4 ms·

Sure, and that might have been a better solution than simply forcing everyone to go on unemployment, which is what will probably happen now.

edmundsauto 7y ago
Can you explain your rationale behind your thinking? I assume you were being hyperbolic with "everyone", aka 100%. What percentage do you actually think will hit the dole lines? How confident are you in that prediction? What behaviors of yours have changed because of this confidence? I've seen a lot of "the economy will tank because consumers can't visit shops". I've seen a lot of friends in food & bev lose their jobs. I haven't seen much in the way of hard numbers. Seems to me that a huge increase in worldwide deaths and a huge increase in sick time absences would be economically worse than lockdown.
- ceilingcorner 7y ago
  I'm not even necessarily arguing that not locking down is the right move, but rather that we should be able to have the conversation as to whether it's worth it or whether there are other, better solutions to this problem (like Taiwan or Korea managed to do.) In any case, as I mentioned before, the danger here is that the consequences are unknown. We really don't know what will happen, which in many ways is worse than a known danger like the virus itself. The complexity is rapidly spinning out of control and affecting trade, economics, other medical conditions, and virtually every job that isn't a remote programmer. As far as numbers go, Cuomo just ordered that 75% of people stay home from work in NYC. If you google around, unemployment applications are growing exponentially. It seems likely that a pretty significant portion of the population will apply for it. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-19/cuomo-orders-75-of-new-yorkers-to-stay-home-from-work https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-19/cuomo-ord...
  - edmundsauto 7y ago
    That's fair to ask for the conversation. However, the risk is that the conversation will prevent decisive action, which is what has occurred in the US for the past month. As a nation and collective of states, leaders are decisioning on events from a couple of weeks ago. Because we don't know the ground truth at the moment, we are working with stale information. Each pandemic period -- let's use OOM cases to define it quickly -- has different levels of response needed. The lockdown needs to happen now, then we can have the conversation around our options. As we discuss options while things spiral, the inputs are out of date, which is very very dangerous in a quickly changing exponential chart.

edmundsauto 7y ago

Can you explain your rationale behind your thinking? I assume you were being hyperbolic with "everyone", aka 100%. What percentage do you actually think will hit the dole lines? How confident are you in that prediction? What behaviors of yours have changed because of this confidence? I've seen a lot of "the economy will tank because consumers can't visit shops". I've seen a lot of friends in food & bev lose their jobs. I haven't seen much in the way of hard numbers. Seems to me that a huge increase in worldwide deaths and a huge increase in sick time absences would be economically worse than lockdown.

ceilingcorner 7y ago
I'm not even necessarily arguing that not locking down is the right move, but rather that we should be able to have the conversation as to whether it's worth it or whether there are other, better solutions to this problem (like Taiwan or Korea managed to do.) In any case, as I mentioned before, the danger here is that the consequences are unknown. We really don't know what will happen, which in many ways is worse than a known danger like the virus itself. The complexity is rapidly spinning out of control and affecting trade, economics, other medical conditions, and virtually every job that isn't a remote programmer. As far as numbers go, Cuomo just ordered that 75% of people stay home from work in NYC. If you google around, unemployment applications are growing exponentially. It seems likely that a pretty significant portion of the population will apply for it. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-19/cuomo-orders-75-of-new-yorkers-to-stay-home-from-work https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-19/cuomo-ord...
- edmundsauto 7y ago
  That's fair to ask for the conversation. However, the risk is that the conversation will prevent decisive action, which is what has occurred in the US for the past month. As a nation and collective of states, leaders are decisioning on events from a couple of weeks ago. Because we don't know the ground truth at the moment, we are working with stale information. Each pandemic period -- let's use OOM cases to define it quickly -- has different levels of response needed. The lockdown needs to happen now, then we can have the conversation around our options. As we discuss options while things spiral, the inputs are out of date, which is very very dangerous in a quickly changing exponential chart.