6 ms·

Meanwhile, some of the strongest voices calling for near-permanent lockdowns came from the well-paid professional classes, who could afford to order Uber Eats t

Meanwhile, some of the strongest voices calling for near-permanent lockdowns came from the well-paid professional classes, who could afford to order Uber Eats twice a day and had zero chance of losing their over-inflated incomes. The continuing erosion of the middle class isn’t a good thing. Expect populist political rhetoric to continue growing.

umvi 6y ago
It's what happens when you fixate on optimizing for only one variable (in this case total covid deaths or perhaps hospital ICU capacity). All other variables must be sacrificed to optimize the one variable, even if it means pushing millions into poverty, destroying industries, educationally handicapping multiple generations of students, etc.
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  If that one variable was actually optimized for in a prompt manner, COVID would already be over in the US. It’s the half-assed waffling that’s causing this to drag on for the better part of a year now.
snarfy 6y ago
The near-permanent lockdowns needed to be offset by government payment programs like they were in every other developed country except the US. If they shut everything down but don't offset it somehow, what do they expect the result to be? The $1200 check was laughable.
- mdavis6890 6y ago
  I agree we need more cash payments to humans. But we have to be careful not to confuse money with stuff (the goods and services produced by the economy). Giving money does not produce any more stuff, it only increases the competition for and price of the stuff that is being produced. We are producing less stuff because of the pandemic, which means there is less to go around (however it gets allocated), and no amount of money will change that.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > I agree we need more cash payments to humans. But we have to be careful not to confuse money with stuff (the goods and services produced by the economy). Giving money does not produce any more stuff, it only increases the competition for and price of the stuff that is being produced. > We are producing less stuff because of the pandemic, which means there is less to go around (however it gets allocated), and no amount of money will change that. A large fraction of that stuff is not strictly necessary for anyone's survival, especially in the short term. It's various degrees of "nice to have." Too see this, look at the kinds of rationing they did in WWII. A successful COVID containment strategy would have identified the truly essential vs nice-to-have parts of the economy, and temporarily shut the latter parts down while supporting all affected workers in those sectors with payments sufficient to provide all needed access to essential goods and services for the duration (including housing). That wouldn't work as a permanent economic policy, but it would work as a temporary coordinated response to time-limited crisis.
    - nradov 6y ago
      Too many HN users have no idea how businesses operate outside the software sector. Many of those "non-essential" businesses and the associated supply chains are simply not set up in a way that can be stopped and then successfully restarted months later. If they're shut down for any significant period then they're gone for good. Crashing the economy into another Great Depression would kill more people than the virus. There has to be a sensible balance.
      - ardy42 6y ago
        > Many of those "non-essential" businesses and the associated supply chains are simply not set up in a way that can be stopped and then successfully restarted months later. If they're shut down for any significant period then they're gone for good. Honestly, that sounds like hyperbole. You'll have to give examples, and not something like retail or restaurants. Honestly, with a little imagination and expertise (and most importantly the political will to deal with the problem), I think it doable to make the legal changes necessary to pause most business like that with little damage, just as long as the aid is there. For instance, make 2020 something like an intercalary year. IMHO, this stuff only seems impossible if you tie your hands and restrict yourself to a limited number of first-order interventions. The situation we have now is something like an ER doctor who's too busy playing on his phone to save the life of someone who's been shot, and who then turns around and loudly blames "guns" for that unnecessary death.
jeromegv 6y ago
Whatever the US did was not near permanent lockdowns, what is allowed to continue and be opened is more lenient than almost every country. The only countries with less restrictions than the US are opened exactly because they did a lockdown and kept the virus at bay. What kills the US economy is the virus being out there and making people afraid to get together into public settings.
- umvi 6y ago
  I would argue the virus itself isn't making people afraid, it's media/government fear-mongering. In reality your average person has little to fear (besides the fear of spreading it to a vulnerable loved one).
  - feistypharit 6y ago
    I assume most people have a vulnerable loved one, no? The issue is it's one order removed from self, and most people don't abstract that far.
  - southeastern 6y ago
    And sickness, long term side effects, in addition to the threat to vulnerable loved ones. They have to keep talking about dangerous it is, because people keep insisting it isn't. It's not about just you, it's about the community-wide effect. But to be clear 30 year olds have been killed by covid 19 and people of all ages report long term after effects like shortness of breath, tiredness, and pain. And some people just can't afford to take the time off-- even a week of missed work can result in not making rent. It's happening as we speak-- homelessness is skyrocketing. These are real effects of the virus, it changes peoples lives
    - umvi 6y ago
      > And sickness Your average person doesn't fear flu-like sicknesses. It's an inconvenience, yes, but that's about it. > long term side effects Again... according to CDC/WHO the average person completely recovers in 2 weeks. Yes, there are cases where permanent lung scarring was observed, but AFAIK that's super rare and has to do with the type of pneumonia synergizing with covid, not covid itself. I'm sure you can dig up other cases where long term negative effects are observed... but it seems rare compared to the normal recovery scenario. Do you have a source showing that the average person should fear developing long term side effects?

umvi 6y ago

It's what happens when you fixate on optimizing for only one variable (in this case total covid deaths or perhaps hospital ICU capacity). All other variables must be sacrificed to optimize the one variable, even if it means pushing millions into poverty, destroying industries, educationally handicapping multiple generations of students, etc.

AlexandrB 6y ago
If that one variable was actually optimized for in a prompt manner, COVID would already be over in the US. It’s the half-assed waffling that’s causing this to drag on for the better part of a year now.

snarfy 6y ago

The near-permanent lockdowns needed to be offset by government payment programs like they were in every other developed country except the US. If they shut everything down but don't offset it somehow, what do they expect the result to be? The $1200 check was laughable.

mdavis6890 6y ago
I agree we need more cash payments to humans. But we have to be careful not to confuse money with stuff (the goods and services produced by the economy). Giving money does not produce any more stuff, it only increases the competition for and price of the stuff that is being produced. We are producing less stuff because of the pandemic, which means there is less to go around (however it gets allocated), and no amount of money will change that.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > I agree we need more cash payments to humans. But we have to be careful not to confuse money with stuff (the goods and services produced by the economy). Giving money does not produce any more stuff, it only increases the competition for and price of the stuff that is being produced. > We are producing less stuff because of the pandemic, which means there is less to go around (however it gets allocated), and no amount of money will change that. A large fraction of that stuff is not strictly necessary for anyone's survival, especially in the short term. It's various degrees of "nice to have." Too see this, look at the kinds of rationing they did in WWII. A successful COVID containment strategy would have identified the truly essential vs nice-to-have parts of the economy, and temporarily shut the latter parts down while supporting all affected workers in those sectors with payments sufficient to provide all needed access to essential goods and services for the duration (including housing). That wouldn't work as a permanent economic policy, but it would work as a temporary coordinated response to time-limited crisis.
  - nradov 6y ago
    Too many HN users have no idea how businesses operate outside the software sector. Many of those "non-essential" businesses and the associated supply chains are simply not set up in a way that can be stopped and then successfully restarted months later. If they're shut down for any significant period then they're gone for good. Crashing the economy into another Great Depression would kill more people than the virus. There has to be a sensible balance.
    - ardy42 6y ago
      > Many of those "non-essential" businesses and the associated supply chains are simply not set up in a way that can be stopped and then successfully restarted months later. If they're shut down for any significant period then they're gone for good. Honestly, that sounds like hyperbole. You'll have to give examples, and not something like retail or restaurants. Honestly, with a little imagination and expertise (and most importantly the political will to deal with the problem), I think it doable to make the legal changes necessary to pause most business like that with little damage, just as long as the aid is there. For instance, make 2020 something like an intercalary year. IMHO, this stuff only seems impossible if you tie your hands and restrict yourself to a limited number of first-order interventions. The situation we have now is something like an ER doctor who's too busy playing on his phone to save the life of someone who's been shot, and who then turns around and loudly blames "guns" for that unnecessary death.

jeromegv 6y ago

Whatever the US did was not near permanent lockdowns, what is allowed to continue and be opened is more lenient than almost every country. The only countries with less restrictions than the US are opened exactly because they did a lockdown and kept the virus at bay. What kills the US economy is the virus being out there and making people afraid to get together into public settings.

umvi 6y ago
I would argue the virus itself isn't making people afraid, it's media/government fear-mongering. In reality your average person has little to fear (besides the fear of spreading it to a vulnerable loved one).
- feistypharit 6y ago
  I assume most people have a vulnerable loved one, no? The issue is it's one order removed from self, and most people don't abstract that far.
- southeastern 6y ago
  And sickness, long term side effects, in addition to the threat to vulnerable loved ones. They have to keep talking about dangerous it is, because people keep insisting it isn't. It's not about just you, it's about the community-wide effect. But to be clear 30 year olds have been killed by covid 19 and people of all ages report long term after effects like shortness of breath, tiredness, and pain. And some people just can't afford to take the time off-- even a week of missed work can result in not making rent. It's happening as we speak-- homelessness is skyrocketing. These are real effects of the virus, it changes peoples lives
  - umvi 6y ago
    > And sickness Your average person doesn't fear flu-like sicknesses. It's an inconvenience, yes, but that's about it. > long term side effects Again... according to CDC/WHO the average person completely recovers in 2 weeks. Yes, there are cases where permanent lung scarring was observed, but AFAIK that's super rare and has to do with the type of pneumonia synergizing with covid, not covid itself. I'm sure you can dig up other cases where long term negative effects are observed... but it seems rare compared to the normal recovery scenario. Do you have a source showing that the average person should fear developing long term side effects?