COVID-19 fight vs. financial crisis: which one is more important?
- Thread starter fall
- Start date
Well, if we do nothing and simply let people have it a die, about 2% of population will die (I doubt it will be 5% since the mortality rate is overestimated due to many minor diagnosed cases), but it will be over in 3 month as everybody will get sick and all recovered people will be immune. Yes, it is a lot. Yes, it is human tragedy. Yes, it is comparable to WW2 death rate. But in WW2 the dead were young people and it lasted for many years, and the war required lots of resources. With this virus, it will be mostly elderly who will die and it will be over on 3 month with very little resources spent. I know, it may be sounded cold, but such death will actually improve the economy since the average age of survivors will be lower.
On the other hand, if we try to fight this virus, it will take about an year to develop a vaccine. Social distancing must be practising for a year, with full isolation (as now) at least for 3 month (plus maybe another 3 month once the second wave will start after isolation stops). 80% of population will still get sick, but because of the flatter curve, better medical services will be available and mortality rate may be down to 0.5%. So, we save lots of life but get a war-type effect on the economy (lots of resources).
The trade-off is simple: save 15% of the older generation at the expense of huge unemployment, general population health decline (due to more unhealthy food that will be affordable for people and poor housing), and much less bright future for our kids. I wish the government finally call spade a spade and tell us what we expect to lose and what we expect to gain by trying to fight the virus the way we do now. So far we hear lots of health suggestions but not an estimate of how much it will cost the economy. And, as history teaches us, money is more important then lives (otherwise there will be no wars)
On the other hand, if we try to fight this virus, it will take about an year to develop a vaccine. Social distancing must be practising for a year, with full isolation (as now) at least for 3 month (plus maybe another 3 month once the second wave will start after isolation stops). 80% of population will still get sick, but because of the flatter curve, better medical services will be available and mortality rate may be down to 0.5%. So, we save lots of life but get a war-type effect on the economy (lots of resources).
The trade-off is simple: save 15% of the older generation at the expense of huge unemployment, general population health decline (due to more unhealthy food that will be affordable for people and poor housing), and much less bright future for our kids. I wish the government finally call spade a spade and tell us what we expect to lose and what we expect to gain by trying to fight the virus the way we do now. So far we hear lots of health suggestions but not an estimate of how much it will cost the economy. And, as history teaches us, money is more important then lives (otherwise there will be no wars)
There is no certainty that once you get it you can't get it again. This happens to be the case for some diseases, but not all. Nobody really knows at this point in time and one of the ways you can easily find out is by ignoring the pandemic. Maybe you don't die the first time, but now your lung capacity has been reduced significantly and there are claims about it producing a decline in reproductive health.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8104477/Doctors-claim-new-coronavirus-cause-damage-mans-TESTICLES.html
Even more reasons to get it over ASAP: you cannot get the same virus twice - only a mutated one; and the longer we keep it around (by flattering the curve), the higher are the chances of new mutations.
My point was that if the governments of the world took no action, the political instability that would arise would likely kill the economy anyway, and make it harder to recover. There would be worldwide political and economic chaos. You can't answer the question of whether to take these measures without considering all the potential consequences of not doing acting
He has already passed. My stepdad had his throat slashed open in a routine weekend bar fight. My biological dad probably has AIDS. I don’t know. Sorry.
The 1400 in Canada is a vastly underreported figure. According to one medical expert on the frontline, there are 10 times as many actual cases but they are in the general public undiagnosed. So in all, there are some 14,000 infected in Canada already most who don't know they're infected and spreading it every day.
There was a small window to containing this thing in the early stages but the cat is out of the bag now, especially because in the 'free world' we do not impose hardcore lockdowns like they do in oppressive regimes (people are used to it there).
There will be anarchy if this lockdown lasts more than 2 more weeks. People aren’t disciplined enough to hold out much longer than mid April. I can see people running into the streets and saying “you win Corona. Come get me!!” People are getting antsy now after only 6 days.
Possibly. Depends how much of the military isn’t sick. I’m also sensing the government (see D Trump) won’t have the resolve to continue this much passed a few more weeks. Ultimately I see the economy trumping (pun) our health care system.
Tough choices are going to be made. Hospitals are only days away from being overwhelmed. There’s no stopping this category 5 hurricane about to hit North America.
When the numbers of infected get large enough, cold hard pragmatism will prevail. It'll become clear that further destruction of the economy makes little sense when it means saving 70 - 90 year old's golden years in their nursing homes. During a lockdown, there is no telling how many people in the lockdown already have the virus, are carriers, or have recovered. As soon as the lockdown ends, new infections can rapidly spread all over again. The virus will be allowed to take its course. This is all about optics right now.
And this is what the problem is. Yes, it is political suicide to say: accept the death tall, save the economy. But it is the right thing to do in the long-run. Unfortunately, the party that will do it (Liberals in Canada or Republicans in USA) will not survive the election and the next party will rip all the benefit of the economic boom. And higher mortality rate among elderly and "not-in-good-health" people will lead to stronger economy than if we did not have the virus to begin with. No feelings, just facts. For all the "go to Earth" green people: it is called "natural selection" and it is always good in the long run for the species.
A coworker made an interesting comment today.
He mentioned that once this is all said and done, one 'silver lining' if you want to call it that, is that there is a good chance that a large number of 'old schoolers' will no longer be here. They tend to vote conservative and hate change. So as grim a concept as it is, the other side of this just MIGHT put the world in a better position for actual, real change.
Nope, we (people between 35 and 60) vote conservative, the old folks (70+) vote liberal, and it is them who has higher chance to die. So, the silver lining is that there will be less people voting liberal
. And after getting rid of liberals, there maybe a hope that there will be some change.
