6 ms·

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 u

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.
        taeric 7y ago
        Yeah, sounds like I am just further in how I read the asymptomatic narrative. My understanding is it is now the narrative that most people that get this week barely register a cold. See the story of Greta. Such that most people are asked to distance, since they are no risk for themselves, but extreme risk for the people in the risk pool. Is that not the fully accepted narrative now?
        celticninja 7y ago
        I don't think that is actually the case, I hope you had quite a few you first-hand accounts of people who had it and it was not 'barely a cold'. more like 4 days in bed, still very lethargic for the next 2 or 3 days. it depends on the viral load that is received. small load = milder symptoms. I think this is why it is so dangerous for healthcare workers, they get prolonged exposure and them by the time they become ill they have a lot of virus. if you picked it up off someone on public transport, for example, then your exposure would have been maybe 10 or 15 minutes, so you get a milder case.

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.
        taeric 7y ago
        Yeah, sounds like I am just further in how I read the asymptomatic narrative. My understanding is it is now the narrative that most people that get this week barely register a cold. See the story of Greta. Such that most people are asked to distance, since they are no risk for themselves, but extreme risk for the people in the risk pool. Is that not the fully accepted narrative now?
        celticninja 7y ago
        I don't think that is actually the case, I hope you had quite a few you first-hand accounts of people who had it and it was not 'barely a cold'. more like 4 days in bed, still very lethargic for the next 2 or 3 days. it depends on the viral load that is received. small load = milder symptoms. I think this is why it is so dangerous for healthcare workers, they get prolonged exposure and them by the time they become ill they have a lot of virus. if you picked it up off someone on public transport, for example, then your exposure would have been maybe 10 or 15 minutes, so you get a milder case.