5 ms·

I don’t think so. The world at large will much rather take the death count than five years of mass unemployment, no one getting basic medical services and cance

I don’t think so. The world at large will much rather take the death count than five years of mass unemployment, no one getting basic medical services and cancer screenings … and there is the whole part where economic output is sorta needed to pay for things (like rent and food for the 20%+ unemployed). My own mother still needs urgent dental surgery. It’s going on two months now. You hear the trite content free version of this tradeoff in people whining “you just want to protect your 401(k)”. Imagine after five years, all 401(k)s are wiped out, most hospitals are bankrupt for lack of running any profitable procedures, and the US is throwing together some emergency single-payer system ... but it is struggling with recruitment because there’s not enough tax revenue to get the budget to pay enough doctors. (You want to sell bonds? Who has money to buy bonds?) How many die in this scenario?

chinathrow 7y ago
That's the authors A5) in the post. > "In the end, I suspect the only way out of lockdown in anything like the short or medium term is if we can assert something new: A5) The social and economic damage caused by lockdown is going to cause more unnecessary deaths than those caused by ending it."
kennydude 7y ago
> most hospitals are bankrupt for lack of running any profitable procedures That's a very American problem due to having private hospitals...
- fennecfoxen 7y ago
  The UK equivalent would be more orderly, but they still need to pay for the NHS with finite supplies of tax dollars and borrowing. They had staffing and recruitment and budget issues before the crisis, and some lockdown approaches might deprive them of seeking any more talent from major sources like India.
- dahfizz 7y ago
  You ignored the rest of that point. What happens to the European hospitals when tax income falls way below what the government needs to operate?
  - user5994461 7y ago
    Tax income is already way below spending. Countries are going deeper and deeper in debt every year. The healthcare budget is a rather small part of the total government budget, a small increase is probably too small to register on the radar. But if it does, one might assume that the government would rather keep healthcare running, especially given the circumstances, and cut money anywhere else. To make a comparison for US readers. Healthcare in Europe is like freedom of speech in the US. It's deeply ingrained in each citizen and cannot be taken away.
    - dahfizz 7y ago
      > The healthcare budget is a rather small part of the total government budget, a small increase is probably to small to register on the radar. According to the commonwealth fund[1], Germany spends over 10% of its GDP on providing health insurance. This insurance is funded by a tax on income. If GDP contracts, and there are less income earners, this can become a very large part of the budget which would require cutting other programs. Obviously healthcare would be a priority. But in a country where people rely heavily on their government, cutting out social programs will really hurt. > Tax income is already way below spending. Countries are going deeper and deeper in debt every year. This is what I am concerned about. Governments fund their debt by selling bonds. In the USA, roughly 70% of the federal debt is in the form of bonds held by the public. If people stop buying bonds (because their returns are awful right now, or because people have much less income to be investing), then the governments of the world cannot continue to operate the way they have been. [1] https://international.commonwealthfund.org/countries/germany/ https://international.commonwealthfund.org/countries/germany...
- BjoernKW 7y ago
  It's still a problem, though. "Haha, told you so." is not a solution. Besides, publicly funded hospitals and healthcare systems in general need money, too. If there's hardly any tax income anymore because there's hardly any taxable income anymore funds for publicly funded hospitals will dry up, too.
  - true_religion 7y ago
    In the American case, we might have to end one or two of the many foreign wars that we are waging, but we would get by.
dahfizz 7y ago
I agree with you. People are ignoring the very serious consequences of lockdown, and trying to frame it like the only reason you could want to end lockdown is because you're evil and greedy.
user5994461 7y ago
You can add to the list that all schools and universities, so no more learning to read or to count for kids, no more graduates.
- falcor84 7y ago
  I would bet you that, at least in the modern day West, taking away schools wouldn't reduce basic literacy and numeracy by even a tenth of a percent.
  - iainmerrick 7y ago
    Don’t be ridiculous. Parents would have to teach their children how to read and write, which I can assure you is skilled work and takes a lot of time and effort. (We may all have to start doing this, but it certainly won’t happen by default.)
- fennecfoxen 7y ago
  Medical schools, too.
ninkendo 7y ago
Here’s the thing, and I suspect I’m not alone in feeling this way: I really think I would agree with you in normal circumstances. But there is so much political pressure from groups who are downplaying the virus altogether, to just ignore the virus and go back to business as usual, that I suspect a lot of less-than-ethical ulterior motives are at work. So I feel a very real “allergic reaction” to anyone who says we need to just reopen things. Maybe it’s because politicians in the US have turned the whole question into a wedge issue to oversimplify things and get voters on their sides, I dunno. But the question on when/whether we can return to normal is a very serious one that needs to be something we all understand and agree on, and I’m worried that’ll never happen. Our priorities are simply too far out of alignment.
- TechBro8615 7y ago
  No, you're not alone in feeling this way. But I would assert that most people who feel this way are currently employed or have significant savings. It's easy to comment on hacker news from your cushy WFH job about "those silly protestors who want to re-open the economy." But there is a reason they are so frustrated. They are people who have been living paycheck-to-paycheck and suddenly find themselves without a job, but with bills still arriving and kids still asking for food on the table. They want the world to be healthy, too. They don't want to endanger you or themselves. But they want to feed their families.
  - infecto 7y ago
    Well said. I think there are valid arguments from both sides. I wish it was not drowned out by the extreme flag flying gun toting, virus is a hoax folks. I think there is a middle ground. We cannot be on lockdown for a year, lets be realistic. Even if the virus persists, the world or even a single country just could not sustain that. And on the opposite side, we cannot open up too quickly. I know China's data is not accurate but we can at least communicate with people inside of the country and we know life is getting more back to normal there. So we can see that we also have to stay closed enough that the first large wave does not devastate the system. It is just a shame though that we can not have dialogue about the science and data behind this. And instead it becomes an extreme from both sides.
Jedd 7y ago
> The world at large will much rather take the death count ... What part of the world are you in, and what part do you speak for?
- jabedude 7y ago
  I'm struggling to understand this comment. The GP is entirely correct here: any thinking adult knows that 5 years of lockdown would cause human suffering on a scale unheard of in modern history. There is no correct choice here for policy makers, but an extended lockdown will cause death and suffering as well.
  - robotron 7y ago
    Will it? How do you know? Have we done that before to have an example?
    - ac29 7y ago
      Unemployment peaked at 23% in the US during the Great Depression, and that's without many types of business being illegal to operate as is currently the status quo for areas under shelter in place orders right now. Its certainly not a perfect comparison, but the effects of mass unemployment are hardly unknowable, and we'd be lucky to see only 23% unemployment if lockdown orders persist for half a decade.
  - Jedd 7y ago
    'This comment' was asking with what authority fennecfoxen was claiming to know what 'the world at large' would prefer. There was mention of 401k's (something I believe is peculiar to <5% of the world's population). The claim that emergency surgery was impossible during any kind of lockdown (not true, in my understanding). The claim that hospitals would be bankrupt without profitable procedures (something that simply doesn't make sense outside of the USA). The GP is entirely speculative, and claims to speak for an audience that doesn't necessarily agree with them. My question - in response to the claim that the world agrees with them - is what part of the world they are in, and what part do they claim to speak for. I don't understand what there is to understand with this question.
papermachete 7y ago
At worst, some countries get communist revolutions forcing distribution of wealth. This is the path of least death.
- fennecfoxen 7y ago
  If you really believe "Communist revolutions" are the path of least death, I have a Great Leap Forward to sell you.
  - robotron 7y ago
    You're thinking of the Bolshevik revolution.

chinathrow 7y ago

That's the authors A5) in the post. > "In the end, I suspect the only way out of lockdown in anything like the short or medium term is if we can assert something new: A5) The social and economic damage caused by lockdown is going to cause more unnecessary deaths than those caused by ending it."

kennydude 7y ago

> most hospitals are bankrupt for lack of running any profitable procedures That's a very American problem due to having private hospitals...

fennecfoxen 7y ago
The UK equivalent would be more orderly, but they still need to pay for the NHS with finite supplies of tax dollars and borrowing. They had staffing and recruitment and budget issues before the crisis, and some lockdown approaches might deprive them of seeking any more talent from major sources like India.
dahfizz 7y ago
You ignored the rest of that point. What happens to the European hospitals when tax income falls way below what the government needs to operate?
- user5994461 7y ago
  Tax income is already way below spending. Countries are going deeper and deeper in debt every year. The healthcare budget is a rather small part of the total government budget, a small increase is probably too small to register on the radar. But if it does, one might assume that the government would rather keep healthcare running, especially given the circumstances, and cut money anywhere else. To make a comparison for US readers. Healthcare in Europe is like freedom of speech in the US. It's deeply ingrained in each citizen and cannot be taken away.
  - dahfizz 7y ago
    > The healthcare budget is a rather small part of the total government budget, a small increase is probably to small to register on the radar. According to the commonwealth fund[1], Germany spends over 10% of its GDP on providing health insurance. This insurance is funded by a tax on income. If GDP contracts, and there are less income earners, this can become a very large part of the budget which would require cutting other programs. Obviously healthcare would be a priority. But in a country where people rely heavily on their government, cutting out social programs will really hurt. > Tax income is already way below spending. Countries are going deeper and deeper in debt every year. This is what I am concerned about. Governments fund their debt by selling bonds. In the USA, roughly 70% of the federal debt is in the form of bonds held by the public. If people stop buying bonds (because their returns are awful right now, or because people have much less income to be investing), then the governments of the world cannot continue to operate the way they have been. [1] https://international.commonwealthfund.org/countries/germany/ https://international.commonwealthfund.org/countries/germany...
BjoernKW 7y ago
It's still a problem, though. "Haha, told you so." is not a solution. Besides, publicly funded hospitals and healthcare systems in general need money, too. If there's hardly any tax income anymore because there's hardly any taxable income anymore funds for publicly funded hospitals will dry up, too.
- true_religion 7y ago
  In the American case, we might have to end one or two of the many foreign wars that we are waging, but we would get by.

dahfizz 7y ago

I agree with you. People are ignoring the very serious consequences of lockdown, and trying to frame it like the only reason you could want to end lockdown is because you're evil and greedy.

user5994461 7y ago

You can add to the list that all schools and universities, so no more learning to read or to count for kids, no more graduates.

falcor84 7y ago
I would bet you that, at least in the modern day West, taking away schools wouldn't reduce basic literacy and numeracy by even a tenth of a percent.
- iainmerrick 7y ago
  Don’t be ridiculous. Parents would have to teach their children how to read and write, which I can assure you is skilled work and takes a lot of time and effort. (We may all have to start doing this, but it certainly won’t happen by default.)
fennecfoxen 7y ago
Medical schools, too.

ninkendo 7y ago

Here’s the thing, and I suspect I’m not alone in feeling this way: I really think I would agree with you in normal circumstances. But there is so much political pressure from groups who are downplaying the virus altogether, to just ignore the virus and go back to business as usual, that I suspect a lot of less-than-ethical ulterior motives are at work. So I feel a very real “allergic reaction” to anyone who says we need to just reopen things. Maybe it’s because politicians in the US have turned the whole question into a wedge issue to oversimplify things and get voters on their sides, I dunno. But the question on when/whether we can return to normal is a very serious one that needs to be something we all understand and agree on, and I’m worried that’ll never happen. Our priorities are simply too far out of alignment.

TechBro8615 7y ago
No, you're not alone in feeling this way. But I would assert that most people who feel this way are currently employed or have significant savings. It's easy to comment on hacker news from your cushy WFH job about "those silly protestors who want to re-open the economy." But there is a reason they are so frustrated. They are people who have been living paycheck-to-paycheck and suddenly find themselves without a job, but with bills still arriving and kids still asking for food on the table. They want the world to be healthy, too. They don't want to endanger you or themselves. But they want to feed their families.
- infecto 7y ago
  Well said. I think there are valid arguments from both sides. I wish it was not drowned out by the extreme flag flying gun toting, virus is a hoax folks. I think there is a middle ground. We cannot be on lockdown for a year, lets be realistic. Even if the virus persists, the world or even a single country just could not sustain that. And on the opposite side, we cannot open up too quickly. I know China's data is not accurate but we can at least communicate with people inside of the country and we know life is getting more back to normal there. So we can see that we also have to stay closed enough that the first large wave does not devastate the system. It is just a shame though that we can not have dialogue about the science and data behind this. And instead it becomes an extreme from both sides.

Jedd 7y ago

> The world at large will much rather take the death count ... What part of the world are you in, and what part do you speak for?

jabedude 7y ago
I'm struggling to understand this comment. The GP is entirely correct here: any thinking adult knows that 5 years of lockdown would cause human suffering on a scale unheard of in modern history. There is no correct choice here for policy makers, but an extended lockdown will cause death and suffering as well.
- robotron 7y ago
  Will it? How do you know? Have we done that before to have an example?
  - ac29 7y ago
    Unemployment peaked at 23% in the US during the Great Depression, and that's without many types of business being illegal to operate as is currently the status quo for areas under shelter in place orders right now. Its certainly not a perfect comparison, but the effects of mass unemployment are hardly unknowable, and we'd be lucky to see only 23% unemployment if lockdown orders persist for half a decade.
- Jedd 7y ago
  'This comment' was asking with what authority fennecfoxen was claiming to know what 'the world at large' would prefer. There was mention of 401k's (something I believe is peculiar to <5% of the world's population). The claim that emergency surgery was impossible during any kind of lockdown (not true, in my understanding). The claim that hospitals would be bankrupt without profitable procedures (something that simply doesn't make sense outside of the USA). The GP is entirely speculative, and claims to speak for an audience that doesn't necessarily agree with them. My question - in response to the claim that the world agrees with them - is what part of the world they are in, and what part do they claim to speak for. I don't understand what there is to understand with this question.

papermachete 7y ago

At worst, some countries get communist revolutions forcing distribution of wealth. This is the path of least death.

fennecfoxen 7y ago
If you really believe "Communist revolutions" are the path of least death, I have a Great Leap Forward to sell you.
- robotron 7y ago
  You're thinking of the Bolshevik revolution.