4 ms·

Isn't what this article is about? "Some" states are "opening up", so I guess we'll get data soon as to how much economic benefit they got vs. how many lives we

Isn't what this article is about? "Some" states are "opening up", so I guess we'll get data soon as to how much economic benefit they got vs. how many lives were lost. This doesn't sound, to me, like a very ethical experiment given that the cost of waiting it out for another two-ish months is comparatively easily calculated and not terribly "doomsday" in scope. Whereas a return to the days of late March where the death count was doubling twice a week very much... is. Now... in practice? The "lockdown" won't really be released like that in these states, because people aren't going to be willing to travel or dine even if it's "legal". So these states will probably see a moderately worst outbreak and see moderately better results, and we'll all get to continue these arguments forever. Probably. Or it could be a total disaster. I wouldn't bet on that result, exactly, but I wouldn't be shocked if it happened either. For evidence: consider pork production. That is an "essential" industry. It's never been "locked down". Yet per the news today I see that 25% of the industry is effectively shut down by viral outbreaks anyway. That's what we should expect if we insist people go to work -- unexpected, uncontrolled outbreaks in locations and businesses and industries. We're not going to get to anything resembling a normal economy.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
That's interesting, I hadn't seen calculations like that. What's the cost of waiting it out for another two-ish months?
- newacct583 7y ago
  The point is: not much more than the cost of "opening up" right now. Because "lockdown" isn't magic the government can control at a whime. People aren't going to engage in a full employment economy if they're justifiably scared of dying. Or, possibly but not probably: the cost of opening up is vastly higher if we end up looking at 2-300k needlessly dead Americans.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    It sounds like you're saying it's not easy to calculate and we don't know whether or not it's "doomsday" in scope.
    - FuckButtons 7y ago
      We don’t know much, and we won’t know much for a long time yet. One thing we have a reasonable handle on is how many people went in to a hospital in the last week. We know less well how many people died last week. Anything beyond that is somewhere between speculation and an educated guess. That means our policy is always going to be some amount of trial and error. Trial and error that will cost billions and the lives of thousands, but we have no other choice.
  - mewpmewp2 7y ago
    But further lockdown can also mean more deaths from low economic activity. How do you know which deaths are worse?
    - newacct583 7y ago
      Is there any reasonable modelling that puts worst case US recession deaths in the hundreds of thousands? I saw a pretty spun looking number in (I think) The Federalist back in March that claimed a staggering 40k deaths if we didn't open up right away. Needless to say that spin didn't survive reality well, that's not only the median worst case of the viral outbreak it's the status quo.
      - mewpmewp2 7y ago
        I would be interested in seeing such model as well Some things to consider is also the type of deaths. Now I haven't calculated myself which decision is the correct one here, but just throwing out some factors that might (or might not) be favourable towards the decision to open markets sooner. If most people who die are elderly and they would die in few years anyway are these deaths comparable to younger people who commit suicides or die from poverty due to recession - who otherwise might be productive members of society for the following 30 years? If 75%+ of people who die are non-working elderly and maybe 80-90% of those would have died in the following 0-8 years would that mean 0-8 years of saved resources/care/medicine costs meaning economy would be better off and in the following 0-8 years we can expect proportionally fewer deaths? Probably more factors here, but I would like to go to the next point now... The steps on how to decide should be: 1. Predict deaths (and what kind of deaths) for each following week/month due to economic recession, plus any other damages. Lost technological advancements etc which can indirectly also mean more deaths. Consider all the things that can indirectly cause deaths. There's also decrease in some type of deaths like traffic accidents during quarantine. Should we consider these? I tried to Google for how many deaths 2008 caused - first thing I found was 260,000 extra cancer deaths, but I have no idea about validity: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/economic-downturn-excess-cancer-deaths-atun/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/economic-do... This is 2.5x more than current deaths from coronavirus and probably within more productive demographic. Just citing that to suggest there's some possibility that recession could cause more deaths. 2. Consider the pace on how fast can hospitals increase their capability to handle steeper curve. 3. Predict how fast Corona would spread after opening. How would hospitals fare? Would this mean more deaths overall from Corona or same amount as if we had keeping a flatter curve. I think the only real way to know this is to start touching the waters, so in this case it seems like reasonable to try with few places first and get measurements from there to see if it's worth it.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago

That's interesting, I hadn't seen calculations like that. What's the cost of waiting it out for another two-ish months?

newacct583 7y ago
The point is: not much more than the cost of "opening up" right now. Because "lockdown" isn't magic the government can control at a whime. People aren't going to engage in a full employment economy if they're justifiably scared of dying. Or, possibly but not probably: the cost of opening up is vastly higher if we end up looking at 2-300k needlessly dead Americans.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  It sounds like you're saying it's not easy to calculate and we don't know whether or not it's "doomsday" in scope.
  - FuckButtons 7y ago
    We don’t know much, and we won’t know much for a long time yet. One thing we have a reasonable handle on is how many people went in to a hospital in the last week. We know less well how many people died last week. Anything beyond that is somewhere between speculation and an educated guess. That means our policy is always going to be some amount of trial and error. Trial and error that will cost billions and the lives of thousands, but we have no other choice.
- mewpmewp2 7y ago
  But further lockdown can also mean more deaths from low economic activity. How do you know which deaths are worse?
  - newacct583 7y ago
    Is there any reasonable modelling that puts worst case US recession deaths in the hundreds of thousands? I saw a pretty spun looking number in (I think) The Federalist back in March that claimed a staggering 40k deaths if we didn't open up right away. Needless to say that spin didn't survive reality well, that's not only the median worst case of the viral outbreak it's the status quo.
    - mewpmewp2 7y ago
      I would be interested in seeing such model as well Some things to consider is also the type of deaths. Now I haven't calculated myself which decision is the correct one here, but just throwing out some factors that might (or might not) be favourable towards the decision to open markets sooner. If most people who die are elderly and they would die in few years anyway are these deaths comparable to younger people who commit suicides or die from poverty due to recession - who otherwise might be productive members of society for the following 30 years? If 75%+ of people who die are non-working elderly and maybe 80-90% of those would have died in the following 0-8 years would that mean 0-8 years of saved resources/care/medicine costs meaning economy would be better off and in the following 0-8 years we can expect proportionally fewer deaths? Probably more factors here, but I would like to go to the next point now... The steps on how to decide should be: 1. Predict deaths (and what kind of deaths) for each following week/month due to economic recession, plus any other damages. Lost technological advancements etc which can indirectly also mean more deaths. Consider all the things that can indirectly cause deaths. There's also decrease in some type of deaths like traffic accidents during quarantine. Should we consider these? I tried to Google for how many deaths 2008 caused - first thing I found was 260,000 extra cancer deaths, but I have no idea about validity: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/economic-downturn-excess-cancer-deaths-atun/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/economic-do... This is 2.5x more than current deaths from coronavirus and probably within more productive demographic. Just citing that to suggest there's some possibility that recession could cause more deaths. 2. Consider the pace on how fast can hospitals increase their capability to handle steeper curve. 3. Predict how fast Corona would spread after opening. How would hospitals fare? Would this mean more deaths overall from Corona or same amount as if we had keeping a flatter curve. I think the only real way to know this is to start touching the waters, so in this case it seems like reasonable to try with few places first and get measurements from there to see if it's worth it.