4 ms·

The lockdowns? The linked interview doesn’t mention lockdowns once — it talks about the effect of the pandemic. They go even further to say that it’s not so mu

by gdubs 6y ago

The lockdowns? The linked interview doesn’t mention lockdowns once — it talks about the effect of the pandemic. They go even further to say that it’s not so much money that’s the concern right now — it’s the supply chain. Critical, essential services aren’t being shutdown with lockdowns. They’re being shutdown because people are getting sick — like the food processing plants in the US, where people work in very close proximity to each other, indoors, all day long.

foogazi 6y ago
Seeing a lot of comments doing the pandemic <—-> lockdown switch We are in lockdown because of the pandemic. Half the people don’t care, the other half don’t want to get it - the economy is affected until those percentages budge
- akvadrako 6y ago
  That depends on what you mean by "because of". The pandemic is one factor that lead to the lockdown, but by itself it wasn't a sufficient condition; it was a free choice by politicians.
  - foogazi 6y ago
    > That depends on what you mean by "because of". A direct response to the global covid pandemic > The pandemic is one factor that lead to the lockdown, but by itself it wasn't a sufficient condition; it was a free choice by politicians. Do you think there was another reason for the lockdown besides slowing down infections?
- sershe 6y ago
  That doesn't really follow. If we are burning down a house to get rid of ants, the house didn't really get destroyed by ants. And, it's quite obvious from the reality on the ground right now, as I said a month ago when it was becoming obvious, that pandemic by itself would have basically no effect on the economy. 1) Most working age people face very low risks. Shutting down plants because someone there got covid makes about 5-10 times more sense than shutting down plants because someone got the flu, but 5-10 times of almost 0 is still almost 0. 2) Even with constant fear mongering in the media and from the govt, people do not care. I've gone to sit down restaurants 4 times in the last couple weeks. 20 minute wait, we left to another almost full one; almost full; 60 minute wait and we left to get takeout; 20 minute wait. They are overflowing. Local tourist town was extremely crowded last weekend. Parks are crowded. There are traffic jams on the road going to/from the mountains (Hwy 2, WA state). The demand would totally be there if it were not for the lockdowns.
collyw 6y ago
Do you think the economic effects would have been the same without a lockdown? We had a pretty bad flu season a couple of years ago, but no lockdown and no economic downturn. Covid is worse than flu, but not orders of magnitude worse. https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patients/ https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patie...
- gdubs 6y ago
  I think it would have been worse; maybe not immediately, but over the long term I think it would be catastrophic. The movie theater is on fire — how long can you keep it open? Keeping it open means it’s harder to keep the fire under control — and you risk the theater burning down completely. And how many people are going to want to keep going to a smoke filled theater? “Don’t worry, it’s only a risk for the people in the cheap seats.” As far as the flu, this pandemic has revealed how cavalier we are about it. It is, as you say, an almost yearly strain on our system. So, for one, we’re adding an even bigger strain on top of an already big strain. Second, this is a novel virus — inherently there’s a lot more risk. There’s a lot we don’t understand, including whether there’s lingering conditions for otherwise young and healthy people.

by gdubs 6y ago

foogazi 6y ago

Seeing a lot of comments doing the pandemic <—-> lockdown switch We are in lockdown because of the pandemic. Half the people don’t care, the other half don’t want to get it - the economy is affected until those percentages budge

akvadrako 6y ago
That depends on what you mean by "because of". The pandemic is one factor that lead to the lockdown, but by itself it wasn't a sufficient condition; it was a free choice by politicians.
- foogazi 6y ago
  > That depends on what you mean by "because of". A direct response to the global covid pandemic > The pandemic is one factor that lead to the lockdown, but by itself it wasn't a sufficient condition; it was a free choice by politicians. Do you think there was another reason for the lockdown besides slowing down infections?
sershe 6y ago
That doesn't really follow. If we are burning down a house to get rid of ants, the house didn't really get destroyed by ants. And, it's quite obvious from the reality on the ground right now, as I said a month ago when it was becoming obvious, that pandemic by itself would have basically no effect on the economy. 1) Most working age people face very low risks. Shutting down plants because someone there got covid makes about 5-10 times more sense than shutting down plants because someone got the flu, but 5-10 times of almost 0 is still almost 0. 2) Even with constant fear mongering in the media and from the govt, people do not care. I've gone to sit down restaurants 4 times in the last couple weeks. 20 minute wait, we left to another almost full one; almost full; 60 minute wait and we left to get takeout; 20 minute wait. They are overflowing. Local tourist town was extremely crowded last weekend. Parks are crowded. There are traffic jams on the road going to/from the mountains (Hwy 2, WA state). The demand would totally be there if it were not for the lockdowns.

collyw 6y ago

Do you think the economic effects would have been the same without a lockdown? We had a pretty bad flu season a couple of years ago, but no lockdown and no economic downturn. Covid is worse than flu, but not orders of magnitude worse. https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patients/ https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patie...

gdubs 6y ago
I think it would have been worse; maybe not immediately, but over the long term I think it would be catastrophic. The movie theater is on fire — how long can you keep it open? Keeping it open means it’s harder to keep the fire under control — and you risk the theater burning down completely. And how many people are going to want to keep going to a smoke filled theater? “Don’t worry, it’s only a risk for the people in the cheap seats.” As far as the flu, this pandemic has revealed how cavalier we are about it. It is, as you say, an almost yearly strain on our system. So, for one, we’re adding an even bigger strain on top of an already big strain. Second, this is a novel virus — inherently there’s a lot more risk. There’s a lot we don’t understand, including whether there’s lingering conditions for otherwise young and healthy people.