6 ms·

But how can anybody be sure that conservative policy (lockdown, I assume) would work for UK (or any other nation beside China)? They probably have to factor in

But how can anybody be sure that conservative policy (lockdown, I assume) would work for UK (or any other nation beside China)? They probably have to factor in the chance of success. They can fail in implementing conservative option (which might not be so conservative after all), and ruin the economy as a side effect. I imagine this as a choice between these: - long struggle with uncertain outcome in terms of life lost but with certain economic ruin - short struggle with uncertain outcome in terms of life lost, with small economic ruin I’m neither epidemiologist nor politician in power, so I can entertain myself with these thought experiments. In the end, I have little choice (and knowledge or firepower), but to do as instructed by local authorities.

roenxi 7y ago
The economy is a tool to get people goods and services. It is less important than life & death on a mass scale. 0.1% to 1% of the population unexpectedly dying is huge. If the government was implementing a plan that they had considered and prepared over a number of years, carefully assessed the evidence and weighed the options? Costs and benefits have been weighed and it is hard to ask for more. Government has no idea what is happening and it decides to go in and see how bad it is? Not a great time to prioritise the non-essential parts of the economy.
- ash 7y ago
  > The economy is a tool to get people goods and services. It is less important than life & death on a mass scale. It's not as simple. GDP per capita is strongly correlated with life expectancy. In other words, people die sooner with worse economy.
  - chii 7y ago
    or die _even sooner_ with this herd immunity strat. On an individual level, i would not want this, even if it's "better" for the UK in the long run. As an individual, it's unacceptable for me to take this sort of risk, and i would not agree to it if i had a choice.
- milansm 7y ago
  I agree with what you just wrote. But, the premise is wrong, I think; We don’t know if lockdown now vs lockdown later (in UK’s case) will result with 0.1% vs 1% of life lost, respectively.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    COVID-19 is rapidly becoming the centre of attention for the entire global medical community and every government on the planet. It threatens the wealth of billionaires and the power of the powerful. I have a remarkable amount of faith that progress on treatments and medical practices will be swift and impressive. Delaying the pain by a month or two could well be an extremely good move.
    - nico_h 7y ago
      You're betting on 1) a therapy being found in that interval, 2) that therapy being highly effective (no significant side effects), 3) easily available 4) affordable 5) you still have medical personnel with which to apply it. I wouldn't take those odds.
      - reverend_gonzo 7y ago
        One more, by the way: that the virus doesn’t mutate.
  - saalweachter 7y ago
    Let's do math! I'll use US numbers, because I know them. The current worst case scenarios on the table are between 1% and 5% of the individuals catching the disease dying (there are better numbers, but we're worst casing it). For achieving herd immunity, numbers like 40-70% of the population infected and recovered are bandied about. So worst case, you're looking at 1.3-11.6 million deaths in the US. Now, the US government values the lives of its citizens at $7-9 million dollars a piece. That puts the economic cost of this strategy, in the US, at $9.1-104 trillion dollars. That dwarfs what is happening in the stock market right now; shutting down the entire US economy for a year makes sense when faced with that magnitude of potential loss. I assume the math is similar elsewhere.
- Svip 7y ago
  > 0.1% to 1% of the population unexpectedly dying is huge. A lot of people seem to be focusing on mortality rate, but data from China and Italy show that people who get severe symptoms, but survive COVID-19 will live with lifelong scares, that make them vulnerable for say the next flu season. So while 0.1-1% may die, we are talking about upwards of 10% of people being put out of commission. It's also wrong to say that younger people aren't hurt by this, there are plenty of young people with chronic illnesses, and limited immune systems. And even if they do survive, it may not be worth living.
  - kortex 7y ago
    This is pretty scary. Not only do SARS cause scarring which decrease quality of life, we are on our 3rd ARDS-causing outbreak in the past 2 decades. So potentially tens of millions worldwide with lifelong lung damage and huge risk of getting taken out in the next round.
  - bosie 7y ago
    do you mind sharing some sources regarding the long term effect of covid-19? i am worried about it, especially since i haven't heard much about it so far (might be too early to tell). thanks.
    - devnullbyte 7y ago
      Not OP, but I remember reading about this. The summary was it's too early to establish long term damage. The scarring is present, but its bound to be on patient who recovered a mere few weeks ago.
- CPLX 7y ago
  > The economy is a tool to get people goods and services. It is less important than life & death on a mass scale. This just isn’t true. The definition of an economy is a system to determine the production and allocation of scarce resources. To the extent that those resources include food, shelter, and other elements required to stay alive then the economy literally is the determinant of life and death. Furthermore, significant contractions of economic activity cause death in measurable predictable ways. All of this closing down of the economy is — literally — killing people as we speak.

roenxi 7y ago

The economy is a tool to get people goods and services. It is less important than life & death on a mass scale. 0.1% to 1% of the population unexpectedly dying is huge. If the government was implementing a plan that they had considered and prepared over a number of years, carefully assessed the evidence and weighed the options? Costs and benefits have been weighed and it is hard to ask for more. Government has no idea what is happening and it decides to go in and see how bad it is? Not a great time to prioritise the non-essential parts of the economy.

ash 7y ago
> The economy is a tool to get people goods and services. It is less important than life & death on a mass scale. It's not as simple. GDP per capita is strongly correlated with life expectancy. In other words, people die sooner with worse economy.
- chii 7y ago
  or die _even sooner_ with this herd immunity strat. On an individual level, i would not want this, even if it's "better" for the UK in the long run. As an individual, it's unacceptable for me to take this sort of risk, and i would not agree to it if i had a choice.
milansm 7y ago
I agree with what you just wrote. But, the premise is wrong, I think; We don’t know if lockdown now vs lockdown later (in UK’s case) will result with 0.1% vs 1% of life lost, respectively.
- roenxi 7y ago
  COVID-19 is rapidly becoming the centre of attention for the entire global medical community and every government on the planet. It threatens the wealth of billionaires and the power of the powerful. I have a remarkable amount of faith that progress on treatments and medical practices will be swift and impressive. Delaying the pain by a month or two could well be an extremely good move.
  - nico_h 7y ago
    You're betting on 1) a therapy being found in that interval, 2) that therapy being highly effective (no significant side effects), 3) easily available 4) affordable 5) you still have medical personnel with which to apply it. I wouldn't take those odds.
    - reverend_gonzo 7y ago
      One more, by the way: that the virus doesn’t mutate.
- saalweachter 7y ago
  Let's do math! I'll use US numbers, because I know them. The current worst case scenarios on the table are between 1% and 5% of the individuals catching the disease dying (there are better numbers, but we're worst casing it). For achieving herd immunity, numbers like 40-70% of the population infected and recovered are bandied about. So worst case, you're looking at 1.3-11.6 million deaths in the US. Now, the US government values the lives of its citizens at $7-9 million dollars a piece. That puts the economic cost of this strategy, in the US, at $9.1-104 trillion dollars. That dwarfs what is happening in the stock market right now; shutting down the entire US economy for a year makes sense when faced with that magnitude of potential loss. I assume the math is similar elsewhere.
Svip 7y ago
> 0.1% to 1% of the population unexpectedly dying is huge. A lot of people seem to be focusing on mortality rate, but data from China and Italy show that people who get severe symptoms, but survive COVID-19 will live with lifelong scares, that make them vulnerable for say the next flu season. So while 0.1-1% may die, we are talking about upwards of 10% of people being put out of commission. It's also wrong to say that younger people aren't hurt by this, there are plenty of young people with chronic illnesses, and limited immune systems. And even if they do survive, it may not be worth living.
- kortex 7y ago
  This is pretty scary. Not only do SARS cause scarring which decrease quality of life, we are on our 3rd ARDS-causing outbreak in the past 2 decades. So potentially tens of millions worldwide with lifelong lung damage and huge risk of getting taken out in the next round.
- bosie 7y ago
  do you mind sharing some sources regarding the long term effect of covid-19? i am worried about it, especially since i haven't heard much about it so far (might be too early to tell). thanks.
  - devnullbyte 7y ago
    Not OP, but I remember reading about this. The summary was it's too early to establish long term damage. The scarring is present, but its bound to be on patient who recovered a mere few weeks ago.
CPLX 7y ago
> The economy is a tool to get people goods and services. It is less important than life & death on a mass scale. This just isn’t true. The definition of an economy is a system to determine the production and allocation of scarce resources. To the extent that those resources include food, shelter, and other elements required to stay alive then the economy literally is the determinant of life and death. Furthermore, significant contractions of economic activity cause death in measurable predictable ways. All of this closing down of the economy is — literally — killing people as we speak.