6 ms·

I'd be curious to hear what the rationale for taking this exact measure is, versus something more or less severe. Yes, it's to stop the spread of the virus, but

by wespiser_2018 7y ago

I'd be curious to hear what the rationale for taking this exact measure is, versus something more or less severe. Yes, it's to stop the spread of the virus, but what information is going into this decision? Is this simply an effort to copy the effective strategies employed by China and Korea to slow down the virus, or based off a simulation/modelling effort?

Diederich 7y ago
I saw this post recently, which is I think a nice summary of the risks: https://old.reddit.com/r/CoronavirusUS/comments/fjld7n/thoughts_from_an_er_doctor/ https://old.reddit.com/r/CoronavirusUS/comments/fjld7n/thoug...
- generalpass 7y ago
  I notice they don't mention that lawyers may be advising closure to reduce liability.
ralph84 7y ago
Or even a basic cost/benefit analysis. "We expect this will save X lives, at a cost of $Y to the economy." Shouldn't someone be doing that analysis? There are lots of things that would save lives if we did them (e.g. ban cars), but we don't because the cost is too high.
- kaesar14 7y ago
  What cost ratio would you find unacceptably high to stop a pandemic?
  - ralph84 7y ago
    Around $10 million per life seems to be the number used in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life#United_States
    - tlb 7y ago
      That's a measure of what we should spend to save lives, such as by installing safety equipment. Those expenditures increase the size of the economy. The amount by which we should shrink the economy to save lives might be quite a different number. I haven't seen a good analysis of that case. In general, shrinking the economy costs lives elsewhere such as by malnutrition or lack of money to spend on safety equipment. So the number ought to be lower.
      - wwweston 7y ago
        Deaths will also shrink productive capacity and demand (severe illness would presumably only shrink productive capacity).
      - dllthomas 7y ago
        > Those expenditures increase the size of the economy. If that isn't broken windows, I'm not sure why.
        tlb 7y ago
        Do you mean the theory that visible signs of petty crime cause more lawlessness generally? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory If so, I don't see the connection.
        dllthomas 7y ago
        I mean the idea that breaking a window is good for the economy because the glazier gets paid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window No relation to the other. Sorry - my mistake in assuming sufficient familiarity with both to disambiguate from context.
        wideasleep1 7y ago
        Zorg from 5th Element might be a more familiar 'parable', with a cherry on top: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnzzWGcdMqY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnzzWGcdMqY
- wespiser_2018 7y ago
  I agree that this analysis should be the basis of the decision, and I'm sure it's not simple tradeoff between lives and economic cost. For instance, no preparation, no response, and huge body count 4 weeks later when a huge fraction of the workforce is sick will damage the economy as well.
- bduerst 7y ago
  That metric is hard to calculate because the transmission rate is still not very well understood for Covid-19, i.e. In order to calculate the cost of staying open, you need to accurately estimate the number of infected, number of deaths, and impact on current healthcare capacity. What is known is that it is incredibly contagious, so they're taking precautions for a worse-case scenario with these shut downs.
  - pmoriarty 7y ago
    "That metric is hard to calculate because the transmission rate is still not very well understood for Covid-19" I've heard multiple times from the virologists at This Week in Virology that we're not going to know the real numbers until it's all over. In addition to that, they are going to be highly variable depending on the demographics, pre-existing conditions, and the level of medical care you are able to get. So it's going to be very difficult to calculate these sorts of metrics even when the actual infection/death rates are known.
    - blaser-waffle 7y ago
      > In addition to that, they are going to be highly variable depending on the demographics, pre-existing conditions, and the level of medical care you are able to get. Which is a big concern to the US, since there is no universal care. That said, I'm in Canada and the healthcare options in rural areas is often hit or miss -- sometimes just a clinic, sometimes just nothin.
grey-area 7y ago
There’s some interesting modelling on measures like this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22596594 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22596594
nomel 7y ago
> Yes, it's to stop the spread of the virus This is a misstatement. Nobody is trying to stop the spread, they're trying to slow it within a bubble. The surrounding counties, cities, and states aren't under quarantine. The bay area is simply hitting the pause button, with a slight rewind, for three weeks. Once those three weeks pass, the pause button is released. One thing is for sure, unless there's some compensation or forgiveness of late payments/credit score hits from the state, this is going to really harm the lives of those already struggling to afford the bay area.
- asveikau 7y ago
  > Once those three weeks pass, the pause button is released. I haven't been assuming that. I think this step is needed, but nobody has really defined precisely what success looks like. In 3 weeks I assume they re-assess and could very well leave restrictions in place.
  - harambaebae69 7y ago
    >In 3 weeks I assume they re-assess and could very well leave restrictions in place I had assumed that as well. No reason things will look better by then, and the preventative measures taken in that time probably won't sufficient enough to otherwise resume normal life either. Also, the cynic in me says that the government class wants to get people used to the idea of a shelter in place piecemeal, because it might not go over as well if they said 1 month straight out of the gate.
- dx034 7y ago
  It can be used to effectively stop it. Flattening the curve doesn't work if we need to put people in quarantine for a year, no one will accept that. But if we wait long enough until there's at least some treatment, we can loosen restrictions then. I guess that's the plan of most governments now. Because without a treatment, the current strategy will backfire when rules have to be relaxed again in a month or two.
tekknik 7y ago
Basic biology class. Viruses spread between using, stay away from each other to minimize spreading. You don’t need modeling, you just need common sense.

Diederich 7y ago

I saw this post recently, which is I think a nice summary of the risks: https://old.reddit.com/r/CoronavirusUS/comments/fjld7n/thoughts_from_an_er_doctor/ https://old.reddit.com/r/CoronavirusUS/comments/fjld7n/thoug...

generalpass 7y ago
I notice they don't mention that lawyers may be advising closure to reduce liability.

ralph84 7y ago

Or even a basic cost/benefit analysis. "We expect this will save X lives, at a cost of $Y to the economy." Shouldn't someone be doing that analysis? There are lots of things that would save lives if we did them (e.g. ban cars), but we don't because the cost is too high.

kaesar14 7y ago
What cost ratio would you find unacceptably high to stop a pandemic?
- ralph84 7y ago
  Around $10 million per life seems to be the number used in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life#United_States
  - tlb 7y ago
    That's a measure of what we should spend to save lives, such as by installing safety equipment. Those expenditures increase the size of the economy. The amount by which we should shrink the economy to save lives might be quite a different number. I haven't seen a good analysis of that case. In general, shrinking the economy costs lives elsewhere such as by malnutrition or lack of money to spend on safety equipment. So the number ought to be lower.
    - wwweston 7y ago
      Deaths will also shrink productive capacity and demand (severe illness would presumably only shrink productive capacity).
    - dllthomas 7y ago
      > Those expenditures increase the size of the economy. If that isn't broken windows, I'm not sure why.
      - tlb 7y ago
        Do you mean the theory that visible signs of petty crime cause more lawlessness generally? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory If so, I don't see the connection.
        dllthomas 7y ago
        I mean the idea that breaking a window is good for the economy because the glazier gets paid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window No relation to the other. Sorry - my mistake in assuming sufficient familiarity with both to disambiguate from context.
        wideasleep1 7y ago
        Zorg from 5th Element might be a more familiar 'parable', with a cherry on top: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnzzWGcdMqY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnzzWGcdMqY
wespiser_2018 7y ago
I agree that this analysis should be the basis of the decision, and I'm sure it's not simple tradeoff between lives and economic cost. For instance, no preparation, no response, and huge body count 4 weeks later when a huge fraction of the workforce is sick will damage the economy as well.
bduerst 7y ago
That metric is hard to calculate because the transmission rate is still not very well understood for Covid-19, i.e. In order to calculate the cost of staying open, you need to accurately estimate the number of infected, number of deaths, and impact on current healthcare capacity. What is known is that it is incredibly contagious, so they're taking precautions for a worse-case scenario with these shut downs.
- pmoriarty 7y ago
  "That metric is hard to calculate because the transmission rate is still not very well understood for Covid-19" I've heard multiple times from the virologists at This Week in Virology that we're not going to know the real numbers until it's all over. In addition to that, they are going to be highly variable depending on the demographics, pre-existing conditions, and the level of medical care you are able to get. So it's going to be very difficult to calculate these sorts of metrics even when the actual infection/death rates are known.
  - blaser-waffle 7y ago
    > In addition to that, they are going to be highly variable depending on the demographics, pre-existing conditions, and the level of medical care you are able to get. Which is a big concern to the US, since there is no universal care. That said, I'm in Canada and the healthcare options in rural areas is often hit or miss -- sometimes just a clinic, sometimes just nothin.

grey-area 7y ago

There’s some interesting modelling on measures like this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22596594 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22596594

nomel 7y ago

> Yes, it's to stop the spread of the virus This is a misstatement. Nobody is trying to stop the spread, they're trying to slow it within a bubble. The surrounding counties, cities, and states aren't under quarantine. The bay area is simply hitting the pause button, with a slight rewind, for three weeks. Once those three weeks pass, the pause button is released. One thing is for sure, unless there's some compensation or forgiveness of late payments/credit score hits from the state, this is going to really harm the lives of those already struggling to afford the bay area.

asveikau 7y ago
> Once those three weeks pass, the pause button is released. I haven't been assuming that. I think this step is needed, but nobody has really defined precisely what success looks like. In 3 weeks I assume they re-assess and could very well leave restrictions in place.
- harambaebae69 7y ago
  >In 3 weeks I assume they re-assess and could very well leave restrictions in place I had assumed that as well. No reason things will look better by then, and the preventative measures taken in that time probably won't sufficient enough to otherwise resume normal life either. Also, the cynic in me says that the government class wants to get people used to the idea of a shelter in place piecemeal, because it might not go over as well if they said 1 month straight out of the gate.
dx034 7y ago
It can be used to effectively stop it. Flattening the curve doesn't work if we need to put people in quarantine for a year, no one will accept that. But if we wait long enough until there's at least some treatment, we can loosen restrictions then. I guess that's the plan of most governments now. Because without a treatment, the current strategy will backfire when rules have to be relaxed again in a month or two.

tekknik 7y ago

Basic biology class. Viruses spread between using, stay away from each other to minimize spreading. You don’t need modeling, you just need common sense.