5 ms·

"The epidemic is beginning to burn out" is also very different from "everything can go back to normal now". We saw how quickly this can get out of hand if left

"The epidemic is beginning to burn out" is also very different from "everything can go back to normal now". We saw how quickly this can get out of hand if left unchecked last month. If people rush to get back to normal and pretend that things are fine, it's just going to happen again.

ashtonkem 6y ago
It’s depressing that people have already forgotten the lessons from last month.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Anxiety over an inability to procure resources due to economic uncertainty for the future and lack of income is also an epidemic.
- leesalminen 6y ago
  It's depressing that people think 25% of the workforce can be out of work for an indeterminate period of time without massive, potentially society-ending effects.
  - carapace 6y ago
    No one thinks that.
    - mdemare 6y ago
      I think that. Specifically, I think that first world societies can afford to give 25% of the workforce a paid sabbatical without ceasing to exist. And I find it depressing that there are people who think this is a shock that rich societies cannot absorb. Sure, it'll be painful. Taxes will have to go up afterwards, the retirement age might have to rise. But it's possible.
  - bigbob2 6y ago
    I can only assume you mean without drastic changes to our current economic system, because otherwise in this modern age of automation that seems entirely possible.
  - bsder 6y ago
    > massive, potentially society-ending effects. "Society" ending or "Socialism only for the rich" ending?
- r00fus 6y ago
  That's not the result of having "forgotten". It's the dual squeeze of pitiful government response for workers (a single $1200 check vs. near full-benefits in Europe) combined with a hysterical "we gotta open up" corporate funded protest campaign from the extreme right. Don't forget the gaslighting "100k people dead is doing a good job" BS. People are being hoodwinked while they're scared shitless.
  - lostlogin 6y ago
    > Don't forget the gaslighting "100k people dead is doing a good job" BS. It always looked bad and looks worse the closer 100k becomes. It can’t be too long before some measures will say it has been exceeded. Then what will the claim be?
    - r00fus 6y ago
      Goalposts can be moved - in fact, hasn't that happened before? Next claim will be 150k, then 300k. It will never be enough to actually do anything until/unless Prince Prospero or his castle gets sick.
      - lostlogin 6y ago
        Stumbled on the below - just denying covid is the cause of death is another angle. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/09/us/politics/coronavirus-death-toll-presidential-campaign.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/09/us/politics/coronavirus-d...
  - taurath 6y ago
    I do truly believe that almost any reasonable person will look at the death rate and realize that the US has fucked up the response in a big huge way. The conspiracy people saying that the death rates are a lie are not that many. This is one where the silent majority does realize whats going on and how bad the administration is fucking it up. Anyone can go look and see that south korea, a far more urbanized state is open for business right now.
ryankemper 6y ago
Just to be clear, the epidemic only "burns out" when somewhere between 50-90% of the population has immunity. Almost certainly closer to 80%+ unless we discover that a significant portion of the population is resistant to infection due to genetic differences or possible cross-immunity with other milder human CoVs. By suppressing the transmission of this virus, we have failed to build immunity in most of the population. As a result any serious lifting of suppression measures will lead to moderate-severe outbreaks. On balance, I believe that the most effective method is to resume life as normal, and focus on encouraging the at-risk to shelter, along with providing them appropriate government support. Whereas the approach we've taken has destroyed our economy in a very real sense, which will increase mortality even in the absence of a global food crisis. The suspension of elective surgeries on a broad basis was very clearly a mistake, but unfortunately it's the type of mistake that no-one will admit was a mistake. We postponed absolutely important surgeries as a result of this, even in areas like, for example, my county in Central California, which has very low prevalence of COVID-19. Here in California we "only" suspended elective surgeries for a month and now have a backlog that we're still working through. So, just to say it explicitly: the fear that "things will never be normal again" is unfounded, at least in those who are operating off a mental model wherein COVID-19 is 10x as deadly as we previously thought. The fact that we chose a strategy of indefinite postponement was our mistake. Because now people are beginning to realize that if we "go back to normal" then "the lockdown was for nothing". I consider this to just be a sunk cost fallacy, I believe quite frankly that ultimately the lockdown "was for nothing" (that is to say that, at the time it may have been justified based off the projected numbers, but with what we know now we should know that we only shot ourselves in the foot). TL;DR: I believe that we need to resume normal operation of society, and make strong efforts to protect the at-risk. Trying to indefinitely postpone exposure to COVID-19 is a loosing battle. We've adopted a strategy of indefinite containment/postponement that relies on hunkering down and waiting for a _temporally unbounded event_. Given that lockdown-associated damage increases the longer containment is maintained, we are trading off a linear component of damage for a speculated future improvement in outcomes due to vaccines/a game-changer treatment. That to me is eminently foolish. Most decision-making heuristics don't just try to blindly increase expected value (decrease expected loss) but also factor in uncertainy. In general it's acceptable to trade off a little EV for a lot more uncertainty. (Unfortunately in the case of the lockdown, I believe we incurred -EV along with far more uncertainty, for a net loss across all dimensions)

ashtonkem 6y ago

It’s depressing that people have already forgotten the lessons from last month.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
Anxiety over an inability to procure resources due to economic uncertainty for the future and lack of income is also an epidemic.
leesalminen 6y ago
It's depressing that people think 25% of the workforce can be out of work for an indeterminate period of time without massive, potentially society-ending effects.
- carapace 6y ago
  No one thinks that.
  - mdemare 6y ago
    I think that. Specifically, I think that first world societies can afford to give 25% of the workforce a paid sabbatical without ceasing to exist. And I find it depressing that there are people who think this is a shock that rich societies cannot absorb. Sure, it'll be painful. Taxes will have to go up afterwards, the retirement age might have to rise. But it's possible.
- bigbob2 6y ago
  I can only assume you mean without drastic changes to our current economic system, because otherwise in this modern age of automation that seems entirely possible.
- bsder 6y ago
  > massive, potentially society-ending effects. "Society" ending or "Socialism only for the rich" ending?
r00fus 6y ago
That's not the result of having "forgotten". It's the dual squeeze of pitiful government response for workers (a single $1200 check vs. near full-benefits in Europe) combined with a hysterical "we gotta open up" corporate funded protest campaign from the extreme right. Don't forget the gaslighting "100k people dead is doing a good job" BS. People are being hoodwinked while they're scared shitless.
- lostlogin 6y ago
  > Don't forget the gaslighting "100k people dead is doing a good job" BS. It always looked bad and looks worse the closer 100k becomes. It can’t be too long before some measures will say it has been exceeded. Then what will the claim be?
  - r00fus 6y ago
    Goalposts can be moved - in fact, hasn't that happened before? Next claim will be 150k, then 300k. It will never be enough to actually do anything until/unless Prince Prospero or his castle gets sick.
    - lostlogin 6y ago
      Stumbled on the below - just denying covid is the cause of death is another angle. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/09/us/politics/coronavirus-death-toll-presidential-campaign.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/09/us/politics/coronavirus-d...
- taurath 6y ago
  I do truly believe that almost any reasonable person will look at the death rate and realize that the US has fucked up the response in a big huge way. The conspiracy people saying that the death rates are a lie are not that many. This is one where the silent majority does realize whats going on and how bad the administration is fucking it up. Anyone can go look and see that south korea, a far more urbanized state is open for business right now.

ryankemper 6y ago

Just to be clear, the epidemic only "burns out" when somewhere between 50-90% of the population has immunity. Almost certainly closer to 80%+ unless we discover that a significant portion of the population is resistant to infection due to genetic differences or possible cross-immunity with other milder human CoVs. By suppressing the transmission of this virus, we have failed to build immunity in most of the population. As a result any serious lifting of suppression measures will lead to moderate-severe outbreaks. On balance, I believe that the most effective method is to resume life as normal, and focus on encouraging the at-risk to shelter, along with providing them appropriate government support. Whereas the approach we've taken has destroyed our economy in a very real sense, which will increase mortality even in the absence of a global food crisis. The suspension of elective surgeries on a broad basis was very clearly a mistake, but unfortunately it's the type of mistake that no-one will admit was a mistake. We postponed absolutely important surgeries as a result of this, even in areas like, for example, my county in Central California, which has very low prevalence of COVID-19. Here in California we "only" suspended elective surgeries for a month and now have a backlog that we're still working through. So, just to say it explicitly: the fear that "things will never be normal again" is unfounded, at least in those who are operating off a mental model wherein COVID-19 is 10x as deadly as we previously thought. The fact that we chose a strategy of indefinite postponement was our mistake. Because now people are beginning to realize that if we "go back to normal" then "the lockdown was for nothing". I consider this to just be a sunk cost fallacy, I believe quite frankly that ultimately the lockdown "was for nothing" (that is to say that, at the time it may have been justified based off the projected numbers, but with what we know now we should know that we only shot ourselves in the foot). TL;DR: I believe that we need to resume normal operation of society, and make strong efforts to protect the at-risk. Trying to indefinitely postpone exposure to COVID-19 is a loosing battle. We've adopted a strategy of indefinite containment/postponement that relies on hunkering down and waiting for a _temporally unbounded event_. Given that lockdown-associated damage increases the longer containment is maintained, we are trading off a linear component of damage for a speculated future improvement in outcomes due to vaccines/a game-changer treatment. That to me is eminently foolish. Most decision-making heuristics don't just try to blindly increase expected value (decrease expected loss) but also factor in uncertainy. In general it's acceptable to trade off a little EV for a lot more uncertainty. (Unfortunately in the case of the lockdown, I believe we incurred -EV along with far more uncertainty, for a net loss across all dimensions)