3 ms·
> I'd be interested if someone knowledgable could do the math on lost years of life from 14% of the elderly dying vs such a severe economic contraction. That's
by untog 7y ago
> I'd be interested if someone knowledgable could do the math on lost years of life from 14% of the elderly dying vs such a severe economic contraction.
That's not a math problem. There is no equation for comparing the death of a human being with economic contraction.
There are some really fundamental questions here that I don't think we're going to answer soon. It's making me wonder about the nature of the US itself, with authority scattered between DC, states and counties. With a priority (arguably an obsession) with free market economics over all else.
When the dust settles the country is going to need to ask a lot of questions about how it operates. Failure to do so (and don't get me wrong, I suspect we will fail) just means the next time a pandemic like this comes around it's going to devastate the country even more.
- caseymarquis 7y agoEconomic contraction would lead to decreased lifespan. There's definitely a math problem here which optimizes for saved human life. Consider that a 100% economic contraction would result in the majority of humanity dying. 10% likely means some number of deaths among the poor (I've been the poor, there's not a lot of wiggle room when you're barely scraping by deciding between heat or food in the winter). It's not that we can't lock down and accept economic contraction, it's that we should do the math before we commit to that path. Lockdown may be the clear winner.
- untog 7y agoEconomic contraction can be countered by government spending in the short term. For instance in the UK the government has pledged to pay up to 80% of unemployed workers wages during this crisis. There will certainly be a hole to dig out of later, but it means no binary choice between economic contraction and people dying.
- caseymarquis 7y agoAgreed.