3 ms·

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 th

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.
- jjeaff 6y ago
  Overrun hospitals with refrigerator trucks parked outside to handle all the dead bodies would probably have a similar affect to the lockdowns. People would become very nervous about participating in the economy. Younger individuals and children would die due to lack of hospital resources. And large loss of life would cost quite a bit economically as well.
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    The IFR of the coronavirus is likely below 1%, and it disproportionately impacts the very old. Many would continue going out and engaging in productive activity, albeit with perhaps more precautions, absent a lockdown. Looking at the available data, it's highly likely that herd immunity, and the decline in the number of deaths per day, would emerge very quickly, and then most people would carry on with their lives.

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.

jjeaff 6y ago
Overrun hospitals with refrigerator trucks parked outside to handle all the dead bodies would probably have a similar affect to the lockdowns. People would become very nervous about participating in the economy. Younger individuals and children would die due to lack of hospital resources. And large loss of life would cost quite a bit economically as well.
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  The IFR of the coronavirus is likely below 1%, and it disproportionately impacts the very old. Many would continue going out and engaging in productive activity, albeit with perhaps more precautions, absent a lockdown. Looking at the available data, it's highly likely that herd immunity, and the decline in the number of deaths per day, would emerge very quickly, and then most people would carry on with their lives.