4 ms·

To be fair, if it went on unchecked, after the massive and tragic loss of life/health, it would be over in weeks instead of years. Not that I'm volunteering to

To be fair, if it went on unchecked, after the massive and tragic loss of life/health, it would be over in weeks instead of years. Not that I'm volunteering to go into the 'herd immunity' group.

surbas 6y ago
Over? You are assuming immunity... also like 2% of the population would of died min... that’s 600k+
- aaaronic 6y ago
  I think you mean 140 million, right?
  - eggsmediumrare 6y ago
    They mean US.
- abacadaba 6y ago
  Well possibly many more than that, since we would have run out of hospital beds and oxygen tanks etc. But in the fall we'd be able to football games again.* And yes assuming immunity, which seems likely to be the case for most people, even if not permanent. *assuming survival
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  You're off by a factor of ten; assuming 2%, that would be 6 million Americans dead, not 600k. The death rate isn't likely to be that high (even without medical treatment), but if even a million Americans die, that's a cost of $10T to the economy right there. You can easily why see shutting things down to prevent all those deaths is worth it.
  - erik_seaberg 6y ago
    We didn't do this to benefit the economy, and it didn't. Losing 0.3% of the population (and maybe my mom) is a tragedy for the families but would not cost the economy $10T (that's half of GDP!) We did it because risking 30M pneumonia victims was unthinkable, even before we count the extra heart attack/assault/cancer victims while the hospitals collapse.
    - CydeWeys 6y ago
      The actuarial value of a human life is $10M, so that really is how the math works out. Don't underestimate the lifetime output of a human, plus all the non-monetarily-compensated labor they do that is nevertheless valuable. Especially if there are dependents involved (younger or older), the costs of that death rise well above just that person's economic output, but also the total cost of the state having to take on the burden of caring for those dependents. And we haven't even started getting into what the emotional burden on everyone who knew those people looks like. The numbers work out; it's absolutely worth shutting down the economy for some number of months to prevent the loss of a million lives. Obviously the numbers don't work out to do so indefinitely, but for the one month so far and the upcoming few, definitely.

To be fair, if it went on unchecked, after the massive and tragic loss of life/health, it would be over in weeks instead of years. Not that I'm volunteering to go into the 'herd immunity' group.

surbas 6y ago

Over? You are assuming immunity... also like 2% of the population would of died min... that’s 600k+

aaaronic 6y ago
I think you mean 140 million, right?
- eggsmediumrare 6y ago
  They mean US.
abacadaba 6y ago
Well possibly many more than that, since we would have run out of hospital beds and oxygen tanks etc. But in the fall we'd be able to football games again.* And yes assuming immunity, which seems likely to be the case for most people, even if not permanent. *assuming survival
CydeWeys 6y ago
You're off by a factor of ten; assuming 2%, that would be 6 million Americans dead, not 600k. The death rate isn't likely to be that high (even without medical treatment), but if even a million Americans die, that's a cost of $10T to the economy right there. You can easily why see shutting things down to prevent all those deaths is worth it.
- erik_seaberg 6y ago
  We didn't do this to benefit the economy, and it didn't. Losing 0.3% of the population (and maybe my mom) is a tragedy for the families but would not cost the economy $10T (that's half of GDP!) We did it because risking 30M pneumonia victims was unthinkable, even before we count the extra heart attack/assault/cancer victims while the hospitals collapse.
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    The actuarial value of a human life is $10M, so that really is how the math works out. Don't underestimate the lifetime output of a human, plus all the non-monetarily-compensated labor they do that is nevertheless valuable. Especially if there are dependents involved (younger or older), the costs of that death rise well above just that person's economic output, but also the total cost of the state having to take on the burden of caring for those dependents. And we haven't even started getting into what the emotional burden on everyone who knew those people looks like. The numbers work out; it's absolutely worth shutting down the economy for some number of months to prevent the loss of a million lives. Obviously the numbers don't work out to do so indefinitely, but for the one month so far and the upcoming few, definitely.