24 ms·

> accepting that overreacting is much more desirable I wish that were true but it is not. It is entirely possible to take actions that make a bad situation wor

> accepting that overreacting is much more desirable I wish that were true but it is not. It is entirely possible to take actions that make a bad situation worse. The consequences of an economic shutdown, for example, are unknown. The worst case of global depression and supply chain disruption is just as bad as the virus itself, if not more so. I do not know how one makes good decisions in a situation of highly uncertain knowledge and severe consequences. I think we are in "less bad" territory, i.e. how do we balance multiple considerations such that while not leading to any outcome that could be considered "good", is at least not catastrophic. I don't envy those who have to make such decisions.

Lewton 7y ago
When you're in a situation where the severity of the outcome doubles every 4 days and you do not have clear information about where the curve will break, underreacting will result in extremely bad outcomes much much much more often than overreacting For a simplified example just compare the cost of taking actions that make you break the curve 4 days too early with the situation where you break the curve 4 days too late
- generalpass 7y ago
  > When you're in a situation where the severity of the outcome doubles every 4 days and you do not have clear information about where the curve will break, underreacting will result in extremely bad outcomes much much much more often than overreacting > For a simplified example just compare the cost of taking actions that make you break the curve 4 days too early with the situation where you break the curve 4 days too late But does it seem that implausible that cooler heads might find a solution that doesn't cost at least $20 trillion?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - Lewton 7y ago
    It seems obvious that the US could have handled it so much better and cheaper if they had not kept ignoring the situation in China and then Italy (which made Europe wake up) But even in the situation the US is now, doing something, anything, now. Might still be a lot better than the alternative

Lewton 7y ago

When you're in a situation where the severity of the outcome doubles every 4 days and you do not have clear information about where the curve will break, underreacting will result in extremely bad outcomes much much much more often than overreacting For a simplified example just compare the cost of taking actions that make you break the curve 4 days too early with the situation where you break the curve 4 days too late

generalpass 7y ago
> When you're in a situation where the severity of the outcome doubles every 4 days and you do not have clear information about where the curve will break, underreacting will result in extremely bad outcomes much much much more often than overreacting > For a simplified example just compare the cost of taking actions that make you break the curve 4 days too early with the situation where you break the curve 4 days too late But does it seem that implausible that cooler heads might find a solution that doesn't cost at least $20 trillion?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Lewton 7y ago
  It seems obvious that the US could have handled it so much better and cheaper if they had not kept ignoring the situation in China and then Italy (which made Europe wake up) But even in the situation the US is now, doing something, anything, now. Might still be a lot better than the alternative