4 ms·

> The social distancing measures are NOT the cause -- in the absence of them we'd be doing even worse off in the long run. I don't share your high level of cer

> The social distancing measures are NOT the cause -- in the absence of them we'd be doing even worse off in the long run. I don't share your high level of certainty about that. I don't believe an uncontrolled pandemic would have caused the amount of business closures and layoffs and mass unemployment the lockdowns have already caused. It would certainly be bad for business, and there would be some layoffs, and we would almost definitely have a recession, but many businesses that are now closed would have remained open, motivated purely by self-preservation. Even now we see people out and about, even though the government tells them to stay home, and I don't believe that would change very much if the disease was uncontrolled. The rich can afford to stay at home, but the poor need to go to work. Self-preservation includes the desire to earn an income. Hopefully we don't find out later on that the total amount of human suffering caused by the lockdowns outweighs the suffering caused by the disease. I think it probably won't, but we need to consider the possibility.

CydeWeys 7y ago
You aren't accounting for the massive economic costs of all these extra unnecessary deaths.
- twblalock 7y ago
  As I wrote, I believe there would be a recession either way. The question is whether the recession caused by the lockdowns will be worse than one caused by an uncontrolled pandemic. Why do you think those unnecessary deaths would cause more economic damage than a government-mandated shutdown of almost all work that cannot be done from home?
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    A recession where people live is better than the exact same recession where people die. (Yes, I know, people do in fact die from purely economic reasons in a recession. That's still different from people dying being the cause of the recession, because in the second case, there's more dying. The people die from the disease, which causes the recession, and then people die from the economic consequences of the recession.) But even in strictly economic terms: Here's a person who's 30. If they die, we lose 35 or 40 years of their work. If they have to stay home for two months, we lose two months of their work. (Yes, far more people have to stay home than would die if we all just went about our lives. But even assuming a 1% death ratio, N people x 2 months is less than N/100 x 40 years. There's also the health care costs of all the ones who are hospitalized. It's better economically to do it this way.)
    - CydeWeys 7y ago
      People also aren't factoring in that, while the death rate may be low for young healthy people, the hospitalization rate is still quite high, and recovery time is long. And the death rate even for young people goes up substantially if the hospitals are so overwhelmed that they can't even provide oxygen and nurses for young healthy people.
      - taeric 7y ago
        Do you have solid data sources for this?
        ShorsHammer 7y ago
        maybe you could go verify this information yourself and post back if you find something worthwhile refuting the original claim
        taeric 7y ago
        It is a new narrative that isn't really compatible with anything else I've heard. Which is basically that asymptomatic carriers are the norm, you are contagious even without symptoms, and this kills people in the risk pool. So, someone making a claim that it is dangerous for non risk pool people feels like something that should be easy to back up.
        edanm 7y ago
        That's actually been the standard story for most of the time. Dangerous mostly to at-risk individuals, but requiring ventilators for a succinct percentage of people who aren't at risk. That's the main reason that Britain changed their tactic, and the main reason most countries are worried, especially about ventilators. That narrative isn't final- there's a lot of unknowns. As you say, we are now thinking there are more asymptomatic people than we thought, which would be huge.
        7y ago
- ianburrell 7y ago
  There is also the massive economic costs of everyone who gets sick. With uncontrolled pandemic, something like 5-10% of people would be out sick, 20% of those in the hospital. Plus, all the people who are caring for the sick or quarantined. Essential businesses which are in person would be more vulnerable. There is a significant risk that health care, manufacturing, transportation, or grocery stores would need to shut down because too many workers are out sick and the rest are afraid to come to work.
  - acqq 7y ago
    > With uncontrolled pandemic, something like 5-10% of people would be out sick, 20% of those in the hospital. It doesn't look that that estimate is nearly right. It is true that there are always people reported as "tested positive having no symptoms at the moment" but that is different from "tested positive and never developed the symptoms" due to the point where we are in the exponential curve. In short, the numbers could be significantly worse in an uncontrolled pandemic. Now if it's only e.g. every second person that can be infected and completely remained asymptotic all the time, in an uncontrolled outbreak you'd have a moment where e.g. 10% of all population is so sick to need the hospital. And no system could sustain that. The reason for the huge hospital need is not "to give them a nice bed" but that they could be exactly those who will eventually need the machine to be kept alive.

CydeWeys 7y ago

You aren't accounting for the massive economic costs of all these extra unnecessary deaths.

twblalock 7y ago
As I wrote, I believe there would be a recession either way. The question is whether the recession caused by the lockdowns will be worse than one caused by an uncontrolled pandemic. Why do you think those unnecessary deaths would cause more economic damage than a government-mandated shutdown of almost all work that cannot be done from home?
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  A recession where people live is better than the exact same recession where people die. (Yes, I know, people do in fact die from purely economic reasons in a recession. That's still different from people dying being the cause of the recession, because in the second case, there's more dying. The people die from the disease, which causes the recession, and then people die from the economic consequences of the recession.) But even in strictly economic terms: Here's a person who's 30. If they die, we lose 35 or 40 years of their work. If they have to stay home for two months, we lose two months of their work. (Yes, far more people have to stay home than would die if we all just went about our lives. But even assuming a 1% death ratio, N people x 2 months is less than N/100 x 40 years. There's also the health care costs of all the ones who are hospitalized. It's better economically to do it this way.)
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    People also aren't factoring in that, while the death rate may be low for young healthy people, the hospitalization rate is still quite high, and recovery time is long. And the death rate even for young people goes up substantially if the hospitals are so overwhelmed that they can't even provide oxygen and nurses for young healthy people.
    - taeric 7y ago
      Do you have solid data sources for this?
      - ShorsHammer 7y ago
        maybe you could go verify this information yourself and post back if you find something worthwhile refuting the original claim
        taeric 7y ago
        It is a new narrative that isn't really compatible with anything else I've heard. Which is basically that asymptomatic carriers are the norm, you are contagious even without symptoms, and this kills people in the risk pool. So, someone making a claim that it is dangerous for non risk pool people feels like something that should be easy to back up.
        edanm 7y ago
        That's actually been the standard story for most of the time. Dangerous mostly to at-risk individuals, but requiring ventilators for a succinct percentage of people who aren't at risk. That's the main reason that Britain changed their tactic, and the main reason most countries are worried, especially about ventilators. That narrative isn't final- there's a lot of unknowns. As you say, we are now thinking there are more asymptomatic people than we thought, which would be huge.
        7y ago
ianburrell 7y ago
There is also the massive economic costs of everyone who gets sick. With uncontrolled pandemic, something like 5-10% of people would be out sick, 20% of those in the hospital. Plus, all the people who are caring for the sick or quarantined. Essential businesses which are in person would be more vulnerable. There is a significant risk that health care, manufacturing, transportation, or grocery stores would need to shut down because too many workers are out sick and the rest are afraid to come to work.
- acqq 7y ago
  > With uncontrolled pandemic, something like 5-10% of people would be out sick, 20% of those in the hospital. It doesn't look that that estimate is nearly right. It is true that there are always people reported as "tested positive having no symptoms at the moment" but that is different from "tested positive and never developed the symptoms" due to the point where we are in the exponential curve. In short, the numbers could be significantly worse in an uncontrolled pandemic. Now if it's only e.g. every second person that can be infected and completely remained asymptotic all the time, in an uncontrolled outbreak you'd have a moment where e.g. 10% of all population is so sick to need the hospital. And no system could sustain that. The reason for the huge hospital need is not "to give them a nice bed" but that they could be exactly those who will eventually need the machine to be kept alive.