5 ms·

I think it is interesting that the discussions are only framed in measuring deaths, and also focus on deaths of the old. I'm watching friends and family knocke

by ljf 7y ago

I think it is interesting that the discussions are only framed in measuring deaths, and also focus on deaths of the old. I'm watching friends and family knocked back by this virus for weeks, and now pushing into months (36 days and 42 days since first symptoms for 2 people I know), and research in the US and China points to the increase in long term health risks in the 20 to 50 year olds that recover from this. I know people that just walk away from this with no impact, but if we only focus on death we are likely missing the bigger picture.

joe_the_user 7y ago
The "how many time the flu is this" misses how damaging this is beyond it's potential casualties, how damaging to the health care system this is and so-forth. The thing is, I also don't think you can get away from the way that those pushing for lower-end estimates aren't arguing from pure, selfless virology. They're arguing from a "this is uncertain, so should we really risk our economy to avoid potential lives lost?" position. I can see that if you could translate the lost money directly to other lives lost. But you can't. The various state could just support people for the period of the lockdown - all the advanced nations besides the Dysfunctional US are essentially doing this. So if you phrase things in terms of just paying lives for money, I would disagree with the article, that is evil. People who actively enable that are evil. Sweden's policy looks to be baring bitter fruit and I wouldn't forgive Dr. Giesecke any blame for that if it matures. I could be wrong and I'm OK risking money on that, it's a better choice imo.
- watwut 7y ago
  I don't really think it is about economy only. I don't see the same people pushing for help for businesses nor coming up with ideas how to make economy run as much as possible under closed conditions. The push is to make it like before and act like nothing is happening. Beyond that, there is not much. It seems to me more of "I dont want this to be true whether for both practical or for ideological reasons, therefore it can not be true".
- luckylion 7y ago
  > The various state could just support people for the period of the lockdown Isn't that just hiding the truth though? After all, what is the state, where does it get the funds? Whether you take my money today or tomorrow, you've still taken my money. I don't see any reason to believe that there will be a magical no-tax funding of government any time soon.
  - incompatible 7y ago
    It's not really about money. Money is just bits of paper, or electronic equivalents, that can be produced in arbitrary quantities. It's about having sufficient production of food and other necessities to keep people alive, ensuring that it's distributed to everybody, and finding enough people who are willing to do enough work to keep the economy going at this level.
    - luckylion 7y ago
      Right, obviously when I say money, I don't mean "paper", I mean the equivalent value that we represent by using money. We're generating a lot less value today, while spending as if we didn't. Suggestions for the state to pay people their usual salary while locked down for the next months/years do require some idea of how to pay for it (again: with value, not with paper). Magic aside, how will that happen?
      - JackFr 7y ago
        Exactly. The estimated $25 billion dollars a day the lockdown is costing the economy is real economic output not a balance in a ledger.
    - PeterStuer 7y ago
      What percentage of the 'working population' do you estimate is involved in necessities as opposed to conspicuous consumption, superfluous intermediating, red queen standoffs, speculation, empire building and active or collateral sabotage?
  - bildung 7y ago
- StanislavPetrov 7y ago
  As someone in NY where at least 17,000 people have died of SARS2 in the last ~6 weeks including two middle aged people one older person I know personally I am absolutely certain that this is nothing, "like the flu" no matter what anyone claims. We don't get 500-1000 people dying (especially middle aged people) of the flu every day - especially when we are in virtual lockdown. There's no question that a lot of questions remained unanswered, but one question that has a concrete answer is that this is nothing like the flu.
- closeparen 7y ago
  I think this is generally true but with two significant complications: a) People running out of money is only the surface level problem. Money is an abstraction over value. We can and should mess with the abstraction, but we can't do anything about the underlying value in the economy going up in smoke. "Bullshit jobs" notwithstanding, the things people do at work all day do actually have a role in our collective standard of living. There is a reason we can do modern medicine while the third world can't, and we could lose it. b) Social life seems frivolous in the small, but in the large it is not. Years without human contact will seriously fuck you up. Not only are individuals in distress, but friendships, relationships, families, communities, and society itself are all in rapid decay. Screen time can only slow that down a little. Becoming a world of 7 billion hermits for as long as it takes carries real risks and real costs, too.

by ljf 7y ago

joe_the_user 7y ago

The "how many time the flu is this" misses how damaging this is beyond it's potential casualties, how damaging to the health care system this is and so-forth. The thing is, I also don't think you can get away from the way that those pushing for lower-end estimates aren't arguing from pure, selfless virology. They're arguing from a "this is uncertain, so should we really risk our economy to avoid potential lives lost?" position. I can see that if you could translate the lost money directly to other lives lost. But you can't. The various state could just support people for the period of the lockdown - all the advanced nations besides the Dysfunctional US are essentially doing this. So if you phrase things in terms of just paying lives for money, I would disagree with the article, that is evil. People who actively enable that are evil. Sweden's policy looks to be baring bitter fruit and I wouldn't forgive Dr. Giesecke any blame for that if it matures. I could be wrong and I'm OK risking money on that, it's a better choice imo.

watwut 7y ago
I don't really think it is about economy only. I don't see the same people pushing for help for businesses nor coming up with ideas how to make economy run as much as possible under closed conditions. The push is to make it like before and act like nothing is happening. Beyond that, there is not much. It seems to me more of "I dont want this to be true whether for both practical or for ideological reasons, therefore it can not be true".
luckylion 7y ago
> The various state could just support people for the period of the lockdown Isn't that just hiding the truth though? After all, what is the state, where does it get the funds? Whether you take my money today or tomorrow, you've still taken my money. I don't see any reason to believe that there will be a magical no-tax funding of government any time soon.
- incompatible 7y ago
  It's not really about money. Money is just bits of paper, or electronic equivalents, that can be produced in arbitrary quantities. It's about having sufficient production of food and other necessities to keep people alive, ensuring that it's distributed to everybody, and finding enough people who are willing to do enough work to keep the economy going at this level.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    Right, obviously when I say money, I don't mean "paper", I mean the equivalent value that we represent by using money. We're generating a lot less value today, while spending as if we didn't. Suggestions for the state to pay people their usual salary while locked down for the next months/years do require some idea of how to pay for it (again: with value, not with paper). Magic aside, how will that happen?
    - JackFr 7y ago
      Exactly. The estimated $25 billion dollars a day the lockdown is costing the economy is real economic output not a balance in a ledger.
  - PeterStuer 7y ago
    What percentage of the 'working population' do you estimate is involved in necessities as opposed to conspicuous consumption, superfluous intermediating, red queen standoffs, speculation, empire building and active or collateral sabotage?
- bildung 7y ago
StanislavPetrov 7y ago
As someone in NY where at least 17,000 people have died of SARS2 in the last ~6 weeks including two middle aged people one older person I know personally I am absolutely certain that this is nothing, "like the flu" no matter what anyone claims. We don't get 500-1000 people dying (especially middle aged people) of the flu every day - especially when we are in virtual lockdown. There's no question that a lot of questions remained unanswered, but one question that has a concrete answer is that this is nothing like the flu.
closeparen 7y ago
I think this is generally true but with two significant complications: a) People running out of money is only the surface level problem. Money is an abstraction over value. We can and should mess with the abstraction, but we can't do anything about the underlying value in the economy going up in smoke. "Bullshit jobs" notwithstanding, the things people do at work all day do actually have a role in our collective standard of living. There is a reason we can do modern medicine while the third world can't, and we could lose it. b) Social life seems frivolous in the small, but in the large it is not. Years without human contact will seriously fuck you up. Not only are individuals in distress, but friendships, relationships, families, communities, and society itself are all in rapid decay. Screen time can only slow that down a little. Becoming a world of 7 billion hermits for as long as it takes carries real risks and real costs, too.