5 ms·

I can somewhat answer why the left is discounting the economic factors. The short answer is there is historic precedence that taking strong action against a pan

I can somewhat answer why the left is discounting the economic factors. The short answer is there is historic precedence that taking strong action against a pandemic will help that economy recover quicker than places that took little to no action. More deaths and a drawn out pandemic had a worse long term economy than a hard and fast shutdown earlier. http://news.mit.edu/2020/pandemic-health-response-economic-recovery-0401 http://news.mit.edu/2020/pandemic-health-response-economic-r....

downerending 6y ago
It's possible that a long, hard shutdown will result in a better economic result. Looking to 1918, though, raises a lot of questions. It's a small amount of data points from a time when far less reliable information was available. Perhaps more importantly, it doesn't help us much in determining the total number of excess deaths from these alternatives. I'm guessing that few were even thinking about that question back then.
- lowdose 6y ago
  In 1918 the surviving 2/3 of the population inherited a tremendous amount of financial resources of the 100 million people that died. The population is now much larger. Corona is not going to kill more than a million people. Any references to the economic boom in 1918 are a pipe dream.
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  The larger point, IMO, is that it's not in evidence to assume that it's a tradeoff between saving lives and the economy. It's possible that prioritizing life saving, even at the expense of a worse economy in the short term, saves lives and spurs a better economic recovery. Edit - for clarity
nickthemagicman 6y ago
It will be interesting to compare Sweden to this to see if this is a valid study or more a case of fitting the data to a narrative. According to this study Sweden's, who didn't quarantine, economy should crash which it hasn't yet.
- downerending 6y ago
  So far, it's not obvious that the global null hypothesis, which is that nothing we are doing is making a difference, has been disproven.
  - nickthemagicman 6y ago
    I think the burden of proof is typically on the people doing the experiment to prove that its significant. So far there's not much difference from the control group.

downerending 6y ago

It's possible that a long, hard shutdown will result in a better economic result. Looking to 1918, though, raises a lot of questions. It's a small amount of data points from a time when far less reliable information was available. Perhaps more importantly, it doesn't help us much in determining the total number of excess deaths from these alternatives. I'm guessing that few were even thinking about that question back then.

lowdose 6y ago
In 1918 the surviving 2/3 of the population inherited a tremendous amount of financial resources of the 100 million people that died. The population is now much larger. Corona is not going to kill more than a million people. Any references to the economic boom in 1918 are a pipe dream.
edmundsauto 6y ago
The larger point, IMO, is that it's not in evidence to assume that it's a tradeoff between saving lives and the economy. It's possible that prioritizing life saving, even at the expense of a worse economy in the short term, saves lives and spurs a better economic recovery. Edit - for clarity

nickthemagicman 6y ago

It will be interesting to compare Sweden to this to see if this is a valid study or more a case of fitting the data to a narrative. According to this study Sweden's, who didn't quarantine, economy should crash which it hasn't yet.

downerending 6y ago
So far, it's not obvious that the global null hypothesis, which is that nothing we are doing is making a difference, has been disproven.
- nickthemagicman 6y ago
  I think the burden of proof is typically on the people doing the experiment to prove that its significant. So far there's not much difference from the control group.