3 ms·

A lot of these discussions also sound like lockdown measures are "free". But in reality it's about balancing two unknowns. On the one hand we don't know how da

A lot of these discussions also sound like lockdown measures are "free". But in reality it's about balancing two unknowns. On the one hand we don't know how dangerous the virus actually is. If you look around you can find very serious scientists calculating the risks both as very low and very high. There are a number of various complicating factors (like comorbidity, or lockdown measures) to take into consideration. On the other hand we have some idea that lockdown is going to be really bad. We are likely to face a huge economic crisis, except a lot of the outlets for negative emotion have been cut off. That is going to have a very real death toll as well. But again, we don't know how bad this is going to be. Will it cause wars? Perhaps. Will it cause suicides? Definitely. I am personally fairly surprised that the Giesecke view isn't more popular around the world. Having a bit more scepticism about the virus before one decides to also sacrifice a lot of people's livelihoods seems prudent to me.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gizmo 6y ago
The tail risk angle is pretty interesting. We have a pretty good idea of the upper bound of mortality of the virus, and we also know that with some basic precautions the worst case scenario can be avoided. It's worse than the flu, but not 10 times worse. On the other hand we have no clue what the end result will be of mass unemployment and food insecurity for millions who used to be middle class, on top of unprecedented central bank policy. It's pretty reckless to shut down the world economy and hope it will turn out OK.
- 2019-nCoV 6y ago
  The disability-adjusted life year cost remains another huge uncertain tail risk that is rarely accounted for.
- cameldrv 6y ago
  We don't know that it's not 10 times worse. Data is confusing and sketchy, but there are many datapoints that indicate that the IFR is over 1%, and maybe as high as 2%.
rich_sasha 6y ago
The UK budget watchdog estimates that 6 months of lockdown will lead to national debt increase of about 25% GDP [1] - an unthinkably huge number in a world where 5% GDP debt increase is a huge amount, in normal times. UK's current debt-to-GDP ratio is something like 80%. Assuming an optimistic "vaccine" scenario of 1 year of lockdown, universal vaccine, then immediate bounce-back, and extrapolating the debt figures, that's 50% GDP new debt; and in reality, I expect that the longer the lockdown, the more expensive it is. I can well imagine the casualties of such a scenario to be worse than the pessimistic Coronavirus numbers. Public health funding collapsing, God knows what about schools, social spending etc., and yes, perhaps even societal collapse. I'd love to be proved wrong, but the UK government at least doesn't see it as necessary to even share its thinking of the financial consequences of lockdown, or even acknowledge that there is a trade-off. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52393472 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52393472
- gizmo 6y ago
  Yes, exactly. If the lockdown and the subsequent recession decreases the life expectancy of the average person by 0.5%, then the policy is already a net negative. Add the massive wealth destruction on top of that and the picture becomes even murkier. We, sadly, live in a world where lives can be saved with relatively little effort. Clean water, malaria nets, nutrition. If we wanted to prevent those unnecessary deaths we easily could. And now we're settings trillions on fire without even thinking carefully about the humanitarian consequences.
2019-nCoV 6y ago
The issue is that it is a false dichotomy. You can't just "reopen" the economy and everything goes back to normal. Sweden has effectively voluntarily shutdown with >80% reductions in hospitality spending, etc. Until a region effectively eradicates the disease (elimination, vaccination or haphazard herd immunity) there is no option of returning to normality.
- loopz 6y ago
  Modern pandemic response analysis is of course not weighing pro's and cons of lockdown, but instead anticipating outcomes from different scenarios and mitigation strategies. Ie. What may be the outcomes of not locking down by any measure, and is this response in any way realistically viable? The deeper reflections are missing from public discourse. The problem is that scenario analysis cannot really be open to the public, and is also highly complex where "small" variables may turn out to have high impacts.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

gizmo 6y ago

The tail risk angle is pretty interesting. We have a pretty good idea of the upper bound of mortality of the virus, and we also know that with some basic precautions the worst case scenario can be avoided. It's worse than the flu, but not 10 times worse. On the other hand we have no clue what the end result will be of mass unemployment and food insecurity for millions who used to be middle class, on top of unprecedented central bank policy. It's pretty reckless to shut down the world economy and hope it will turn out OK.

2019-nCoV 6y ago
The disability-adjusted life year cost remains another huge uncertain tail risk that is rarely accounted for.
cameldrv 6y ago
We don't know that it's not 10 times worse. Data is confusing and sketchy, but there are many datapoints that indicate that the IFR is over 1%, and maybe as high as 2%.

rich_sasha 6y ago

The UK budget watchdog estimates that 6 months of lockdown will lead to national debt increase of about 25% GDP [1] - an unthinkably huge number in a world where 5% GDP debt increase is a huge amount, in normal times. UK's current debt-to-GDP ratio is something like 80%. Assuming an optimistic "vaccine" scenario of 1 year of lockdown, universal vaccine, then immediate bounce-back, and extrapolating the debt figures, that's 50% GDP new debt; and in reality, I expect that the longer the lockdown, the more expensive it is. I can well imagine the casualties of such a scenario to be worse than the pessimistic Coronavirus numbers. Public health funding collapsing, God knows what about schools, social spending etc., and yes, perhaps even societal collapse. I'd love to be proved wrong, but the UK government at least doesn't see it as necessary to even share its thinking of the financial consequences of lockdown, or even acknowledge that there is a trade-off. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52393472 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52393472

gizmo 6y ago
Yes, exactly. If the lockdown and the subsequent recession decreases the life expectancy of the average person by 0.5%, then the policy is already a net negative. Add the massive wealth destruction on top of that and the picture becomes even murkier. We, sadly, live in a world where lives can be saved with relatively little effort. Clean water, malaria nets, nutrition. If we wanted to prevent those unnecessary deaths we easily could. And now we're settings trillions on fire without even thinking carefully about the humanitarian consequences.

2019-nCoV 6y ago

The issue is that it is a false dichotomy. You can't just "reopen" the economy and everything goes back to normal. Sweden has effectively voluntarily shutdown with >80% reductions in hospitality spending, etc. Until a region effectively eradicates the disease (elimination, vaccination or haphazard herd immunity) there is no option of returning to normality.

loopz 6y ago
Modern pandemic response analysis is of course not weighing pro's and cons of lockdown, but instead anticipating outcomes from different scenarios and mitigation strategies. Ie. What may be the outcomes of not locking down by any measure, and is this response in any way realistically viable? The deeper reflections are missing from public discourse. The problem is that scenario analysis cannot really be open to the public, and is also highly complex where "small" variables may turn out to have high impacts.