6 ms·

I understand their thinking because not working is causing a massive amount of collateral damage, but the virus doesn't care about any of that. If everyone goes

I understand their thinking because not working is causing a massive amount of collateral damage, but the virus doesn't care about any of that. If everyone goes back to normal too early, this all just starts over, and folks are forced to be inside even longer, there's just no way around it.

Filligree 6y ago
80-90% of people who catch this disease would survive without treatment. If America won't support people who might die of starvation when stuck at home, then the individually smartest response becomes to take their chance with the virus. I don't need to explain what a 10-20% death rate would do to society, however.
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  > I don't need to explain what a 10-20% death rate would do to society, however. Not much if 80% of them are very old and sick.
  - cpursley 6y ago
    You're getting downvotes but it's true. There are other considerations that are completely being ignored by the ivory tower types. It's shocking to some, but jobs are how people afford to live their lives (buy food, pay rent, pay tax which funds government, etc). I'm more concerned about social and political unrest that often results from mass unemployment, people losing their homes, not enough to eat, etc than losing people to the virus (which still stucks). 22 million unemployed and growing is enough to swing elections in dark directions...
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - mrb 6y ago
    If 20% die but 8 out of 10 are very old and sick, then globally 4% die who are healthy or not very old. 4% of an (healthy not very old) population dying still means overall the economy would contract by 4% (because product/service demand is down 4%), which would still be the greatest recession in the last 8 decades. Your comment ("not much") is thus completely false.
    - klmadfejno 6y ago
      Sure, but the idea that this virus kills 20% of all people is stupid. You just made that number up. We don't have much we can do to treat this disease. Nobody believes it would ever go that high. If somehow it does, even more than 80% will be old and sick. 4% of a population dying also does not mean the economy contracts by 4%. You just... made that up too. Lastly, you've assumed that a 4% annualized economy contraction from one month in a quarter means that we'll see 4% by just keeping this going. That's... wrong. The negative impact of lockdowns will compound. I don't give a shit if the economy shrinks by 4%. It's absolutely fine if we have a bit of a shitty economic time. Prolonged wide scale poverty for millions of people is an entirely different beast.
      - mrb 6y ago
        «kills 20% of all people is stupid. You just made that number up» I did not claim that. I just took this percentage from the hypothetical situation you used to build an argument (you yourself said if 10-20% die then it wouldn't mean much to the economy.) «4% of a population dying also does not mean the economy contracts by 4%.» Yes it does. Basic economics. With everything being equal, the size of an economy is linearly proportional to the number of persons. A population half the size of another one will buy half the number of cars, half the food, will spend half on entertainment, etc. So if 4% of average individuals die worldwide, consumption (thus the economy worldwide) is down 4%. Like I said, it's basic economics. «Lastly, you've assumed that a 4% annualized economy contraction from one month in a quarter means that we'll see 4% by just keeping this going» No I don't assume that. Read again what I wrote. I am only talking about the impact of a certain percentage dying, not about the impact of the lockdown.
  - ModernMech 6y ago
    Keep in mind death is not the only negative outcome of this. My wife's uncle is relatively young (50s), completely healthy, gainfully employed, and has contracted Covid. He's been in the hospital for over a month, has been on a ventilator for weeks, is currently off but has been in and out of the ICU, his lung has collapsed, he can't feed himself, he can't walk, and he's currently re-learning how to swallow. If he makes it out of the hospital (that's a question mark right now), he's not going to be able to support himself. He won't be able to walk without getting winded so he will need a wheel chair, which will prevent him from doing the job he had before he went in. His experience, which has a decidedly negative economic impact and which is not uncommon for those who have needed to be hospitalized by covid, is completely missing from the "covid only impacts old people who were unproductive and probably would have died anyway" narrative.
    - tartoran 6y ago
      This is absolutely true and this would get a lot worse if people decide to end the lockdown early. If one needs money to feed their family now, the chance of them either passing or being incapacitated are not to be taken lightly. I had hoped the government would freeze all the mortgages, bills and offered real assistance to people in need. The stimulus check for the hoi polloi is a joke. I personally don't need it, why did I get it? I know I could donate it to the poor but that's not the point I'm trying to make. That stimulus seems to be a way of saying "but we already helped you".
    - klmadfejno 6y ago
      I'm sorry to hear that. I'm not arguing that covid only impacts old people, I'm saying 4 things (in general, maybe not the one particular quote above): a ) covid won't destroy society in any case b ) we cannot endure a lockdown until the disease is eradicated or a vaccine is produced c ) a lockdown ended before the disease is eradicated or a vaccine is produced will just lead to a second wave of the disease d ) the economic burden of the lockdown will increase exponentially as more businesses run dry I don't want your uncle to be sick. But I'd rather your uncle get sick than have you, your wife, and your uncle lose your jobs; and then have your uncle get sick anyway.
- JibJabDab 6y ago
  There's also some very concerning long-term effects for those who have recovered. There's a trend of seeing lung-scarring or other things that I'm sure will come up again int 10 or 15 years. Imagine that happening to a large portion of society.
  - bjustin 6y ago
    Even recovered people who feel fine can have chronic issues due to the virus. Young, healthy people may come away with serious lung issues without realizing it[1]. [1] https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1253437512401301505 https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1253437512401301505
- sixothree 6y ago
  I'm sure it would have more than a 4.8% impact.
umanwizard 6y ago
This is wrong. We are not forced to be inside because of the virus. It would have been totally possible to have this pandemic going on with zero lockdowns, which would have probably led to worse health effects, and less-bad economic effects. It's a pet peeve of mine when people claim that we must lock down or that the virus is forcing us to do this or that, as opposed to it being a political choice based on tradeoffs. In fact, I predict that after things open up, they will not shut back down, no matter how bad the second wave of the outbreak gets. People simply won't accept it.
- res0nat0r 6y ago
  Sure, we can let a million folks in the USA die because we love our capitalism, but 80%+ of the USA disagrees with that false dichotomy.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    I don't think that's true. The mindset I've consistently seen is that people do agree with the dichotomy, and are just willing to sacrifice the economy because they don't think it's very important. How many times has the line been trotted out that we can't sacrifice human lives for the sake of the economy?
  - umanwizard 6y ago
    First of all, that number is clearly exaggerated. No current evidence supports the claim that a million people in the USA dying of covid is remotely plausible. Now to the substance of your argument: this has little to do with capitalism. If most people are not working for a long period of time, in any society, even a non-capitalist one, then that society will rapidly become dramatically materially poorer. We make choices to improve material conditions at possibly increased health risks all the time. Longevity is not the only metric for overall quality of life. I would happily accept some increased risk of my own death for the lockdown to be over. Correctly navigating the tradeoff requires figuring out how much increased risk of death is acceptable, not asserting that it’s zero.
    - 6y ago
pc86 6y ago
Not a single sane person is arguing going from isolation to business as usual overnight.
klmadfejno 6y ago
> If everyone goes back to normal too early, this all just starts over, and folks are forced to be inside even longer, there's just no way around it. This whole thing just starts over if we EVER go back to normal unless a vaccine is invented. Herd immunity is impossible to achieve during an effective lockdown. It's not like we're any closer to being able to safely resume activities than one month ago. A highly infectious disease with asymptomatic carriers cannot be eradicated. I hate people saying generic statements like "we have to stay inside until its safe" with no reason to believe its getting safer.
- res0nat0r 6y ago
  This is true. People need to realize this is a 2 year minimum thing we're just in the beginning of dealing with. Anything else is fantasy.
- lbeltrame 6y ago
  > This whole thing just starts over if we EVER go back to normal unless a vaccine is invented. We can get to normal faster if effective pharmacological treatments come out from the ongoing trials. If we can treat it, or at least prevent it from being severe, it is not a problem of public health anymore.
  - klmadfejno 6y ago
    Technically true, just as hopeless for any practical time scale. The economic problems of being on lockdown will compound over time. We cannot wait until we have treatments or a vaccine.

Filligree 6y ago

80-90% of people who catch this disease would survive without treatment. If America won't support people who might die of starvation when stuck at home, then the individually smartest response becomes to take their chance with the virus. I don't need to explain what a 10-20% death rate would do to society, however.

klmadfejno 6y ago
> I don't need to explain what a 10-20% death rate would do to society, however. Not much if 80% of them are very old and sick.
- cpursley 6y ago
  You're getting downvotes but it's true. There are other considerations that are completely being ignored by the ivory tower types. It's shocking to some, but jobs are how people afford to live their lives (buy food, pay rent, pay tax which funds government, etc). I'm more concerned about social and political unrest that often results from mass unemployment, people losing their homes, not enough to eat, etc than losing people to the virus (which still stucks). 22 million unemployed and growing is enough to swing elections in dark directions...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- mrb 6y ago
  If 20% die but 8 out of 10 are very old and sick, then globally 4% die who are healthy or not very old. 4% of an (healthy not very old) population dying still means overall the economy would contract by 4% (because product/service demand is down 4%), which would still be the greatest recession in the last 8 decades. Your comment ("not much") is thus completely false.
  - klmadfejno 6y ago
    Sure, but the idea that this virus kills 20% of all people is stupid. You just made that number up. We don't have much we can do to treat this disease. Nobody believes it would ever go that high. If somehow it does, even more than 80% will be old and sick. 4% of a population dying also does not mean the economy contracts by 4%. You just... made that up too. Lastly, you've assumed that a 4% annualized economy contraction from one month in a quarter means that we'll see 4% by just keeping this going. That's... wrong. The negative impact of lockdowns will compound. I don't give a shit if the economy shrinks by 4%. It's absolutely fine if we have a bit of a shitty economic time. Prolonged wide scale poverty for millions of people is an entirely different beast.
    - mrb 6y ago
      «kills 20% of all people is stupid. You just made that number up» I did not claim that. I just took this percentage from the hypothetical situation you used to build an argument (you yourself said if 10-20% die then it wouldn't mean much to the economy.) «4% of a population dying also does not mean the economy contracts by 4%.» Yes it does. Basic economics. With everything being equal, the size of an economy is linearly proportional to the number of persons. A population half the size of another one will buy half the number of cars, half the food, will spend half on entertainment, etc. So if 4% of average individuals die worldwide, consumption (thus the economy worldwide) is down 4%. Like I said, it's basic economics. «Lastly, you've assumed that a 4% annualized economy contraction from one month in a quarter means that we'll see 4% by just keeping this going» No I don't assume that. Read again what I wrote. I am only talking about the impact of a certain percentage dying, not about the impact of the lockdown.
- ModernMech 6y ago
  Keep in mind death is not the only negative outcome of this. My wife's uncle is relatively young (50s), completely healthy, gainfully employed, and has contracted Covid. He's been in the hospital for over a month, has been on a ventilator for weeks, is currently off but has been in and out of the ICU, his lung has collapsed, he can't feed himself, he can't walk, and he's currently re-learning how to swallow. If he makes it out of the hospital (that's a question mark right now), he's not going to be able to support himself. He won't be able to walk without getting winded so he will need a wheel chair, which will prevent him from doing the job he had before he went in. His experience, which has a decidedly negative economic impact and which is not uncommon for those who have needed to be hospitalized by covid, is completely missing from the "covid only impacts old people who were unproductive and probably would have died anyway" narrative.
  - tartoran 6y ago
    This is absolutely true and this would get a lot worse if people decide to end the lockdown early. If one needs money to feed their family now, the chance of them either passing or being incapacitated are not to be taken lightly. I had hoped the government would freeze all the mortgages, bills and offered real assistance to people in need. The stimulus check for the hoi polloi is a joke. I personally don't need it, why did I get it? I know I could donate it to the poor but that's not the point I'm trying to make. That stimulus seems to be a way of saying "but we already helped you".
  - klmadfejno 6y ago
    I'm sorry to hear that. I'm not arguing that covid only impacts old people, I'm saying 4 things (in general, maybe not the one particular quote above): a ) covid won't destroy society in any case b ) we cannot endure a lockdown until the disease is eradicated or a vaccine is produced c ) a lockdown ended before the disease is eradicated or a vaccine is produced will just lead to a second wave of the disease d ) the economic burden of the lockdown will increase exponentially as more businesses run dry I don't want your uncle to be sick. But I'd rather your uncle get sick than have you, your wife, and your uncle lose your jobs; and then have your uncle get sick anyway.
JibJabDab 6y ago
There's also some very concerning long-term effects for those who have recovered. There's a trend of seeing lung-scarring or other things that I'm sure will come up again int 10 or 15 years. Imagine that happening to a large portion of society.
- bjustin 6y ago
  Even recovered people who feel fine can have chronic issues due to the virus. Young, healthy people may come away with serious lung issues without realizing it[1]. [1] https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1253437512401301505 https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1253437512401301505
sixothree 6y ago
I'm sure it would have more than a 4.8% impact.

umanwizard 6y ago

This is wrong. We are not forced to be inside because of the virus. It would have been totally possible to have this pandemic going on with zero lockdowns, which would have probably led to worse health effects, and less-bad economic effects. It's a pet peeve of mine when people claim that we must lock down or that the virus is forcing us to do this or that, as opposed to it being a political choice based on tradeoffs. In fact, I predict that after things open up, they will not shut back down, no matter how bad the second wave of the outbreak gets. People simply won't accept it.

res0nat0r 6y ago
Sure, we can let a million folks in the USA die because we love our capitalism, but 80%+ of the USA disagrees with that false dichotomy.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I don't think that's true. The mindset I've consistently seen is that people do agree with the dichotomy, and are just willing to sacrifice the economy because they don't think it's very important. How many times has the line been trotted out that we can't sacrifice human lives for the sake of the economy?
- umanwizard 6y ago
  First of all, that number is clearly exaggerated. No current evidence supports the claim that a million people in the USA dying of covid is remotely plausible. Now to the substance of your argument: this has little to do with capitalism. If most people are not working for a long period of time, in any society, even a non-capitalist one, then that society will rapidly become dramatically materially poorer. We make choices to improve material conditions at possibly increased health risks all the time. Longevity is not the only metric for overall quality of life. I would happily accept some increased risk of my own death for the lockdown to be over. Correctly navigating the tradeoff requires figuring out how much increased risk of death is acceptable, not asserting that it’s zero.
  - 6y ago

pc86 6y ago

Not a single sane person is arguing going from isolation to business as usual overnight.

klmadfejno 6y ago

> If everyone goes back to normal too early, this all just starts over, and folks are forced to be inside even longer, there's just no way around it. This whole thing just starts over if we EVER go back to normal unless a vaccine is invented. Herd immunity is impossible to achieve during an effective lockdown. It's not like we're any closer to being able to safely resume activities than one month ago. A highly infectious disease with asymptomatic carriers cannot be eradicated. I hate people saying generic statements like "we have to stay inside until its safe" with no reason to believe its getting safer.

res0nat0r 6y ago
This is true. People need to realize this is a 2 year minimum thing we're just in the beginning of dealing with. Anything else is fantasy.
lbeltrame 6y ago
> This whole thing just starts over if we EVER go back to normal unless a vaccine is invented. We can get to normal faster if effective pharmacological treatments come out from the ongoing trials. If we can treat it, or at least prevent it from being severe, it is not a problem of public health anymore.
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  Technically true, just as hopeless for any practical time scale. The economic problems of being on lockdown will compound over time. We cannot wait until we have treatments or a vaccine.