Recessions and depressions kill people. Those deaths are less direct and harder to count than deaths from the disease but they are no less real. The lockdown orders that harm the economy also increase social isolation. That social isolation kills people. The question is really about my willingness to risk my own death to save others. That is clearly a yes. I am thankful that there are people right now treating the sick and stocking shelves at the grocery stores with answers similar to mine.
That does not mean that I want to maximize the risks or walk into a wood chipper to merely save people from discomfort. We should be smart and mitigate risks as a society to try and minimize deaths overall. Minimizing deaths overall is not the same as minimizing deaths directly from the disease. We should not delude ourselves that it is.
Well, after this week I go back to work. Maybe I have it right now, who knows, I can’t get tested. But it’s two weeks on the sidelines and then back to work for me.
I’ve already decided not to fight it. Nurses and doctors are getting their assess kicked right now, and risking infection for the privilege. I’m not making a contribution or taking a risk like that, but it is definitely riskier than staying home like everyone else. The idea isn’t that I croak from going to work- somebody has to do it and anyway I think I would survive this virus, if I didn’t just do exactly that. I’m ok with me making the choice for myself to take the risk.
There’s definitely some risk of death I’d assume in order to maintain economic growth.
After all, that’s the tradeoff I make every time I get in the car to drive to work.
The mistake the dumbass from Texas is making is not realizing that there’s a tradeoff between risk and economic growth, it’s that you can’t make that tradeoff with an infectious disease like this. Any gains from growth will be linear (X more people working), but costs will be exponential (Y^2.5ish people dying). Even if we had the political will to keep on while bodies piled up on the streets, it wouldn’t be worth it. In reality, continuing on right now would just make things much much worse before we finally had to dampen the economy to stop the infection.
I mean, there are some things I’d be willing to die for. Lofty principles like civil rights, for instance. I might be compelled to sacrifice my life if doing so would save the life of many others. (I say might because I can imagine myself being heroic, but I don’t know if I’d actually be heroic.)
But save our the economy? The economy we have now? Hell to the naw.
Yes, people will commit suicide because they’ve lost their jobs and businesses. But this is a problem we can address through social policy. People fall into despair over unemployment because there’s nothing scarier than the threat of homelessness, starvation, and zero health care coverage combined with debt. Perhaps if we had a more ample social safety net, people wouldn’t off themselves during a recession. They would be sad, but not kill-me-now sad.
I would be willing to pare back on my current quality of life if that’s what it took to ensure we all have guaranteed food, housing, and medical care. I might even be willing to die if for some strange reason that’s what it took for us to have a better society. But I will never endorse a plan that involves me being used as a blood sacrifice for Mammon.
The economy is a sunk cost. If 2 million people die–even if “only” a million of them are old–it will shitcan the economy. If we shelter in place, it will destroy the economy. Either way, we are fucked. We should make the choice that gives us maximum productive capacity after and is the most humane–and that’s what we are doing with shelter in place.
The point I think many of you are missing is that if someone goes back to work happy enough to take their chances with COVID-19 that’s all very well for them, however it also means they will probably infect a whole chain of other people. One of those people can easily have underlying health conditions and die.
In places that don’t have an overwhelmed health-system, like South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong,Japan … even France so far, deaths have been about 1 - 5 % of cases.
In Italy it’s running at 10% of cases. That means maybe 3,500 or so of those 7,000 could have lived if they got better medical care. (I’m being very conservative there … the avoidable deaths is probably higher, and also doesn’t count people who died of other stuff while their doctors were desperately trying to save corona patients)
That’s a World Trade Center levels of unnecessary death in about a month, in a country that’s a fifth of the size of the US.
How long are you willing to have five World Trade Centers a month for?
I am not missing it. I approach the ballot box as a trolley problem. We all make dozen of decisions a day in normal times that increase the risk of death for both ourselves and others.
2Bits asked specifically about risk to myself. I will also acknowledge that I am also willing to risk others for sound policy. Those risks are high enough in a nation of 329 million that is synonymous with saying that I am willing to make choices that determine who lives and who dies. There simply is not an option in dealing with the disease that doesn’t kill anyone. I prefer to minimize overall losses. That is not necessarily the same as minimizing direct losses to the disease even if right now there is not a significant difference.
How do we know that Italy doesn’t have infections of a million or more and most people simply don’t need a Dr. I hope over the next few weeks we find out more about un diagnosed cases. I have a feeling the un diagnosed far outnumber those seeking medical attention and getting tested
I’m essential. I am effectively required to go back to work.
Here’s the math for all the pedants at home: I had flu symptoms. I can’t get tested. Given the timing, assume I was infected and quarantine for two weeks. Then back to work. Can’t get tested, but we assumed I had it already, so now we assume I am immune.
I’m not sure if this is the right place to ask but I’ve heard that before you can take a Coronavirus test you need to take a test (multiple tests actually,) for all the other things that it could possibly be before they test for Covid-19. Anyone know?
You have to make one of two choices. If you choose A, someone over sixty is chosen at random and killed (likely suffering on the way, but probably hospitalized). If you choose B, twenty people will face economic hardship for the next two years; five of them will lose their jobs outright.
I’m willing to bet (certainly if you made the survey anonymous) there’d be significant differences in the choice averages depending on American party affiliation (and foreign variants thereof).
