3 ms·

From the perspective of the government, this might be literally true. 0.2% mortality rate for people of working age, so if we assume an average of 25 more produ

From the perspective of the government, this might be literally true. 0.2% mortality rate for people of working age, so if we assume an average of 25 more productive years then that's losing (0.002 * 25 years = 18.26 days) a bit less than three weeks of productivity per person. Add in another week off for everyone who gets the virus, and there's less work disruption from having people continue as normal, take time off when they get sick, and go back to work than there would be from "quarantine everyone for a month", like China did in Wuhan. (This means that you lose >20% of your retiree population, of course - but that's not really a downside from the perspective of someone looking at Social Security contributions and actuarial tables)

TeMPOraL 7y ago
Indeed. And honestly, I'm not sure if I could blame anyone in government for thinking this way. In our industry, majority of companies can easily continue operating under WFH regime. But most other industries can't. The damage to the economy must be kept in check, or otherwise the virus will be the least of everyone's worry. Quarantine is livable for as long as enough food is still made and delivered for everyone, and utilities are maintained.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  Not to mention that taking extremely disruptive steps to minimize spread of the virus is only worthwhile (in any sense) if it actually works. I could certainly see the CDC determining that it wouldn't work, even with a month-long shelter-in-place order - and while consigning a few percent of the population to death-by-superflu is harsh, having those people die despite giving the economy a 10% haircut for the year would be worse.
  - marvin 7y ago
    Disruptive self-quarantines serve a purpose even in the case of an out-of-control epidemic. The mortality rate isn't very high, but the number of hospital beds for severe cases are limited. Ditto the number of diseased people who can be away from work at once without having disproportionate effects on society. A 10% sick rate might be managable over the course of a year, but a 60% sick rate over two months is probably not. Aggressive self-quarantines reduces the peak number of diseased, and hence improves both the prospects of both the seriously ill (who will have medical treatment available) and society's ability to keep functioning while the epidemic runs its course.
  - pbourke 7y ago
    > taking extremely disruptive steps to minimize spread of the virus is only worthwhile (in any sense) if it actually works China has demonstrated that disruptive steps have flattened the epidemic curve. > having those people die despite giving the economy a 10% haircut for the year would be worse Do you imagine that there is a society in which this stupid Sophie’s Choice hypothetical actually plays out as you suggest? If an uncontained pandemic is hospitalizing and killing their friends and relatives and overwhelming the healthcare system, do you think people will (a) show up to work and be productive and (b) continue to spend money as they did prior to the pandemic in order to sustain economic growth? An uncontained pandemic is ipso facto an economic threat. Flattening the epidemic curve is good for people’s health and good for the economy.
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      > China has demonstrated that disruptive steps have flattened the epidemic curve. Sure, China's demonstrated that "one person from your apartment complex can leave to buy supplies every two days"-tier restrictions can have positive effect. But, again, that only works if a high percentage of people follow it, and there's a lot of people in the states who'd very much not. > Do you imagine that there is a society in which this stupid Sophie’s Choice hypothetical actually plays out as you suggest? Sure - one where the young don't die to the disease despite catching it. Flattening the curve can be useful, but only in moderately severe situations - small outbreaks can be handled without flattening (this probably won't be the case here), in a 'moderate' outbreak flattening brings the peak within hospital capacity, and in a severe outbreak the 'flattened' curve is still far above the capacity of the medical system to handle. And an unconstrained spread of COVID-19 would be 'severe' by this criteria.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

Indeed. And honestly, I'm not sure if I could blame anyone in government for thinking this way. In our industry, majority of companies can easily continue operating under WFH regime. But most other industries can't. The damage to the economy must be kept in check, or otherwise the virus will be the least of everyone's worry. Quarantine is livable for as long as enough food is still made and delivered for everyone, and utilities are maintained.

DuskStar 7y ago
Not to mention that taking extremely disruptive steps to minimize spread of the virus is only worthwhile (in any sense) if it actually works. I could certainly see the CDC determining that it wouldn't work, even with a month-long shelter-in-place order - and while consigning a few percent of the population to death-by-superflu is harsh, having those people die despite giving the economy a 10% haircut for the year would be worse.
- marvin 7y ago
  Disruptive self-quarantines serve a purpose even in the case of an out-of-control epidemic. The mortality rate isn't very high, but the number of hospital beds for severe cases are limited. Ditto the number of diseased people who can be away from work at once without having disproportionate effects on society. A 10% sick rate might be managable over the course of a year, but a 60% sick rate over two months is probably not. Aggressive self-quarantines reduces the peak number of diseased, and hence improves both the prospects of both the seriously ill (who will have medical treatment available) and society's ability to keep functioning while the epidemic runs its course.
- pbourke 7y ago
  > taking extremely disruptive steps to minimize spread of the virus is only worthwhile (in any sense) if it actually works China has demonstrated that disruptive steps have flattened the epidemic curve. > having those people die despite giving the economy a 10% haircut for the year would be worse Do you imagine that there is a society in which this stupid Sophie’s Choice hypothetical actually plays out as you suggest? If an uncontained pandemic is hospitalizing and killing their friends and relatives and overwhelming the healthcare system, do you think people will (a) show up to work and be productive and (b) continue to spend money as they did prior to the pandemic in order to sustain economic growth? An uncontained pandemic is ipso facto an economic threat. Flattening the epidemic curve is good for people’s health and good for the economy.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    > China has demonstrated that disruptive steps have flattened the epidemic curve. Sure, China's demonstrated that "one person from your apartment complex can leave to buy supplies every two days"-tier restrictions can have positive effect. But, again, that only works if a high percentage of people follow it, and there's a lot of people in the states who'd very much not. > Do you imagine that there is a society in which this stupid Sophie’s Choice hypothetical actually plays out as you suggest? Sure - one where the young don't die to the disease despite catching it. Flattening the curve can be useful, but only in moderately severe situations - small outbreaks can be handled without flattening (this probably won't be the case here), in a 'moderate' outbreak flattening brings the peak within hospital capacity, and in a severe outbreak the 'flattened' curve is still far above the capacity of the medical system to handle. And an unconstrained spread of COVID-19 would be 'severe' by this criteria.