29 ms·

I'm honestly more worried about the economic toll than I am the health impacts. So many people are going to lose their jobs, their homes, and their healthcare,

I'm honestly more worried about the economic toll than I am the health impacts. So many people are going to lose their jobs, their homes, and their healthcare, if everyone continues to cancel all travel and entertainment. These economic events have real impacts on families for a generation. And service workers will be the hardest hit. The median age of fatal infections is 75. And yet we have healthy 25 year olds holed up in their apartments, hitting local economies hard. It's nonsensical. Most people should be behaving normally with some added protections (like washing their hands), and those who are at high-risk should be protected.

scohesc 7y ago
It doesn't help that the media is blowing it out of proportion as usual. "There's another infected person in [YOUR_COUNTRY] - 10 ways COVID-19 can kill you! You won't BELIEVE number 3!"
- nostromo 7y ago
  I've never had less faith in the people working in the American media than I have today: https://twitter.com/NorthmanTrader/status/1235843592251301888 https://twitter.com/NorthmanTrader/status/123584359225130188... This is a conversation between two respected journalists, from NBC and the New York Times, quoting Twitter as fact, and failing the most basic of simple math questions.
jasonpeacock 7y ago
The way that you protect those at high risk is by not having those 25yr olds go around spreading the virus as asymptomatic carriers. Your logic has the same faults as "I don't need the flu vaccine, I'm not at risk because I'm healthy/young."
btilly 7y ago
Most people should be behaving normally with some added protections (like washing their hands), and those who are at high-risk should be protected. You would think, but you would be wrong. Here is the fundamental math. There is a number called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number which is how many people the average infected person infects in turn. If that figure is above 1, the epidemic spreads and some nontrivial fraction of the total population will get sick. The exact number who catch it is impossible to calculate since the relationship between the basic reproduction number and how many people eventually get the disease is chaotic. But if that figure can be reduced below 1, the disease dies out on its own. It took draconian measures, but this is already happening in China. Public health officials have a variety of strategies available depending on the situation. But the choices from most desirable to least is as follows. 1. If possible, get the basic reproduction number below 1. 2. If not possible, encourage at risk groups to get extra protection so that as the disease sweeps through, as many as possible don't get it. 3. Be overwhelmed. The current strategy is focused on the first option. As noted, the basic reproduction rate is already below 1 in China and the disease is dying out there. If it escapes, the second option will be tried. But an epidemic that hospitalizes 20% of victims and kills 3% will, if we accept #2, leave us quickly at #3. And as much as a temporary slowdown of the economy loses us all, figuring out how to some up with a reasonable substitute for hospitalizing 20% of the country when we don't have medical staff (knowing that a failure to figure it out will result in much higher casualty rates) will have much greater economic impacts. It turns out that we can quantify it. Based on https://www.theglobalist.com/the-cost-of-a-human-life-statistically-speaking/ https://www.theglobalist.com/the-cost-of-a-human-life-statis... it is reasonable to say that we value a human life at about $8 million. If half of 327 million Americans get sick and (as current rates have it, 3.7% of them die, the economic impact is about $48.4 trillion. That is about the same as the US economy for 2 years. If losing 1/4 of our economy for 6 months, and then suffer similar economic damage on the path to recovery, gives us even odds of preventing this, we absolutely should panic. And, as China demonstrates, it IS still possible to prevent this outcome. It will take heroics. But it is possible.
- nostromo 7y ago
  The current fatality rate is not 3.7%. The New England Journal of Medicine suggests it may end up being much less than 1%. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387 > it is reasonable to say that we value a human life at about $8 million We're talking about the very elderly dying a bit earlier than they would have otherwise. Before you accuse me of being heartless, I agree that that is indeed sad and worth mourning. But, no, it is not the same economically as a working-age person or younger dying in large quantities. And keep in mind it's March, and flu season will naturally be on the decline this month.
  - btilly 7y ago
    3.7% is the measured rate in China. Which has the best available data set. Which is why I used it. The CDC has consistently concluded that the real rate will be somewhere in the 2-4% range. There are admittedly researchers who think that cases are severely underreported. However data from other countries has been in line with the Chinese experience. If dramatically more get it, those dramatically more seem to also be less infectious. Given this, it is better to act on the higher end of evidence based estimates and to have possibly overestimated than it is to believe on the low end and find that a higher figure was appropriate. But even if you disagree with that reasoning, dropping all of my figures by a factor of 4 still comes up with figures that justify truly shocking disruptions to our lives. And the basic facts about epidemiology that I gave are still worth understanding.
    - nostromo 7y ago
      You are wrong, that is one of the worst data sets to use, because of so many unidentified cases. Again, see the NEJM: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387 Or any of the better data sets: On the Princess Cruise, a naturally controlled study, the death rate was less than 1%, with a cruise full of old people. Non-Wuhan death rate in China, where more mild cases were identified, ended up being 0.7%. https://www.livescience.com/is-coronavirus-deadly.html https://www.livescience.com/is-coronavirus-deadly.html Goodness, there are so many chicken littles on HN nowadays.
NicolasGorden 7y ago
I honestly believe that the Corona virus is more of an illness of mass psychological fear than it is a Virus. I'm not saying the virus isn't real, or that those who suffer from it aren't real. I'm simply saying that, at least for the US according to the CDC, 260 people have become ill and 14 people dead... which is nothing compared to 300,000,000 entering a state of unreasonable fear. I know people who don't get a yearly flu shot (50,000 dead/year), don't wash their hands before eating (most viral and bacterial infections aren't airborne), smoke (400,000 dead/year), drink (80,000 dead/year) and regularly drive late at night when tired (35,000 dead/year)... yet they are taking every possible precaution against corona virus, because they don't want to be the 15th death. It's so weird. Again, not saying it isn't an issue or doesn't exist or can't become a bigger issue. Just that the fear is so disproportional to the threat, it's mind blowing for me. It feels like some mass psychotic event. I'm just disconnected enough from most people's reality that I can't seem to share in it, so I stand a contrarian outsider like I've always been, scratching my head.
- save_ferris 7y ago
  > the fear is so disproportional to the threat Sadly, this is true for so much of American culture re: our current politics and social fears. We live in a culture that explicitly governs on and trafficks in fear. I don’t think we ever got out of fear mode after 9/11, but reasonable people can disagree here. Also, people aren’t just thinking about themselves, they’re taking into account the risk of transmission to a loved one who’s in a higher-risk age group. I’d hate to contract coronavirus and pass it on to my parents who’re in their 60’s.
  - NicolasGorden 7y ago
    It's odd, the safer our societies become, the more fearful people get. I used to live in a 2nd world country and it seems people were less fearful there, even if they had more to fear. It's like we collectively somehow miss having real things to worry about. I guess the biggest issues in first world countries (heart disease, cancer, suicide, car accidents), are mostly things that boil down to individual internal battles related to our daily choices. And improving those is a humbling, long and not particularly glamorous process. It's grappling with the millions of shortcomings we all know we have and we all know how to fix.
penagwin 7y ago
But those young people interact with old people. We're partially using herd immunity to protect the older folks. At some point they'll need groceries or some other form of care - and cannot maintain sufficient isolation for what you're describing.
- viggity 7y ago
  but we have to slow it down so we can spread out the demands on hospitals over a longer period of time. Drastic measures are working in china. I wish there was another way. Maybe you say it isn't worth it. Maybe you don't have any elderly relatives. The Case Fatality Rate for 60-69 year olds is 3.6%. For 70-79 is is 8%. For 80+ it is an astounding 14.8%.
  - tracker1 7y ago
    What are the average mortality rates for those age groups from before this latest virus? What's the absolute increase in risk over the course of a year? I'd be surprised if it wasn't close to those numbers anyway.
    - dogcomplex 7y ago
      (Can just give you the snippet facts I remember:) It spikes to about a 5x yearly mortality multiplier for those between 50-60, diminishing a bit as you near 80+ (since their natural mortality rate was already high - about 12%(?)). 20-30 year olds have about a 2x multiplier. You're twice as likely to die this year if you get coronavirus. Think it comes out to like - 80+ people are 25-30% likely to die that year total.
pergadad 7y ago
This seems more of a policy issue than an economic issue. In Europe you'll have healthcare and you will keep getting paid when you're in isolation. Kenia or Peru mit lack the budget to do that for their population, the U.S. does not have that problem. It's a choice to value the economic value a person brings over their life, heath and wellbeing and I find it really odd to read a comment such as yours. This doesn't need to hit families and definitely not for generations. It's your national choice, by how you vote and what policies you do and do not accept, that a few weeks out of work means you lose the job, your livelihood and at the top of absurdity also your healthcare. Somehow you've come to consider that as normal but in a country that finds trillions each year to buy overpriced fighter jets or similar things, making the choice to NOT let families go into intergenerational poverty due to a health emergency should really not be that difficult.
- tracker1 7y ago
  While I do largely agree.. in the U.S. the politics are bundled in ways that are largely unable to be agreed upon. The influence of large industries also cannot be underestimated. That also doesn't even consider the issue of the number of politically motivated people working in media that want an economic crisis to unseat Trump. The advent of woke tribalism has been more damaging to both freedom, democracy, sane policy negotiation etc. Stone-walling is now the norm. It's really hard to say how any of this will shake out in the end. If people stay calm, keep about 2 weeks of food/water as a normal point (don't stockpile for months), you can easily overcome any logistical issues. Panic only exacerbates the problems. In the end, some will suffer, but it's like we're overestimating the impact. Worst case, this will probably be similar to the 1932 flu... I don't think it will get even that bad in practice (which was pretty bad). Within a year or 3, it should be fully recovered, unless too many people, do too many stupid things and panic too much, making wierd economic shifts.
  - paulryanrogers 7y ago
    > ...the number of politically motivated people working in media that want an economic crisis to unseat Trump Citations?
deepnotderp 7y ago
1. Young people interact with older people and those with pre existing conditions, and can pass on the disease. 2. More importantly, an unique characteristic of this disease is that although mortality rates for the young are low, hospitalization rates appear to be high, which poses a severe threat of overwhelming hospital systems. The disaster in Wuhan was at least in part due to that and unless precautions are taken, Seattle could be heading that way soon.
- andy_ppp 7y ago
  The solution isn’t stop your life it’s maybe see your parents/grand parents next month...
  - nitwit005 7y ago
    This is imagining a society where no one lives with parents or grandparents, and young people never interact with elderly people not related to them.
- paganel 7y ago
  > The disaster in Wuhan was at least in part due to that and unless precautions are taken, Seattle could be heading that way soon. This is almost happening right now in the Northern Italian region of Lombardy, hence today's mentions by some of the authorities of instituting a red-zone for the region itself (or parts of if, nothing is certain for now). [1] (in Italian) [1] https://milano.repubblica.it/cronaca/2020/03/06/news/coronavirus_l_istituto_superiore_della_sanita_lombardia_zona_rossa_valutazioni_in_corso_-250471354/ https://milano.repubblica.it/cronaca/2020/03/06/news/coronav...
- fspeech 7y ago
  15% of all confirmed cases in China were serious at some stage and require some kind of oxygen assistance. This is the one number we need to focus our minds on. Death rate is entirely dependent on the availability of resources. If we don't slow down the spread we will face disastrous consequences. There are thousands in Wuhan who have been on life support for weeks if not months. Even if they do survive they will face diminished lives and this is with China sending all available resources (doctors, nurses, ventilators) of the nation there. Death rate itself is worthless to argue over unless one names the context: sporadic outbreaks here and there or tidal waves?
grecy 7y ago
Which is why it boggles my mind that so many people live in a society that encourages no savings social net, no healthcare if you don't go to work, houses that are over 100% mortgaged, car loans, phone loans, furniture loans etc. etc. This wouldn't be an issue if society just encouraged people to save 10 or 20 grand to have a "just in case" fund to last a few months, and if people got healthcare even when they didn't go to work.
- thefounder 7y ago
  Well most of the people don't have much to save. It's the 1% issue.
  - refurb 7y ago
    Americans have a much better savings rate than Canada. 8% versus 1% and lower overall levels of debt. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/economy/economic-insight/article-why-canadians-arent-saving-like-they-once-did/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/economy/economic-in...
    - cma 7y ago
      With a strong social safety net it isn’t as necessary, which was his point. Is that US number using median values? That’s what will matter for more people.
      - refurb 7y ago
        I was responding the comment “hardly anyone can save”. Apparently Americans can save more than Canadians. And no, Canadians don’t save as much because of the safety net, it’s because there is a massive housing bubble there encouraging it.
  - GuB-42 7y ago
    In a first world country like the US most people can save if they want to. It is not the 1%, more like the 80%. Think about it this way. Imagine your household income is $50k, the median. But for one year, you decide to live like you are at $30k, barely above poverty. It may be a difficult year but there is no reason you can't manage, 1 in 5 people live their entire life with that. At the end of the year, you are left with $20k. You can now start living your life like anyone with a median income will. Because of that 1 frugal year, you are left with a average balance of $20k for your entire life. No more living paycheck to paycheck. And even better, when you die, your children will inherit these $20k so they won't need that year of poverty to keep their balance positive. So these $20k will actually last forever. Of course, it is a simplification, but the idea is that keeping savings is just a matter of living with the paycheck of a few months ago instead of the last one. Now what are the benefits of having an average of $20k that you won't touch. First, it is insurance. Insurance costs you money in the long run, that's how insurance companies pay their employees. That sum is your own insurance for small things, like phones. Second is that you can take advantage of opportunities, like volume discounts. Money will make you save money. For those who are above the poverty line, the reason they can't save is lack of discipline. Not "the 1%". But to be fair, society in North America doesn't really help, with ads everywhere and credit everything.
asah 7y ago
Nonsensical until someone aged 25 gives nCov to their grandparent aged 75, and that person dies. Suddenly, your work just doesn't seem so important. (don't have to wait for a vaccine, we can return to life when there's a reasonable therapy which should be 2-4 months... unless all 50+ late-stage drug trials all fail...)
oliwarner 7y ago
The silver lining here is that this dramatic drop in production and travel is exactly what the environment needed. We're finally giving working from home a serious go. Holidaying within our borders. I'm sure it'll all look pretty silly in 24 months time, when this recedes into a background seasonal and we finally finish our personal stockpiles of toilet paper, but we might learn important lessons too.
- refurb 7y ago
  The silver lining here is that this dramatic drop in production and travel is exactly what the environment needed. Yeah, everyone will be so happy the environment is cleaner. They won’t care that they are laid off, lose their house and the economy spirals in a recession. Silver linings!!
  - paulryanrogers 7y ago
    It's not binary. The crisis may motivate some to live more sustainably. That is good. Any economic slow down can still be unfortunate. And not taking any precautions could kill the economy too, perhaps even more quickly.
  - the8472 7y ago
    Having a job is not necessary for survival. Having a functioning ecosystem is.
  - oliwarner 7y ago
    The model you cling to brings 100 years of increasingly deadly natural disasters and our extinction. We need to find a new model of existence.
swampthing 7y ago
It's nonsensical to you because you're not looking at it from their perspective. The healthy 25 year olds that are holed up in their apartments value playing it safe with their health more than they value helping businesses that they don't own.
bcrosby95 7y ago
I don't know any healthy people literally holed up in their apartments. But most people I know have kids. We still take our kids to school. We still go to the grocery store. We still take them to soccer practice. Even the most paranoid person I know is not holed up in their apartment. What I'm not doing is flying my kids, with my 74 year old mother, so we can go to Disneyworld in Florida. I'm not taking my young children to Disneyland, which is local, because it's an international destination and if we run across a bug they will catch it because young children have no ability to not constantly stick their fingers in their mouth. We could just say "we aren't going to see grandma anymore" but my sister in law also just had a baby. Should I tell my wife she can't see her newborn nephew because we could transmit it to the grandparents through visits? Or maybe we can just not go to Disneyland for a little bit? I understand that the odds of this chain of events playing out is low. But I would feel really, really stupid if it happened to. I also talked my mom out of going to Vegas. Why? Because the US has tested damn near no people. If we had been testing aggressively like South Korea I could justify saying "there's been no found cases in Vegas, you should probably be good". Instead I have to say "No found cases in Vegas, no fucking clue what that means". FWIW, most parents I talk to think this is a big nothing. One is keeping their trip to Italy this month. Another is immune compromised and as of yesterday, still flying into Seattle for some reason. I think it's a poor choice.
- cma 7y ago
  One county in Washington is already recommending no one over 65 (or is it 60?) go outside.
guyzero 7y ago
None of the lobster fishermen in Nova Scotia are going to lose their healthcare.
blackrock 7y ago
Honestly, I really fail to see how washing hands frequently will keep you safe from the virus. The alternative idea, is that you should just tell people to wear gloves. This will prevent them from touching their eyes, nose, and mouth. Because ideally, they won’t touch their mouth if they are wearing an outdoor glove.
Bombthecat 7y ago
The spring break is still happening. In two to three weeks we will find if it was stupid idea. Or nothing happens.

scohesc 7y ago

It doesn't help that the media is blowing it out of proportion as usual. "There's another infected person in [YOUR_COUNTRY] - 10 ways COVID-19 can kill you! You won't BELIEVE number 3!"

nostromo 7y ago
I've never had less faith in the people working in the American media than I have today: https://twitter.com/NorthmanTrader/status/1235843592251301888 https://twitter.com/NorthmanTrader/status/123584359225130188... This is a conversation between two respected journalists, from NBC and the New York Times, quoting Twitter as fact, and failing the most basic of simple math questions.

jasonpeacock 7y ago

The way that you protect those at high risk is by not having those 25yr olds go around spreading the virus as asymptomatic carriers. Your logic has the same faults as "I don't need the flu vaccine, I'm not at risk because I'm healthy/young."

btilly 7y ago

Most people should be behaving normally with some added protections (like washing their hands), and those who are at high-risk should be protected. You would think, but you would be wrong. Here is the fundamental math. There is a number called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number which is how many people the average infected person infects in turn. If that figure is above 1, the epidemic spreads and some nontrivial fraction of the total population will get sick. The exact number who catch it is impossible to calculate since the relationship between the basic reproduction number and how many people eventually get the disease is chaotic. But if that figure can be reduced below 1, the disease dies out on its own. It took draconian measures, but this is already happening in China. Public health officials have a variety of strategies available depending on the situation. But the choices from most desirable to least is as follows. 1. If possible, get the basic reproduction number below 1. 2. If not possible, encourage at risk groups to get extra protection so that as the disease sweeps through, as many as possible don't get it. 3. Be overwhelmed. The current strategy is focused on the first option. As noted, the basic reproduction rate is already below 1 in China and the disease is dying out there. If it escapes, the second option will be tried. But an epidemic that hospitalizes 20% of victims and kills 3% will, if we accept #2, leave us quickly at #3. And as much as a temporary slowdown of the economy loses us all, figuring out how to some up with a reasonable substitute for hospitalizing 20% of the country when we don't have medical staff (knowing that a failure to figure it out will result in much higher casualty rates) will have much greater economic impacts. It turns out that we can quantify it. Based on https://www.theglobalist.com/the-cost-of-a-human-life-statistically-speaking/ https://www.theglobalist.com/the-cost-of-a-human-life-statis... it is reasonable to say that we value a human life at about $8 million. If half of 327 million Americans get sick and (as current rates have it, 3.7% of them die, the economic impact is about $48.4 trillion. That is about the same as the US economy for 2 years. If losing 1/4 of our economy for 6 months, and then suffer similar economic damage on the path to recovery, gives us even odds of preventing this, we absolutely should panic. And, as China demonstrates, it IS still possible to prevent this outcome. It will take heroics. But it is possible.

nostromo 7y ago
The current fatality rate is not 3.7%. The New England Journal of Medicine suggests it may end up being much less than 1%. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387 > it is reasonable to say that we value a human life at about $8 million We're talking about the very elderly dying a bit earlier than they would have otherwise. Before you accuse me of being heartless, I agree that that is indeed sad and worth mourning. But, no, it is not the same economically as a working-age person or younger dying in large quantities. And keep in mind it's March, and flu season will naturally be on the decline this month.
- btilly 7y ago
  3.7% is the measured rate in China. Which has the best available data set. Which is why I used it. The CDC has consistently concluded that the real rate will be somewhere in the 2-4% range. There are admittedly researchers who think that cases are severely underreported. However data from other countries has been in line with the Chinese experience. If dramatically more get it, those dramatically more seem to also be less infectious. Given this, it is better to act on the higher end of evidence based estimates and to have possibly overestimated than it is to believe on the low end and find that a higher figure was appropriate. But even if you disagree with that reasoning, dropping all of my figures by a factor of 4 still comes up with figures that justify truly shocking disruptions to our lives. And the basic facts about epidemiology that I gave are still worth understanding.
  - nostromo 7y ago
    You are wrong, that is one of the worst data sets to use, because of so many unidentified cases. Again, see the NEJM: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387 Or any of the better data sets: On the Princess Cruise, a naturally controlled study, the death rate was less than 1%, with a cruise full of old people. Non-Wuhan death rate in China, where more mild cases were identified, ended up being 0.7%. https://www.livescience.com/is-coronavirus-deadly.html https://www.livescience.com/is-coronavirus-deadly.html Goodness, there are so many chicken littles on HN nowadays.

NicolasGorden 7y ago

I honestly believe that the Corona virus is more of an illness of mass psychological fear than it is a Virus. I'm not saying the virus isn't real, or that those who suffer from it aren't real. I'm simply saying that, at least for the US according to the CDC, 260 people have become ill and 14 people dead... which is nothing compared to 300,000,000 entering a state of unreasonable fear. I know people who don't get a yearly flu shot (50,000 dead/year), don't wash their hands before eating (most viral and bacterial infections aren't airborne), smoke (400,000 dead/year), drink (80,000 dead/year) and regularly drive late at night when tired (35,000 dead/year)... yet they are taking every possible precaution against corona virus, because they don't want to be the 15th death. It's so weird. Again, not saying it isn't an issue or doesn't exist or can't become a bigger issue. Just that the fear is so disproportional to the threat, it's mind blowing for me. It feels like some mass psychotic event. I'm just disconnected enough from most people's reality that I can't seem to share in it, so I stand a contrarian outsider like I've always been, scratching my head.

save_ferris 7y ago
> the fear is so disproportional to the threat Sadly, this is true for so much of American culture re: our current politics and social fears. We live in a culture that explicitly governs on and trafficks in fear. I don’t think we ever got out of fear mode after 9/11, but reasonable people can disagree here. Also, people aren’t just thinking about themselves, they’re taking into account the risk of transmission to a loved one who’s in a higher-risk age group. I’d hate to contract coronavirus and pass it on to my parents who’re in their 60’s.
- NicolasGorden 7y ago
  It's odd, the safer our societies become, the more fearful people get. I used to live in a 2nd world country and it seems people were less fearful there, even if they had more to fear. It's like we collectively somehow miss having real things to worry about. I guess the biggest issues in first world countries (heart disease, cancer, suicide, car accidents), are mostly things that boil down to individual internal battles related to our daily choices. And improving those is a humbling, long and not particularly glamorous process. It's grappling with the millions of shortcomings we all know we have and we all know how to fix.

penagwin 7y ago

But those young people interact with old people. We're partially using herd immunity to protect the older folks. At some point they'll need groceries or some other form of care - and cannot maintain sufficient isolation for what you're describing.

viggity 7y ago
but we have to slow it down so we can spread out the demands on hospitals over a longer period of time. Drastic measures are working in china. I wish there was another way. Maybe you say it isn't worth it. Maybe you don't have any elderly relatives. The Case Fatality Rate for 60-69 year olds is 3.6%. For 70-79 is is 8%. For 80+ it is an astounding 14.8%.
- tracker1 7y ago
  What are the average mortality rates for those age groups from before this latest virus? What's the absolute increase in risk over the course of a year? I'd be surprised if it wasn't close to those numbers anyway.
  - dogcomplex 7y ago
    (Can just give you the snippet facts I remember:) It spikes to about a 5x yearly mortality multiplier for those between 50-60, diminishing a bit as you near 80+ (since their natural mortality rate was already high - about 12%(?)). 20-30 year olds have about a 2x multiplier. You're twice as likely to die this year if you get coronavirus. Think it comes out to like - 80+ people are 25-30% likely to die that year total.

pergadad 7y ago

This seems more of a policy issue than an economic issue. In Europe you'll have healthcare and you will keep getting paid when you're in isolation. Kenia or Peru mit lack the budget to do that for their population, the U.S. does not have that problem. It's a choice to value the economic value a person brings over their life, heath and wellbeing and I find it really odd to read a comment such as yours. This doesn't need to hit families and definitely not for generations. It's your national choice, by how you vote and what policies you do and do not accept, that a few weeks out of work means you lose the job, your livelihood and at the top of absurdity also your healthcare. Somehow you've come to consider that as normal but in a country that finds trillions each year to buy overpriced fighter jets or similar things, making the choice to NOT let families go into intergenerational poverty due to a health emergency should really not be that difficult.

tracker1 7y ago
While I do largely agree.. in the U.S. the politics are bundled in ways that are largely unable to be agreed upon. The influence of large industries also cannot be underestimated. That also doesn't even consider the issue of the number of politically motivated people working in media that want an economic crisis to unseat Trump. The advent of woke tribalism has been more damaging to both freedom, democracy, sane policy negotiation etc. Stone-walling is now the norm. It's really hard to say how any of this will shake out in the end. If people stay calm, keep about 2 weeks of food/water as a normal point (don't stockpile for months), you can easily overcome any logistical issues. Panic only exacerbates the problems. In the end, some will suffer, but it's like we're overestimating the impact. Worst case, this will probably be similar to the 1932 flu... I don't think it will get even that bad in practice (which was pretty bad). Within a year or 3, it should be fully recovered, unless too many people, do too many stupid things and panic too much, making wierd economic shifts.
- paulryanrogers 7y ago
  > ...the number of politically motivated people working in media that want an economic crisis to unseat Trump Citations?

deepnotderp 7y ago

1. Young people interact with older people and those with pre existing conditions, and can pass on the disease. 2. More importantly, an unique characteristic of this disease is that although mortality rates for the young are low, hospitalization rates appear to be high, which poses a severe threat of overwhelming hospital systems. The disaster in Wuhan was at least in part due to that and unless precautions are taken, Seattle could be heading that way soon.

andy_ppp 7y ago
The solution isn’t stop your life it’s maybe see your parents/grand parents next month...
- nitwit005 7y ago
  This is imagining a society where no one lives with parents or grandparents, and young people never interact with elderly people not related to them.
paganel 7y ago
> The disaster in Wuhan was at least in part due to that and unless precautions are taken, Seattle could be heading that way soon. This is almost happening right now in the Northern Italian region of Lombardy, hence today's mentions by some of the authorities of instituting a red-zone for the region itself (or parts of if, nothing is certain for now). [1] (in Italian) [1] https://milano.repubblica.it/cronaca/2020/03/06/news/coronavirus_l_istituto_superiore_della_sanita_lombardia_zona_rossa_valutazioni_in_corso_-250471354/ https://milano.repubblica.it/cronaca/2020/03/06/news/coronav...
fspeech 7y ago
15% of all confirmed cases in China were serious at some stage and require some kind of oxygen assistance. This is the one number we need to focus our minds on. Death rate is entirely dependent on the availability of resources. If we don't slow down the spread we will face disastrous consequences. There are thousands in Wuhan who have been on life support for weeks if not months. Even if they do survive they will face diminished lives and this is with China sending all available resources (doctors, nurses, ventilators) of the nation there. Death rate itself is worthless to argue over unless one names the context: sporadic outbreaks here and there or tidal waves?

grecy 7y ago

Which is why it boggles my mind that so many people live in a society that encourages no savings social net, no healthcare if you don't go to work, houses that are over 100% mortgaged, car loans, phone loans, furniture loans etc. etc. This wouldn't be an issue if society just encouraged people to save 10 or 20 grand to have a "just in case" fund to last a few months, and if people got healthcare even when they didn't go to work.

thefounder 7y ago
Well most of the people don't have much to save. It's the 1% issue.
- refurb 7y ago
  Americans have a much better savings rate than Canada. 8% versus 1% and lower overall levels of debt. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/economy/economic-insight/article-why-canadians-arent-saving-like-they-once-did/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/economy/economic-in...
  - cma 7y ago
    With a strong social safety net it isn’t as necessary, which was his point. Is that US number using median values? That’s what will matter for more people.
    - refurb 7y ago
      I was responding the comment “hardly anyone can save”. Apparently Americans can save more than Canadians. And no, Canadians don’t save as much because of the safety net, it’s because there is a massive housing bubble there encouraging it.
- GuB-42 7y ago
  In a first world country like the US most people can save if they want to. It is not the 1%, more like the 80%. Think about it this way. Imagine your household income is $50k, the median. But for one year, you decide to live like you are at $30k, barely above poverty. It may be a difficult year but there is no reason you can't manage, 1 in 5 people live their entire life with that. At the end of the year, you are left with $20k. You can now start living your life like anyone with a median income will. Because of that 1 frugal year, you are left with a average balance of $20k for your entire life. No more living paycheck to paycheck. And even better, when you die, your children will inherit these $20k so they won't need that year of poverty to keep their balance positive. So these $20k will actually last forever. Of course, it is a simplification, but the idea is that keeping savings is just a matter of living with the paycheck of a few months ago instead of the last one. Now what are the benefits of having an average of $20k that you won't touch. First, it is insurance. Insurance costs you money in the long run, that's how insurance companies pay their employees. That sum is your own insurance for small things, like phones. Second is that you can take advantage of opportunities, like volume discounts. Money will make you save money. For those who are above the poverty line, the reason they can't save is lack of discipline. Not "the 1%". But to be fair, society in North America doesn't really help, with ads everywhere and credit everything.

asah 7y ago

Nonsensical until someone aged 25 gives nCov to their grandparent aged 75, and that person dies. Suddenly, your work just doesn't seem so important. (don't have to wait for a vaccine, we can return to life when there's a reasonable therapy which should be 2-4 months... unless all 50+ late-stage drug trials all fail...)

oliwarner 7y ago

The silver lining here is that this dramatic drop in production and travel is exactly what the environment needed. We're finally giving working from home a serious go. Holidaying within our borders. I'm sure it'll all look pretty silly in 24 months time, when this recedes into a background seasonal and we finally finish our personal stockpiles of toilet paper, but we might learn important lessons too.

refurb 7y ago
The silver lining here is that this dramatic drop in production and travel is exactly what the environment needed. Yeah, everyone will be so happy the environment is cleaner. They won’t care that they are laid off, lose their house and the economy spirals in a recession. Silver linings!!
- paulryanrogers 7y ago
  It's not binary. The crisis may motivate some to live more sustainably. That is good. Any economic slow down can still be unfortunate. And not taking any precautions could kill the economy too, perhaps even more quickly.
- the8472 7y ago
  Having a job is not necessary for survival. Having a functioning ecosystem is.
- oliwarner 7y ago
  The model you cling to brings 100 years of increasingly deadly natural disasters and our extinction. We need to find a new model of existence.

swampthing 7y ago

It's nonsensical to you because you're not looking at it from their perspective. The healthy 25 year olds that are holed up in their apartments value playing it safe with their health more than they value helping businesses that they don't own.

bcrosby95 7y ago

I don't know any healthy people literally holed up in their apartments. But most people I know have kids. We still take our kids to school. We still go to the grocery store. We still take them to soccer practice. Even the most paranoid person I know is not holed up in their apartment. What I'm not doing is flying my kids, with my 74 year old mother, so we can go to Disneyworld in Florida. I'm not taking my young children to Disneyland, which is local, because it's an international destination and if we run across a bug they will catch it because young children have no ability to not constantly stick their fingers in their mouth. We could just say "we aren't going to see grandma anymore" but my sister in law also just had a baby. Should I tell my wife she can't see her newborn nephew because we could transmit it to the grandparents through visits? Or maybe we can just not go to Disneyland for a little bit? I understand that the odds of this chain of events playing out is low. But I would feel really, really stupid if it happened to. I also talked my mom out of going to Vegas. Why? Because the US has tested damn near no people. If we had been testing aggressively like South Korea I could justify saying "there's been no found cases in Vegas, you should probably be good". Instead I have to say "No found cases in Vegas, no fucking clue what that means". FWIW, most parents I talk to think this is a big nothing. One is keeping their trip to Italy this month. Another is immune compromised and as of yesterday, still flying into Seattle for some reason. I think it's a poor choice.

cma 7y ago
One county in Washington is already recommending no one over 65 (or is it 60?) go outside.

guyzero 7y ago

None of the lobster fishermen in Nova Scotia are going to lose their healthcare.

blackrock 7y ago

Honestly, I really fail to see how washing hands frequently will keep you safe from the virus. The alternative idea, is that you should just tell people to wear gloves. This will prevent them from touching their eyes, nose, and mouth. Because ideally, they won’t touch their mouth if they are wearing an outdoor glove.

Bombthecat 7y ago

The spring break is still happening. In two to three weeks we will find if it was stupid idea. Or nothing happens.