4 ms·

You sound like Dennis from Always Sunny talking about how girls need to sleep with him if they're alone on a boat because of the implication of what would happe

You sound like Dennis from Always Sunny talking about how girls need to sleep with him if they're alone on a boat because of the implication of what would happen if they refuse, but denying that he actually said anything threatening. > "I don't need to explain what a 10-20% death rate would do to society, however." Yes, you didn't claim anything. But the implication is clear. When I responded I assumed you meant 20% CFR. > Yes it does. Basic economics. With everything being equal, the size of an economy is linearly proportional to the number of persons. I don't know what else I can say other than this is a dumb statement that you just made up. * It's not a basic tenant of economics * All things aren't equal, ever * It's not a linear relationship, nor even always positively correlated over time depending on context And lastly if you actually believe your math, then its clear that for any realistic death rate the economic impact is negligible.

mrb 7y ago
Note that you are confusing me with another user (Filligree) who started the thread and initially threw these "10-20%" figures. Personally I do not believe 10-20% of the world population will die. «I don't know what else I can say other than this is a dumb statement» Not dumb. It's a good approximation, especially because post-pandemic times (after people have regained their jobs, which might take months/years) will be identical to pre-pandemic times with the ONLY difference being that a certain percentage of Americans will have died prematurely. That percentage will directly translate to an economic loss. Look, the fact your post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23019875 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23019875) was severely downvoted indicates most HN users disagree with you. I tried to take the time to explain to you why. You don't get it. I don't have any more energy to spend on this discussion.
- klmadfejno 7y ago
  You're right, that was another user, rendering most of this moot. I got 3 downvotes, and I don't particularly care if three people disagree with me. Similar opinions expressed elsewhere have gotten more upvotes. Shitty appeal to the people fallacy. > Not dumb. It's a good approximation, especially because post-pandemic times (after people have regained their jobs, which might take months/years) will be identical to pre-pandemic times with the ONLY difference being that a certain percentage of Americans will have died prematurely. That percentage will directly translate to an economic loss. This is simply not true. The world does not click back to the state it was with fewer people. Millions of people are now unemployed. Thousands of companies will no longer exist. The lockdown is killing small businesses disproportionately fast and that gap is going to be filled by larger businesses. Larger businesses have fewer local employees. The wealth gap is going to be greatly exacerbated, and this will affect everyone. Supply chains will change, inflation will change, consumer spending habits will change. The economy is going to feel different, and in a large part driven by how long everything takes to restart. x% of people dead meaning x% worse economy is just an irrelevant, naive comment. I don't really care to debate this further either because... it's not interesting

mrb 7y ago

Note that you are confusing me with another user (Filligree) who started the thread and initially threw these "10-20%" figures. Personally I do not believe 10-20% of the world population will die. «I don't know what else I can say other than this is a dumb statement» Not dumb. It's a good approximation, especially because post-pandemic times (after people have regained their jobs, which might take months/years) will be identical to pre-pandemic times with the ONLY difference being that a certain percentage of Americans will have died prematurely. That percentage will directly translate to an economic loss. Look, the fact your post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23019875 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23019875) was severely downvoted indicates most HN users disagree with you. I tried to take the time to explain to you why. You don't get it. I don't have any more energy to spend on this discussion.

klmadfejno 7y ago
You're right, that was another user, rendering most of this moot. I got 3 downvotes, and I don't particularly care if three people disagree with me. Similar opinions expressed elsewhere have gotten more upvotes. Shitty appeal to the people fallacy. > Not dumb. It's a good approximation, especially because post-pandemic times (after people have regained their jobs, which might take months/years) will be identical to pre-pandemic times with the ONLY difference being that a certain percentage of Americans will have died prematurely. That percentage will directly translate to an economic loss. This is simply not true. The world does not click back to the state it was with fewer people. Millions of people are now unemployed. Thousands of companies will no longer exist. The lockdown is killing small businesses disproportionately fast and that gap is going to be filled by larger businesses. Larger businesses have fewer local employees. The wealth gap is going to be greatly exacerbated, and this will affect everyone. Supply chains will change, inflation will change, consumer spending habits will change. The economy is going to feel different, and in a large part driven by how long everything takes to restart. x% of people dead meaning x% worse economy is just an irrelevant, naive comment. I don't really care to debate this further either because... it's not interesting