5 ms·

This feels like a much worse outcome than just taking the virus on the chin and letting 40-70% of the population get sick. That may seem contrarian, but this pa

This feels like a much worse outcome than just taking the virus on the chin and letting 40-70% of the population get sick. That may seem contrarian, but this panic feels worse than the actual virus. More people will die from economic hardship than from COVID.

natalyarostova 7y ago
I guess people would rather lower the gdp than have their parents die.
- ryanSrich 7y ago
  Destroying the economy at this rate will bring much more death than Corona. 10s of thousands of businesses are being crippled. The government will do nothing aside from bailing out institutions they’ve bailed out countless times before. Leaving the lower and middle class absolutely gutted.
  - alkonaut 7y ago
    People presumably still want the recession form of death than the pandemic one, it's not even a competition. There is no amount of evidence you can present to the public that would make this call even a close one. "ten times as many will die from the recession unless we let X people die now" doesn't work.
  - marvin 7y ago
    Rather an economic crisis than losing some of your loved ones a decade or two before their time. Get the authorities in place to be the safety net and take the measures required. Preventing a major GDP bump downwards is not worth millions of lives.
- dang 7y ago
  "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." The argument about economic effects vs. health effects is getting nastier and could get a lot worse. Please find ways to make your substantive points that don't nudge HN threads in that direction. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
femto113 7y ago
The problem with that strategy is that some percentage of the people who become sick need acute care or they will die, and acute care is effectively a fixed resource over short time frames. There are a limited number of hospital beds, ventilators, nurses, doctors, and support staff available. The disease can spread much faster than you can increase any of these resources. If you run out of hospital capacity the death rate will increase rapidly and substantially. No government will fail to act when there are literally bodies piling up on the sidewalks outside of hospitals, so it is much saner to act to divert that scenario.
sdkaufman 7y ago
> this panic feels worse Well, for most people losing their family would feel way worse. There are many ways to mitigate the economic impact down the line. Governments at all levels, companies and organization are already helping blunt the impact. For example, the California state government has promised to keep paying teachers and school staff. Many tech companies are continuing to pay maintenance staff despite office closures. NBA players have donated to arena staff affected by cancellations. But nothing can bring back our loved ones. Sources: https://edsource.org/2020/newsom-assures-districts-theyll-be.. https://edsource.org/2020/newsom-assures-districts-theyll-be.... https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/06/coronavirus-google-facebook-.. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/06/coronavirus-google-facebook-.... https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/13/us/nba-player-donations-coron.. https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/13/us/nba-player-donations-coron....
JamesBarney 7y ago
You're talking about conceivably millions in the U.S. alone. 55% * 6% fatality rate * 330 million is >10,000,000. That's a lot of people to sacrifice to keep bars and restaurants open.
- ryanSrich 7y ago
  6% where are you getting that number? The highest I’ve seen is 3% and that’s in people older than 80...
  - coddingtonbear 7y ago
    In countries having overwhelmed healthcare systems, most recently: Italy, the rate is much higher than the 3.4% estimated by the WHO. It’s still too early to say what the actual figure will turn out to be in Italy, but 6% was the raw result from 13 March.
  - JamesBarney 7y ago
    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30195-X/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3... So our best sets of data are the WHO analysis of Wuhan which puts it at 5.6%. And the diamond princess which gives us a 1% fatality rate. But here's the big catch, those infected on the Diamond Princess got all of the medical care they needed. And the issue is once our healthcare system gets overwhelmed the rate will shift from 1% up to the 5.6% (And Wuhan could have gotten much worse)
    - marvin 7y ago
      Also, South Korea was around 1%. It's a number that has grown in credibility, unfortunately. I was hoping 0.1%.
      - JamesBarney 7y ago
        It's awful when you consider that losing 1% of the population is the best case scenario.
gbersac 7y ago
Letting 40-70% of the population being infected by a virus with 2% percent of mortality rate mean the death of 1% of the population. And probably even more because hospital beds will be saturated and won't be able to provide the cure they need to many people. (for perspective the normal moratlity rate is 0.77% in a normal population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortality_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortality_rate)

natalyarostova 7y ago

I guess people would rather lower the gdp than have their parents die.

ryanSrich 7y ago
Destroying the economy at this rate will bring much more death than Corona. 10s of thousands of businesses are being crippled. The government will do nothing aside from bailing out institutions they’ve bailed out countless times before. Leaving the lower and middle class absolutely gutted.
- alkonaut 7y ago
  People presumably still want the recession form of death than the pandemic one, it's not even a competition. There is no amount of evidence you can present to the public that would make this call even a close one. "ten times as many will die from the recession unless we let X people die now" doesn't work.
- marvin 7y ago
  Rather an economic crisis than losing some of your loved ones a decade or two before their time. Get the authorities in place to be the safety net and take the measures required. Preventing a major GDP bump downwards is not worth millions of lives.
dang 7y ago
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." The argument about economic effects vs. health effects is getting nastier and could get a lot worse. Please find ways to make your substantive points that don't nudge HN threads in that direction. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

femto113 7y ago

The problem with that strategy is that some percentage of the people who become sick need acute care or they will die, and acute care is effectively a fixed resource over short time frames. There are a limited number of hospital beds, ventilators, nurses, doctors, and support staff available. The disease can spread much faster than you can increase any of these resources. If you run out of hospital capacity the death rate will increase rapidly and substantially. No government will fail to act when there are literally bodies piling up on the sidewalks outside of hospitals, so it is much saner to act to divert that scenario.

sdkaufman 7y ago

> this panic feels worse Well, for most people losing their family would feel way worse. There are many ways to mitigate the economic impact down the line. Governments at all levels, companies and organization are already helping blunt the impact. For example, the California state government has promised to keep paying teachers and school staff. Many tech companies are continuing to pay maintenance staff despite office closures. NBA players have donated to arena staff affected by cancellations. But nothing can bring back our loved ones. Sources: https://edsource.org/2020/newsom-assures-districts-theyll-be.. https://edsource.org/2020/newsom-assures-districts-theyll-be.... https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/06/coronavirus-google-facebook-.. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/06/coronavirus-google-facebook-.... https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/13/us/nba-player-donations-coron.. https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/13/us/nba-player-donations-coron....

JamesBarney 7y ago

You're talking about conceivably millions in the U.S. alone. 55% * 6% fatality rate * 330 million is >10,000,000. That's a lot of people to sacrifice to keep bars and restaurants open.

ryanSrich 7y ago
6% where are you getting that number? The highest I’ve seen is 3% and that’s in people older than 80...
- coddingtonbear 7y ago
  In countries having overwhelmed healthcare systems, most recently: Italy, the rate is much higher than the 3.4% estimated by the WHO. It’s still too early to say what the actual figure will turn out to be in Italy, but 6% was the raw result from 13 March.
- JamesBarney 7y ago
  https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30195-X/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3... So our best sets of data are the WHO analysis of Wuhan which puts it at 5.6%. And the diamond princess which gives us a 1% fatality rate. But here's the big catch, those infected on the Diamond Princess got all of the medical care they needed. And the issue is once our healthcare system gets overwhelmed the rate will shift from 1% up to the 5.6% (And Wuhan could have gotten much worse)
  - marvin 7y ago
    Also, South Korea was around 1%. It's a number that has grown in credibility, unfortunately. I was hoping 0.1%.
    - JamesBarney 7y ago
      It's awful when you consider that losing 1% of the population is the best case scenario.

gbersac 7y ago

Letting 40-70% of the population being infected by a virus with 2% percent of mortality rate mean the death of 1% of the population. And probably even more because hospital beds will be saturated and won't be able to provide the cure they need to many people. (for perspective the normal moratlity rate is 0.77% in a normal population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortality_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortality_rate)