annual risk of death from COVID-19 for the general population, even without vaccination, roughly equivalent to the risk incurred by jogging 430 miles. Are you too scared to walk the recommended distance every day, or to jog a mere 2,200 steps every day, to keep in shape- is the risk of dying, in the event that you trip and fall, or get run over by a car, too much for you to handle?

Running the Risks: Providing Perspective For COVID-19

Or to provide another analogy- here in the UK, the recommended maximum alcohol intake is 14 units (0.14 liters) of alcohol per week. And over the course of a full year, this would equate to a death risk of just over 121 micromorts- making this level of alcohol consumption ever-so-slightly riskier, and deadlier, than COVID-19 is. As for smoking, the maximum estimated risk-to-life of 115 micromorts/annum for the general population posed by COVID-19 equates to roughly the same as smoking 160 cigarettes/annum, less than one every other day (or to smoking 105 in one's entire lifetime). And as for cannabis, the liberals' great poster child for legalization and wholesale commercialization, under the premise that it's perfectly harmless and benign? The consumption of a single gram of (unconcentrated) cannabis carries a death risk of 1.5 micromorts, and with the average Californian, last year, consuming 110 grams of cannabis per annum, the average Californian's level of cannabis consumption poses a 43% greater risk to their lives (165 micromorts) than COVID-19 does.

As for the essentials of life- just the act of giving birth, even in the first world, carries a risk of 120-170 micromorts, depending on the method of delivery. As such, getting pregnant, and carrying a baby to full-term, poses a greater risk to any woman's life than COVID-19 does to the general population. And at 115 micromorts per annum, the mortality risk of COVID-19, even without protection (i.e, vaccination), is roughly equivalent to the mortality risk you'd face as a result of having unprotected heterosexual intercourse on a twice-weekly basis, or by engaging in just two acts of unprotected anal sex (with vaccination against COVID-19 reducing the mortality risks to be roughly on a par with those which you'd face as a result of doing either of these with condoms). As such, if you're too scared to ever contemplate having children, as a woman, or as a man, too afraid of STDs to risk being sexually active (with or without a condom), feel free to remove yourselves from the gene pool as you see fit. But if you're brave enough to take those chances, then logically, you should be brave enough to face the risk posed by COVID-19 too.

So then, in conclusion, if you still think it’s stupid and retarded to take the “unnecessary risks” of continuing any of these “unnecessary acts and social practices", and you refuse to do so, that’s completely fair- the decision whether or not you’re prepared to take those risks is up to you, and you’re perfectly entitled to refuse to ever walk anywhere again, go teetotal, and swear to never ever engage in unprotected baby-making sex (or anal sex) in your life. But declaring that no-one else should ever have the freedom to do any of these things ever again, because “the risks are too high, no-one should be allowed to, because I'm too scared to do it myself”? That's not just cowardice, that's full-blown red-pilled incel-level talk. And in the end, when it comes down to it, that's what the lockdown proponents and advocates are- nothing more than incels, determined to remove all tolerance for risks in the world, along with all of the things which used to make life worth living, in the name of 'survival' and puerile jealousy. I'm not a COVID incel- are you?

Running the Risks: Providing Perspective For COVID-19
0
1
Add Opinion

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

01
  • kimbim
    I'm just waiting my turn, and when I get the call, I'll go get the little prick like so many times before.

    Some of my friends had this disease, and they say it's pretty nasty. Couple of them are still battling the lingering effects now, months later.

    So yes, I don't see any sane educated reason not to. We get so many vaccines anyway, especially those of us who travel a lot.

    Last year I think I got shot 3 times within that one year, I was going to Ukraine and Japan, and I live in both Denmark and the USA simultaneously, so I get a ton of vaccines.

    I thought about getting one of those microchips, but the needle to put a microchip in is so big that even I don't want that.

Share the first opinion in your gender
and earn 1 more Xper point!

Loading...