5 ms·

From a purely economic standpoint, most of those deaths are not significantly reducing GDP. As others have said, with a virus more contagious than influenza, t

From a purely economic standpoint, most of those deaths are not significantly reducing GDP. As others have said, with a virus more contagious than influenza, the only real choice is for lots of people to get it. I'm all for a partial quarantine of the old and at-risk that lasts for a year, but it just isn't possible to shut down the whole world for that long. People don't understand how interconnected the global supply chain is. If this goes on, it will start with some simple things like your favorite deodorant brand and snacks disappearing from store shelves. Hopefully, people notice and pull back restrictions before it gets worse.

mirimir 7y ago
OK, so my wife and I are both over 70, and she's immunocompromised. Even so, personal issues aside, I agree that a global shut-down for a year or more would be hugely, even unimaginably, disruptive. And I also agree that health impacts for those not at high risk would be relatively minor. However, once Covid-19 was circulating freely in the general population, isolation for old and otherwise at-risk populations would arguably be less effective. So we'd need more effective isolation for them. I don't know what that might look like. Upon reflection, I don't believe that relocation-based isolation would be acceptable, and it probably also wouldn't be safe. I've been trying to imagine how my wife and I might avoid infection for a year or more. We're lucky, I suppose, because we live in a well-organized community. And there are teams of younger people who do most of the shopping. But for most people, there's no structure for anything like that. Except for those who belong to churches, I guess. And maybe it could develop via social media.
- lend000 7y ago
  The question we have to ask, is as an at-risk person, do you have a higher chance of contracting the disease over the course of its activity if you are quarantined for two months but most people aren't, or if everyone is quarantined for a year? I.e. if during quarantine you need to interact with people once per week to get groceries, etc., and there is only a partial quarantine, many people will be carriers, so each time you go out you have a 5% chance of contracting the virus. Your chance of contracting it during this time is 1 - 0.95^9 ~= 37%. In the full quarantine, fewer people are carriers at a given time, but the virus will be in circulation longer. So let's say there is a 1% chance of getting it every time you go out. Your chance of contracting it during this time is 1 - 0.99^52 ~= 40%. This is a simplified model that doesn't account for the way the percentage changes over time, but it makes a valid point. So the odds of each at-risk person contracting the disease may not be much higher (or possibly even lower) in a partial quarantine, even though more people overall are getting it and over a smaller time period (pressuring hospitals). The advantage being that the world continues to function during this time.
  - mirimir 7y ago
    If it behaves like other coronaviruses, there's a pretty good chance that it'll be circulating indefinitely. So at long as at-risk people haven't been infected, they'll need to isolate indefinitely. As I see it, quarantines can only flatten the infection curve, so that healthcare resources don't get maxed out. And realistically, I doubt that any quarantine could be enforced long enough, and so remain effective long enough, to prevent eventual infection. The only hope is that, when they do get infected, adequate medical care will be available.
  - nradov 7y ago
    There's no such thing as a "full quarantine" for everyone. It's totally impossible.
restalis 7y ago
"it will start with some simple things like your favorite deodorant brand and snacks disappearing from store shelves" Something tells me that those will come back on the store shelves, no more and no less but for their market potential (in a restored size market, of course) ...or people will just pick another candidate for their favorite product. I prefer to enjoy the ride to that postcoronavirus world and be glad to live these interesting times in general.

mirimir 7y ago

OK, so my wife and I are both over 70, and she's immunocompromised. Even so, personal issues aside, I agree that a global shut-down for a year or more would be hugely, even unimaginably, disruptive. And I also agree that health impacts for those not at high risk would be relatively minor. However, once Covid-19 was circulating freely in the general population, isolation for old and otherwise at-risk populations would arguably be less effective. So we'd need more effective isolation for them. I don't know what that might look like. Upon reflection, I don't believe that relocation-based isolation would be acceptable, and it probably also wouldn't be safe. I've been trying to imagine how my wife and I might avoid infection for a year or more. We're lucky, I suppose, because we live in a well-organized community. And there are teams of younger people who do most of the shopping. But for most people, there's no structure for anything like that. Except for those who belong to churches, I guess. And maybe it could develop via social media.

lend000 7y ago
The question we have to ask, is as an at-risk person, do you have a higher chance of contracting the disease over the course of its activity if you are quarantined for two months but most people aren't, or if everyone is quarantined for a year? I.e. if during quarantine you need to interact with people once per week to get groceries, etc., and there is only a partial quarantine, many people will be carriers, so each time you go out you have a 5% chance of contracting the virus. Your chance of contracting it during this time is 1 - 0.95^9 ~= 37%. In the full quarantine, fewer people are carriers at a given time, but the virus will be in circulation longer. So let's say there is a 1% chance of getting it every time you go out. Your chance of contracting it during this time is 1 - 0.99^52 ~= 40%. This is a simplified model that doesn't account for the way the percentage changes over time, but it makes a valid point. So the odds of each at-risk person contracting the disease may not be much higher (or possibly even lower) in a partial quarantine, even though more people overall are getting it and over a smaller time period (pressuring hospitals). The advantage being that the world continues to function during this time.
- mirimir 7y ago
  If it behaves like other coronaviruses, there's a pretty good chance that it'll be circulating indefinitely. So at long as at-risk people haven't been infected, they'll need to isolate indefinitely. As I see it, quarantines can only flatten the infection curve, so that healthcare resources don't get maxed out. And realistically, I doubt that any quarantine could be enforced long enough, and so remain effective long enough, to prevent eventual infection. The only hope is that, when they do get infected, adequate medical care will be available.
- nradov 7y ago
  There's no such thing as a "full quarantine" for everyone. It's totally impossible.

restalis 7y ago

"it will start with some simple things like your favorite deodorant brand and snacks disappearing from store shelves" Something tells me that those will come back on the store shelves, no more and no less but for their market potential (in a restored size market, of course) ...or people will just pick another candidate for their favorite product. I prefer to enjoy the ride to that postcoronavirus world and be glad to live these interesting times in general.