5 ms·

Every percentage drop in per capita GDP is associated with a loss in life expectancy. The response to the coronavirus pandemic, of mandatory lockdowns of nearl

Every percentage drop in per capita GDP is associated with a loss in life expectancy. The response to the coronavirus pandemic, of mandatory lockdowns of nearly the entire population, for several weeks, may prove to be one of the most egregious cases of self-inflicted social harm the world has ever seen.

Isinlor 6y ago
It's false choice. This virus kills 0.5 to 1% of infected people across population. It can infect more than 50% of the population. Everyone would know somebody who died because of the virus. The economy can not function when people are dying left and right. For example, Sweden will not be ok economically. We have already 0.1 million dead. EU has 445 million people, so more than 1 million can still die 445(1000^2)0.5*0.5% There is also question about long term health of people who got COVID-19. Based on Japanese study on Grand Princess passengers [0] and some 6 divers [1] all with mild cases from Germany around 50 to 80% of people seem to have damage to the lungs visible on CT scans after mild symptomatic or even asymptomatic infection. Two of the divers had significant oxygen deficiency when doing physical exercise after 5-6 weeks of recovery. The guess of the doctor who was inspecting them is that this is permanent damage that may take years to recover if ever. [0] https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/ryct.2020200110 https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/ryct.2020200110 [1] https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wetnotes.eu%2Ftauchen-nach-covid-19-erkrankung%2F https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...
- llarsson 6y ago
  If you mean in the context of Swedish deaths, those are 2,900 or so deaths, not 0.1 million. Edit: I interpreted the number to be in the context of Sweden, as it was mentioned just in the sentence prior. Reply updated to make that clear.
  - vertex-four 6y ago
    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-toll/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-... - you're a couple orders of magnitude off the actual death toll.
    - llarsson 6y ago
      I may have interpreted the post I responded to incorrectly to be in the context of Swedish numbers, since Sweden was mentioned in the sentence prior to the number that was cited. I have updated my response accordingly.
  - Isinlor 6y ago
    So, to clarify the number refers to the whole EU (without UK). Currently there are little bit more than 0.1 million reported deaths across the EU. And as I was saying, in the best case scenario, based on the current data [0] 1 million more could die if people would live their lives normally. But people would not live normally as they do not in Sweden or Belarus and economies would be in downfall anyway. The difference would be in the number of deaths, long term health issues, as well as in the length of the crisis - probably more like 2 years, or until herd immunity trough vaccination. [0] https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*G6ql9WUz114Mdwktyp53Mg.png https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*G6ql9WUz114Mdwktyp53Mg.pn...
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  > This virus kills 0.5 to 1% of infected people across population. It can infect more than 50% of the population. Everyone would know somebody who died because of the virus. The economy can not function when people are dying left and right. Doesn't around 0.8% of the population die each year normally? So at worst (everyone infected) we'd have a year or two where all-cause mortality roughly doubles (concentrated in people 65+ year olds)? That's a big increase and by no means easy to handle, but surely that shouldn't end or stop the economy like you're claiming.
  - Isinlor 6y ago
    We don't need to speculate - it is happening in Belarus. Sweden is quite close to a lock-down, but Belarus is far away from a lock-down. Lukaszenko is advising sport, especially on ice and vodka to fight off the virus. Still, Belarus mobility statistics according to Google [0] are: Retail & recreation: -16% Transit stations: -20% Workplaces: -25% Their economic activity is certainly reduced right now. People do not want to expose themselves even if their leaders are downplaying it. BTW - Belarus was probably prepared the best in the world for pandemic with 11 beds per 1000 people vs. 5.8 beds per 1000 people in EU in 2010 [2]. So entering speculation again, IMF is projecting 6% GDP contraction in Belarus [1]. Another data point is Open Table (restaurants reservations) data [3] from USA. Most of the drop in reservations happened before lock-down. People decided to not go on their own - on average 73% down before restaurants were ordered to close. My prediction is that up-tick in states that are opening right now will be very small as well. [0] https://www.gstatic.com/covid19/mobility/2020-04-30_BY_Mobility_Report_en.pdf https://www.gstatic.com/covid19/mobility/2020-04-30_BY_Mobil... [1] https://www.imf.org/en/Countries/BLR https://www.imf.org/en/Countries/BLR [2] https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=2&series=SH.MED.BEDS.ZS&country= https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=2&series=... [3] https://s4.freebeacon.com/up/2020/04/plot2.png https://s4.freebeacon.com/up/2020/04/plot2.png
    - CryptoPunk 6y ago
      Your statistics don't support your position, that people's natural reaction to the virus would reduce economic productivity as much as the lockdown does.
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  The economy CAN function when people are dying left and right. It functions every year, with a huge percentage of the population suffering this sort of personal tragedy. Of course, activity will decline even in the absence of a lockdown, but far less than if nearly the entire population is forced to shelter-at-home for an indeterminant length of time (all the while failing to build herd immunity).
  - Isinlor 6y ago
    The economy could function, indeed, but they don't seem to [0], certainly not on the baseline level. Human psychology that allowed our ancestors to survive even more deadly plagues is at work here. And people are correct in their everyday choices, herd immunity is just wrong when you have no idea what this virus actually does to people and you can afford to not get sick. If indeed 50% of people including young and middle age asymptomatic/mild cases of COVID-19 lead to permanent lung damage (we don't know!), then "herd immunity" means destroying health of the population, while killing millions at the same time. We are certain that people needing intrusive ventilation will need years to go back to fully normal life, but they may never recover full health. And I agree, maybe USA, Africa and India can not afford to suppress the virus. Starvation will very likely be bigger killer in those countries. I was and I still am especially worried about India, because I don't see how they could stop exponential spread even with full lock-down. Social distancing is just impossible there. And they have millions upon millions of people that have to work to eat. Thankfully, India seems to be easing lock-down. But EU economies certainly can afford lock-down. Even Swedish people paid and are paying heavy economical price to stop the exponential growth. But we did suppress the virus, now we can go back to sort of normal life and keep things under control. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23105922 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23105922
    - CryptoPunk 6y ago
      The voluntary reduction in economic activity is far less disruptive, and extreme, than the mandatory reduction caused by indiscriminate lockdowns. When voluntary, each individual can judge whether a particular activity should be continued based on their own circumstances and the particularities of that activity, and give up those activities that provide the least economic return relative to risk incurred. A cookie-cutter rule OTOH has no such intelligence, and leads to a massive amount of waste, from critical activity being prevented that would have provided a large risk-adjusted social benefit.
tonyedgecombe 6y ago
It's hard to see any other course of action when we saw what was happening in Northern Italy. In fact if anything I would say most Western countries didn't lock down early or hard enough. Countries that ease the lockdown before they have a handle on the virus are in for a lot of pain further down the road. Probably more economic damage as well.
- LastZactionHero 6y ago
  As an example, 9 million people die each year due to hunger or hunger-related issues, many of them children. 135 million face food insecurity. Due to lockdowns and recession, the World Food Program estimates the toll will double this year. And hunger is just one cause of death that a recession can lead to (suicides, substance abuse, etc). Lockdowns might save lives, and I can't blame public health officials for protecting their community, but I personally fear more lives will be lost due to economic costs. They just might be poorer, quieter lives. And while death is, of course, final, suffering in life should count for something too. https://www.wfp.org/news/covid-19-will-double-number-people-facing-food-crises-unless-swift-action-taken https://www.wfp.org/news/covid-19-will-double-number-people-...
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Lockdowns might save lives, and I can't blame public health officials for protecting their community, but I personally fear more lives will be lost due to economic costs. They just might be poorer, quieter lives. That's a real issue in the developing world; in the developed world the resources exist to buffer the temporary additional low-end economic impact; not doing so effectively is a policy choice (and, in practice, a deliberate active one made when the alternative of providing the aid is presented), not an inherent corollary of lockdowns.
    - LastZactionHero 6y ago
      > That's a real issue in the developing world; in the developed world the resources exist to buffer the temporary additional low-end economic impact That seems like a pretty sterile way to describe it. Right now, in the (presumably) developed US, 1 in 5 children don't have enough food, 3x the amount during 2008. That's a result of years of policy choices, but one particularly policy choice caused it to spike. If there's a resource buffer, it's not buffering. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/05/06/the-covid-19-crisis-has-already-left-too-many-children-hungry-in-america/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/05/06/the-covid...
ramblerman 6y ago
It's funny to see you downvoted into the light gray at the time of reading. I mean, You did say "may turn out to be". It seems as with any partisan issue america jumps on, the party lines are quickly formed, and it's now black or white, you are either for or against. Your nuance is not appreciated.
- mytherin 6y ago
  I fail to see the nuance. The parent comment is not downvoted for partisan reasons, it is downvoted for stating that the lockdown is directly responsible for the economic issues as if that is obvious, when that is extremely questionable. The virus is responsible for the economic issues. Lifting the government mandated lockdowns will not change the presence of the virus. Even if the government lifted the lockdown most people will still not consume like they did before. People will not fly like they did before, travel like they did before, eat out like they did before, etc until the root cause is gone. The lockdown might very well be better for the economy in the long run because it means the root cause is gone sooner. Lifting the lockdown early (or not having a lockdown at all) means the virus will linger around for much longer which means the economy remains in shambles for longer. You can force people to work, but you cannot force people to consume, and lack of consumption is the main cause of the current economic issues.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    The virus is obviously for some of the economic impact and the lockdown is obviously responsible for some of the economic impact. There are plenty of cities and counties which have 0 recorded cases which are going on two months of lockdown at this point. Please realize that people are dying in those cities Because of the lockdown, and lives are being destroyed. As you say, The lockdown might very well be better for the economy in the long run, but the root cause will not be eliminated. That does not mean that there couldn’t have been or can’t be a better version of the lockdown that is less destructive
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    >>The virus is responsible for the economic issues. Lifting the government mandated lockdowns will not change the presence of the virus. The lockdown undoubtedly magnifies the economic damage, given it prevents many people who would otherwise be working, from working, and businesses that would otherwise be operating, from operating. The only possible rationale I can imagine you having for believing the economic damage without the lockdowns would be the same/worse is that the virus would have hurt productivity even more than the lockdowns did, by killing workers. But the virus has an extremely low mortality rate for those of working age, and especially those in good health who are disproportionately represented among the most productive, so I don't know how you could reason that absent the lockdown, productivity might have taken an equivalent or larger hit due to more people being infected.
boudin 6y ago
The lockdown was a necessity for countries healthcare systems to cope with the amount of people requiring care. Not doing so would have been self-inflicted social harm too, not only for people requiring healthcare because of COVID-19 but also for people requiring healthcare from other diseases.
- kalleboo 6y ago
  They were a necessity in some places like NYC and parts of Europe, but in many other places, lockdown began before the virus spread there and the hospitals have been gaping empty while lockdown continues. The original tactic was "flatten the curve" to keep cases where the healthcare system could handle them, but that tactic has been changed to "get cases down to the level where we can test & trace down to zero". Sweden appears to be the only country sticking to the original flatten the curve plan, they've been keeping their R hovering around 1, staying about 20% under ICU capacity.

Isinlor 6y ago

It's false choice. This virus kills 0.5 to 1% of infected people across population. It can infect more than 50% of the population. Everyone would know somebody who died because of the virus. The economy can not function when people are dying left and right. For example, Sweden will not be ok economically. We have already 0.1 million dead. EU has 445 million people, so more than 1 million can still die 445(1000^2)0.5*0.5% There is also question about long term health of people who got COVID-19. Based on Japanese study on Grand Princess passengers [0] and some 6 divers [1] all with mild cases from Germany around 50 to 80% of people seem to have damage to the lungs visible on CT scans after mild symptomatic or even asymptomatic infection. Two of the divers had significant oxygen deficiency when doing physical exercise after 5-6 weeks of recovery. The guess of the doctor who was inspecting them is that this is permanent damage that may take years to recover if ever. [0] https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/ryct.2020200110 https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/ryct.2020200110 [1] https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wetnotes.eu%2Ftauchen-nach-covid-19-erkrankung%2F https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...

llarsson 6y ago
If you mean in the context of Swedish deaths, those are 2,900 or so deaths, not 0.1 million. Edit: I interpreted the number to be in the context of Sweden, as it was mentioned just in the sentence prior. Reply updated to make that clear.
- vertex-four 6y ago
  https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-toll/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-... - you're a couple orders of magnitude off the actual death toll.
  - llarsson 6y ago
    I may have interpreted the post I responded to incorrectly to be in the context of Swedish numbers, since Sweden was mentioned in the sentence prior to the number that was cited. I have updated my response accordingly.
- Isinlor 6y ago
  So, to clarify the number refers to the whole EU (without UK). Currently there are little bit more than 0.1 million reported deaths across the EU. And as I was saying, in the best case scenario, based on the current data [0] 1 million more could die if people would live their lives normally. But people would not live normally as they do not in Sweden or Belarus and economies would be in downfall anyway. The difference would be in the number of deaths, long term health issues, as well as in the length of the crisis - probably more like 2 years, or until herd immunity trough vaccination. [0] https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*G6ql9WUz114Mdwktyp53Mg.png https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*G6ql9WUz114Mdwktyp53Mg.pn...
gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
> This virus kills 0.5 to 1% of infected people across population. It can infect more than 50% of the population. Everyone would know somebody who died because of the virus. The economy can not function when people are dying left and right. Doesn't around 0.8% of the population die each year normally? So at worst (everyone infected) we'd have a year or two where all-cause mortality roughly doubles (concentrated in people 65+ year olds)? That's a big increase and by no means easy to handle, but surely that shouldn't end or stop the economy like you're claiming.
- Isinlor 6y ago
  We don't need to speculate - it is happening in Belarus. Sweden is quite close to a lock-down, but Belarus is far away from a lock-down. Lukaszenko is advising sport, especially on ice and vodka to fight off the virus. Still, Belarus mobility statistics according to Google [0] are: Retail & recreation: -16% Transit stations: -20% Workplaces: -25% Their economic activity is certainly reduced right now. People do not want to expose themselves even if their leaders are downplaying it. BTW - Belarus was probably prepared the best in the world for pandemic with 11 beds per 1000 people vs. 5.8 beds per 1000 people in EU in 2010 [2]. So entering speculation again, IMF is projecting 6% GDP contraction in Belarus [1]. Another data point is Open Table (restaurants reservations) data [3] from USA. Most of the drop in reservations happened before lock-down. People decided to not go on their own - on average 73% down before restaurants were ordered to close. My prediction is that up-tick in states that are opening right now will be very small as well. [0] https://www.gstatic.com/covid19/mobility/2020-04-30_BY_Mobility_Report_en.pdf https://www.gstatic.com/covid19/mobility/2020-04-30_BY_Mobil... [1] https://www.imf.org/en/Countries/BLR https://www.imf.org/en/Countries/BLR [2] https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=2&series=SH.MED.BEDS.ZS&country= https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=2&series=... [3] https://s4.freebeacon.com/up/2020/04/plot2.png https://s4.freebeacon.com/up/2020/04/plot2.png
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    Your statistics don't support your position, that people's natural reaction to the virus would reduce economic productivity as much as the lockdown does.
CryptoPunk 6y ago
The economy CAN function when people are dying left and right. It functions every year, with a huge percentage of the population suffering this sort of personal tragedy. Of course, activity will decline even in the absence of a lockdown, but far less than if nearly the entire population is forced to shelter-at-home for an indeterminant length of time (all the while failing to build herd immunity).
- Isinlor 6y ago
  The economy could function, indeed, but they don't seem to [0], certainly not on the baseline level. Human psychology that allowed our ancestors to survive even more deadly plagues is at work here. And people are correct in their everyday choices, herd immunity is just wrong when you have no idea what this virus actually does to people and you can afford to not get sick. If indeed 50% of people including young and middle age asymptomatic/mild cases of COVID-19 lead to permanent lung damage (we don't know!), then "herd immunity" means destroying health of the population, while killing millions at the same time. We are certain that people needing intrusive ventilation will need years to go back to fully normal life, but they may never recover full health. And I agree, maybe USA, Africa and India can not afford to suppress the virus. Starvation will very likely be bigger killer in those countries. I was and I still am especially worried about India, because I don't see how they could stop exponential spread even with full lock-down. Social distancing is just impossible there. And they have millions upon millions of people that have to work to eat. Thankfully, India seems to be easing lock-down. But EU economies certainly can afford lock-down. Even Swedish people paid and are paying heavy economical price to stop the exponential growth. But we did suppress the virus, now we can go back to sort of normal life and keep things under control. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23105922 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23105922
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    The voluntary reduction in economic activity is far less disruptive, and extreme, than the mandatory reduction caused by indiscriminate lockdowns. When voluntary, each individual can judge whether a particular activity should be continued based on their own circumstances and the particularities of that activity, and give up those activities that provide the least economic return relative to risk incurred. A cookie-cutter rule OTOH has no such intelligence, and leads to a massive amount of waste, from critical activity being prevented that would have provided a large risk-adjusted social benefit.

tonyedgecombe 6y ago

It's hard to see any other course of action when we saw what was happening in Northern Italy. In fact if anything I would say most Western countries didn't lock down early or hard enough. Countries that ease the lockdown before they have a handle on the virus are in for a lot of pain further down the road. Probably more economic damage as well.

LastZactionHero 6y ago
As an example, 9 million people die each year due to hunger or hunger-related issues, many of them children. 135 million face food insecurity. Due to lockdowns and recession, the World Food Program estimates the toll will double this year. And hunger is just one cause of death that a recession can lead to (suicides, substance abuse, etc). Lockdowns might save lives, and I can't blame public health officials for protecting their community, but I personally fear more lives will be lost due to economic costs. They just might be poorer, quieter lives. And while death is, of course, final, suffering in life should count for something too. https://www.wfp.org/news/covid-19-will-double-number-people-facing-food-crises-unless-swift-action-taken https://www.wfp.org/news/covid-19-will-double-number-people-...
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Lockdowns might save lives, and I can't blame public health officials for protecting their community, but I personally fear more lives will be lost due to economic costs. They just might be poorer, quieter lives. That's a real issue in the developing world; in the developed world the resources exist to buffer the temporary additional low-end economic impact; not doing so effectively is a policy choice (and, in practice, a deliberate active one made when the alternative of providing the aid is presented), not an inherent corollary of lockdowns.
  - LastZactionHero 6y ago
    > That's a real issue in the developing world; in the developed world the resources exist to buffer the temporary additional low-end economic impact That seems like a pretty sterile way to describe it. Right now, in the (presumably) developed US, 1 in 5 children don't have enough food, 3x the amount during 2008. That's a result of years of policy choices, but one particularly policy choice caused it to spike. If there's a resource buffer, it's not buffering. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/05/06/the-covid-19-crisis-has-already-left-too-many-children-hungry-in-america/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/05/06/the-covid...

ramblerman 6y ago

It's funny to see you downvoted into the light gray at the time of reading. I mean, You did say "may turn out to be". It seems as with any partisan issue america jumps on, the party lines are quickly formed, and it's now black or white, you are either for or against. Your nuance is not appreciated.

mytherin 6y ago
I fail to see the nuance. The parent comment is not downvoted for partisan reasons, it is downvoted for stating that the lockdown is directly responsible for the economic issues as if that is obvious, when that is extremely questionable. The virus is responsible for the economic issues. Lifting the government mandated lockdowns will not change the presence of the virus. Even if the government lifted the lockdown most people will still not consume like they did before. People will not fly like they did before, travel like they did before, eat out like they did before, etc until the root cause is gone. The lockdown might very well be better for the economy in the long run because it means the root cause is gone sooner. Lifting the lockdown early (or not having a lockdown at all) means the virus will linger around for much longer which means the economy remains in shambles for longer. You can force people to work, but you cannot force people to consume, and lack of consumption is the main cause of the current economic issues.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  The virus is obviously for some of the economic impact and the lockdown is obviously responsible for some of the economic impact. There are plenty of cities and counties which have 0 recorded cases which are going on two months of lockdown at this point. Please realize that people are dying in those cities Because of the lockdown, and lives are being destroyed. As you say, The lockdown might very well be better for the economy in the long run, but the root cause will not be eliminated. That does not mean that there couldn’t have been or can’t be a better version of the lockdown that is less destructive
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  >>The virus is responsible for the economic issues. Lifting the government mandated lockdowns will not change the presence of the virus. The lockdown undoubtedly magnifies the economic damage, given it prevents many people who would otherwise be working, from working, and businesses that would otherwise be operating, from operating. The only possible rationale I can imagine you having for believing the economic damage without the lockdowns would be the same/worse is that the virus would have hurt productivity even more than the lockdowns did, by killing workers. But the virus has an extremely low mortality rate for those of working age, and especially those in good health who are disproportionately represented among the most productive, so I don't know how you could reason that absent the lockdown, productivity might have taken an equivalent or larger hit due to more people being infected.

boudin 6y ago

The lockdown was a necessity for countries healthcare systems to cope with the amount of people requiring care. Not doing so would have been self-inflicted social harm too, not only for people requiring healthcare because of COVID-19 but also for people requiring healthcare from other diseases.

kalleboo 6y ago
They were a necessity in some places like NYC and parts of Europe, but in many other places, lockdown began before the virus spread there and the hospitals have been gaping empty while lockdown continues. The original tactic was "flatten the curve" to keep cases where the healthcare system could handle them, but that tactic has been changed to "get cases down to the level where we can test & trace down to zero". Sweden appears to be the only country sticking to the original flatten the curve plan, they've been keeping their R hovering around 1, staying about 20% under ICU capacity.