4 ms·

How do people have this idea that the economy just goes back to normal? That somehow you tell people to go back to work and just take the millions of dead and e

by erentz 7y ago

How do people have this idea that the economy just goes back to normal? That somehow you tell people to go back to work and just take the millions of dead and everybody just salutes and dutifully goes about it like nothing is happening? That’s complete fantasy land. I’m flabbergasted at how people are now somehow proposing this. They simply do not have any conception of what is going on and how human beings react. The economy is going to be trashed much worse if we don’t manage this pandemic and keep the demands on the health system at manageable levels. We can do that intelligently or clumsily. At the moment we’ve ignored the problem and it has caused us to be in the situation to be reacting very late. That’s why it’s hurting so much. But making that worse by going back to pretending it isn’t happening is not the answer.

mardifoufs 7y ago
Sorry but that is not true. The truth is that the majority of the economically active population is not at risk from dying. I get using outliers as a way to scare younger people into staying inside, it's for a good cause. But that's what they are, outliers. The average age of death in Italy is 80 years, most of the younger people in ICUs have severe pre existing conditions or were exposed to much higher virus loads (ie health workers). But you just won't get millions of death, that's a complete exaggeration going by the data we have right now. Right now Sweden is isolating people who are vulnerable, which is absolutely necessary. But people who aren't are free to keep living their daily lives, because the risks for them aee extremely low. And if they end up needing help the hospitals won't be overcrowded by the more vulnerable. That's the way to do it since we now know how non lethal it is for people under 50-60. Still, I'm not opposed to a short full lock down. The question is for how long? Let's say you're right. ok. But for how long can we stay inside? At what point will the virus not be a threat? Months? How could that ever be sustainable ? We need people who aren't at risk to work to keep people who are safe. It's much easier to keep a small proportion of the population isolated while waiting for a virus and having everyone else working to sustain that isolation rather than just shut down everything and hope for things to just go away. Unless there's a clear timeline, this could get catastrophic.
- erentz 7y ago
  It is true. People who think it isn't seem to think the 2% gets culled like Thanos snaps a finger, without any consequence. It's not quick, it's not clean, and when the hospitals are overwhelmed it's going to get much more ugly with all those preventable deaths be much more than 2%. For each patient that ends up in the ICU and dies there are 4 or 5 more not in the ICU that need beds and oxygen. The UK really wanted to do your approach, tried to do it, but has quickly discovered it wasn't going to be feasible. Its idealistic and doesn't hold up against the reality. If you want to avoid lock downs you don't delay in acting. Look to Taiwan and Korea for guidance there. We have had to lock down because we ignored it and need to get it under control. We can ease up once it's under control and we have our act together. All of the focus right now should be on limiting economic damage with measures like the UK and Denmark are doing, and getting our act together pronto on how to expand the health system, expand testing, expand production of necessary equipment and PPE, so on.
- onetimemanytime 7y ago
  >>Sorry but that is not true. The truth is that the majority of the economically active population is not at risk from dying. Majority is 50% plus 1. That's not how things should be done, unless you are making an argument for herd immunity. On the other hand, we risk death in a lot of ways, yet go out and work. At some point we'll have to go out

by erentz 7y ago

mardifoufs 7y ago

Sorry but that is not true. The truth is that the majority of the economically active population is not at risk from dying. I get using outliers as a way to scare younger people into staying inside, it's for a good cause. But that's what they are, outliers. The average age of death in Italy is 80 years, most of the younger people in ICUs have severe pre existing conditions or were exposed to much higher virus loads (ie health workers). But you just won't get millions of death, that's a complete exaggeration going by the data we have right now. Right now Sweden is isolating people who are vulnerable, which is absolutely necessary. But people who aren't are free to keep living their daily lives, because the risks for them aee extremely low. And if they end up needing help the hospitals won't be overcrowded by the more vulnerable. That's the way to do it since we now know how non lethal it is for people under 50-60. Still, I'm not opposed to a short full lock down. The question is for how long? Let's say you're right. ok. But for how long can we stay inside? At what point will the virus not be a threat? Months? How could that ever be sustainable ? We need people who aren't at risk to work to keep people who are safe. It's much easier to keep a small proportion of the population isolated while waiting for a virus and having everyone else working to sustain that isolation rather than just shut down everything and hope for things to just go away. Unless there's a clear timeline, this could get catastrophic.

erentz 7y ago
It is true. People who think it isn't seem to think the 2% gets culled like Thanos snaps a finger, without any consequence. It's not quick, it's not clean, and when the hospitals are overwhelmed it's going to get much more ugly with all those preventable deaths be much more than 2%. For each patient that ends up in the ICU and dies there are 4 or 5 more not in the ICU that need beds and oxygen. The UK really wanted to do your approach, tried to do it, but has quickly discovered it wasn't going to be feasible. Its idealistic and doesn't hold up against the reality. If you want to avoid lock downs you don't delay in acting. Look to Taiwan and Korea for guidance there. We have had to lock down because we ignored it and need to get it under control. We can ease up once it's under control and we have our act together. All of the focus right now should be on limiting economic damage with measures like the UK and Denmark are doing, and getting our act together pronto on how to expand the health system, expand testing, expand production of necessary equipment and PPE, so on.
onetimemanytime 7y ago
>>Sorry but that is not true. The truth is that the majority of the economically active population is not at risk from dying. Majority is 50% plus 1. That's not how things should be done, unless you are making an argument for herd immunity. On the other hand, we risk death in a lot of ways, yet go out and work. At some point we'll have to go out