4 ms·

How do you mean? They likely will have much higher deaths -- only if they decide to quarantine longer could I imagine that they have a success -- but "not handl

How do you mean? They likely will have much higher deaths -- only if they decide to quarantine longer could I imagine that they have a success -- but "not handling covid 19 well" does not mean they will quarantine longer or that they will do a good job after their bang-up job.

ithkuil 6y ago
It feels deeply wrong to cold-heartedly choose a course of action that will result in the death of many people and the resulting suffering of those who survive their loved ones. But people are resilient. People face death from other causes all the time. Yes, there will be a measurable increase due to covid-19 but in countries that are already ravaged by poverty, crime, disease, wars, etc, it might not significantly alter the emotional balance of those who survive. That's particularly true in those countries whose authorities successfully downplay the effects of covid-19, e.g. by not doing much testing. From that POV, all other things being equal, one could expect that those countries might grow their economies while the rest of the world loses opportunities. I'm not sure I buy that argument though. World economy is not entirely a zero sum game
- KerryJones 6y ago
  This feels like it's based on a lot of "gut feel", though I appreciate he devils-advocate argument. Specifically, these points: > it might not significantly alter the emotional balance of those who survive. That's particularly true in those countries whose authorities successfully downplay the effects of covid-19, e.g. by not doing much testing. Most countries in the world rely on global supply chains, and many countries are now closing their borders to external trade, meaning that their own prices will sky-rocket, likely causing layoffs and bankruptcies, causing stimulus packages and therefore inflation. The world is very interconnected (as I'm sure you know) In addition, I believe that many people would suffer significantly _more_ if many more people were dying around them. They would have friends and family who died or who were tied to people who died. I don't think it would be something as simple as "eh, someone else's problem". In addition, it's not just deaths -- there is a lot of data showing that there are long-term lung issues that develop if you do survive.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > Most countries in the world rely on global supply chains, and many countries are now closing their borders to external trade, meaning that their own prices will sky-rocket, likely causing layoffs and bankruptcies, causing stimulus packages and therefore inflation Which countries, exactly, are closing their borders to trade? There are definitely a lot of restrictions being placed on travel and tourism, but banning cargo makes no sense in this context. If anything, things will probably just get lonelier for merchant seamen.
- daxfohl 6y ago
  I wasn't implying that nations should choose this course. But say a year from now when most of their population is immune and the disease is no longer worrisome within that nation (relative to the zillion other things you can die from), then from that point they my ironically be better off. Of course this assumes 1. some kind of immunity (which I'd think indications are pointing toward, or I'd expect to have seen more repeat contractions by now) 2. the response was dorked up down to the individual level (which is most decidedly not the case -- plenty of individuals (especially among highish-income) are choosing to self isolate and take precautions, and thus will not contract the virus for quite some time no matter how bad the government response was, so immunity within these groups will never form, so the government will not be able to reopen anyway) So even in the absence of other considerations, the 2nd point above pretty much cancels out my original post.
  - orwin 6y ago
    >> 1. some kind of immunity (which I'd think indications are pointing toward, or I'd expect to have seen more repeat contractions by now) Not necessarily, you can have a short-term immunization that only last a year or two. This is why the "herd immunity" might be a poor idea when we don't know much about this virus. Anyway, i demanded a work/vacation visa to NZ for this October, i fear this won't be possible :/
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  Ask Ireland or its overlords how choosing short term economy over people worked out for them with the Irish Potato Famine. Andrew Carnegie became wealthy in the US instead of generating income for the UK - regardless of one's opinions of his overall morals or lack of them he was far more productive than the harvest they sold. That was a more extreme case of 20% to 25% of the population but losing a sizable percentage of productivity with the population is very expensive in ways apparent both on and off the balance sheets. It is the epitome of penny wise pound foolish to make such a trade - the bloody gains will fade away in time while the loss echoes.
  - ithkuil 6y ago
    Yes, the size and age of the group matters though

ithkuil 6y ago

It feels deeply wrong to cold-heartedly choose a course of action that will result in the death of many people and the resulting suffering of those who survive their loved ones. But people are resilient. People face death from other causes all the time. Yes, there will be a measurable increase due to covid-19 but in countries that are already ravaged by poverty, crime, disease, wars, etc, it might not significantly alter the emotional balance of those who survive. That's particularly true in those countries whose authorities successfully downplay the effects of covid-19, e.g. by not doing much testing. From that POV, all other things being equal, one could expect that those countries might grow their economies while the rest of the world loses opportunities. I'm not sure I buy that argument though. World economy is not entirely a zero sum game

KerryJones 6y ago
This feels like it's based on a lot of "gut feel", though I appreciate he devils-advocate argument. Specifically, these points: > it might not significantly alter the emotional balance of those who survive. That's particularly true in those countries whose authorities successfully downplay the effects of covid-19, e.g. by not doing much testing. Most countries in the world rely on global supply chains, and many countries are now closing their borders to external trade, meaning that their own prices will sky-rocket, likely causing layoffs and bankruptcies, causing stimulus packages and therefore inflation. The world is very interconnected (as I'm sure you know) In addition, I believe that many people would suffer significantly _more_ if many more people were dying around them. They would have friends and family who died or who were tied to people who died. I don't think it would be something as simple as "eh, someone else's problem". In addition, it's not just deaths -- there is a lot of data showing that there are long-term lung issues that develop if you do survive.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > Most countries in the world rely on global supply chains, and many countries are now closing their borders to external trade, meaning that their own prices will sky-rocket, likely causing layoffs and bankruptcies, causing stimulus packages and therefore inflation Which countries, exactly, are closing their borders to trade? There are definitely a lot of restrictions being placed on travel and tourism, but banning cargo makes no sense in this context. If anything, things will probably just get lonelier for merchant seamen.
daxfohl 6y ago
I wasn't implying that nations should choose this course. But say a year from now when most of their population is immune and the disease is no longer worrisome within that nation (relative to the zillion other things you can die from), then from that point they my ironically be better off. Of course this assumes 1. some kind of immunity (which I'd think indications are pointing toward, or I'd expect to have seen more repeat contractions by now) 2. the response was dorked up down to the individual level (which is most decidedly not the case -- plenty of individuals (especially among highish-income) are choosing to self isolate and take precautions, and thus will not contract the virus for quite some time no matter how bad the government response was, so immunity within these groups will never form, so the government will not be able to reopen anyway) So even in the absence of other considerations, the 2nd point above pretty much cancels out my original post.
- orwin 6y ago
  >> 1. some kind of immunity (which I'd think indications are pointing toward, or I'd expect to have seen more repeat contractions by now) Not necessarily, you can have a short-term immunization that only last a year or two. This is why the "herd immunity" might be a poor idea when we don't know much about this virus. Anyway, i demanded a work/vacation visa to NZ for this October, i fear this won't be possible :/
Nasrudith 6y ago
Ask Ireland or its overlords how choosing short term economy over people worked out for them with the Irish Potato Famine. Andrew Carnegie became wealthy in the US instead of generating income for the UK - regardless of one's opinions of his overall morals or lack of them he was far more productive than the harvest they sold. That was a more extreme case of 20% to 25% of the population but losing a sizable percentage of productivity with the population is very expensive in ways apparent both on and off the balance sheets. It is the epitome of penny wise pound foolish to make such a trade - the bloody gains will fade away in time while the loss echoes.
- ithkuil 6y ago
  Yes, the size and age of the group matters though