5 ms·

There's insufficient data to say whether the death rate is actually low or not. But this will be interesting to see play out politically, if the Republicans agr

There's insufficient data to say whether the death rate is actually low or not. But this will be interesting to see play out politically, if the Republicans agree to open up and there is mass deaths as a result this could sink the party for decades.

erikstarck 7y ago
That will sink the _country_ for decades.
meddlepal 7y ago
It cuts both ways... if we open up and the death rate is tolerable then Democrats are going to be framed as panic raisers in an attempt to tank the economy for political gain. That could end the parties viability in a number of swing States where the battle is for working moderates.
- KaoruAoiShiho 7y ago
  Don't agree, the political risk for dems is much lower. The deaths will still be substantial even if "tolerable".
  - tathougies 7y ago
    What number of deaths is substantial for a pandemic? In orders of magnitude? one thousand, ten thousand, a hundred thousand?
  - watwut 7y ago
    The more I watch American politics and how it plays out in relation to pandemic, actual outcome does not matter. People are willing to believe and hope for things that were already disproven in other coutries. Facts won't matter at all.
benmmurphy 7y ago
Even if opening up leads to massive deaths it can still be the correct thing to do. Here in the UK the NHS uses a system called QALYs which is approximately years of life saved to evaluate the effectiveness of NHS interventions. The NHS generally will only introduce new interventions if they $s per a QALY is low enough. The spectrum of options for dealing with the pandemic are a trade off and if the damage to the economy is high enough then even a high death rate might not justify a strong intervention. During the NHS's normal operations there are a bunch of interventions that NHS is not pursuing because the cost is higher than the marginal cost they are willing to spend for a QALY. The NHS is killing large numbers of people right now by not pursuing these interventions but everything is a tradeoff and stopping death is not an absolute.
- slv77 7y ago
  The case fatality rate for 20 to 30 year olds is somewhere between 1 and 200 and 1 in 400. This population is one of the the least susceptible and the chance of death is roughly the same as doing 5 to 10 BASE jumps. The economic harm arguments assume that the economic harm of the pandemic is confined to government imposed restrictions. When going to the movies carries the same risk as the most extreme sports it is reasonable to expect that most people are going to self isolate. Of course given the lag it is possible given the growth curve that people could blindly find themselves jumping off a metaphorical cliff. At the same time I’d suggest that the significant amount of trauma the survivors would face would have significant repercussions for the economy.

erikstarck 7y ago

That will sink the _country_ for decades.

meddlepal 7y ago

It cuts both ways... if we open up and the death rate is tolerable then Democrats are going to be framed as panic raisers in an attempt to tank the economy for political gain. That could end the parties viability in a number of swing States where the battle is for working moderates.

KaoruAoiShiho 7y ago
Don't agree, the political risk for dems is much lower. The deaths will still be substantial even if "tolerable".
- tathougies 7y ago
  What number of deaths is substantial for a pandemic? In orders of magnitude? one thousand, ten thousand, a hundred thousand?
- watwut 7y ago
  The more I watch American politics and how it plays out in relation to pandemic, actual outcome does not matter. People are willing to believe and hope for things that were already disproven in other coutries. Facts won't matter at all.

benmmurphy 7y ago

Even if opening up leads to massive deaths it can still be the correct thing to do. Here in the UK the NHS uses a system called QALYs which is approximately years of life saved to evaluate the effectiveness of NHS interventions. The NHS generally will only introduce new interventions if they $s per a QALY is low enough. The spectrum of options for dealing with the pandemic are a trade off and if the damage to the economy is high enough then even a high death rate might not justify a strong intervention. During the NHS's normal operations there are a bunch of interventions that NHS is not pursuing because the cost is higher than the marginal cost they are willing to spend for a QALY. The NHS is killing large numbers of people right now by not pursuing these interventions but everything is a tradeoff and stopping death is not an absolute.

slv77 7y ago
The case fatality rate for 20 to 30 year olds is somewhere between 1 and 200 and 1 in 400. This population is one of the the least susceptible and the chance of death is roughly the same as doing 5 to 10 BASE jumps. The economic harm arguments assume that the economic harm of the pandemic is confined to government imposed restrictions. When going to the movies carries the same risk as the most extreme sports it is reasonable to expect that most people are going to self isolate. Of course given the lag it is possible given the growth curve that people could blindly find themselves jumping off a metaphorical cliff. At the same time I’d suggest that the significant amount of trauma the survivors would face would have significant repercussions for the economy.