2 ms·

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.

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.