2 ms·

I suspect this is true of all countries, after enough time.

• Retric 5y ago
  After enough time it’s simply swamped by random noise. Killing person X might avoid or cause WWIII. That said, killing several million extra people without any forms of lockdown would have also had very serious economic repercussions. People would have started voluntarily staying home even if it meant quitting their jobs and thus presumably making them ineligible for unemployment insurance etc. Some stay at home orders might have actually minimized economic disruption, though we simply don’t know.
  • twofornone 5y ago
    >People would have started voluntarily staying home even if it meant quitting their jobs I think the fact that this didn't even come close to happening excluding maybe a 2-3 month period of panic suggests that the virus was not really as deadly as we initially believed. If this were the plague, you wouldn't need to force people to stay home.
  • brezelgoring 5y ago
    >killing several million extra people without any forms of lockdown would have also had very serious economic repercussions Political, too. Some heads would be bound to roll after that election cycle, in Argentina the ruling party that mishandled the economic and sanitary aspects of the campaign, lost about 30~40% of their electorate and indirectly caused the emergence of a liberal movement in a country that previously was overwhelmingly pro-welfare state. I think the political consequences would be more of an incentive not to try this, the economic part is just a statistic.
• happytoexplain 5y ago
  I don't think anybody is arguing that lockdown cons don't outweigh the pros after an arbitrarily long time.