9 ms·

Why do we even consult economists when it comes to a pandemic response? Economics is already provably not great at doing its core task. Don't ask economists h

Why do we even consult economists when it comes to a pandemic response? Economics is already provably not great at doing its core task. Don't ask economists how to manage a pandemic. Listen to the epidemiologists. Consult the economists to determine how much money is needed to keep people fed and sheltered until the epidemiologists say that the threat will be passed. *I'm stereotyping economists here, but they've participated in too many conversations I've witnessed where they wade well out of their bubble of relevance. I read this somewhere on HN once, and it stuck with me: know what you're being asked to be an expert on. Economists aren't experts on infectious diseases. Fuck off, you're killing people. My humble apologies to the majority of economists that aren't megalomaniacs like the ones they seem to find for TV interviews and Government advisor roles.

virmundi 7y ago
What do you do when the epidemiologist are wrong? Those in the West have ignored the fact that for people under 60, a vitamin supplement of A,D,and C would protect most from the disease, at least from a terrible impact. Further, by locking everyone away, we are NOT developing a herd immunity. We’re going to get fucked when we leave the house (again because our experts are not telling people about prophylactics). Finally, the at-worse-number was 200k dead. Most of those are in old folks’ home. Is preserving them worth the crippled futures of millions of others?
- twomoretime 7y ago
  You overestimate how much we know about COVID. Also herd immunity is neither guaranteed nor is it necessarily preferable to lockdown. We don't know how long immunity lasts on average post infection.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    If we're listening to the subject matter experts, they universally believe that immunity is real and at least moderately long-lasting.
    - twomoretime 7y ago
      >they universally believe that immunity is real and at least moderately long-lasting I haven't seen a single publication to this effect and there's no way to no for sure until enough time has elapsed to verify. Viral immunity varies widely and though it is in the coronavirus family it is still a novel pathogen.
      - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
        There's no way to know anything for sure, but it's been experimentally confirmed that animal analogues can't be reinfected and that the antibodies people produce are effective against the virus. Remember that this is an emergency situation; we can't just wait and see, we have to work as fast as possible towards addressing the problem.
  - virmundi 7y ago
    We’re living in fear. Either herd immunity works or it doesn’t. If it does, end lockdown, take our lumps, and move forward. If it doesn’t, and lockdown, take our lumps, and move forward. Otherwise we’re living a half life where we slowly die from lack of resources.
    - bandushrew 7y ago
      Sure, we cant shutdown forever, but I dont understand the rush to sacrifice. Covid will be with us forever now, and in just a few months we already understand a lot more about it than we did at the start. The longer we can delay mass infection, the more effective our treatment of the disease will be, and the more likely we will have vaccines. Lets delay for a while, figure out the best treatment methods, and then let it through.
- cfmcdonald 7y ago
  I don't see how the at-worst number can possibly be 200K. If you're talking about the U.S. alone, we're at 75K deaths with 1.25M known cases. Assume there are actually 10x that of actual cases, that's still only 12.5M infected so far. With 125M infected (well under half the population), we would be at 750K deaths. To get to 200K worst case deaths you'd have to assume we've already had something close to 100M infections. (Also based on the excess mortality data, the current COVID death numbers are probably underestimates)
  - virmundi 7y ago
    The worst case number was from the CDC if we did nothing. The project now that after lock down we’d see 175k deaths.
    - cfmcdonald 7y ago
      That seems very optimistic. I wonder how they get to such a small number.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
klmadfejno 7y ago
I think most economists are pretty crap. That belief, however, doesn't mean that economic effects aren't real. It doesn't mean that epidemiologists are particularly good, or even trying, to counter balance health risks with health risks due to economic harm, because that's not really their job and its more or less an unprecedented situation. Economic shut down kills people too. Especially poor people. Especially especially poor people in poor countries with food insecurity. So fuck off yourself. It's not that simple. Crime, authoritarianism, famine, (more) disease. You're just claiming the moral highground because you have a point source of death that is more likely to affect people in your local community.
SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
Most epidemiologists say the threat won't pass. The idea that there's some policy response to eliminate the threat, rather than finding ways to mitigate and live with it, originates with politicians.
koheripbal 7y ago
> Economics is already provably not great at doing its core task. Can you cite any proof of this "provable" fact? ...and also a source that defines Economists "core task"?
- BLKNSLVR 7y ago
  Economics has become the tool of political ideology. It's modus operandi is language that's impenetrable to the non-economist. My problem is primarily with politics as opposed to pure economics. Politicians use arguments provided for them by pet economists that allow them to hide behind the economy as a reason to avoid making hard decisions. Lo and behold, the status quo is best path forward ad infinitum. Political economic decisions are often historically provably wrong and have the opposite effect to that which was the stated intent (whether or not it was the actual intent). Australia and the US recent re-implementations of trickle-down economics, by 30 years of experience, is not effective at doing what the politicians say it will. More subjectively: climate economics. It's a complex argument but you're right to call me out on hyperbole. It's politics staining whatever it touches. Semi-related interesting article about economics relationship with politics: https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2015/july/1435672800/richard-denniss/clowns-and-treasurers#mtr https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2015/july/1435672800/ric...

virmundi 7y ago

What do you do when the epidemiologist are wrong? Those in the West have ignored the fact that for people under 60, a vitamin supplement of A,D,and C would protect most from the disease, at least from a terrible impact. Further, by locking everyone away, we are NOT developing a herd immunity. We’re going to get fucked when we leave the house (again because our experts are not telling people about prophylactics). Finally, the at-worse-number was 200k dead. Most of those are in old folks’ home. Is preserving them worth the crippled futures of millions of others?

twomoretime 7y ago
You overestimate how much we know about COVID. Also herd immunity is neither guaranteed nor is it necessarily preferable to lockdown. We don't know how long immunity lasts on average post infection.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  If we're listening to the subject matter experts, they universally believe that immunity is real and at least moderately long-lasting.
  - twomoretime 7y ago
    >they universally believe that immunity is real and at least moderately long-lasting I haven't seen a single publication to this effect and there's no way to no for sure until enough time has elapsed to verify. Viral immunity varies widely and though it is in the coronavirus family it is still a novel pathogen.
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      There's no way to know anything for sure, but it's been experimentally confirmed that animal analogues can't be reinfected and that the antibodies people produce are effective against the virus. Remember that this is an emergency situation; we can't just wait and see, we have to work as fast as possible towards addressing the problem.
- virmundi 7y ago
  We’re living in fear. Either herd immunity works or it doesn’t. If it does, end lockdown, take our lumps, and move forward. If it doesn’t, and lockdown, take our lumps, and move forward. Otherwise we’re living a half life where we slowly die from lack of resources.
  - bandushrew 7y ago
    Sure, we cant shutdown forever, but I dont understand the rush to sacrifice. Covid will be with us forever now, and in just a few months we already understand a lot more about it than we did at the start. The longer we can delay mass infection, the more effective our treatment of the disease will be, and the more likely we will have vaccines. Lets delay for a while, figure out the best treatment methods, and then let it through.
cfmcdonald 7y ago
I don't see how the at-worst number can possibly be 200K. If you're talking about the U.S. alone, we're at 75K deaths with 1.25M known cases. Assume there are actually 10x that of actual cases, that's still only 12.5M infected so far. With 125M infected (well under half the population), we would be at 750K deaths. To get to 200K worst case deaths you'd have to assume we've already had something close to 100M infections. (Also based on the excess mortality data, the current COVID death numbers are probably underestimates)
- virmundi 7y ago
  The worst case number was from the CDC if we did nothing. The project now that after lock down we’d see 175k deaths.
  - cfmcdonald 7y ago
    That seems very optimistic. I wonder how they get to such a small number.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

klmadfejno 7y ago

I think most economists are pretty crap. That belief, however, doesn't mean that economic effects aren't real. It doesn't mean that epidemiologists are particularly good, or even trying, to counter balance health risks with health risks due to economic harm, because that's not really their job and its more or less an unprecedented situation. Economic shut down kills people too. Especially poor people. Especially especially poor people in poor countries with food insecurity. So fuck off yourself. It's not that simple. Crime, authoritarianism, famine, (more) disease. You're just claiming the moral highground because you have a point source of death that is more likely to affect people in your local community.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago

Most epidemiologists say the threat won't pass. The idea that there's some policy response to eliminate the threat, rather than finding ways to mitigate and live with it, originates with politicians.

koheripbal 7y ago

> Economics is already provably not great at doing its core task. Can you cite any proof of this "provable" fact? ...and also a source that defines Economists "core task"?

BLKNSLVR 7y ago
Economics has become the tool of political ideology. It's modus operandi is language that's impenetrable to the non-economist. My problem is primarily with politics as opposed to pure economics. Politicians use arguments provided for them by pet economists that allow them to hide behind the economy as a reason to avoid making hard decisions. Lo and behold, the status quo is best path forward ad infinitum. Political economic decisions are often historically provably wrong and have the opposite effect to that which was the stated intent (whether or not it was the actual intent). Australia and the US recent re-implementations of trickle-down economics, by 30 years of experience, is not effective at doing what the politicians say it will. More subjectively: climate economics. It's a complex argument but you're right to call me out on hyperbole. It's politics staining whatever it touches. Semi-related interesting article about economics relationship with politics: https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2015/july/1435672800/richard-denniss/clowns-and-treasurers#mtr https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2015/july/1435672800/ric...