10 ms·

“If you ask the American people to choose between public health and the economy, then it’s no contest. No American is going to say accelerate the economy at the

“If you ask the American people to choose between public health and the economy, then it’s no contest. No American is going to say accelerate the economy at the cost of human life” - Cuomo Unfortunately, this just isn't true. Is life worth living if you're destitute and living in poverty or emotional turmoil? Won't a strong economy increase the pace at which we develop and produce life saving technologies? At a certain point of economic ruin, I think many people will choose a strong economy over saving lives. The question is more so what the tipping point is. It seems hard to quantify and compare the total impact a strong economy has versus lives saved, but I think it's definitely worth having the conversation. Ultimately, this is a value judgment so there's no objective answer.

vkou 7y ago
It's amazing to see how, when faced with the dilemma of "Industrial development, at the cost of have millions of people die", so many people want to follow in the footsteps of the USSR. Continuing with business as usual in an epidemic will condemn millions to an otherwise preventable death. This virus' mortality rate shoots up when health systems are overloaded.
- solidasparagus 7y ago
  You act like being unable to buy food and pay rent has no human cost.
  - vkou 7y ago
    1. There's a human cost to not industrializing a country, too. The surviving Soviet citizens got to take advantage of things like electricity, running water, universal education, a functioning industrial base. [1] Yet, for some reason, industrializing a country, while causing a famine is condemned as butchery... Yet preserving stock valuations, while causing an epidemic is laudable? 2. Then change the distribution systems. It's an emergency. Treat it like one. [1] And eventually luxuries like radios and private apartments!
  - acdha 7y ago
    It’s not a binary decision with no alternatives: for example, what most countries in Europe are doing where they give people money for necessities.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
afiler 7y ago
"Is life worth living if you're destitute and living in poverty or emotional turmoil?" It sounds like you're saying you think maybe poor people should just die.
- panarky 7y ago
  It's a real dilemma, and it's forcing uncomfortable questions about how many dollars a person-year of life is worth. We can avoid this terrible trade-off by realizing it's a false choice. We don't have to trade lives for GDP. There is a third option. We could take a lesson from Singapore, Taiwan and Korea. We could test millions of people, even those with no symptoms. We could aggressively isolate the positives, and allow the negatives to get on with life, with common sense disinfecting, physical distancing and universal mask wearing. There is a path out of this dilemma, but in the US it's pretty difficult to execute in the absence of national leadership, with every neighborhood, town, city, county and state left on their own to figure this out.
  - Apes 7y ago
    It's too late for extensive testing. The US is analogous to someone who was just exposed to a massively lethal dose of radiation, but still mostly feels fine for now. The damage is already done, and it's going to start showing up regardless of what is done to prevent it. Covid-19 has already massively spread in the US, and it's just a matter of days before large amounts of the population become symptomatic. It's too late to do anything about what's coming, and what's coming is going to be really bad.
    - owenmarshall 7y ago
      > It's too late to do anything about what's coming On one side we have health officials saying "for the love of god, keep the barriers up". On the other, we have politicians saying "we waited as long as we can, send in as many people as we need to sweep up the supercritical plutonium, it 'won\'t make a difference now' if the PPE isn't there". Who is to say who is right?
- smallgovt 7y ago
baby 7y ago
In the US a prosperous economy is only good for the rich, minimum wage and workers’ right haven’t really improved over the years while the stock market skyrocketed. In Europe this might be more true though.
- zamadatix 7y ago
  Except it's not the rich who have been impacted by the freeze on the economy.
  - baby 7y ago
    Oh yes they have been impacted. Look at S&P 500. It’s just that this time EVERYBODY is being impacted, including the rich. And their incentives are to restart the market as fast as possible. If you look at the Spanish flu of 1918, the economy was barely impacted because a worker’s life didn’t matter as much back then.
    - zamadatix 7y ago
      Net worth going from 40 million to 1 million is less impact than not having money for groceries next week because your bank account started at $400 before the place you work was shuttered.
      - baby 7y ago
        You say that but people kill themselves over this kind of loss.
threatofrain 7y ago
IMO the US president is doing this to test the waters.
- smallgovt 7y ago
  I think he wants to ensure he can take responsibility for the market rebound. If and when it happens, people will more likely attribute the rebound to him if he takes decisive action. And, if the market doesn't fully rebound, he wants to have an excuse. In this case, he'll be able to say "I told you we should have restarted the economy sooner".
wideasleep1 7y ago
>Ultimately, this is a value judgment so there's no objective answer. Ethical Dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_dilemma Heinz Dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma
mrtksn 7y ago
Actually, this pandemic can go away forever with a month of global lockdown, it's not like from now on people must stay at home forever or they will die. With good coordination, most things should be able to continue as normal. Many countries, rich or poor, have religious holidays that stop the economy for up to a week or two and nothing happens. Besides, even if somehow the economy crashes it's not the end of the world. It's simply not a big deal as long as the society doesn't crash. After a month of low economic activity, people will still be engineers or scientists or artists, the infrastructure will still be in place and the output it will quickly pick up. It doesn't have to have any real costs, except maybe some goods to expire.
- PenguinCoder 7y ago
  >go away forever with a month of global lockdown Therein lies the problem; people, countries, religions, politicians (dem/rep/liberal/conservative), etc would all have to actually work together. Coordination is what this entire response, globally, is lacking.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
bryanlarsen 7y ago
To make it even tougher, this isn't a black and white question. - a poor economy kills people and harms their health https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/magazine_article/failing-economy-failing-health/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/magazine_article/faili... - people dying harms the economy https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/03/the-forgotten-1957-pandemic-and-recession.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/03/th... So optimizing for minimizing death wouldn't be a full stop on the economy and optimizing for the economy wouldn't be full freedom of movement.
- downerending 7y ago
  It's quite complex, and (though certainly neither is an expert) the words of Cuomo and Trump overlap to a considerable degree. Economic damage absolutely will kill people--a lot of people. Total lockdown probably will save some people, but it's hard to really know at this point. It may turn out that most people are going to get the virus, and that the number who die will actually turn out to be fairly invariant with respect to whatever actions governments take. Even if we had a truly brilliant scientist who had all of the information that's presently known, I doubt the call would be obvious. Just too many unknowns.
  - bryanlarsen 7y ago
    > It may turn out that most people are going to get the virus China is good (but definitely not conclusive) evidence that a total lockdown can stop the virus.
    - downerending 7y ago
      It appears to be an impressive result, so far. What's less clear is what happens after they release the lockdown, which must inevitably happen. Flattening the curve to a fair degree was very likely worth doing. But it could happen that like the common cold, this will ultimately pass through the entire population, and there simply might not be much we can do about it. My guess is that we're still in the first act of this play. It might take a decade or more to gain real insight. Right now we have to guess.
tootie 7y ago
I think it's simpler than that. It's The Button. Would you be willing to push a button and get a million dollars knowing that someone somewhere else will die. A lot of people are willing to push it for a lot less than a million.
valcker 7y ago
> Won't a strong economy increase the pace at which we develop and produce life saving technologies? And yet, for some reason, having a strong economy in the US didn't make the country better prepared for this crisis.

vkou 7y ago

It's amazing to see how, when faced with the dilemma of "Industrial development, at the cost of have millions of people die", so many people want to follow in the footsteps of the USSR. Continuing with business as usual in an epidemic will condemn millions to an otherwise preventable death. This virus' mortality rate shoots up when health systems are overloaded.

solidasparagus 7y ago
You act like being unable to buy food and pay rent has no human cost.
- vkou 7y ago
  1. There's a human cost to not industrializing a country, too. The surviving Soviet citizens got to take advantage of things like electricity, running water, universal education, a functioning industrial base. [1] Yet, for some reason, industrializing a country, while causing a famine is condemned as butchery... Yet preserving stock valuations, while causing an epidemic is laudable? 2. Then change the distribution systems. It's an emergency. Treat it like one. [1] And eventually luxuries like radios and private apartments!
- acdha 7y ago
  It’s not a binary decision with no alternatives: for example, what most countries in Europe are doing where they give people money for necessities.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

afiler 7y ago

"Is life worth living if you're destitute and living in poverty or emotional turmoil?" It sounds like you're saying you think maybe poor people should just die.

panarky 7y ago
It's a real dilemma, and it's forcing uncomfortable questions about how many dollars a person-year of life is worth. We can avoid this terrible trade-off by realizing it's a false choice. We don't have to trade lives for GDP. There is a third option. We could take a lesson from Singapore, Taiwan and Korea. We could test millions of people, even those with no symptoms. We could aggressively isolate the positives, and allow the negatives to get on with life, with common sense disinfecting, physical distancing and universal mask wearing. There is a path out of this dilemma, but in the US it's pretty difficult to execute in the absence of national leadership, with every neighborhood, town, city, county and state left on their own to figure this out.
- Apes 7y ago
  It's too late for extensive testing. The US is analogous to someone who was just exposed to a massively lethal dose of radiation, but still mostly feels fine for now. The damage is already done, and it's going to start showing up regardless of what is done to prevent it. Covid-19 has already massively spread in the US, and it's just a matter of days before large amounts of the population become symptomatic. It's too late to do anything about what's coming, and what's coming is going to be really bad.
  - owenmarshall 7y ago
    > It's too late to do anything about what's coming On one side we have health officials saying "for the love of god, keep the barriers up". On the other, we have politicians saying "we waited as long as we can, send in as many people as we need to sweep up the supercritical plutonium, it 'won\'t make a difference now' if the PPE isn't there". Who is to say who is right?
smallgovt 7y ago

baby 7y ago

In the US a prosperous economy is only good for the rich, minimum wage and workers’ right haven’t really improved over the years while the stock market skyrocketed. In Europe this might be more true though.

zamadatix 7y ago
Except it's not the rich who have been impacted by the freeze on the economy.
- baby 7y ago
  Oh yes they have been impacted. Look at S&P 500. It’s just that this time EVERYBODY is being impacted, including the rich. And their incentives are to restart the market as fast as possible. If you look at the Spanish flu of 1918, the economy was barely impacted because a worker’s life didn’t matter as much back then.
  - zamadatix 7y ago
    Net worth going from 40 million to 1 million is less impact than not having money for groceries next week because your bank account started at $400 before the place you work was shuttered.
    - baby 7y ago
      You say that but people kill themselves over this kind of loss.

threatofrain 7y ago

IMO the US president is doing this to test the waters.

smallgovt 7y ago
I think he wants to ensure he can take responsibility for the market rebound. If and when it happens, people will more likely attribute the rebound to him if he takes decisive action. And, if the market doesn't fully rebound, he wants to have an excuse. In this case, he'll be able to say "I told you we should have restarted the economy sooner".

wideasleep1 7y ago

>Ultimately, this is a value judgment so there's no objective answer. Ethical Dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_dilemma Heinz Dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma

mrtksn 7y ago

Actually, this pandemic can go away forever with a month of global lockdown, it's not like from now on people must stay at home forever or they will die. With good coordination, most things should be able to continue as normal. Many countries, rich or poor, have religious holidays that stop the economy for up to a week or two and nothing happens. Besides, even if somehow the economy crashes it's not the end of the world. It's simply not a big deal as long as the society doesn't crash. After a month of low economic activity, people will still be engineers or scientists or artists, the infrastructure will still be in place and the output it will quickly pick up. It doesn't have to have any real costs, except maybe some goods to expire.

PenguinCoder 7y ago
>go away forever with a month of global lockdown Therein lies the problem; people, countries, religions, politicians (dem/rep/liberal/conservative), etc would all have to actually work together. Coordination is what this entire response, globally, is lacking.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

bryanlarsen 7y ago

To make it even tougher, this isn't a black and white question. - a poor economy kills people and harms their health https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/magazine_article/failing-economy-failing-health/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/magazine_article/faili... - people dying harms the economy https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/03/the-forgotten-1957-pandemic-and-recession.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/03/th... So optimizing for minimizing death wouldn't be a full stop on the economy and optimizing for the economy wouldn't be full freedom of movement.

downerending 7y ago
It's quite complex, and (though certainly neither is an expert) the words of Cuomo and Trump overlap to a considerable degree. Economic damage absolutely will kill people--a lot of people. Total lockdown probably will save some people, but it's hard to really know at this point. It may turn out that most people are going to get the virus, and that the number who die will actually turn out to be fairly invariant with respect to whatever actions governments take. Even if we had a truly brilliant scientist who had all of the information that's presently known, I doubt the call would be obvious. Just too many unknowns.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  > It may turn out that most people are going to get the virus China is good (but definitely not conclusive) evidence that a total lockdown can stop the virus.
  - downerending 7y ago
    It appears to be an impressive result, so far. What's less clear is what happens after they release the lockdown, which must inevitably happen. Flattening the curve to a fair degree was very likely worth doing. But it could happen that like the common cold, this will ultimately pass through the entire population, and there simply might not be much we can do about it. My guess is that we're still in the first act of this play. It might take a decade or more to gain real insight. Right now we have to guess.

tootie 7y ago

I think it's simpler than that. It's The Button. Would you be willing to push a button and get a million dollars knowing that someone somewhere else will die. A lot of people are willing to push it for a lot less than a million.

valcker 7y ago

> Won't a strong economy increase the pace at which we develop and produce life saving technologies? And yet, for some reason, having a strong economy in the US didn't make the country better prepared for this crisis.