6 ms·

"could be brutal for the economy" Uhh, racking up deaths WILL be way more brutal for the economy.

by beefok 6y ago

ogre_codes 6y ago
Likewise, having the millions of people who don't die but end up in the hospital for weeks, get permanently disabled, cognitive damage, etc etc. I think people are over-indexing on fatalities which greatly underestimates the scope here.
- beefok 6y ago
  I agree completely. Just the way the market is going proves that this society is built on a foundation of pure instant gratification to such a level that they can't even understand the realities of a pandemic. We're FUCKED at this point, and the people who should know what to do are drinking the fucking koolaid. I'm just done with anti-intellectualism altogether.
- rurp 6y ago
  > I think people are over-indexing on fatalities I totally agree. The death rate is about all I hear about but it's only one part of the risk. For every death there are many people who experience terrible health complications, many of which are long lasting and maybe even permanent.
  - nimaco 6y ago
    Ok agreed. But what are the actual numbers here? I keep hearing "many people", but not one has given me a % as is available for the death rate.
- fzeroracer 6y ago
  There's also the greater point in that we have no clue how long immunity is conferred for once someone has caught the virus. There seems to be some indications that people that were asymptomatic or had an otherwise mild response might have shorter term immunity, which means we might revisit this pandemic in a matter of months if we were to simply give up.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    It's possible this is something we live with for the next few years or maybe the rest of our lives with hotspots cropping up in various places every couple years or months. In Asia, masks and temperature checks are pretty much a day-to-day thing, I wouldn't be surprised to see this in the western world too.
matz1 6y ago
Racking up death? The cdc latest estimatate the ifr to be only 0.65%.
- beefok 6y ago
  It appears that you don't understand exponential growth. What just began in the USA is an all-but-reversible process now. This isn't just about death count, it's about a complete disablement of any sort of economy or infrastructure. We're basically fucked now. Re-read your comment in like, a few months. I'd prefer not being prescient here.
- runarberg 6y ago
  0.65% of California is still 260,000 people, even if we assume that only 50% of the population will contract it (a very conservative estimate) it is still a over a 100,000 needless deaths. So far California has reported just over 7000 deaths.
- throwaway713 6y ago
  > only 0.65% ...
  - LanceH 6y ago
    In the context of "brutal for the economy", 0.65% deaths pales in comparison to 20% unemployment.
    - rurp 6y ago
      Unfortunately we don't have a choice between unemployment being 20% vs 3%. The choice is between the current unemployment and whatever the rate would be if the govt issued no lock-downs and let the virus run rampant. I don't know what the unemployment rate would be in a world with overflowing hospitals and many thousands of deaths per day, but I bet it would be a heck of a lot closer to 20% than 3%.
      - matz1 6y ago
basch 6y ago
Only in the context of "for the economy" (moral and humanitarian perspective not withstanding) this sounds like the parable of the broken window. ~95% of death is age 60+? This group largely consumes without producing. Parts of the economy that would be hit the hardest by this would include the health care industry not getting 10 more years of spending from them? I'm not sure calculations of economic spending is the best way to make the argument "we need to protect the most vulnerable, at the expense of the least," precisely because the least vulnerable are the ones producing most of the economic output, and that output is what is being curtailed to protect those not working. Almost any argument for shutdown would be better than trying to quantify the economic cost/gain of losing a double digit percentage of the elderly, because at the end of the day, I don't think that calculation would go the way the people making the economic argument think it will.

"could be brutal for the economy" Uhh, racking up deaths WILL be way more brutal for the economy.

by beefok 6y ago

"could be brutal for the economy" Uhh, racking up deaths WILL be way more brutal for the economy.

Likewise, having the millions of people who don't die but end up in the hospital for weeks, get permanently disabled, cognitive damage, etc etc. I think people are over-indexing on fatalities which greatly underestimates the scope here.

beefok 6y ago
I agree completely. Just the way the market is going proves that this society is built on a foundation of pure instant gratification to such a level that they can't even understand the realities of a pandemic. We're FUCKED at this point, and the people who should know what to do are drinking the fucking koolaid. I'm just done with anti-intellectualism altogether.
rurp 6y ago
> I think people are over-indexing on fatalities I totally agree. The death rate is about all I hear about but it's only one part of the risk. For every death there are many people who experience terrible health complications, many of which are long lasting and maybe even permanent.
- nimaco 6y ago
  Ok agreed. But what are the actual numbers here? I keep hearing "many people", but not one has given me a % as is available for the death rate.
fzeroracer 6y ago
There's also the greater point in that we have no clue how long immunity is conferred for once someone has caught the virus. There seems to be some indications that people that were asymptomatic or had an otherwise mild response might have shorter term immunity, which means we might revisit this pandemic in a matter of months if we were to simply give up.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  It's possible this is something we live with for the next few years or maybe the rest of our lives with hotspots cropping up in various places every couple years or months. In Asia, masks and temperature checks are pretty much a day-to-day thing, I wouldn't be surprised to see this in the western world too.

matz1 6y ago

Racking up death? The cdc latest estimatate the ifr to be only 0.65%.

beefok 6y ago
It appears that you don't understand exponential growth. What just began in the USA is an all-but-reversible process now. This isn't just about death count, it's about a complete disablement of any sort of economy or infrastructure. We're basically fucked now. Re-read your comment in like, a few months. I'd prefer not being prescient here.
runarberg 6y ago
0.65% of California is still 260,000 people, even if we assume that only 50% of the population will contract it (a very conservative estimate) it is still a over a 100,000 needless deaths. So far California has reported just over 7000 deaths.
throwaway713 6y ago
> only 0.65% ...
- LanceH 6y ago
  In the context of "brutal for the economy", 0.65% deaths pales in comparison to 20% unemployment.
  - rurp 6y ago
    Unfortunately we don't have a choice between unemployment being 20% vs 3%. The choice is between the current unemployment and whatever the rate would be if the govt issued no lock-downs and let the virus run rampant. I don't know what the unemployment rate would be in a world with overflowing hospitals and many thousands of deaths per day, but I bet it would be a heck of a lot closer to 20% than 3%.
    - matz1 6y ago

basch 6y ago

Only in the context of "for the economy" (moral and humanitarian perspective not withstanding) this sounds like the parable of the broken window. ~95% of death is age 60+? This group largely consumes without producing. Parts of the economy that would be hit the hardest by this would include the health care industry not getting 10 more years of spending from them? I'm not sure calculations of economic spending is the best way to make the argument "we need to protect the most vulnerable, at the expense of the least," precisely because the least vulnerable are the ones producing most of the economic output, and that output is what is being curtailed to protect those not working. Almost any argument for shutdown would be better than trying to quantify the economic cost/gain of losing a double digit percentage of the elderly, because at the end of the day, I don't think that calculation would go the way the people making the economic argument think it will.