Friends and colleagues I speak to who haven’t followed the modelling papers etc think the point of a lockdown is to eliminate the virus entirely - not contain, not delay but eliminate entirely. There is also a very strong fear of getting the virus (many of the same people are convinced that it’s a death sentence almost akin to Ebola). I suspect that these views are very widespread and this is why the lockdowns currently enjoy strong popular support.
A release followed by a second lockdown would, I think, be viewed as an admission that the policy was a failure therefore and would also lead to a reassessment of how dangerous it really is amongst those people. Those still suffering from the economic damage from the first (which will be almost everyone) will have a lot of reasons to resist very hard and I think most governments in democratic countries would struggle to implement such a policy.
I encourage susceptible populations to quarantine themselves, rather than everybody quarantining. We must work, date, and life must go on.
I don't particularly care if people don't want to protect themselves but this isn't about selfish individuals. This is about everyone else. If, like some politicians, you are willing to "sacrifice" yourself, please do it quickly and away from populations.
Are millions of people dying an acceptable trade-off for us to be able to date?
I’ve seen some toxic comments on this site before, but nothing like someone blatantly saying “I’ll happy kill those around me to avoid any inconvenience to my daily routine”.
No “stimulus” package is going to be effective, because you can’t use spending to stimulate an economy which has been forced to stop producing goods and services. All you will accomplish is inflation as more money chases fewer goods and services.
Like Warren Buffett says, "From a standing start 240 years ago, Americans have combined human ingenuity with a market system to deliver abundance beyond any dreams of our forefathers...". There is nothing to suggest this is suddenly going to stop moving forward, even as we adapt to these new realities.
Was this the best possible way to treat an intellectual disagreement? Surely people can disagree with you without being liars or delusionary?
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
At some point, when the stakes are so high, willful ignorance is harmful and should be called out.
Personally, I think that the economy will change significantly, but crash vs recover for markets is different. If suddenly workers got a fair wage and everyone got universal healthcare we could easily see the country doing a lot better while the markets would tank as this would undoubtedly be paid for by loss of corporate profits.
Second part, you're dead wrong in two areas. Manufacturing of essential goods continues in haste. And, stimulus is essential for people have lost their jobs and need to buy food. So take your theoretical keyboard economics degree and leave it at the door. Let's take away your source of income, ability to work and see how you feed your family.
This is an expected - or should be - result of "flatten the curve." FTC is not about the virus per se, it's about the healthcare system. That is, to not exceed the volume the healthcare system can handle.
Put another way, an increase in the number of positives isn't necessarily a bad thing. If if stays towards the 80% who are asymptomatic or low risk then the more the better. They'll get it. Recovery and will be past it. The key number - the number the media should be emphasizing - is the positives in high risk individuals. That's the curve we don't want to see spike.
Furthermore, it's where those happen. One-thousand as 50 in 20 cities is not the same as 500 in one city (e.g., NYC) and the other 500 distributed evenly elsewhere.
The aggregate numbers make great - but crap - headlines. The understanding is in the details.
For example, nobody yet explained to me how flattening the curve is gonna make much difference when say NYC has 3,000 ventilators, and the average time on a ventilator is 20 days. If 1/100 of NYC's 8 million population need a ventilator that'd still be 80,000 ventilators needed.
So flattening would reduce the deaths to 74,000 instead of 77,000?
[To be clear I'm not saying this math is exact. But I am saying I am owed the actual math by people who want me to change my life over it]
And if the governor is able to somehow organize another 30000 ventilators in 3 weeks, your death count goes down from 77k to 44k. Or 11 times 9/11.
I was hoping to read an article about the potential of other coronaviruses or threats that may cause global lockdowns in the future.
coughTAIWANcough
Again for the people in the back:
T•A•I•W•A•N
We are doing Trillions of damage they are avoiding. Given the costs we should be spending billions studying what they are doing.
We need to understand more effectively how the virus is spreading and focus on those spots, not this lockdown stuff which is too costly.
Some basic policies like mask-wearing for everyone in public, gloves, and masks in restaurants, and on subways busses, N95 maybe for anyone in crowded area jobs, anyone with any sickness immediately self-isolates etc..
These total shut-downs seem like a 'home vacay' for now but it will start causing serious pain very soon.
Edit: I should add by 'trillions in damage' I'm not worried about shareholders; this will have serious consequences for people. Many millions are losing their jobs, millions will be evicted, foreclosed, homeless, jobless, and otherwise, have their lives severely disrupted. FYI in America no job = no healthcare. At some point, the shelves stop being stocked. We need to be smart.
"In recent days, this semblance of normalcy has vanished. The number of confirmed cases here has ticked upward at a much quicker pace than before, worrying health experts. The government reversed course on its easing of restrictions, sending workers back home, closing parks and city facilities, and reiterating calls for social distancing."
Ban on non-residents. Groups of more than 4 people are broken up. A growing skittish-ness about "foreigners", (thought to be the people who brought the second wave of infections to HK). Etc etc.
HK and Tokyo are not examples to be emulated, they are examples of what we should be trying to avoid.
That said, I'm monitoring countries with high mask usage and it seems like people are getting complacent with social distancing and other active measures, lack of vigilance and adherence is going to become an issue, especially once nice weather rolls around. And I'm not entire convinced mask-usage is effective at high levels of community spread, it might only have disproportionately utility at the head of the outbreak.
Still out of all large scale, realistic intervention, some sort of mask usage using mass or crowd sourced production outside of medical supply chain might be worth trying. I think it be relatively easy to distribute DIY masks to everyone with insert pocket - apparently 2 pieces of paper towels has 80% filtration value.
There's also a lot natural experiments happening in cities, at least according to anecdotes and personal experience, most of the China/Korea towns are taking it very seriously. Where I live, there was like 80% mask usage. It be interesting to compare infection rates between a big Chinese grocery store with a Western one in a few weeks.
Why not put everyone in masks and gloves instead?
Once healthcare workers are covered, then we can make sure everyone else starts wearing them.
From the BBC:
"Disposable surgical masks also are not recommended for people unless they're sick or caring for someone who's ill."
Well, if it helps someone caring for someone who's ill, obviously it will help a random person no? I suppose the issue is the degree of effectiveness, how it is used, and I've read that wearing a mask makes people otherwise too confident and lax in other things aks washing hands.
If Korea can do it, we can do it, whatever 'it' is it's not magic.
