4 ms·

I’m just trying to get my head around this... I wonder if people are just ignorant of the widespread devastation caused by the lockdown, if they feel like peop

by zaroth 7y ago

I’m just trying to get my head around this... I wonder if people are just ignorant of the widespread devastation caused by the lockdown, if they feel like people devastated by the lockdown did not “do enough to prepare” and so somehow deserve it, if they somehow believe people will be made whole by trillion dollar handouts, or what? I personally know two family businesses which have laid off all their employees and may never start up again, and another which if it doesn’t see bailout funds before next month who won’t be able to make payroll. To say nothing of the kids missing their friends, their educations, their graduations, the weddings canceled, even funerals, etc. Yeah let’s totally do this every year. This is so out of touch with reality it’s bizarre.

jsight 7y ago
Yeah, I'm seeing layoffs in sectors that I never would have expected to see layoffs. Its amazingly bad for everyone. But don't worry, the government is here to save everyone! /s We're definitely not volunteering for this every year.
maxerickson 7y ago
A coordinated reduction of time spent in groups doesn't have to be extreme to have a pretty big impact on infection transmission. Like state health departments could declare that influenza is trending in the state and businesses could have less face to face meetings, and maybe churches cancel some of their non-worship gatherings, and so on. For example, the orange scenario on https://covidactnow.org/state/MI https://covidactnow.org/state/MI includes possibly closing schools. States are doing the ones down at the bottom of the graph, social distancing is less severe and less effective, but still compares favorably to not adjusting behavior. School closures in response to infections could probably be done more aggressively than we usually do now, but doing it on a statewide basis also probably doesn't make sense.
- zaroth 7y ago
  Dr Katz wrote in the NYT; “I am deeply concerned that the social, economic and public health consequences of this near total meltdown of normal life — schools and businesses closed, gatherings banned — will be long lasting and calamitous, possibly graver than the direct toll of the virus itself. The stock market will bounce back in time, but many businesses never will. The unemployment, impoverishment and despair likely to result will be public health scourges of the first order.” Let’s not do social distancing, or even “social distancing lite” at all please. It’s disastrously damaging to public health.
  - maxerickson 7y ago
    That paragraph doesn't describe social distancing, it describes the government ordering everything closed. But whatever, we can call the thing where we take simple, effective public health measures that do not have grave economic impacts something else. (the irony to me is that reducing the spread of things like flu would have economic benefits, many of which would be concentrated with those that are economically vulnerable)
s1artibartfast 7y ago
Whatever happened to moderation. Extremely all or nothing ideology is how we got in this mess in the first place. If people's take away from this all is to wash their hands,stay home when sick, and cough into their arms, tens of thousands of lives will be saved
_ph_ 7y ago
Besides that I consider this discussion mostly theoretical as I doubt that one would get large enough parts of the population to agree - they are not even agreeing to erradicate diseases we could easily erradicate, like the measels - a planned limited shut down wouldn't be very disruptive. Here it Europe, it is quite common for businesses to shut entirely down for a few weeks every year. The reason is managing employee vacations. It is easier managing this by shutting down entirely. Even the big car companies have two weeks every year, where the production is mostly shut down. And even many US companies have mandatory shut-downs on thanksgiving or christmas.

by zaroth 7y ago

jsight 7y ago

Yeah, I'm seeing layoffs in sectors that I never would have expected to see layoffs. Its amazingly bad for everyone. But don't worry, the government is here to save everyone! /s We're definitely not volunteering for this every year.

maxerickson 7y ago

A coordinated reduction of time spent in groups doesn't have to be extreme to have a pretty big impact on infection transmission. Like state health departments could declare that influenza is trending in the state and businesses could have less face to face meetings, and maybe churches cancel some of their non-worship gatherings, and so on. For example, the orange scenario on https://covidactnow.org/state/MI https://covidactnow.org/state/MI includes possibly closing schools. States are doing the ones down at the bottom of the graph, social distancing is less severe and less effective, but still compares favorably to not adjusting behavior. School closures in response to infections could probably be done more aggressively than we usually do now, but doing it on a statewide basis also probably doesn't make sense.

zaroth 7y ago
Dr Katz wrote in the NYT; “I am deeply concerned that the social, economic and public health consequences of this near total meltdown of normal life — schools and businesses closed, gatherings banned — will be long lasting and calamitous, possibly graver than the direct toll of the virus itself. The stock market will bounce back in time, but many businesses never will. The unemployment, impoverishment and despair likely to result will be public health scourges of the first order.” Let’s not do social distancing, or even “social distancing lite” at all please. It’s disastrously damaging to public health.
- maxerickson 7y ago
  That paragraph doesn't describe social distancing, it describes the government ordering everything closed. But whatever, we can call the thing where we take simple, effective public health measures that do not have grave economic impacts something else. (the irony to me is that reducing the spread of things like flu would have economic benefits, many of which would be concentrated with those that are economically vulnerable)

s1artibartfast 7y ago

Whatever happened to moderation. Extremely all or nothing ideology is how we got in this mess in the first place. If people's take away from this all is to wash their hands,stay home when sick, and cough into their arms, tens of thousands of lives will be saved

_ph_ 7y ago

Besides that I consider this discussion mostly theoretical as I doubt that one would get large enough parts of the population to agree - they are not even agreeing to erradicate diseases we could easily erradicate, like the measels - a planned limited shut down wouldn't be very disruptive. Here it Europe, it is quite common for businesses to shut entirely down for a few weeks every year. The reason is managing employee vacations. It is easier managing this by shutting down entirely. Even the big car companies have two weeks every year, where the production is mostly shut down. And even many US companies have mandatory shut-downs on thanksgiving or christmas.