4 ms·

My question then is what half-measures would be preferred here that would've still flattened the curve? When you're in the middle of a pandemic, I think it mak

My question then is what half-measures would be preferred here that would've still flattened the curve? When you're in the middle of a pandemic, I think it makes sense to err on the side of doing too much to stem the tide versus burning time and energy trying to feather the dial to get that needle perfectly balanced between physical and economic health. Perhaps more bluntly put, I'd rather people be alive and on unemployment than gainfully employed and dead. (And yes, there's a whole other discussion to be had about the efficiency or lack therof of getting money out to people. We could and should do a lot better.)

yters 7y ago
Economic downturn can kill people, too. It is not as simple as dead people on one side and no dead people on the other.
- RankingMember 7y ago
  Right, but one kills directly and in much larger numbers. I think it's clear which is the bigger mortal threat.
  - yters 7y ago
    I disagree the situation is clear. To take the logical extreme, if we were to avoid all possible immediate threat to life, no one should leave the house, let alone drive to work. Obviously, our society would immediately collapse, and many millions would die. So we have to balance possible immediate threats against likely longer term consequences. Something we do not seem to be doing very well in the case of covid-19.
    - RankingMember 7y ago
      > I disagree the situation is clear I'm confused, do you actually think the mortality rate of a down economy will be anywhere near that of a pandemic? Let me know if I'm misinterpreting you here but it sure seems like this is what you're arguing.
      - lostapathy 7y ago
        If said "down economy" led to a long-term depression or a year or two of lost crops due to any number of possible disruptions, we could easily see more death (both directly and due to social unrest, suicide, etc).
      - yters 7y ago
        Yes, I do think we could have a more reasonable approach that will result in less aggregate deaths than our current approach.
      - RankingMember 7y ago
        > lostapathy: If said "down economy" led to a long-term depression or a year or two of lost crops due to any number of possible disruptions, we could easily see more death (both directly and due to social unrest, suicide, etc). History doesn't bear this out. The Great Depression resulted in an uptick in suicide, yes, but a decline in practically every other cause of mortality. https://www.pnas.org/content/106/41/17290.full https://www.pnas.org/content/106/41/17290.full > yters: Yes, I do think we could have a more reasonable approach that will result in less aggregate deaths than our current approach. You could look at any societal attempt to deal with a large scale threat and say "well that could've been done better", but as I said in my other comment, perfection takes time, and, with time of the essence, I think we were smart to move forward with an imperfect but obviously impactful solution rather than burn time and lives trying to find some mythical perfect balance.

yters 7y ago

Economic downturn can kill people, too. It is not as simple as dead people on one side and no dead people on the other.

RankingMember 7y ago
Right, but one kills directly and in much larger numbers. I think it's clear which is the bigger mortal threat.
- yters 7y ago
  I disagree the situation is clear. To take the logical extreme, if we were to avoid all possible immediate threat to life, no one should leave the house, let alone drive to work. Obviously, our society would immediately collapse, and many millions would die. So we have to balance possible immediate threats against likely longer term consequences. Something we do not seem to be doing very well in the case of covid-19.
  - RankingMember 7y ago
    > I disagree the situation is clear I'm confused, do you actually think the mortality rate of a down economy will be anywhere near that of a pandemic? Let me know if I'm misinterpreting you here but it sure seems like this is what you're arguing.
    - lostapathy 7y ago
      If said "down economy" led to a long-term depression or a year or two of lost crops due to any number of possible disruptions, we could easily see more death (both directly and due to social unrest, suicide, etc).
    - yters 7y ago
      Yes, I do think we could have a more reasonable approach that will result in less aggregate deaths than our current approach.
    - RankingMember 7y ago
      > lostapathy: If said "down economy" led to a long-term depression or a year or two of lost crops due to any number of possible disruptions, we could easily see more death (both directly and due to social unrest, suicide, etc). History doesn't bear this out. The Great Depression resulted in an uptick in suicide, yes, but a decline in practically every other cause of mortality. https://www.pnas.org/content/106/41/17290.full https://www.pnas.org/content/106/41/17290.full > yters: Yes, I do think we could have a more reasonable approach that will result in less aggregate deaths than our current approach. You could look at any societal attempt to deal with a large scale threat and say "well that could've been done better", but as I said in my other comment, perfection takes time, and, with time of the essence, I think we were smart to move forward with an imperfect but obviously impactful solution rather than burn time and lives trying to find some mythical perfect balance.