2 ms·
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
by 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 agoThat'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 As we discuss options while things spiral, the inputs are out of date, which is very very dangerous in a quickly changing exponential chart.