4 ms·

I'm lucky enough to work remotely so if schools do close, I can still earn a living while the kids are at home. I can't even imagine what kind of hell it's goin

I'm lucky enough to work remotely so if schools do close, I can still earn a living while the kids are at home. I can't even imagine what kind of hell it's going to bring parents if schools shut down for any extended period of time. Same thing with small businesses - shutting them down is really going to hurt local economies. In my city, small business are about to shut down because of construction on a main stretch of road where people would ordinarily find parking. With no parking spaces, the businesses are on the verge of collapsing due to lack of customers. A shut-down due to this virus would really be catastrophic.

ianlevesque 7y ago
Sure, but killing 2% of the world population instead of closing down a couple stores also seems bad.
- leesec 7y ago
  It's not "a couple stores". On a shutdown of sufficient enough scale, you're going to kill more people by lack of income / products, than by letting the virus run its course.
- throwawayhhakdl 7y ago
  That’s not a fair thing to say. Closing businesses doesn’t guarantee anything about the virus. The halting of economic activity, even temporarily, can devastate people’s lives because it doesn’t always come back and many people already live paycheck to paycheck.
- AncientTree 7y ago
  The 2% figure is misleading, mortality is overwhelmingly restricted to the elderly and particularly those with existing health problems: PRE-EXISTING CONDITION DEATH RATE* Cardiovascular disease 10.5% Diabetes 7.3% Chronic respiratory disease 6.3% Hypertension 6.0% Cancer 5.6% no pre-existing conditions 0.9% AGE DEATH RATE* 80+ years old 14.8% 70-79 years old 8.0% 60-69 years old 3.6% 50-59 years old 1.3% 40-49 years old 0.4% 30-39 years old 0.2% 20-29 years old 0.2% 10-19 years old 0.2% 0-9 years old no fatalities Shutting down the economy and quarantining whole areas will do more harm than the virus. Tens of thousands of Americans already die of the flu and Coronavirus us just a very virulent form of that. I realise that its grim to talk about, but there may actually be economic benefits from the very sickest dying from the virus and thus relieving the burden of large pension and healthcare expenses.
  - davidw 7y ago
    2% of the US population is 6 million people. That's a lot of people. Edit: and it might climb if people aren't getting proper care because the medical system is overloaded.
    - AncientTree 7y ago
      The annual death rate in the USA is 2.8m. The virus will spread throughout the biosphere and become a standard part of the human virus paradigm, like the common cold or flu. The best than can be done is to manage and stage its extent as much as possible, to avoid overwhelming healthcare services all at once. The Japanese seem to have the same idea. Cases should be triaged and medical resources dedicated to those aged 50 and lower, who are still working and in generally good health. The US pension system across many states, companies, and the federal Government itself is unsustainable, so this virus may be the key to bring those programs back into proper operation. Cities like Chicago will face a huge relief as Coronavirus spreads and lessens their pension burden. Additionally, the housing freed up could be used by younger people and families, dramatically improving the quality of life for much of society. Inheritances could be used by younger generations to invest in businesses or upgrade personal living situations. Lower pension and healthcare expenditure will allow lower taxes, perhaps allowing the elimination of payroll taxes. The deaths will be tragic but from a purely economic perspective Coronavirus looks like a major opportunity for Western societies to de-age. We are very lucky that unlike other Pandemics, this virus is restricted to the sick and elderly, and barely impacts the young and healthy, unlike say the Spanish Flu.
      - gbear0 7y ago
        On the premise that this virus does become standard, I've been wondering whether post infection you have a better immunity towards other related SARS-like viruses in the future? In which case, would there potentially be a net positive if SARS-like viruses no longer have the same effect? Is it possible that this could be like getting chickenpox young and protecting you from worse things (measles as adults) in the future? (note: I know nothing when it comes to health related issues like this so I'm assuming it's completely naive thought since I haven't seen anyone else mention anything similar)
vkou 7y ago
> I can't even imagine what kind of hell it's going to bring parents if schools shut down for any extended period of time. It would only be hell because its illegal, not because it's actually a problem. There is no good reason for why you couldn't leave a healthy school-aged child home alone for the duration of a workday. That is, if you've actually raised them well. Billions of people around the world have been raised in an environment where this sort of thing was normal - only a few western countries police this.
- y-c-o-m-b 7y ago
  > only a few western countries police this I don't think this is true at all. I actually immigrated to the US from Iran and even decades ago it wasn't acceptable there either. There was always a parent, grandparent, family member, or neighbor to look after the children. That includes rural areas. > That is, if you've actually raised them well. I don't think it's that simple. I have two kids and the younger one is completely independent requiring less supervision while the older one is dependent on us for everything and needs constant supervision. Their personalities are so drastically different that defining "raising them well" can mean basically anything with hundreds of dynamic factors. I watch a documentary series on YouTube called "Most Dangerous Ways to School" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tg0ipCdiQQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tg0ipCdiQQ) where kids travel to school alone for via dangerous terrain, but in most episodes the parents acknowledge how many kids die attempting to do such things and how dangerous it is. It's far from safe.
- pjlegato 7y ago
  Pushback has begun against legal mandates for helicopter parenting in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-range_parenting#Legal_status_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-range_parenting#Legal_sta... Utah has made it explicitly legal to leave children home alone. In response to a well publicized case where the police initiated a neglect investigation of parents who allowed their children to walk to a nearby park alone, Maryland issued a policy directive specifying that such investigations cannot be initiated solely because children are seen in public alone, without any indication of specific impending harm[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meitiv_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meitiv_incidents

ianlevesque 7y ago

Sure, but killing 2% of the world population instead of closing down a couple stores also seems bad.

leesec 7y ago
It's not "a couple stores". On a shutdown of sufficient enough scale, you're going to kill more people by lack of income / products, than by letting the virus run its course.
throwawayhhakdl 7y ago
That’s not a fair thing to say. Closing businesses doesn’t guarantee anything about the virus. The halting of economic activity, even temporarily, can devastate people’s lives because it doesn’t always come back and many people already live paycheck to paycheck.
AncientTree 7y ago
The 2% figure is misleading, mortality is overwhelmingly restricted to the elderly and particularly those with existing health problems: PRE-EXISTING CONDITION DEATH RATE* Cardiovascular disease 10.5% Diabetes 7.3% Chronic respiratory disease 6.3% Hypertension 6.0% Cancer 5.6% no pre-existing conditions 0.9% AGE DEATH RATE* 80+ years old 14.8% 70-79 years old 8.0% 60-69 years old 3.6% 50-59 years old 1.3% 40-49 years old 0.4% 30-39 years old 0.2% 20-29 years old 0.2% 10-19 years old 0.2% 0-9 years old no fatalities Shutting down the economy and quarantining whole areas will do more harm than the virus. Tens of thousands of Americans already die of the flu and Coronavirus us just a very virulent form of that. I realise that its grim to talk about, but there may actually be economic benefits from the very sickest dying from the virus and thus relieving the burden of large pension and healthcare expenses.
- davidw 7y ago
  2% of the US population is 6 million people. That's a lot of people. Edit: and it might climb if people aren't getting proper care because the medical system is overloaded.
  - AncientTree 7y ago
    The annual death rate in the USA is 2.8m. The virus will spread throughout the biosphere and become a standard part of the human virus paradigm, like the common cold or flu. The best than can be done is to manage and stage its extent as much as possible, to avoid overwhelming healthcare services all at once. The Japanese seem to have the same idea. Cases should be triaged and medical resources dedicated to those aged 50 and lower, who are still working and in generally good health. The US pension system across many states, companies, and the federal Government itself is unsustainable, so this virus may be the key to bring those programs back into proper operation. Cities like Chicago will face a huge relief as Coronavirus spreads and lessens their pension burden. Additionally, the housing freed up could be used by younger people and families, dramatically improving the quality of life for much of society. Inheritances could be used by younger generations to invest in businesses or upgrade personal living situations. Lower pension and healthcare expenditure will allow lower taxes, perhaps allowing the elimination of payroll taxes. The deaths will be tragic but from a purely economic perspective Coronavirus looks like a major opportunity for Western societies to de-age. We are very lucky that unlike other Pandemics, this virus is restricted to the sick and elderly, and barely impacts the young and healthy, unlike say the Spanish Flu.
    - gbear0 7y ago
      On the premise that this virus does become standard, I've been wondering whether post infection you have a better immunity towards other related SARS-like viruses in the future? In which case, would there potentially be a net positive if SARS-like viruses no longer have the same effect? Is it possible that this could be like getting chickenpox young and protecting you from worse things (measles as adults) in the future? (note: I know nothing when it comes to health related issues like this so I'm assuming it's completely naive thought since I haven't seen anyone else mention anything similar)

vkou 7y ago

> I can't even imagine what kind of hell it's going to bring parents if schools shut down for any extended period of time. It would only be hell because its illegal, not because it's actually a problem. There is no good reason for why you couldn't leave a healthy school-aged child home alone for the duration of a workday. That is, if you've actually raised them well. Billions of people around the world have been raised in an environment where this sort of thing was normal - only a few western countries police this.

y-c-o-m-b 7y ago
> only a few western countries police this I don't think this is true at all. I actually immigrated to the US from Iran and even decades ago it wasn't acceptable there either. There was always a parent, grandparent, family member, or neighbor to look after the children. That includes rural areas. > That is, if you've actually raised them well. I don't think it's that simple. I have two kids and the younger one is completely independent requiring less supervision while the older one is dependent on us for everything and needs constant supervision. Their personalities are so drastically different that defining "raising them well" can mean basically anything with hundreds of dynamic factors. I watch a documentary series on YouTube called "Most Dangerous Ways to School" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tg0ipCdiQQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tg0ipCdiQQ) where kids travel to school alone for via dangerous terrain, but in most episodes the parents acknowledge how many kids die attempting to do such things and how dangerous it is. It's far from safe.
pjlegato 7y ago
Pushback has begun against legal mandates for helicopter parenting in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-range_parenting#Legal_status_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-range_parenting#Legal_sta... Utah has made it explicitly legal to leave children home alone. In response to a well publicized case where the police initiated a neglect investigation of parents who allowed their children to walk to a nearby park alone, Maryland issued a policy directive specifying that such investigations cannot be initiated solely because children are seen in public alone, without any indication of specific impending harm[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meitiv_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meitiv_incidents