3 ms·

We know for sure that if we force Americans to stay at home, tens of thousands will kill themselves or be the victims of domestic violence as a result. An untol

We know for sure that if we force Americans to stay at home, tens of thousands will kill themselves or be the victims of domestic violence as a result. An untold number of people will go hungry or become homeless. These are certainties. If you want to make a real cost benefit analysis (as opposed to a fear-motivated choice to stay inside), then provide some good data about the long term effects of covid19. Sorry, but saying "it could have terrible effects 5 years after you get infected" isn't good enough. Try again.

sacred_numbers 6y ago
That's simply false. If we force people to stay home without providing them with compensation, then yes, people will go hungry and homeless. We have enough wealth to provide for people to make sure that doesn't happen, though. Whether the government will step up is an open question, but this doesn't have to go the way you are suggesting.
- deathgrips 6y ago
  This is much like saying "No one will go homeless if we institute universal basic income". You're completely correct but you're missing the point. I don't see any indication whatsoever that the US will realistically give people enough compensation to stay at home or can afford to do so.
  - rumanator 6y ago
    > I don't see any indication whatsoever that the US will realistically give people enough compensation to stay at home or can afford to do so. It seems to me that is the problem that people should focus on, instead of arguing for lifting measures aimed at protecting people.
    - CryptoPunk 6y ago
      South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong controlled the virus without imprisoning everyone at home. More forced sacrifice and pain does not equal better policy. Worth adding that keeping asymptomatic people at home, which an indiscriminate blanket house containment does, prevents the virus from mutating to become less deadly, which is the typical evolution of viruses. The opposite, of sick soldiers being transferred to hospitals where they spread their viral infection, and asymptomatic soldiers remaining in trenches where they couldn't spread their less deadly strain, led to the second wave of the Spanish flu being far more deadly than the first.
      - rumanator 6y ago
        > South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong controlled the virus without imprisoning everyone at home. South Korea imposes far more intrusive and arguably totalitarian measures such as tracking each and everyone's every movement and impose compulsive tests on anyone suspected of contacting suspected cases. If you were genuinely concerned about restrictions on individual freedom then you would never even dare mention those cases as examples of desirae practices. Even then, looking at the practicality of your cherry picked examples, those approaches are only possible if you already have all the people tracking infrastructure and testing services in place. Well, you really don't, do you? So what other options are on the table? Only social distancing, isn't it? So please stop abusing cherry-picked half truths to spread your disinformation. Results are due to processes, and you're complaining about the lesser of all evils while at the same time desiring a specific outcome while disingenuously omitting what was trampled to be able to get to them.
        CryptoPunk 6y ago
        >>South Korea imposes far more intrusive and arguably totalitarian measures such as tracking each and everyone's every movement and impose compulsive tests on anyone suspected of contacting suspected cases. South Korea's measures are far less draconian than imprisoning everyone at home. Banning people from engaging in communal economic and social activity without complying with surveillance and safety measures, and having mandatory testing != less authoritarian than banning people from engaging in communal economic and social under all circumstances, or even leaving their homes. Granted that under house imprisonment, you get more location privacy, with no phone tracking, but everything else is more restricted, and on par with house arrest, and the tracking privacy is irrelevant, since the authorities know you're home anyway. >>Even then, looking at the practicality of your cherry picked examples, those approaches are only possible if you already have all the people tracking infrastructure and testing services in place. You wrote above: >>It seems to me that is the problem that people should focus on, instead of arguing for lifting measures aimed at protecting people. This was in reference to not having a massive social welfare safety net that costs hundreds of billions of dollars a year, necessitates income tax rates of over 50%, and requires an extensive bureaucracy to administer, that typically decades to set up. It seems to me overcoming the challenges of imposing South Korea or Hong Kong's hygiene rules for being outside the home, mandatory testing and phone tracking, is the problem that people should focus on, instead of arguing for creating vast forcible income redistribution schemes or keeping millions imprisoned at home in the name of protecting them. >>So please stop abusing cherry-picked half truths to spread your disinformation >>those approaches are only possible if you already have all the people tracking infrastructure and testing services in place. Please stop some promoting mass-house-imprisonment, which means giving the state the power to imprison innocent people for months in the name of the public good, and your social welfare agenda, which includes imposing 50% income rates indefinitely, under the guise of fighting the virus. People in some places, including where I am now, have been under house arrest for over two months now. And there are people like you advocating that it continue, while brushing aside alternative ways to stop viral transmission with hardly any critical analysis. Meanwhile, you characterize my comments as 'disinformation', merely because they disagree with your house imprisonment policy. You're disingenuously implying that it's less challenging to setup a $500 billion / year welfare bureaucracy, than an infrastructure for phone location tracking, and that phone tracking and mandatory testing are more restrictive than forcing everyone to shut everything down and stay imprisoned in their house.
- zajio1am 6y ago
  For short term (say month or two) that may work. But any wealth redistribution cannot work without wealth production. And uncertainty about government restrictions already starts to disrupt food production in Europe, as farmers may not sew vegetables if they do not know whether they can get enough workers for harvest.
macintux 6y ago
We have tools to address poverty and domestic violence if we have the political will to do so. We have damned few to address a global pandemic. That’s why I’d rather see us be cautious about re-opening, but we seem to have decided that rather than find a different way forward to protect everyone, we’re going to just go back to the old economy and hope the sky doesn’t come crashing down on us.
rjtavares 6y ago
I'm all for proper cost benefit analysis of a lockdown, but the fact that you're asking for good data on the long term effects of a disease that is six months old shows me that you are not interested in it. Any decision has to be made considering uncertainties. You either accept the risk or you don't. BTW, this is what we know for sure can happen when you risk normalcy: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1258031434981392389 https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1258031434981392389
- deathgrips 6y ago
  What is the risk of recovered patients developing a life-threatening or disabling condition over 6 months after recovering? Do you have any estimate for this risk? 5%? 10%? 50%? 100%?
  - mnm1 6y ago
    Why ask a question you know cannot be answered? The disease is barely six months old, if that, so this data doesn't exist. They say there are no stupid questions but they're wrong.
    - afarrell 6y ago
      > Why ask a question you know cannot be answered? One value in doing this is to highlight the importance of problems.
- nradov 6y ago
  While the exact long term effects are obviously unknowable, we can make some reasonable predictions by looking at patients who survived similar viruses such as SARS and MERS.
  - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
    No, you cannot. Regular colds are also caused by weaker coronaviruses, and leave no serious long-term consequences.

sacred_numbers 6y ago

That's simply false. If we force people to stay home without providing them with compensation, then yes, people will go hungry and homeless. We have enough wealth to provide for people to make sure that doesn't happen, though. Whether the government will step up is an open question, but this doesn't have to go the way you are suggesting.

deathgrips 6y ago
This is much like saying "No one will go homeless if we institute universal basic income". You're completely correct but you're missing the point. I don't see any indication whatsoever that the US will realistically give people enough compensation to stay at home or can afford to do so.
- rumanator 6y ago
  > I don't see any indication whatsoever that the US will realistically give people enough compensation to stay at home or can afford to do so. It seems to me that is the problem that people should focus on, instead of arguing for lifting measures aimed at protecting people.
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong controlled the virus without imprisoning everyone at home. More forced sacrifice and pain does not equal better policy. Worth adding that keeping asymptomatic people at home, which an indiscriminate blanket house containment does, prevents the virus from mutating to become less deadly, which is the typical evolution of viruses. The opposite, of sick soldiers being transferred to hospitals where they spread their viral infection, and asymptomatic soldiers remaining in trenches where they couldn't spread their less deadly strain, led to the second wave of the Spanish flu being far more deadly than the first.
    - rumanator 6y ago
      > South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong controlled the virus without imprisoning everyone at home. South Korea imposes far more intrusive and arguably totalitarian measures such as tracking each and everyone's every movement and impose compulsive tests on anyone suspected of contacting suspected cases. If you were genuinely concerned about restrictions on individual freedom then you would never even dare mention those cases as examples of desirae practices. Even then, looking at the practicality of your cherry picked examples, those approaches are only possible if you already have all the people tracking infrastructure and testing services in place. Well, you really don't, do you? So what other options are on the table? Only social distancing, isn't it? So please stop abusing cherry-picked half truths to spread your disinformation. Results are due to processes, and you're complaining about the lesser of all evils while at the same time desiring a specific outcome while disingenuously omitting what was trampled to be able to get to them.
      - CryptoPunk 6y ago
        >>South Korea imposes far more intrusive and arguably totalitarian measures such as tracking each and everyone's every movement and impose compulsive tests on anyone suspected of contacting suspected cases. South Korea's measures are far less draconian than imprisoning everyone at home. Banning people from engaging in communal economic and social activity without complying with surveillance and safety measures, and having mandatory testing != less authoritarian than banning people from engaging in communal economic and social under all circumstances, or even leaving their homes. Granted that under house imprisonment, you get more location privacy, with no phone tracking, but everything else is more restricted, and on par with house arrest, and the tracking privacy is irrelevant, since the authorities know you're home anyway. >>Even then, looking at the practicality of your cherry picked examples, those approaches are only possible if you already have all the people tracking infrastructure and testing services in place. You wrote above: >>It seems to me that is the problem that people should focus on, instead of arguing for lifting measures aimed at protecting people. This was in reference to not having a massive social welfare safety net that costs hundreds of billions of dollars a year, necessitates income tax rates of over 50%, and requires an extensive bureaucracy to administer, that typically decades to set up. It seems to me overcoming the challenges of imposing South Korea or Hong Kong's hygiene rules for being outside the home, mandatory testing and phone tracking, is the problem that people should focus on, instead of arguing for creating vast forcible income redistribution schemes or keeping millions imprisoned at home in the name of protecting them. >>So please stop abusing cherry-picked half truths to spread your disinformation >>those approaches are only possible if you already have all the people tracking infrastructure and testing services in place. Please stop some promoting mass-house-imprisonment, which means giving the state the power to imprison innocent people for months in the name of the public good, and your social welfare agenda, which includes imposing 50% income rates indefinitely, under the guise of fighting the virus. People in some places, including where I am now, have been under house arrest for over two months now. And there are people like you advocating that it continue, while brushing aside alternative ways to stop viral transmission with hardly any critical analysis. Meanwhile, you characterize my comments as 'disinformation', merely because they disagree with your house imprisonment policy. You're disingenuously implying that it's less challenging to setup a $500 billion / year welfare bureaucracy, than an infrastructure for phone location tracking, and that phone tracking and mandatory testing are more restrictive than forcing everyone to shut everything down and stay imprisoned in their house.
zajio1am 6y ago
For short term (say month or two) that may work. But any wealth redistribution cannot work without wealth production. And uncertainty about government restrictions already starts to disrupt food production in Europe, as farmers may not sew vegetables if they do not know whether they can get enough workers for harvest.

macintux 6y ago

We have tools to address poverty and domestic violence if we have the political will to do so. We have damned few to address a global pandemic. That’s why I’d rather see us be cautious about re-opening, but we seem to have decided that rather than find a different way forward to protect everyone, we’re going to just go back to the old economy and hope the sky doesn’t come crashing down on us.

rjtavares 6y ago

I'm all for proper cost benefit analysis of a lockdown, but the fact that you're asking for good data on the long term effects of a disease that is six months old shows me that you are not interested in it. Any decision has to be made considering uncertainties. You either accept the risk or you don't. BTW, this is what we know for sure can happen when you risk normalcy: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1258031434981392389 https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1258031434981392389

deathgrips 6y ago
What is the risk of recovered patients developing a life-threatening or disabling condition over 6 months after recovering? Do you have any estimate for this risk? 5%? 10%? 50%? 100%?
- mnm1 6y ago
  Why ask a question you know cannot be answered? The disease is barely six months old, if that, so this data doesn't exist. They say there are no stupid questions but they're wrong.
  - afarrell 6y ago
    > Why ask a question you know cannot be answered? One value in doing this is to highlight the importance of problems.
nradov 6y ago
While the exact long term effects are obviously unknowable, we can make some reasonable predictions by looking at patients who survived similar viruses such as SARS and MERS.
- SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
  No, you cannot. Regular colds are also caused by weaker coronaviruses, and leave no serious long-term consequences.