| Teeqoz said: The economic effects shouldd't be ignored. The 2 Trillion dollar stimulus package that congress passed is equivalent to ~50% of the investment that would be required to make the US run on 100% renewable. I'm sure that too would save millions of lives over the course of the next decades. Unemployment raises mortality rates, not to mention the broad hitting reduction in quality of life from lower economic activity. Plenty of lives and livelyhoods were destroyed in the great recession. Of course it is a matter of balancing the economic fallout with the health concerns. But it isn't necessarily right to aim for the minimum possible amount of lives lost, depending on what that entails for the economy. That isn't how society operates when it comes to any cause of death, be it influenza, traffic or anything else. Restrictions to reduce death rates from anything have to take into account the economic effects of those restrictions - Covid19 is no different. This is much more dangerous than say the flu, so a lot more economic pain is acceptable as a side effect of restrictions, but there is a limit to how far we should go, even though that would mean more people will die from this pandemic. The current widespread lockdown is a stop-gap to give health services more time to prepare, both by finding possible treatment methods (there are already some promising therapeutics), gathering supplies like ventilators and PPE, acquiring temporary emergency hospital beds and planning for the eventual peak. We can't shut down to this degree until we have a vaccine which, according to the Imperial College study, would be the only way we could avoid a majority of the population getting infected. Social distancing and extra hygiene will be continued for months, but not the countrywide business shutdowns and extreme social distancing we are doing right now. |
1) "it isn't necessarily right to aim for the minimum possible amount of lives lost, depending on what that entails for the economy." - Teeqoz
With the shutdowns, and slowing of the spread, this will still infect millions in the US, and kill 100,000-200,000 in the 1st wave.
This is from Dr. Fauci himself, earlier on today (in a interview).
(scientists expect a 2nd wave to come, and be worse than the first one)
Where would you draw the line, between "economy" vs "deaths" ?
Lets say the US does everything it can, now to prevent this causeing too much death.... and 200k die to it.
What would you be willing to sacrifice in terms of human lives for a better economy? and how much better would it even be? Probably no one could tell you with anymore accuracy than the current projected morality this will have.
2) "That isn't how society operates when it comes to any cause of death, be it influenza, traffic or anything else." - Teeqoz
This isnt like anything else.
What other thing kills upwards of 200,000 americans in ~3-4months time or so, each year?
Within one month, the number of people dying daily in the US from COVID-19 went from zero to higher than the total average daily deaths from homicides, suicides, motor vehicle accidents, and all drug and alcohol overdoses combined.
— Phil Libin (@plibin) March 29, 2020
^ virus deaths 500+ (today(USA)) > homicides + suicides + motor vehicle accidents + all drug and alcohol overdoses combined (daily avg).
(these numbers will within a week or two, probably reach 2000+ deaths pr day)
3) "Restrictions to reduce death rates from anything have to take into account the economic effects of those restrictions - Covid19 is no different."
Even if so, guess what? almost every country choose to do a full lockdown anyways.
Is every world leader stupid? do you think you have better knowledge on hand than everyone else? Theres probably plenty of them doing the math, and trying to get this balance act right, however its still judged too early to do anything other than trying to slow spread.
4) "The current widespread lockdown is a stop-gap to give health services more time to prepare, both by finding possible treatment methods (there are already some promising therapeutics), gathering supplies like ventilators and PPE, acquiring temporary emergency hospital beds and planning for the eventual peak. We can't shut down to this degree until we have a vaccine which, according to the Imperial College study, would be the only way we could avoid a majority of the population getting infected. Social distancing and extra hygiene will be continued for months, but not the countrywide business shutdowns and extreme social distancing we are doing right now." - Teeqoz
That sounds twisted.
You have things the wrong way around right?
If we had a vaccine, we could open everything up again, after giveing it to people or risk groups (not shut things down, then).
If we were prepaired, we wouldnt need to try so hard to stop spread. Their doing that now, because they arnt prepaired, and hopeing it minimised deaths.
Both of the cases you made, were flipped around, compaired to normal logic.
