13 ms·

Only existing market leaders are benefiting from coronavirus lockdowns

90 points by sbachman 6y ago

Sindisil 6y ago
Well, you know, except for all the people not getting the virus due to reduced transmission. But yes, when distribution networks are stressed, bigger players will obviously have more pull and smaller businesses will have more trouble getting in what they need and/or delivering their products, at anything beyond a very local scale.
- virmundi 6y ago
  The big players also had the benefit of having themselves declared necessary for life while small companies that sold the same items were declared nonessential. This results in Walmart making money while mom and pop stores go out of business. Hence the lawsuit in PA. https://youtu.be/InCIyID5rkE https://youtu.be/InCIyID5rkE
  - psim1 6y ago
    During Pennsylvania's red phase, groceries and hardware stores were kept open (to name two examples). Mom and pop groceries and hardware stores were allowed to be open as was Walmart, which sells both. Pennsylvania has a lot of state-level corruption but that isn't it. The governor's overreach arguably prevented a lot of disease spread. Now tell me why the state run liquor stores were declared "essential."
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      Initially the state run stores were closed for quite some time.
    - edoceo 6y ago
      Alcohol withdrawal can be fatal. Also taxes
      - aaomidi 6y ago
        Hence why WA kept weed stores open too. Taxes and let people mellow out.
      - pyuser583 6y ago
        Not to mention homemade booze. That can kill you too.
    - akgoel 6y ago
      A Super-Target selling groceries was still allowed to sell toys, linens, and everything else in their store. A stand-alone toy store could not be open.
      - lostcolony 6y ago
        So what do you propose? An ever changing list of what, exactly, could be sold, or could not be sold, and fines for anyone who breaks it? That seems rather problematic too. Convenience stores having to tell customers they can't buy knick knacks, grocery stores telling customers they can't buy cards or flowers, etc. It was unpleasant enough for workers to deal with customers irate at only being able to purchase 2 things of toilet paper; I can't even imagine what trying to prevent the purchase, at all, of things the stores stocked would have caused.
        staticman2 6y ago
        They could have roped off the toy and game sections since toy stores were forced to be closed. It isn't exactly rocket science.
        umanwizard 6y ago
        So the only reason we were allowed to buy video games at Target was to avoid inconvenience, and nothing to do with safety? If that's the case, why couldn't we buy them at GameStop too, to reduce inconvenience even further?
        tzs 6y ago
        You could buy games at Target because if you have to allow the store to be open for people to buy essential items like groceries, drugs, and hardware there is very little or no increased risk in letting them pick up other, non-essential stuff while they are there. (It might even reduce risk slightly, by decreasing the average density of customers in the store). GameStop only sells non-essential items.
        6y ago
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    That ruling was overturned.
    - virmundi 6y ago
      No. It was stayed. There is a difference. Stayed means that it is not put into effect until a higher court reviews it.
      - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        It will easily be overturned. Despite youtube conservatives saying otherwise there is countless examples of precedent.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  > Well, you know, except for all the people not getting the virus due to reduced transmission. corona is contagious enough that we will all get it until herd immunity is reached. HN is in denial about this, but it's a logical conclusion.
- clairity 6y ago
  > "Well, you know, except for all the people not getting the virus due to reduced transmission." well, you know, except that that's popular (political and media) dogma, not scientific truth. many things can theoretically reduce transmission and it's far from certain that a nominal and arbitrary lockdown (as US states have employed) in as complicated a system as a society actually does so, especially when many mitigations are occurring simultaneously and haphazardly, and none are tested for efficacy in isolation because it'd be unethical to do so. the null hypothesis there is that lockdowns don't change the outcome appreciably, and that has not been rejected conclusively by any means.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > and it's far from certain that a nominal and arbitrary lockdown (as US states have employed) in as complicated a system as a society actually does so The key phrase there is as US states have employed. Lockdowns have been successfully deployed to eliminate national COVID-19 outbreaks in developed countries. Both theory and that experience confirm their effectiveness. However political polarization caused both government authorities and individual citizens to undermine and severely compromise the effectiveness of the strategy in the US. This is one of those things were compromise to a half way solution doesn't work. If you gave everyone time and resources to prepare for a total 3 week lockdown, then did it, the virus would be totally eliminated at the end of it. Afterwards, with strict traveler quarantine measures and contract tracing, the economy could open up completely. Unfortunately, we have too many people who refuse to distance at all or even wear a mask, so we get to live in an extended garbage fire.
    - dehrmann 6y ago
      Whether or not you agree with his approach, Anders Tegnell described the lockdown model used in most of Europe as "not sustainable," and the UK, Spain, France, Poland, Czech Republic, Netherlands, and more are proving him right. > If you gave everyone time and resources to prepare for a total 3 week lockdown... This is a great idea in theory, but it ignores a lot of realities. You have to keep some level of basic infrastructure running; that will cause spread. There will always be some level of violations. Borders are more porous than people think. The mental cost of lockdown is also higher than people originally thought. "Listen to the experts" really meant "listen to epidemiologists," but this is their first time trying this at this scale, and it ignores psychologists and economists, even though those forces are going to be major drivers of behavior. There's also the elephant in the room: If Covid-19 were 10x more deadly or 10x less deadly, people would actually take it very seriously or brush it off. It falls in a very awkward place, and a lot of people are looking at the death rate for their age group, weighing the risk against 1-2 years of partial lockdown, and deciding if the risk is worth it.
- steve76 6y ago
  Existing market leaders are market leaders because of bailouts. Over a half a dozen times in the last 20 years, rich people needed trillions of free dollars or the world ends. I don't blame them. We only have ourselves to blame. Too violent, too apathetic, just can't do the job. Stupid, evil, lazy all leads to the same place. If you can't get through the existing market yourself you don't get to tell other people what to do. Puts history in a different light. Power looses, throws a fit and crashes markets and starts wars, making life miserable for everyone until they are back in power. The only way out of is a vaccine. Anything short of that is just a money grab.
cblconfederate 6y ago
article is blurry
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
pedro2 6y ago
Don’t start reading, it gets blurry at middle (unless you login I suppose).
- __s 6y ago
  Disable Javascript
- patorjk 6y ago
  Running this in the console removed that for me: document.querySelectorAll('.freewall--disable').forEach(item => item.classList.remove('freewall--disable'));
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- tzs 6y ago
  Reader View clears it up.
6510 6y ago
If we look at the price people are paying for the lock down vs the risk, the other diseases and (often preventable) ways to die and the 637 B profits made by billionaires it doesn't prove it is one big CONSPIRACY but to label it "unintended consequence" is rather naive. I'd much rather see [say] diarrhea cured (which kills 2200 children per day) and risk dying than implode the economy and abolish relationships to save old people. The numbers suggest 0.4% is infected and 0.01% died of which the large majority had poor health. We simply don't have practical ideas to save the victims. It would be much easier to save a few millions if we focus on nutrition.
- war1025 6y ago
  > to save old people. We're "saving" old people in one sense, and accelerating their decline in many others. Nursing homes are locked down and they haven't been able to see family for over six months now. It's basically like being in prison, except you are old, infirm, and also likely have some level of dementia. Basically a living hell.
  - crocodiletears 6y ago
    I know a senior who's family had to remove him from the nursing home due to a massive psychological break from prolonged isolation, especially a lack of familiar faces being able to visit him. He was so dissociated from his environment, they decided that the risk of death was much less of an issue than the degree to which his quality of life had degenerated.
    - war1025 6y ago
      My aunt posts basically daily about how hard this has been on my Grandma. Maybe a month and a half ago, they started allowing outdoor visits, but they have to maintain 6 feet distance. My aunt said if my Grandma (98) was a little more independent she would take her in at her house, but as it is, she has moderate dementia and forgets what's going on very easily. Basically they wouldn't be able to leave her home unattended.

90 points by sbachman 6y ago

Well, you know, except for all the people not getting the virus due to reduced transmission. But yes, when distribution networks are stressed, bigger players will obviously have more pull and smaller businesses will have more trouble getting in what they need and/or delivering their products, at anything beyond a very local scale.

virmundi 6y ago
The big players also had the benefit of having themselves declared necessary for life while small companies that sold the same items were declared nonessential. This results in Walmart making money while mom and pop stores go out of business. Hence the lawsuit in PA. https://youtu.be/InCIyID5rkE https://youtu.be/InCIyID5rkE
- psim1 6y ago
  During Pennsylvania's red phase, groceries and hardware stores were kept open (to name two examples). Mom and pop groceries and hardware stores were allowed to be open as was Walmart, which sells both. Pennsylvania has a lot of state-level corruption but that isn't it. The governor's overreach arguably prevented a lot of disease spread. Now tell me why the state run liquor stores were declared "essential."
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    Initially the state run stores were closed for quite some time.
  - edoceo 6y ago
    Alcohol withdrawal can be fatal. Also taxes
    - aaomidi 6y ago
      Hence why WA kept weed stores open too. Taxes and let people mellow out.
    - pyuser583 6y ago
      Not to mention homemade booze. That can kill you too.
  - akgoel 6y ago
    A Super-Target selling groceries was still allowed to sell toys, linens, and everything else in their store. A stand-alone toy store could not be open.
    - lostcolony 6y ago
      So what do you propose? An ever changing list of what, exactly, could be sold, or could not be sold, and fines for anyone who breaks it? That seems rather problematic too. Convenience stores having to tell customers they can't buy knick knacks, grocery stores telling customers they can't buy cards or flowers, etc. It was unpleasant enough for workers to deal with customers irate at only being able to purchase 2 things of toilet paper; I can't even imagine what trying to prevent the purchase, at all, of things the stores stocked would have caused.
      - staticman2 6y ago
        They could have roped off the toy and game sections since toy stores were forced to be closed. It isn't exactly rocket science.
      - umanwizard 6y ago
        So the only reason we were allowed to buy video games at Target was to avoid inconvenience, and nothing to do with safety? If that's the case, why couldn't we buy them at GameStop too, to reduce inconvenience even further?
        tzs 6y ago
        You could buy games at Target because if you have to allow the store to be open for people to buy essential items like groceries, drugs, and hardware there is very little or no increased risk in letting them pick up other, non-essential stuff while they are there. (It might even reduce risk slightly, by decreasing the average density of customers in the store). GameStop only sells non-essential items.
        6y ago
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  That ruling was overturned.
  - virmundi 6y ago
    No. It was stayed. There is a difference. Stayed means that it is not put into effect until a higher court reviews it.
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      It will easily be overturned. Despite youtube conservatives saying otherwise there is countless examples of precedent.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
redis_mlc 6y ago
> Well, you know, except for all the people not getting the virus due to reduced transmission. corona is contagious enough that we will all get it until herd immunity is reached. HN is in denial about this, but it's a logical conclusion.
clairity 6y ago
> "Well, you know, except for all the people not getting the virus due to reduced transmission." well, you know, except that that's popular (political and media) dogma, not scientific truth. many things can theoretically reduce transmission and it's far from certain that a nominal and arbitrary lockdown (as US states have employed) in as complicated a system as a society actually does so, especially when many mitigations are occurring simultaneously and haphazardly, and none are tested for efficacy in isolation because it'd be unethical to do so. the null hypothesis there is that lockdowns don't change the outcome appreciably, and that has not been rejected conclusively by any means.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > and it's far from certain that a nominal and arbitrary lockdown (as US states have employed) in as complicated a system as a society actually does so The key phrase there is as US states have employed. Lockdowns have been successfully deployed to eliminate national COVID-19 outbreaks in developed countries. Both theory and that experience confirm their effectiveness. However political polarization caused both government authorities and individual citizens to undermine and severely compromise the effectiveness of the strategy in the US. This is one of those things were compromise to a half way solution doesn't work. If you gave everyone time and resources to prepare for a total 3 week lockdown, then did it, the virus would be totally eliminated at the end of it. Afterwards, with strict traveler quarantine measures and contract tracing, the economy could open up completely. Unfortunately, we have too many people who refuse to distance at all or even wear a mask, so we get to live in an extended garbage fire.
  - dehrmann 6y ago
    Whether or not you agree with his approach, Anders Tegnell described the lockdown model used in most of Europe as "not sustainable," and the UK, Spain, France, Poland, Czech Republic, Netherlands, and more are proving him right. > If you gave everyone time and resources to prepare for a total 3 week lockdown... This is a great idea in theory, but it ignores a lot of realities. You have to keep some level of basic infrastructure running; that will cause spread. There will always be some level of violations. Borders are more porous than people think. The mental cost of lockdown is also higher than people originally thought. "Listen to the experts" really meant "listen to epidemiologists," but this is their first time trying this at this scale, and it ignores psychologists and economists, even though those forces are going to be major drivers of behavior. There's also the elephant in the room: If Covid-19 were 10x more deadly or 10x less deadly, people would actually take it very seriously or brush it off. It falls in a very awkward place, and a lot of people are looking at the death rate for their age group, weighing the risk against 1-2 years of partial lockdown, and deciding if the risk is worth it.
steve76 6y ago
Existing market leaders are market leaders because of bailouts. Over a half a dozen times in the last 20 years, rich people needed trillions of free dollars or the world ends. I don't blame them. We only have ourselves to blame. Too violent, too apathetic, just can't do the job. Stupid, evil, lazy all leads to the same place. If you can't get through the existing market yourself you don't get to tell other people what to do. Puts history in a different light. Power looses, throws a fit and crashes markets and starts wars, making life miserable for everyone until they are back in power. The only way out of is a vaccine. Anything short of that is just a money grab.

cblconfederate 6y ago

article is blurry

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

pedro2 6y ago

Don’t start reading, it gets blurry at middle (unless you login I suppose).

__s 6y ago
Disable Javascript
patorjk 6y ago
Running this in the console removed that for me: document.querySelectorAll('.freewall--disable').forEach(item => item.classList.remove('freewall--disable'));
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
tzs 6y ago
Reader View clears it up.

6510 6y ago

If we look at the price people are paying for the lock down vs the risk, the other diseases and (often preventable) ways to die and the 637 B profits made by billionaires it doesn't prove it is one big CONSPIRACY but to label it "unintended consequence" is rather naive. I'd much rather see [say] diarrhea cured (which kills 2200 children per day) and risk dying than implode the economy and abolish relationships to save old people. The numbers suggest 0.4% is infected and 0.01% died of which the large majority had poor health. We simply don't have practical ideas to save the victims. It would be much easier to save a few millions if we focus on nutrition.

war1025 6y ago
> to save old people. We're "saving" old people in one sense, and accelerating their decline in many others. Nursing homes are locked down and they haven't been able to see family for over six months now. It's basically like being in prison, except you are old, infirm, and also likely have some level of dementia. Basically a living hell.
- crocodiletears 6y ago
  I know a senior who's family had to remove him from the nursing home due to a massive psychological break from prolonged isolation, especially a lack of familiar faces being able to visit him. He was so dissociated from his environment, they decided that the risk of death was much less of an issue than the degree to which his quality of life had degenerated.
  - war1025 6y ago
    My aunt posts basically daily about how hard this has been on my Grandma. Maybe a month and a half ago, they started allowing outdoor visits, but they have to maintain 6 feet distance. My aunt said if my Grandma (98) was a little more independent she would take her in at her house, but as it is, she has moderate dementia and forgets what's going on very easily. Basically they wouldn't be able to leave her home unattended.