4 ms·
Yes, it probably will look like an overreaction, but that doesn't provide carte-blanche to overreact every time there's a new virus. As GP mentioned, this happ
by wyattpeak 7y ago
Yes, it probably will look like an overreaction, but that doesn't provide carte-blanche to overreact every time there's a new virus.
As GP mentioned, this happens every few years. Most of the time, it fizzles out. We can't transition all production to hospital equipment every few years, even if it is the right call twice a century.
I have often reprimanded (and have in turn been reprimanded) for overengineering a solution to a problem which just needed a quick fix, because it's not often appropriate to dedicate a lot of resources to ensuring that there are no possible errors. If it is, I'll ask for that specifically.
- asdfman123 7y agoSo, how many lives will justify spending more money? Should we spend $1 billion to save 500,000 people? Less? What's your cutoff for (most probable number of lives saved)*(money per life)?
- wyattpeak 7y agoWhy do you assume that lives will be saved by redistributing resources like the ancestor proposed? Once in fifty years it will save lives, certainly. What about the shortage of other manufactured goods the other twenty times a century that you reassign factories to diseases that turn out to be nothing? I think it's a bad idea because it will hurt people, not because I want to save money. EDIT: Removed a political aside.
- wbl 7y agoMost of the time it's a new flu for which we can make a vaccine quickly and isn't a huge threat. This one we knew was novel, a spreader and a killer.
- wyattpeak 7y agoSARS, swine flu, bird flu, ebola - just in the past couple of decades these all caused considerable concern of pandemic. We're talking about what we knew of COVID19 in January here, which was basically nothing. Hindsight justification for which ones were a real problem isn't useful.
- PaulDavisThe1st 7y agoWe keep a MASSIVE oversupply surplus for the military at all times. If that's OK, why not do that for health related issues too?
- wyattpeak 7y agoYou'd need to ask someone who thinks it's a good idea to keep a massive oversupply for the military. (Note that I'm not American, so I have no skin in that game.) I don't, though, disagree with keeping a large stockpile of goods.* I just disagree with constantly kneejerk reassigning production to it. * I still don't know that it can work, but only because I think people too quickly forget that it's important. If people could be convinced otherwise in the long term, I think it's a great idea.
- WalterBright 7y ago> We keep a MASSIVE oversupply surplus for the military at all times. If that's OK, why not do that for health related issues too? When your military isn't strong enough, you get fire, rape, pillage, death, starvation and epidemics, and people really really don't like that.
- dredmorbius 7y agoOr miscellaneous actors stepping on your oil supply lines and shipping traffic.
- PaulDavisThe1st 7y agoMost people would accept that epidemics (let alone pandemics) are bad enough on their own. Many people would say bad enough to avoid a Just In Time approach to public health.
- WalterBright 7y agoMaybe most people would. But I've heard first hand accounts of how devastating it is to lose a war, and I'll go with that. May I recommend "Savage Continent": https://www.amazon.com/Savage-Continent-Europe-Aftermath-World/dp/125003356X https://www.amazon.com/Savage-Continent-Europe-Aftermath-Wor... It was so terrible I abandoned reading it.