5 ms·

There has to be an endgame to these measures that's not 'wait for a vaccine'. A few weeks is tolerable[0], but what happens when early April comes around and n

There has to be an endgame to these measures that's not 'wait for a vaccine'. A few weeks is tolerable[0], but what happens when early April comes around and new cases are still popping up? The provisions will have to start unwinding or this could go from an economic hiccup to an economic catastrophe. [0] less so for some.

ajross 7y ago
What's the alternative? Let 10M people die to get back 15% of world GDP? (Both reasonable guesses at pessimal death counts and recessions, IMHO). The hope is that it will work everywhere like it seems to have in Hubei and Korea -- near-zero new case counts and a regime of continued care, a few extra regulations, and pervasive testing. And it might work. But if it doesn't, yeah: we should turtle, accept the economic catastrophe, and wait for a vaccine. Would anyone sane argue otherwise?
- thereisnospork 7y ago
  >Would anyone sane argue otherwise? a. no need to be rude and b. The same reason sane people drive automobiles which kill 40,000 people in this country a year[0]: the alternative can be worse. How many people do you figure are going to get rolled back into poverty at 15% world GDP loss? [0]Less this year I suppose.
  - ajross 7y ago
    > How many people do you figure are going to get rolled back into poverty at 15% world GDP loss? A whole lot, but they'll get back to parity (on average) in about 6 years, assuming a 2.5% GDP growth. How many dead people do you think will come back to life after six years, in comparison? I don't want to be glib, but I genuinely don't think you've thought this through. I just can't see a moral argument for allowing a 10M+ death count at the kind of economic impact we're talking about right now.
    - thereisnospork 7y ago
      >I don't want to be glib, but I genuinely don't think you've thought this through. I just can't see a moral argument for allowing a 10M+ death count at the kind of economic impact we're talking about right now. Then try thinking through the impact of what could become the biggest economic disruption since the great depression or the great leap forward. Those went well for people. 80 trillion GDP, down to 68, back to 80 in 6 years is a 36 trillion dollar loss in the next six years alone. That's 3.6 million per victim and to be frank, most people aren't worth 3.6 million dollars. Look, this is a reasonable thing to disagree about but you aren't engaging in good faith. edit: math
bobsil1 7y ago
Everyone covers mouths to catch asymptomatic spread, cheap testing indicates those who should self-isolate, enforce against scofflaws, econ reopens.
- empthought 7y ago
  This is correct.
- m4rtink 7y ago
  These meassures are pretty much already happening here in Czech Republic - masks/respirators (of any provenience, even a scarf will do) are now mandatory to prevent you from easily infecting others. And a plane with 100k high speed tests just landed the other day.
SauciestGNU 7y ago
Human life is more valuable than the economy. Governments can print arbitrary amounts of money and use monetary policy to soften the blow on people. We can sort the economy out later, right now we should focus on minimizing loss of life.
nullspace 7y ago
I'm just a mere software engineer, so I have no idea about this stuff. But, I feel like this sentiment "has to be an endgame to these measures" feels like wishful thinking. Why is it impossible that we're headed for an economic catastrophe until a vaccine is out? I can totally see it happening - something where we will have to ration out our basic supplies even. <-- already happening wrt some stuff. That would just be the cost of saving a few million lives.
- MikeAmelung 7y ago
  Yeah, and at least they won't have to endure the rationing, because they were on death's doorstep already. I don't think a lot of people saying this kind of stuff are considering the deaths from an economic catastrophe.
noelsusman 7y ago
The endgame is to wait out the peak, which won't come until May. It's going to be an economic catastrophe.
ironmagma 7y ago
We’re waiting for a lot of things- vaccines, respirators, treatments, the arrival of warmer weather, and social cooperation. We can’t plan for a month from now because we don’t know what tomorrow will bring. All we can do is try to buy time.
bcrosby95 7y ago
They're working on some pretty fast testing. Before being shut in for 18 months they'll probably develop a policy of weekly standard tests for the population, and require proof of a recent test to do anything in public.
anyfoo 7y ago
Fortunately, a few measures have been mentioned here, but I like to address a more general point. You say there "has to be an endgame". My question is: Why? The virus is not something you can negotiate with, it's essentially a force of nature. As a more dire example, if a massive asteroid comes hurling towards the earth, we either get off this rock (rather unlikely), or we all die. Are you going to stand there and say "there has to be an endgame that is neither of those outcomes"? The people ordering lockdowns only have limited tools in their arsenal.

ajross 7y ago

What's the alternative? Let 10M people die to get back 15% of world GDP? (Both reasonable guesses at pessimal death counts and recessions, IMHO). The hope is that it will work everywhere like it seems to have in Hubei and Korea -- near-zero new case counts and a regime of continued care, a few extra regulations, and pervasive testing. And it might work. But if it doesn't, yeah: we should turtle, accept the economic catastrophe, and wait for a vaccine. Would anyone sane argue otherwise?

thereisnospork 7y ago
>Would anyone sane argue otherwise? a. no need to be rude and b. The same reason sane people drive automobiles which kill 40,000 people in this country a year[0]: the alternative can be worse. How many people do you figure are going to get rolled back into poverty at 15% world GDP loss? [0]Less this year I suppose.
- ajross 7y ago
  > How many people do you figure are going to get rolled back into poverty at 15% world GDP loss? A whole lot, but they'll get back to parity (on average) in about 6 years, assuming a 2.5% GDP growth. How many dead people do you think will come back to life after six years, in comparison? I don't want to be glib, but I genuinely don't think you've thought this through. I just can't see a moral argument for allowing a 10M+ death count at the kind of economic impact we're talking about right now.
  - thereisnospork 7y ago
    >I don't want to be glib, but I genuinely don't think you've thought this through. I just can't see a moral argument for allowing a 10M+ death count at the kind of economic impact we're talking about right now. Then try thinking through the impact of what could become the biggest economic disruption since the great depression or the great leap forward. Those went well for people. 80 trillion GDP, down to 68, back to 80 in 6 years is a 36 trillion dollar loss in the next six years alone. That's 3.6 million per victim and to be frank, most people aren't worth 3.6 million dollars. Look, this is a reasonable thing to disagree about but you aren't engaging in good faith. edit: math

bobsil1 7y ago

Everyone covers mouths to catch asymptomatic spread, cheap testing indicates those who should self-isolate, enforce against scofflaws, econ reopens.

empthought 7y ago
This is correct.
m4rtink 7y ago
These meassures are pretty much already happening here in Czech Republic - masks/respirators (of any provenience, even a scarf will do) are now mandatory to prevent you from easily infecting others. And a plane with 100k high speed tests just landed the other day.

SauciestGNU 7y ago

Human life is more valuable than the economy. Governments can print arbitrary amounts of money and use monetary policy to soften the blow on people. We can sort the economy out later, right now we should focus on minimizing loss of life.

nullspace 7y ago

I'm just a mere software engineer, so I have no idea about this stuff. But, I feel like this sentiment "has to be an endgame to these measures" feels like wishful thinking. Why is it impossible that we're headed for an economic catastrophe until a vaccine is out? I can totally see it happening - something where we will have to ration out our basic supplies even. <-- already happening wrt some stuff. That would just be the cost of saving a few million lives.

MikeAmelung 7y ago
Yeah, and at least they won't have to endure the rationing, because they were on death's doorstep already. I don't think a lot of people saying this kind of stuff are considering the deaths from an economic catastrophe.

noelsusman 7y ago

The endgame is to wait out the peak, which won't come until May. It's going to be an economic catastrophe.

ironmagma 7y ago

We’re waiting for a lot of things- vaccines, respirators, treatments, the arrival of warmer weather, and social cooperation. We can’t plan for a month from now because we don’t know what tomorrow will bring. All we can do is try to buy time.

bcrosby95 7y ago

They're working on some pretty fast testing. Before being shut in for 18 months they'll probably develop a policy of weekly standard tests for the population, and require proof of a recent test to do anything in public.

anyfoo 7y ago

Fortunately, a few measures have been mentioned here, but I like to address a more general point. You say there "has to be an endgame". My question is: Why? The virus is not something you can negotiate with, it's essentially a force of nature. As a more dire example, if a massive asteroid comes hurling towards the earth, we either get off this rock (rather unlikely), or we all die. Are you going to stand there and say "there has to be an endgame that is neither of those outcomes"? The people ordering lockdowns only have limited tools in their arsenal.