4 ms·

> taking extremely disruptive steps to minimize spread of the virus is only worthwhile (in any sense) if it actually works China has demonstrated that disrupti

> 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.

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.