5 ms·

It's worth noting that reopening early will also cause economic damage, and possibly more that not doing so would. People dying costs money, both in the lost p

by Seibai 6y ago

It's worth noting that reopening early will also cause economic damage, and possibly more that not doing so would. People dying costs money, both in the lost productivity of the dead and reduced productivity among those emotionally affected. More people will die with an early end to lockdown than would if it was maintained for another month or two. I expect lots of grim economics research to come out of this.

sojournerc 6y ago
Where I am in Colorado the decision to re-open is being made at the county and city level based on local information Rural areas that are less impacted may reopen with little risk. More urban areas need to be more careful. I don't think it's necessary to spread fear about reopening. Hopefully your local authority is well-informed enough to make good decisions regarding reopening.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  I live in a rural region of ~300,000 people with less than 100 reported cases. 2000 negative tests. The last I heard one of the county public health officials say anything, it was that they don't have enough testing to know what is going on in the community.
eric_b 6y ago
Eh, we'll see. I happen to think the economic consequences are far worse than the health ones. Time will tell which of us is right. I bet if you were a small business owner who was going to fold your life's work because of the lockdown, instead of a privileged tech worker, you wouldn't be singing the same tune.
- 616c 6y ago
  Are you a small business owner? You seem to have very strong opinions aligned with your take on their point of view, so I'm curious.
  - eric_b 6y ago
    Yes. And many of my neighbors are as well.
devmunchies 6y ago
you underestimate the boom that vacuums can create. It can give new companies, entrepreneurs, or employees the opportunity to fill the void, often more creatively than before.
mewpmewp2 6y ago
Depends. In the conditions where coronavirus killed strictly only the old and weak and it had 2 percent death rate it would on average kill people around 2 years before their actual deaths. Let's just say everyone who would have died at 88 will now die at 86 instead. This means that any costs are just advanced 2 years. But since those 86 year olds do not provide value to the economy at this point, only consume resources, it will probably offset that by some margin. 2 years worth of resources and care. Very simplistic way to look at this, but it could also make sense even if not only the elderies die. There is a possibility it is a net positive for the economy.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  Average age is much lower than 86. Michigan has had hundreds of people in their 40's and 50's die (~13% of deaths): https://www.michigan.gov/coronavirus/0,9753,7-406-98163_98173---,00.html https://www.michigan.gov/coronavirus/0,9753,7-406-98163_9817...
  - mewpmewp2 6y ago
    Yeah, I described extremes (for simple maths) to just show that it's plausible that a virus could have this effect given those conditions. If you look here, you can see only 72% who die are above 64 https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-se... Median I would guesstimate based on this data to be around 72 or so. But the point is how many people are dying who weren't productive members of society and how many years these people would have lived if coronavirus didn't strike them. For illustration purposes if it always killed those first who were closest to death anyway and death rate was 2% it would mean I guess 74 * 0,02 years lost for median person or 1.5 years. This number will increase of course because true nature is more random. And to be completely fair then if in US each year dies a bit less than 1% of people and not all of them at old age. So let's say it's 0.6% dying of old age, then 2% death rate might mean around 3 years lost for median person. But as I said this are illustrative and non-precise calculations. If I had to guess I would say it's reasonable to estimate that median person would lose 1 - 7 years of their life due to coronavirus.
  - 6y ago
mythrwy 6y ago
I don't think so. I believe with some precautions (masks specifically and distancing and prohibit mass gathering for a bit) most places could open right now and the amount of additional hospitalizations and deaths would likely be economically inconsequential. People in general are going to be careful for a while. Yes, opening would likely lead to more deaths, that is true, and perhaps we should not open for a bit for safety, but the key concept here is "economically inconsequential".

by Seibai 6y ago

sojournerc 6y ago

Where I am in Colorado the decision to re-open is being made at the county and city level based on local information Rural areas that are less impacted may reopen with little risk. More urban areas need to be more careful. I don't think it's necessary to spread fear about reopening. Hopefully your local authority is well-informed enough to make good decisions regarding reopening.

maxerickson 6y ago
I live in a rural region of ~300,000 people with less than 100 reported cases. 2000 negative tests. The last I heard one of the county public health officials say anything, it was that they don't have enough testing to know what is going on in the community.

eric_b 6y ago

Eh, we'll see. I happen to think the economic consequences are far worse than the health ones. Time will tell which of us is right. I bet if you were a small business owner who was going to fold your life's work because of the lockdown, instead of a privileged tech worker, you wouldn't be singing the same tune.

616c 6y ago
Are you a small business owner? You seem to have very strong opinions aligned with your take on their point of view, so I'm curious.
- eric_b 6y ago
  Yes. And many of my neighbors are as well.

devmunchies 6y ago

you underestimate the boom that vacuums can create. It can give new companies, entrepreneurs, or employees the opportunity to fill the void, often more creatively than before.

mewpmewp2 6y ago

Depends. In the conditions where coronavirus killed strictly only the old and weak and it had 2 percent death rate it would on average kill people around 2 years before their actual deaths. Let's just say everyone who would have died at 88 will now die at 86 instead. This means that any costs are just advanced 2 years. But since those 86 year olds do not provide value to the economy at this point, only consume resources, it will probably offset that by some margin. 2 years worth of resources and care. Very simplistic way to look at this, but it could also make sense even if not only the elderies die. There is a possibility it is a net positive for the economy.

maxerickson 6y ago
Average age is much lower than 86. Michigan has had hundreds of people in their 40's and 50's die (~13% of deaths): https://www.michigan.gov/coronavirus/0,9753,7-406-98163_98173---,00.html https://www.michigan.gov/coronavirus/0,9753,7-406-98163_9817...
- mewpmewp2 6y ago
  Yeah, I described extremes (for simple maths) to just show that it's plausible that a virus could have this effect given those conditions. If you look here, you can see only 72% who die are above 64 https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-se... Median I would guesstimate based on this data to be around 72 or so. But the point is how many people are dying who weren't productive members of society and how many years these people would have lived if coronavirus didn't strike them. For illustration purposes if it always killed those first who were closest to death anyway and death rate was 2% it would mean I guess 74 * 0,02 years lost for median person or 1.5 years. This number will increase of course because true nature is more random. And to be completely fair then if in US each year dies a bit less than 1% of people and not all of them at old age. So let's say it's 0.6% dying of old age, then 2% death rate might mean around 3 years lost for median person. But as I said this are illustrative and non-precise calculations. If I had to guess I would say it's reasonable to estimate that median person would lose 1 - 7 years of their life due to coronavirus.
- 6y ago

mythrwy 6y ago

I don't think so. I believe with some precautions (masks specifically and distancing and prohibit mass gathering for a bit) most places could open right now and the amount of additional hospitalizations and deaths would likely be economically inconsequential. People in general are going to be careful for a while. Yes, opening would likely lead to more deaths, that is true, and perhaps we should not open for a bit for safety, but the key concept here is "economically inconsequential".