7 ms·

Random question: why are we saying, "the economic toll of covid," rather than, "the economic toll of the response to covid?" If the lockdowns hadn't happened, m

by j0ba 6y ago

Random question: why are we saying, "the economic toll of covid," rather than, "the economic toll of the response to covid?" If the lockdowns hadn't happened, more would have died, but presumably the economy would be fine.

zpeti 6y ago
And interestingly in many places there were excess deaths in the first wave, but not the second. So it is a big question just how many more would have died.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
  Even more interestingly, this is bullshit. (Unless you mean countries like New Zealand where the second wave just isn't happening) There is a lag between cases and death, and death and the publication of cumulative reports on all-cause mortality. If you happened to have read anything on the topic during the first wave, you'd know as much. Because it was repeated ad nauseam, until it became too ridiculous for even the most dedicated to keep on insisting that there were no excess deaths.
  - jariel 6y ago
    The case fatality rate was considerably lower in the second wave in almost all cases, and the total number of deaths generally lower as well. The 'lag' is accounted for in that most 'second wave' places have past the peak over their waves. Deaths were 'higher' in the second wave in places that had a small first wave, like Austria. But for places that had a 'real' first wave, the second wave was generally milder in terms of overall deaths, and much milder in terms of CFR. We can't ignore the real risk of 'waves' but it's also important not to deny the nuanced reality of them. In particular, the 'second wave' had many more younger people, probably accounting for the lower case fatality rate.
- rimliu 6y ago
  We had few COVID deaths in the first wave and no excess deaths. Now we have lots of cases ~3000 daily, some 20-30 daily deaths but excess mortality is waaaay higher than COVID deaths. Most can ve explained by reduced accessibility to the medical services because of COVID precautions and general fear in public. Only now we start to feel pressure on the healthcare system caused directly by COVID cases.
XorNot 6y ago
Why does everyone seem to think the economy would be fine without lockdowns? You think that the entire population would've continued just headed to restaurants while hospitals declared "not accepting patients anymore" and refrigerator trucks stacked up outside nursing homes? What actually happened in stupid countries is that they reacted too late, too lightly, and everyone's been complaining that "oh the cost was too high". It takes a lockdown of ONE month, enforced strictly, to clear out COVID from the population and resume effectively normal activity (you still need to limit international passenger travel but that's proportionally far simpler).
- maxerickson 6y ago
  I think some if it is that it is an appealing contrarian take, and even as stark as things are, it is common to not have suffered much personal impact from infections (either direct consequences or severe illness/death of friends/relatives). I'm not terribly well connected socially so I don't take it as a universal, but the people I've heard about having it are a single friend of a friend and my doctor's husband (she volunteered the info during a routine appointment). So the responses are more visible in peoples minds than the pandemic, and they are thinking intuitively about it, not reasoning about the precarious situation that (pretty much continuously) exists with such a fast spreading infection.
  - santraginean 6y ago
    I think that's definitely true for a lot of people. But there also seems to be a more active sort of intense denialism, fueled by a need to score political points at all costs, that leads even people who _have_ been directly impacted by COVID to continue insisting it's not a big deal. It's why Herman Cain's staff kept tweeting even after he died from COVID. And why people in the White House have been making a big show of hosting superspreader events, even as so many of them have to rely on the best medicine other people's money can buy to recover. Ultimately, I don't think there's a way to understand it rationally, because as you say, it's not rational; it's an emotional response.
    - 6y ago
redisman 6y ago
Doesn’t it tell something that every government on earth “chickened out” and did some kind of lockdowns when the numbers got bad enough? Sounds extremely naïve to think the economy would’ve been fine with unmitigated spread and hospitals becoming unusable. You’d be off by several orders of magnitude on the chaos that would cause in society
ulfw 6y ago
How on earth would the economy be fine when people die left and right? Do you really think shops were full and everyone was out an about just ignoring their health (and potentially death) just because of some government mandate? Do you think people don't have their own will or brain?
- jeofken 6y ago
  In my home Sweden the government has enforced no limitation in liberty due to this virus - they have recommended social distancing, but no force. Restaurants, shops, and bars have fewer customers, but they and other business is surviving. That is just one data point, but it’s something
  - jhayward 6y ago
    The drop in economic activity in Sweden is, roughly, just as large as in Norway, Finland, and Denmark. But with 4 to 10 times the number of deaths. So, no, the lack of lockdown (which is a fallacy itself) didn't protect Sweden from economic impact.
    - rimliu 6y ago
      Most of the deaths in Sweden happened early in the pandemic and are more result of a bad luck than some policy. Now my country has more daily deaths than Sweden despite having 1/3 of the population and being in the second quarantine since Nov 7th. The restrictions will be way stricter from this Wednesday.
      - jhayward 6y ago
        Dateline today, 2020-12-13: "Sweden's neighbours offer them emergency help as its hospitals fill up with coronavirus patients" [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-offered-urgent-coronavirus-help-by-neighbours-as-hospitals-fill-2020-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-offered-urgent-corona...
        6y ago
jhayward 6y ago
No. The lockdowns didn't cause the economic damage, the people's response to the risk of death and injury caused it. To recover the economy you have to suppress the virus. Period. There's no magic wand to let people party away.

by j0ba 6y ago

zpeti 6y ago

And interestingly in many places there were excess deaths in the first wave, but not the second. So it is a big question just how many more would have died.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
Even more interestingly, this is bullshit. (Unless you mean countries like New Zealand where the second wave just isn't happening) There is a lag between cases and death, and death and the publication of cumulative reports on all-cause mortality. If you happened to have read anything on the topic during the first wave, you'd know as much. Because it was repeated ad nauseam, until it became too ridiculous for even the most dedicated to keep on insisting that there were no excess deaths.
- jariel 6y ago
  The case fatality rate was considerably lower in the second wave in almost all cases, and the total number of deaths generally lower as well. The 'lag' is accounted for in that most 'second wave' places have past the peak over their waves. Deaths were 'higher' in the second wave in places that had a small first wave, like Austria. But for places that had a 'real' first wave, the second wave was generally milder in terms of overall deaths, and much milder in terms of CFR. We can't ignore the real risk of 'waves' but it's also important not to deny the nuanced reality of them. In particular, the 'second wave' had many more younger people, probably accounting for the lower case fatality rate.
rimliu 6y ago
We had few COVID deaths in the first wave and no excess deaths. Now we have lots of cases ~3000 daily, some 20-30 daily deaths but excess mortality is waaaay higher than COVID deaths. Most can ve explained by reduced accessibility to the medical services because of COVID precautions and general fear in public. Only now we start to feel pressure on the healthcare system caused directly by COVID cases.

XorNot 6y ago

Why does everyone seem to think the economy would be fine without lockdowns? You think that the entire population would've continued just headed to restaurants while hospitals declared "not accepting patients anymore" and refrigerator trucks stacked up outside nursing homes? What actually happened in stupid countries is that they reacted too late, too lightly, and everyone's been complaining that "oh the cost was too high". It takes a lockdown of ONE month, enforced strictly, to clear out COVID from the population and resume effectively normal activity (you still need to limit international passenger travel but that's proportionally far simpler).

maxerickson 6y ago
I think some if it is that it is an appealing contrarian take, and even as stark as things are, it is common to not have suffered much personal impact from infections (either direct consequences or severe illness/death of friends/relatives). I'm not terribly well connected socially so I don't take it as a universal, but the people I've heard about having it are a single friend of a friend and my doctor's husband (she volunteered the info during a routine appointment). So the responses are more visible in peoples minds than the pandemic, and they are thinking intuitively about it, not reasoning about the precarious situation that (pretty much continuously) exists with such a fast spreading infection.
- santraginean 6y ago
  I think that's definitely true for a lot of people. But there also seems to be a more active sort of intense denialism, fueled by a need to score political points at all costs, that leads even people who _have_ been directly impacted by COVID to continue insisting it's not a big deal. It's why Herman Cain's staff kept tweeting even after he died from COVID. And why people in the White House have been making a big show of hosting superspreader events, even as so many of them have to rely on the best medicine other people's money can buy to recover. Ultimately, I don't think there's a way to understand it rationally, because as you say, it's not rational; it's an emotional response.
  - 6y ago

redisman 6y ago

Doesn’t it tell something that every government on earth “chickened out” and did some kind of lockdowns when the numbers got bad enough? Sounds extremely naïve to think the economy would’ve been fine with unmitigated spread and hospitals becoming unusable. You’d be off by several orders of magnitude on the chaos that would cause in society

ulfw 6y ago

How on earth would the economy be fine when people die left and right? Do you really think shops were full and everyone was out an about just ignoring their health (and potentially death) just because of some government mandate? Do you think people don't have their own will or brain?

jeofken 6y ago
In my home Sweden the government has enforced no limitation in liberty due to this virus - they have recommended social distancing, but no force. Restaurants, shops, and bars have fewer customers, but they and other business is surviving. That is just one data point, but it’s something
- jhayward 6y ago
  The drop in economic activity in Sweden is, roughly, just as large as in Norway, Finland, and Denmark. But with 4 to 10 times the number of deaths. So, no, the lack of lockdown (which is a fallacy itself) didn't protect Sweden from economic impact.
  - rimliu 6y ago
    Most of the deaths in Sweden happened early in the pandemic and are more result of a bad luck than some policy. Now my country has more daily deaths than Sweden despite having 1/3 of the population and being in the second quarantine since Nov 7th. The restrictions will be way stricter from this Wednesday.
    - jhayward 6y ago
      Dateline today, 2020-12-13: "Sweden's neighbours offer them emergency help as its hospitals fill up with coronavirus patients" [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-offered-urgent-coronavirus-help-by-neighbours-as-hospitals-fill-2020-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-offered-urgent-corona...
      - 6y ago

jhayward 6y ago

No. The lockdowns didn't cause the economic damage, the people's response to the risk of death and injury caused it. To recover the economy you have to suppress the virus. Period. There's no magic wand to let people party away.