5 ms·

> I'm not sure it's worth it. It is. The quarantines/border-restrictions are not permanent measures, and acting swiftly is the correct way to nip it in the bud

> I'm not sure it's worth it. It is. The quarantines/border-restrictions are not permanent measures, and acting swiftly is the correct way to nip it in the bud. > Shutting down the country destroys everything. Empty hyperbole. Death tolls in the tens of millions is a far worse outcome, as is stressing our current healthcare systems well beyond their capacities.

H8crilA 7y ago
Mind boggling that someone could think that a month or two months shutdown "destroys the economy", but all Americans infected and several % dead doesn't "destroy the economy".
- nostromo 7y ago
  We’ve had one week of shut down in Seattle and there’s already been a huge wave of layoffs. Two months? It’s difficult to think what will happen. Economies don’t have a pause button. Companies, banks, and families quickly become insolvent.
  - H8crilA 7y ago
    I agree, this clearly needs a govt bailout. Fed already rains liquidity into the treasuries like a madman, just wait till it buys corporates and God knows what else. Treasury should now simply guarantee salaries. The unconditional helicopter money is a good idea too. This will bridge the discrepancy between financial time (which has not stopped) and economic time (which is stopping, slowly, but has to come to a full stop). But at any rate, lives > economy. Only one of those is a renewable resource.
    - 6nf 7y ago
      > lives > economy. Only one of those is a renewable resource. Not sure I follow. Are you saying the economy is not a renewable resource? Cause I'm creating a new life as we speak.
- xeromal 7y ago
  If we're going to be frank, I doubt 70+ year olds are contributing to the economy in a huge way.
  - H8crilA 7y ago
    We live in a deflationary environment (just look at what are the interest rates doing, world-wide). There's no supply problem, there's a demand problem. "Killing Boomers" will actually make things worse.
anoncareer0212 7y ago
Nip what in the bud? The article seems to indicate the fear is of the 3.5% to 11% of 80 year olds who will die
gpm 7y ago
What do you think the death toll of shutting down the economy is going to be? I'm willing to bet that it turns out to higher than 10s of millions long term. Nearly 10 million people die every year from hunger [0]. How much progress are we going to lose on that by putting the economy into a recession? Global warming is an incoming emergency that threatens global stability. What are the odds that it leads to widespread war, widespread famine, or both? How much are we increasing those odds by starting a recession instead of continuing our R&D work at full speed hoping to find a (actually implementable) solution? How many lives will be lost due to less funding for medical care and research? Both in the US where poor people can't afford it, and the rest of the world where less wealth means less taxes means less funding for the health care system? What if the next virus that comes along is more akin to the one that wiped out the American Chestnut trees (100% death toll) instead of just doubling your chance of dying when you get it? [0] https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/people-and-poverty/hunger-and-obesity/how-many-people-die-from-hunger-each-year https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/people-and-poverty...
treis 7y ago
>It is. The quarantines/border-restrictions are not permanent measures, and acting swiftly is the correct way to nip it in the bud. It's wayyyyyy to late for that.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
wueb3behd 7y ago
Empty would imply devoid of content, it's pretty obvious they were speaking metaphorically. As for if it's a good idea, you're insane if you think some of the timelines being discussed, like the 18 month one, are realistic. Americans might put up with this for a couple months tops but taking a full year off is for the Europeans with nothing better to do.

H8crilA 7y ago

Mind boggling that someone could think that a month or two months shutdown "destroys the economy", but all Americans infected and several % dead doesn't "destroy the economy".

nostromo 7y ago
We’ve had one week of shut down in Seattle and there’s already been a huge wave of layoffs. Two months? It’s difficult to think what will happen. Economies don’t have a pause button. Companies, banks, and families quickly become insolvent.
- H8crilA 7y ago
  I agree, this clearly needs a govt bailout. Fed already rains liquidity into the treasuries like a madman, just wait till it buys corporates and God knows what else. Treasury should now simply guarantee salaries. The unconditional helicopter money is a good idea too. This will bridge the discrepancy between financial time (which has not stopped) and economic time (which is stopping, slowly, but has to come to a full stop). But at any rate, lives > economy. Only one of those is a renewable resource.
  - 6nf 7y ago
    > lives > economy. Only one of those is a renewable resource. Not sure I follow. Are you saying the economy is not a renewable resource? Cause I'm creating a new life as we speak.
xeromal 7y ago
If we're going to be frank, I doubt 70+ year olds are contributing to the economy in a huge way.
- H8crilA 7y ago
  We live in a deflationary environment (just look at what are the interest rates doing, world-wide). There's no supply problem, there's a demand problem. "Killing Boomers" will actually make things worse.

anoncareer0212 7y ago

Nip what in the bud? The article seems to indicate the fear is of the 3.5% to 11% of 80 year olds who will die

gpm 7y ago

What do you think the death toll of shutting down the economy is going to be? I'm willing to bet that it turns out to higher than 10s of millions long term. Nearly 10 million people die every year from hunger [0]. How much progress are we going to lose on that by putting the economy into a recession? Global warming is an incoming emergency that threatens global stability. What are the odds that it leads to widespread war, widespread famine, or both? How much are we increasing those odds by starting a recession instead of continuing our R&D work at full speed hoping to find a (actually implementable) solution? How many lives will be lost due to less funding for medical care and research? Both in the US where poor people can't afford it, and the rest of the world where less wealth means less taxes means less funding for the health care system? What if the next virus that comes along is more akin to the one that wiped out the American Chestnut trees (100% death toll) instead of just doubling your chance of dying when you get it? [0] https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/people-and-poverty/hunger-and-obesity/how-many-people-die-from-hunger-each-year https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/people-and-poverty...

treis 7y ago

>It is. The quarantines/border-restrictions are not permanent measures, and acting swiftly is the correct way to nip it in the bud. It's wayyyyyy to late for that.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

wueb3behd 7y ago

Empty would imply devoid of content, it's pretty obvious they were speaking metaphorically. As for if it's a good idea, you're insane if you think some of the timelines being discussed, like the 18 month one, are realistic. Americans might put up with this for a couple months tops but taking a full year off is for the Europeans with nothing better to do.