5 ms·

If they don't want to ban all public activity, they have to pick some number. I suppose they don't want to shut a small concerts at bars with 50 people or a loc

If they don't want to ban all public activity, they have to pick some number. I suppose they don't want to shut a small concerts at bars with 50 people or a local comedy club (yet). Banning large conferences or sport events with people likely coming from further away seems like a good start.

luckydata 7y ago
they have to shut down EVERYTHING now. tomorrow will be too late.
- jeswin 7y ago
  Till when? How will people put food on the table if economic activity stops?
  - svrma 7y ago
    It is sad but inevitable that economic activity will be disrupted by shutdowns. But delaying the shutdown will only lead to longer shutdown down the lane. > Till when? For as long as the disease outbreak is contained (it is not going to be forever) > How will people put food on the table if economic activity stops? No idea! Maybe something like UBI will help? But the question will remain and will be more troublesome if the outbreak is not contained for sure.
    - nybble41 7y ago
      > Maybe something like UBI will help? How will that help the people who don't have your magical ability to derive sustenance directly from bank balances? UBI is not a substitute for economic activity. Goods still need to be produced. We need to deal with the outbreak without shutting the system down.
      - svrma 7y ago
        I agree that Goods still have to be produced. I didn't say UBI is a substitute for economic activity. I didn't say UBI was all that you need. You are attacking a straw man here. To expand a bit more, UBI might help service workers and others other hourly wage workers to take care of themselves. The service workers are the people who interact with other people the most, so an infected service worker who doesn't have an option but to work will end up spreading the disease. UBI might be the answer to temporarily keep them alive. All of us have to live on reserves if there's a shutdown. Just like China did. It is not going to be great. But the alternative is much worse. And I am not claiming this is a permanent solution.
  - speedgoose 7y ago
    The government gives food to the people. Without any money involved.
    - CydeWeys 7y ago
      The government doesn't remotely have mechanisms in place to directly feed millions of civilians for a long period of time. It would make much more sense to give out money (like EBT cards) that can be redeemed to purchase food through the existing private sector food distribution network of grocery stores and restaurants.
      - nybble41 7y ago
        While everything is shut down? Including the food distribution network? What good will money do in that scenario? Shutting everything down isn't an option. The economy isn't some nice-to-have thing you can turn on and off on a whim. It's an essential part of providing the basic necessities that people need to live—which includes much more than just food.
        CydeWeys 7y ago
        The government is not going to shut everything down. Obviously grocery stores, pharmacies, hospitals, doctor offices, etc., need to stay open. They've all remained open even in Wuhan and Milan. No one is saying to shut down everything, because of course you don't want to starve everyone (starvation has a mortality rate much worse than COVID-19). It's shutting down most things that is being suggested. Healthcare and food stay open.
        nybble41 7y ago
        > No one is saying to shut down everything... Comment by "luckydata" in this thread: > they have to shut down EVERYTHING now.
        luckydata 7y ago
  - jfkebwjsbx 7y ago
    I think they are discussing banning non-essential gatherings, not work-related. Bars, pubs, gyms, museums, theaters, cinema and dozens of others could be stopped right away with minimal impact (except for the companies).
  - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
    How will people put food on the table if they're dead, invalided with crippling lung damage, or bankrupted by healthcare costs after a spell in ICU? It's hard to imagine a better demonstration of how our economic systems are utterly unable to deal with real-world challenges, because they have no mechanisms for pricing non-trivial real-world consequences of externalities of all kinds, and provide no incentives for intelligent collective behaviour.
    - nojvek 7y ago
      Remember the coronavirus mostly affects elderly people. At about a ~3% rate it’s not insanely deadly. Sure lots of people get flu and they eventually recover. The reason of social isolation is to ensure the 3% that do get serious don’t overwhelm the healthcare system. The virus will spread, we just want to slow the spread.
matwood 7y ago
> Banning large conferences or sport events with people likely coming from further away seems like a good start. I think you nailed it. Banning large meetings basically shuts down travel, but lets local events continue. This make things easier to handle without a large influx of people coming in from the outside for a show/conference/event/etc...

luckydata 7y ago

they have to shut down EVERYTHING now. tomorrow will be too late.

jeswin 7y ago
Till when? How will people put food on the table if economic activity stops?
- svrma 7y ago
  It is sad but inevitable that economic activity will be disrupted by shutdowns. But delaying the shutdown will only lead to longer shutdown down the lane. > Till when? For as long as the disease outbreak is contained (it is not going to be forever) > How will people put food on the table if economic activity stops? No idea! Maybe something like UBI will help? But the question will remain and will be more troublesome if the outbreak is not contained for sure.
  - nybble41 7y ago
    > Maybe something like UBI will help? How will that help the people who don't have your magical ability to derive sustenance directly from bank balances? UBI is not a substitute for economic activity. Goods still need to be produced. We need to deal with the outbreak without shutting the system down.
    - svrma 7y ago
      I agree that Goods still have to be produced. I didn't say UBI is a substitute for economic activity. I didn't say UBI was all that you need. You are attacking a straw man here. To expand a bit more, UBI might help service workers and others other hourly wage workers to take care of themselves. The service workers are the people who interact with other people the most, so an infected service worker who doesn't have an option but to work will end up spreading the disease. UBI might be the answer to temporarily keep them alive. All of us have to live on reserves if there's a shutdown. Just like China did. It is not going to be great. But the alternative is much worse. And I am not claiming this is a permanent solution.
- speedgoose 7y ago
  The government gives food to the people. Without any money involved.
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    The government doesn't remotely have mechanisms in place to directly feed millions of civilians for a long period of time. It would make much more sense to give out money (like EBT cards) that can be redeemed to purchase food through the existing private sector food distribution network of grocery stores and restaurants.
    - nybble41 7y ago
      While everything is shut down? Including the food distribution network? What good will money do in that scenario? Shutting everything down isn't an option. The economy isn't some nice-to-have thing you can turn on and off on a whim. It's an essential part of providing the basic necessities that people need to live—which includes much more than just food.
      - CydeWeys 7y ago
        The government is not going to shut everything down. Obviously grocery stores, pharmacies, hospitals, doctor offices, etc., need to stay open. They've all remained open even in Wuhan and Milan. No one is saying to shut down everything, because of course you don't want to starve everyone (starvation has a mortality rate much worse than COVID-19). It's shutting down most things that is being suggested. Healthcare and food stay open.
        nybble41 7y ago
        > No one is saying to shut down everything... Comment by "luckydata" in this thread: > they have to shut down EVERYTHING now.
        luckydata 7y ago
- jfkebwjsbx 7y ago
  I think they are discussing banning non-essential gatherings, not work-related. Bars, pubs, gyms, museums, theaters, cinema and dozens of others could be stopped right away with minimal impact (except for the companies).
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  How will people put food on the table if they're dead, invalided with crippling lung damage, or bankrupted by healthcare costs after a spell in ICU? It's hard to imagine a better demonstration of how our economic systems are utterly unable to deal with real-world challenges, because they have no mechanisms for pricing non-trivial real-world consequences of externalities of all kinds, and provide no incentives for intelligent collective behaviour.
  - nojvek 7y ago
    Remember the coronavirus mostly affects elderly people. At about a ~3% rate it’s not insanely deadly. Sure lots of people get flu and they eventually recover. The reason of social isolation is to ensure the 3% that do get serious don’t overwhelm the healthcare system. The virus will spread, we just want to slow the spread.

matwood 7y ago

> Banning large conferences or sport events with people likely coming from further away seems like a good start. I think you nailed it. Banning large meetings basically shuts down travel, but lets local events continue. This make things easier to handle without a large influx of people coming in from the outside for a show/conference/event/etc...