4 ms·

First, please support this statement with some forecasts or well established documentation that would quantify the problem: > In particular, shutting down our

First, please support this statement with some forecasts or well established documentation that would quantify the problem: > In particular, shutting down our medical system (ex COVID-19) means that large numbers of people will die of other diseases/conditions. Shutting down the economy means that large numbers of people will die of suicide and other syndromes associated with economic deprivation. This isn't just a guess--it's clear and well-documented. Second, and I see this often in "conservative" postings - this ignores the fact that "the other team gets to bat too". In other words, the virus gets a vote. There is no evidence that the economy will recover without containing the virus. The economy had already cratered - OpenTable had documented a 74% drop in reservations before the first closure order occured - without public confidence that they won't be acquiring and spreading the disease. The way to contain the virus is to 1) lock down to reduce the epidemic to a size that is manageable by other means than shutdown, and 2) put in place the necessary staff, technology, and infrastructure to contain it by less onerous means. "2" means: widespread, no-charge testing with results in hours, not days; very rapid contact tracing, which means large staff doing so; and quarantine of contacts outside the home when appropriate, so that inter-dwelling infection does not occur. This is working in several countries. The US, being somehow exceptional, seems to believe it can't work here. The problem with the conservative-led "let 'er rip, they're going to die anyway" approach is that it doesn't get the economy back. It just inflames the epidemic, which continues to crater the economy for the next several years. I don't understand why conservatives can't see these things. I suspect it is some form of motivated reasoning that makes them reject reality in this form.

downerending 6y ago
Don't have time to find the links, but one study indicated that Japan had an excess of 10,000 or more (??) excess suicides per year as a result of its economic downturn in the 90s (?). And a recent paper in the UK asserted that there have already been 20,000 (??) excess deaths due to people who need cancer screening and treatment not going (or not being able to go) to medical facilities. Perhaps most tragically, people with stroke symptoms are far less likely to go to the ER in the first critical hours to possibly receive (clot-busting?) medical treatment. Wait a day or two, and it's too late. My memory on those numbers might be wrong, but if anything, I think they're too low. But these are just for a few cases in a few places. Extrapolate that out to the whole situation, are we're talking about a huge amount of death and suffering caused by the lockdowns. It's true that many people (like me) are going to stay locked down for months if not years no matter what the government says. That seems like more of an argument for letting up (like Sweden) than locking down harder. Most importantly is to understand that there is no endgame other than herd immunity. That might be achieved by a vaccine, but many scientists doubt that this will be had soon, if ever. No one is seriously talking about wide-spread vaccination in less than 12-18 months, and even that seems wildly unrealistic. More realistically, we might simply have to "choose" which 70% (or whatever) of the population gets the virus and when. We should choose the young and healthy, and "when" should be pretty soon, if we want to save lives. In any case, this needs to be studied hard and quickly by lots of boring, disinterested people. We can't just stop with "everyone who wants to loosen the lockdown is a money-grubbing bastard". People are dying.
- triceratops 6y ago
  > And a recent paper in the UK asserted that there have already been 20,000 (??) excess deaths due to people who need cancer screening and treatment not going (or not being able to go) to medical facilities. Won't letting the virus spread make it even harder for others to access treatment?
  - downerending 6y ago
    Doing this right will certainly take some thought. As long as it's spreading among the "young" (under 60 or so), those people will miss a week of work or two and that will be it. It's protecting the "old" that's going to matter here. Many of them are old enough that screening doesn't matter much anymore. In any case, if we let up on the lockdowns, that would free up a lot of money to pour onto careful protection of the old, which arguably would cut ultimate deaths more than the status quo.

downerending 6y ago

Don't have time to find the links, but one study indicated that Japan had an excess of 10,000 or more (??) excess suicides per year as a result of its economic downturn in the 90s (?). And a recent paper in the UK asserted that there have already been 20,000 (??) excess deaths due to people who need cancer screening and treatment not going (or not being able to go) to medical facilities. Perhaps most tragically, people with stroke symptoms are far less likely to go to the ER in the first critical hours to possibly receive (clot-busting?) medical treatment. Wait a day or two, and it's too late. My memory on those numbers might be wrong, but if anything, I think they're too low. But these are just for a few cases in a few places. Extrapolate that out to the whole situation, are we're talking about a huge amount of death and suffering caused by the lockdowns. It's true that many people (like me) are going to stay locked down for months if not years no matter what the government says. That seems like more of an argument for letting up (like Sweden) than locking down harder. Most importantly is to understand that there is no endgame other than herd immunity. That might be achieved by a vaccine, but many scientists doubt that this will be had soon, if ever. No one is seriously talking about wide-spread vaccination in less than 12-18 months, and even that seems wildly unrealistic. More realistically, we might simply have to "choose" which 70% (or whatever) of the population gets the virus and when. We should choose the young and healthy, and "when" should be pretty soon, if we want to save lives. In any case, this needs to be studied hard and quickly by lots of boring, disinterested people. We can't just stop with "everyone who wants to loosen the lockdown is a money-grubbing bastard". People are dying.

triceratops 6y ago
> And a recent paper in the UK asserted that there have already been 20,000 (??) excess deaths due to people who need cancer screening and treatment not going (or not being able to go) to medical facilities. Won't letting the virus spread make it even harder for others to access treatment?
- downerending 6y ago
  Doing this right will certainly take some thought. As long as it's spreading among the "young" (under 60 or so), those people will miss a week of work or two and that will be it. It's protecting the "old" that's going to matter here. Many of them are old enough that screening doesn't matter much anymore. In any case, if we let up on the lockdowns, that would free up a lot of money to pour onto careful protection of the old, which arguably would cut ultimate deaths more than the status quo.