3 ms·

I think it is because even with the current measures, we still have the 86,000 deaths. And at this point, people think the South Korea style measures won't wor

I think it is because even with the current measures, we still have the 86,000 deaths. And at this point, people think the South Korea style measures won't work (too high of a case load, the cat is already out of the bag), and people are getting lock down fatigue. So one way of looking at it -- no matter what we do, some large percentage (say 70%) of the population will get infected, and a percentage of them will die. By continuing the lock downs, those infections get pushed down the road a bit but they won't be prevented. The only thing that lock downs are good for is to keep the health system from being overwhelmed (where a larger percentage of those infected will die due to lack of resources). Now my question, is the above a reasonable set of assumptions? I don't see it spelled out like that anywhere, but reading between the lines that seems like what the pro reopening people are saying. Now, what I'd personally like to see, is instead of a full re-opening, is an order that says any job that can be done remotely, the employer must allow the employees to do remote. Because there are a number of cases I've seen reported here where people were forced into the office just because management wanted to see butts in seats.

greedo 6y ago
We know lockdowns help keep the growth rate manageable. What we don't know is what will happen to the economy once the lockdowns fade. My gut is that short of more direct Federal aid to individuals (in the form of checks), we'll see people forced back to work as businesses re-open. Consumer spending will still be shit, since no one but fools will be going to football games, theaters, anywhere with crowds. And people will be clinging to their money. So the velocity of money will dwindle. And unless the government indemnifies businesses against lawsuits arising from COVID infections, businesses will be slow to re-open as well. Wrongful death lawsuits for failing to provide a safe work environment will be very popular.
Izkata 6y ago
> Now my question, is the above a reasonable set of assumptions? I don't see it spelled out like that anywhere, but reading between the lines that seems like what the pro reopening people are saying. Yes, except it's only part of the argument. The other big one is, the economic shutdown is doing significant harm itself: not just lack of funds for rent/mortgage, but also food shortages, delayed surgeries, and so on. The argument is that the economic shutdown combined with the virus deaths only being delayed and not stopped is going to cause significantly more harm than just stopping the lockdown. (Hour-later edit, fix the wording at the end)
Gibbon1 6y ago
I think some of deniers are the same people that take as a matter of faith that governments policies and actions are always bad. Which is why they believe lockdowns aren't working. I'll point out at the current rate of infection in California it would take over 100 years to get to herd immunity levels. We will have a vaccine next summer. And before that we will have enough contact tracing an surveillance in place. As well an a vast scale the public for the most part is now aware of the dangers and cautious.
matthewdgreen 6y ago
Many parts of the world used lockdowns to get cases under control, and plan to use test-trace-isolate (and hopefully any better treatments that are discovered) to manage the epidemic. The claim that "all those infections [and presumably deaths] can't be prevented" seems to be at very best unjustified, at worst -- demonstrably untrue.

greedo 6y ago

We know lockdowns help keep the growth rate manageable. What we don't know is what will happen to the economy once the lockdowns fade. My gut is that short of more direct Federal aid to individuals (in the form of checks), we'll see people forced back to work as businesses re-open. Consumer spending will still be shit, since no one but fools will be going to football games, theaters, anywhere with crowds. And people will be clinging to their money. So the velocity of money will dwindle. And unless the government indemnifies businesses against lawsuits arising from COVID infections, businesses will be slow to re-open as well. Wrongful death lawsuits for failing to provide a safe work environment will be very popular.

Izkata 6y ago

> Now my question, is the above a reasonable set of assumptions? I don't see it spelled out like that anywhere, but reading between the lines that seems like what the pro reopening people are saying. Yes, except it's only part of the argument. The other big one is, the economic shutdown is doing significant harm itself: not just lack of funds for rent/mortgage, but also food shortages, delayed surgeries, and so on. The argument is that the economic shutdown combined with the virus deaths only being delayed and not stopped is going to cause significantly more harm than just stopping the lockdown. (Hour-later edit, fix the wording at the end)

Gibbon1 6y ago

I think some of deniers are the same people that take as a matter of faith that governments policies and actions are always bad. Which is why they believe lockdowns aren't working. I'll point out at the current rate of infection in California it would take over 100 years to get to herd immunity levels. We will have a vaccine next summer. And before that we will have enough contact tracing an surveillance in place. As well an a vast scale the public for the most part is now aware of the dangers and cautious.

matthewdgreen 6y ago

Many parts of the world used lockdowns to get cases under control, and plan to use test-trace-isolate (and hopefully any better treatments that are discovered) to manage the epidemic. The claim that "all those infections [and presumably deaths] can't be prevented" seems to be at very best unjustified, at worst -- demonstrably untrue.