4 ms·

> "Why is the WHO concerned about the economy?" Don't you see that this is always a tradeoff? If the economy tanks, people lose their jobs, which could result

by WA 7y ago

> "Why is the WHO concerned about the economy?" Don't you see that this is always a tradeoff? If the economy tanks, people lose their jobs, which could result in a lot more social unrest than if a virus spreads around the world. I think it's tough to contain a virus like that with such a long incubation time. But the early efforts might have slowed the virus down somewhat at first, giving us more time to develop vaccines.

raducu 7y ago
There's no tradeoff if you never actually trade, is there? There's not actually any wise balance and other mumbo-jumbo fart-heads in the WTO like to spew out, if under no circumstance do you ban travelling or take any meaningful action. It's just words for the idiots to feel secure while all it really matters is economic growth. I'd love to be proven otherwise, but then, under what circumstances would WTO advice a full ban on travel to/from China? Perhaps never? There you have it. Just words after the fact, rationalizing inaction to two year olds -- "there's nothing to worry about", "the chinese are taking outstanding measures", "maybe there's something to worry about, but mah economy", "perhaps its too late to contain this"
hurricanetc 7y ago
I find that argument fundamentally flawed. Travel bans are momentarily painful and the unrest is localized. The world economy would feel the pain but most nations would be spared. Compare that to what might happen when this virus hits NYC. There will be a run on cash and groceries. People will stop commuting. Schools will close. Restaurants and shops will be empty. Now consider the same thing happening in Seoul, Berlin, London, San Francisco, etc. The economic impacts from this could be catastrophic. And the most ironic thing is that if this truly does get out of hand we will get travel bans. Nations will close their borders. People will willingly (and forcefully) stop traveling via boat or air. We'll circle back to needing travel bans and the only price we'll have paid is millions of lives and a global economic catastrophe. All so that we could avoid some minor short term economic pain.

by WA 7y ago

raducu 7y ago

There's no tradeoff if you never actually trade, is there? There's not actually any wise balance and other mumbo-jumbo fart-heads in the WTO like to spew out, if under no circumstance do you ban travelling or take any meaningful action. It's just words for the idiots to feel secure while all it really matters is economic growth. I'd love to be proven otherwise, but then, under what circumstances would WTO advice a full ban on travel to/from China? Perhaps never? There you have it. Just words after the fact, rationalizing inaction to two year olds -- "there's nothing to worry about", "the chinese are taking outstanding measures", "maybe there's something to worry about, but mah economy", "perhaps its too late to contain this"

hurricanetc 7y ago

I find that argument fundamentally flawed. Travel bans are momentarily painful and the unrest is localized. The world economy would feel the pain but most nations would be spared. Compare that to what might happen when this virus hits NYC. There will be a run on cash and groceries. People will stop commuting. Schools will close. Restaurants and shops will be empty. Now consider the same thing happening in Seoul, Berlin, London, San Francisco, etc. The economic impacts from this could be catastrophic. And the most ironic thing is that if this truly does get out of hand we will get travel bans. Nations will close their borders. People will willingly (and forcefully) stop traveling via boat or air. We'll circle back to needing travel bans and the only price we'll have paid is millions of lives and a global economic catastrophe. All so that we could avoid some minor short term economic pain.