5 ms·

The emphasis of plague doctors in that cover is pretty consistent with the things a state will face. Plague has been an essential factor in all government since

The emphasis of plague doctors in that cover is pretty consistent with the things a state will face. Plague has been an essential factor in all government since beginning of time. There even is biblical trilemma for rulers that is basically the option of three days of plauge, three months of fleeing from your enemies, or three years of famine. The answer is rip the band-aid off and accept the plague casualties because the alternatives cost you your kingdom. You can see this playing out now as countries balance lockdowns against the risk of becoming economic clients of larger or powers or losing economic incumbency, and causing a generation lost to a severe depression. It's why I predicted re-opening before mid-june, as if we lose a spring season, we fall into dependency and long term losses.

zzzeek 7y ago
Things like vaccines and ICU units didn't exist in Biblical times so perhaps 2000 years of progress has had some effect on the calculus of such an issue.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Not really. Vaccines help you prevent an outbreak from reoccuring; it's unlikely one would be created in time to stop an ongoing one. ICUs help minimize causalties. Neither one is a qualitative change in terms of handling a sudden outbreak. We got better at handling pandemics, but the playbook is mostly still the same - identify and isolate infected, and wait it out.
  - zzzeek 7y ago
    the point is we want the hospitals to stay available to the general public. this means reducing the speed of the disease's progress allows this resource to stay available.
  - carapace 7y ago
    It's absurd to point to "biblical trilemma" as something that should inform a modern society on how to handle a pandemic. > "three years of famine" Less than 3% of the population is involved in food production in modern times.
    - jtbayly 7y ago
      Are you saying famine can't happen today? I don't get it.
      - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
        I think it's fair to say that famine can't happen in areas with access to modern agricultural technology. (Which is a very real difference; until modern times there was no country so rich or productive that it didn't have to worry about famine.)
        jtbayly 7y ago
        But NYC doesn’t have such access. Only a small portion of the population does. The rest only have access to supply chains. I’m not saying this virus is enough to cause famine in the USA. I just think it’s silly to assume that because (somewhere in our country) there is the capability to grow enough food for everybody that therefore there can’t be famine anymore.
      - carapace 7y ago
        I hate to bet against human stupidity, but yeah, essentially this virus will not cause famine. It just doesn't require that many people to grow and distribute food these days. (Even before the virus hit we have been massively overproducing and wasting food globally. People go hungry today not because of lack of production but because it's cheaper to throw away food than give it to those in need. Shamefull, IMO, but that's the way it is. We could feed everybody on Earth but we just don't.) Advice meant for the ruler of a small kingdom or city-state twenty centuries ago just isn't applicable today.
        TeMPOraL 7y ago
        I think you haven't been following supply chain news recently. Or what UN says. There's absolutely going to be famine in less developed countries, and much higher food prices and lower variety in the coming months in developed countries.
Seibai 7y ago
What continues to shock me about HN is how many people seem to think there's a choice between casualties and economic harm. The consensus among economists is that not having a lockdown would be worse for the economy than having one: http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/policy-for-the-covid-19-crisis/ http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/policy-for-the-covid-19-cr... The opportunity to avoid economic damage passed as soon as COVID-19 became pandemic. Ending lockdowns early will make economic harm worse. This exact same debate played out with the 1918 Flu, and regions that took more stringent measures for longer came out better economically: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3561560 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3561560
- ThrowawayR2 7y ago
  > "What continues to shock me about HN is how many people seem to think there's a choice between casualties and economic harm." That's a misrepresentation. Both sides understand that economic harm is guaranteed. The question is when the economic harm of quarantine-caused business collapses and job losses exceeds the economic harm of casualties. Personally, like most of HN, I'm fine with extending the quarantine but, being HNers, we can afford to weather the storm; the majority are not so fortunate. And even I don't think that the US can afford to have the quarantine last much longer than another month or two. I don't think the 1918 pandemic is necessarily good guidance for that since households were more self-sufficient then.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Personally, like most of HN, I'm fine with extending the quarantine but, being HNers, we can afford to weather the storm; the majority are not so fortunate. Polls show the vast majority of the population supports extending shelter-in-place, and (in polls where it gets broken out) that that support is stronger among the lower economic strata. Opposition, though weak everywhere, is stronger among people who worry about how their investment portfolio is doing. Some examples: https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/press-release/poll-8-in-10-americans-favor-strict-shelter-in-place-orders-to-limit-coronavirus-spread-and-most-say-they-could-continue-to-obey-such-orders-for-another-month-or-longer/ https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/press-release/poll-... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll/despite-scattered-protests-most-americans-support-shelter-in-place-reuters-ipsos-poll-shows-idUSKCN22336P https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll/despite... https://www.chcf.org/blog/covid-19-tracking-poll-75-californians-support-shelter-place-as-long-as-needed/ https://www.chcf.org/blog/covid-19-tracking-poll-75-californ...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

zzzeek 7y ago

Things like vaccines and ICU units didn't exist in Biblical times so perhaps 2000 years of progress has had some effect on the calculus of such an issue.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
Not really. Vaccines help you prevent an outbreak from reoccuring; it's unlikely one would be created in time to stop an ongoing one. ICUs help minimize causalties. Neither one is a qualitative change in terms of handling a sudden outbreak. We got better at handling pandemics, but the playbook is mostly still the same - identify and isolate infected, and wait it out.
- zzzeek 7y ago
  the point is we want the hospitals to stay available to the general public. this means reducing the speed of the disease's progress allows this resource to stay available.
- carapace 7y ago
  It's absurd to point to "biblical trilemma" as something that should inform a modern society on how to handle a pandemic. > "three years of famine" Less than 3% of the population is involved in food production in modern times.
  - jtbayly 7y ago
    Are you saying famine can't happen today? I don't get it.
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      I think it's fair to say that famine can't happen in areas with access to modern agricultural technology. (Which is a very real difference; until modern times there was no country so rich or productive that it didn't have to worry about famine.)
      - jtbayly 7y ago
        But NYC doesn’t have such access. Only a small portion of the population does. The rest only have access to supply chains. I’m not saying this virus is enough to cause famine in the USA. I just think it’s silly to assume that because (somewhere in our country) there is the capability to grow enough food for everybody that therefore there can’t be famine anymore.
    - carapace 7y ago
      I hate to bet against human stupidity, but yeah, essentially this virus will not cause famine. It just doesn't require that many people to grow and distribute food these days. (Even before the virus hit we have been massively overproducing and wasting food globally. People go hungry today not because of lack of production but because it's cheaper to throw away food than give it to those in need. Shamefull, IMO, but that's the way it is. We could feed everybody on Earth but we just don't.) Advice meant for the ruler of a small kingdom or city-state twenty centuries ago just isn't applicable today.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        I think you haven't been following supply chain news recently. Or what UN says. There's absolutely going to be famine in less developed countries, and much higher food prices and lower variety in the coming months in developed countries.

Seibai 7y ago

What continues to shock me about HN is how many people seem to think there's a choice between casualties and economic harm. The consensus among economists is that not having a lockdown would be worse for the economy than having one: http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/policy-for-the-covid-19-crisis/ http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/policy-for-the-covid-19-cr... The opportunity to avoid economic damage passed as soon as COVID-19 became pandemic. Ending lockdowns early will make economic harm worse. This exact same debate played out with the 1918 Flu, and regions that took more stringent measures for longer came out better economically: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3561560 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3561560

ThrowawayR2 7y ago
> "What continues to shock me about HN is how many people seem to think there's a choice between casualties and economic harm." That's a misrepresentation. Both sides understand that economic harm is guaranteed. The question is when the economic harm of quarantine-caused business collapses and job losses exceeds the economic harm of casualties. Personally, like most of HN, I'm fine with extending the quarantine but, being HNers, we can afford to weather the storm; the majority are not so fortunate. And even I don't think that the US can afford to have the quarantine last much longer than another month or two. I don't think the 1918 pandemic is necessarily good guidance for that since households were more self-sufficient then.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Personally, like most of HN, I'm fine with extending the quarantine but, being HNers, we can afford to weather the storm; the majority are not so fortunate. Polls show the vast majority of the population supports extending shelter-in-place, and (in polls where it gets broken out) that that support is stronger among the lower economic strata. Opposition, though weak everywhere, is stronger among people who worry about how their investment portfolio is doing. Some examples: https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/press-release/poll-8-in-10-americans-favor-strict-shelter-in-place-orders-to-limit-coronavirus-spread-and-most-say-they-could-continue-to-obey-such-orders-for-another-month-or-longer/ https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/press-release/poll-... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll/despite-scattered-protests-most-americans-support-shelter-in-place-reuters-ipsos-poll-shows-idUSKCN22336P https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll/despite... https://www.chcf.org/blog/covid-19-tracking-poll-75-californians-support-shelter-place-as-long-as-needed/ https://www.chcf.org/blog/covid-19-tracking-poll-75-californ...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]