# Are you willing to go broke to maintain the present lockdown? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 23, 2020, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471 "2020-04-23T22:27:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/201 "2020-04-27T18:40:50Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > This is just completely wrong. Buying time allows us to improve treatment protocols, it’s not just about capacity. I already agreed to that point. We can save more lives by taking time to develop better protocols. I have my doubts that will be more than a fraction of a fraction of a percent that will die. But then the next question is how many jobs/lives are you willing to exchange for that number of lives you’ll save by developing those protocols? There is a link between death rates and being uninsured. Since most people are tied to insurance through a job, losing your job means losing your insurance and increasing your chance of dying. There is a non zero sum of people that will die because we are locking down. I’ll save you the next step that you’ll say which is that that is a good reason to have universal health care. Yes, it is, but we don’t have it. Some of those people losing their jobs and insurance are going to be hurt and die because of the lockdown. The lockdown isn’t costing just money. If you feel the protocols to save whatever percentage of people they might save are worth the extra jobs and lives are worth it, then you are right, the lockdown makes sense. And if that is a sacrifice you are calling for people to make, then it is time to call for sacrifices from everyone. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/202 "2020-04-27T20:01:11Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > **What you are grossly missing is that more people do die when the curve is not flatter.** **The numbers of dead people then are not the same**. As it seems that you miss constantly: more people do die when a hospital is overwhelmed, and that is more likely when opening economies with little improvements seen regarding masks, testing, contact tracing or with businesses with little regard to the health of workers or customers. The problem in NY and NJ was never an overwhelming of the health care system. The Federal government created sufficient beds to cover it. The thing that killed a lot of people was a [mandate](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/coronavirus-spreads-new-york-nursing-home-forced-take-recovering-patients-n1191811) that secondary care facilities take people with the virus. In effect, they were forced to endanger and eventually kill people because they weren’t quarantined in separate facilities. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/203 "2020-04-27T20:16:39Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > I read that article. I didn’t see anywhere in there that they said they were turning patients away. I think I have a different definition of overwhelmed. Why would a hospital let patients go untreated when there were beds available at the convention center or on Comfort? Makes no sense. That isn’t a matter of overwhelming a medical system, that is an inefficient use of available resources. > > I’m missing the point when I claim people are going to die no matter what we do? What is your plan to keep people from dying? Again, logic and evidence tell us that less people die when hospitals are not overwhelmed. > **[Detroit hospital workers tell CNN patients are dying in the hallways from...](https://www.wxyz.com/news/coronavirus/cnn-detroit-hospital-workers-say-patients-are-dying-in-the-hallways-from-covid-19)** > > Workers at Sinai-Grace Hospital said that people are dying in ER hallways before help can arrive, according to CNN. > [@](#): > > According to CNN, workers said that critically ill patients have been kept int he hallways, and at least two people have died in hallway beds. > > “We’ve had patients die in hallway beds because the nurse didn’t find they didn’t have a pulse until it was too late,” the physician told CNN, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “Each nurse has so many patients that by the time they come to check on their next one, there is a chance that patient may not have a pulse anymore.” > > Detroit has the most cases in the state, with 5,824 and 251 deaths, and the state has the third-highest number of cases in the country. > > “It’s important to understand that everyday emergency rooms all over the country face dynamic situational challenges and even more so now in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis,” a hospital spokesperson told CNN. “Like many hospital systems, the demand to care for the ever-increasing number of patients is putting a strain on our resources and staff. Surge plans are in place at our hospital to handle the increase in patient volumes to ensure we provide the safest and most appropriate care for our patients.” And patients have been sent home untreated already, or died at home; just a few weeks ago: > **[Coronavirus death toll in US likely worse than numbers say](https://abcnews.go.com/Health/coronavirus-death-toll-us-worse-numbers/story?id=70018321)** > > Experts say the more than 10,000 deaths is an undercount, full picture unknown. > [@](#): > > Now, with the public and private hospital networks in New York City overwhelmed to the point of drowning, there are no resources or time to test samples from the dead or resolve statistical problems, officials acknowledged. At the moment, hospitals in New York City are only testing for novel coronavirus among hospitalized patients. > > With limited resources reserved for the severely ill, many are dying before getting tested or while test results are pending, city officials said, and there simply is no opportunity to conduct post-mortem testing – something routinely done in normal times. > > According to Levine, the number of deaths at home in New York City has grown 10-fold since the end of last week, even as hospitalizations for trauma and other emergencies have dropped to nearly nothing. > > "Normally we have 20 to 25 deaths at home and now we are at 200 to 215,” Levine said, explaining that coronavirus would likely be the only way to explain such a spike. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/204 "2020-04-27T20:25:47Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > **The problem in NY and NJ was never an overwhelming of the health care system.** The Federal government created sufficient beds to cover it. > > The thing that killed a lot of people was a [mandate](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/coronavirus-spreads-new-york-nursing-home-forced-take-recovering-patients-n1191811) that secondary care facilities take people with the virus. In effect, they were forced to endanger and eventually kill people because they weren’t quarantined in separate facilities. From the article that you linked to, describing the reason for that policy: > [@](#): > > But as cases rapidly mounted, **hospitals became overwhelmed** , and recovering patients who didn’t require hospital-level treatment needed somewhere else to go. [my bolding in both quotes] ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/205 "2020-04-27T20:30:41Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The problem in NY and NJ was never an overwhelming of the health care system. The Federal government created sufficient beds to cover it. Do you have a cite of that being done before the news that they were overwhelmed took place? ---
**Author:** ![Isosleepy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/isosleepy/32/479_2.png) [@Isosleepy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isosleepy)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/206 "2020-04-27T20:37:31Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > This entire thread is an ad hominem, with its implication that all of us want other people to sacrifice, but not sacrifice ourselves. You start off suggesting that we’re unwilling to go broke because that would mean personal sacrifice, implying that we’re hypocrites. When I and others point out that going broke won’t make things better, you shift to some making the world’s widest argument, an argument that applies to nearly every problem on the planet: that we could spend some of our money to fix it, and because we don’t, we still must be hypocrites. > > If you’re interested in a genuine discussion, this dumpster fire of a thread isn’t the way to go about it. Exactly this. I will lose about 50% of my compensation for the next year at least, quite likely longer. My job is also becoming increasingly less secure as the shutdown goes on, and I may lose it altogether. If I could throw a switch and end the shutdown now, I wouldn’t. But I don’t have such a switch, so me saying this is meaningless. I do believe losing money for others to live is an acceptable trade, especially since it will ultimately be of limited duration. In the end, we know when we can turn the machines back on: it is when we can test all suspected cases, trace their contacts, and test them - and quarantine the positives. In addition, we need to be able to test for antibodies. The moment we can, we’re good to go. We can wait that long. Money can be made again, whereas resurrections are still very rare. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/207 "2020-04-27T21:19:30Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Again, logic and evidence tell us that less people die when hospitals are not overwhelmed. > > [https://www.wxyz.com/news/coronavirus/cnn-detroit-hospital-workers-say-patients-are-dying-in-the-hallways-from-covid-19](https://www.wxyz.com/news/coronavirus/cnn-detroit-hospital-workers-say-patients-are-dying-in-the-hallways-from-covid-19) Two things. First, out of the nearly 1,000,000 case in the US, there are possibly two reported cases of patients that MAY have died due to a lack of care. Two. Not the thousands that overran Italy and Spain. Two. Are two patients worth millions of jobs and the many millions more that are affected by the lockdown? Second, there simply is no guarantee that those patients would have survived even if there had been a response to them earlier. Check out the stats on the percentage of patients that die that go on ventilators. It is staggeringly high. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > And patients have been sent home untreated already, or died at home; just a few weeks ago: > > [Coronavirus death toll in US likely worse than numbers say - ABC News](https://abcnews.go.com/Health/coronavirus-death-toll-us-worse-numbers/story?id=70018321) There first part you quoted says they couldn’t test deceased patients for the virus. I’m not going to advocate for millions losing their jobs so we can test the deceased for the disease. Are you advocating it is worth costing someone their job just so we have more time to test those that died for coronavirus? The deaths at home is interesting, but is that because they couldn’t get to care or were sent home? I don’t see that as what happened. Sounds like those patients chose to stay home. What we don’t know is if they chose to stay home because they were ordered to not leave (which then we could blame the deaths on the lockdown), or because emergency response units were so overwhelmed they couldn’t get them to a care facility. The quote doesn’t attribute the deaths to lack of care because of lack of resources, just that more people are dying at home. We don’t know what caused that. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/208 "2020-04-27T21:22:18Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > I asked him, I’ll ask you. What personal responsibility would you like me to take? I don’t think you need to take “personal responsibility if the economy reopens and sick people flood hospitals. But, you expect me to take “personal responsibility” if the economy doesn’t reopen and people lose their jobs. I’ve pointed out a few times in our last couple exchanges that I don’t think I’m obligated to give up my paycheck because of my views on a public health matter. But you disagree and insist that people should put their money where their mouth is. That’s fine, I disagree, but I don’t understand why the “pro-opening” viewpoint is exempted from doing the same thing of putting a personal financial stake on their policy views. > [@](#): > > Please answer the question about what you think flattening the curve means. We can start with that. Flattening the curve means buying time to allow more resources to come to bear to lessen the costs of the pandemic. It isn’t just about “let’s not overwhelm our hospitals.” For example, the time we buy can be used to build a system to test and contact trace illness outbreaks, to more quickly isolate people who are at risk of getting sick. Or more simply, to produce way more tests to get out to doctors and labs. Or, maybe buy time to get vaccines tested and produced. I mean, Trump isn’t using any of the time that’s being bought, but that’s what a marginally functioning adult would do with a flattened curve - take action that may result in fewer deaths, not the same number of deaths over a longer period as you seem to imply. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/209 "2020-04-27T21:26:36Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > Two things. > First, out of the nearly 1,000,000 case in the US, there are possibly two reported cases of patients that MAY have died due to a lack of care. Two. Not the thousands that overran Italy and Spain. Two. Are two patients worth millions of jobs and the many millions more that are affected by the lockdown? That low number is the low number we have BECAUSE OF THE LOCKDOWN. Think of how much money we spend on lifeguards at beaches where nobody drowns. What a waste of money those lifeguards are! ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/210 "2020-04-27T21:30:03Z")
> [@Isosleepy](#): > > Exactly this. > I will lose about 50% of my compensation for the next year at least, quite likely longer. My job is also becoming increasingly less secure as the shutdown goes on, and I may lose it altogether. > If I could throw a switch and end the shutdown now, I wouldn’t. But I don’t have such a switch, so me saying this is meaningless. I do believe losing money for others to live is an acceptable trade, especially since it will ultimately be of limited duration. In the end, we know when we can turn the machines back on: it is when we can test all suspected cases, trace their contacts, and test them - and quarantine the positives. In addition, we need to be able to test for antibodies. The moment we can, we’re good to go. We can wait that long. Money can be made again, whereas resurrections are still very rare. But, see… you are one that is saying you are willing to share in the sacrifice. That is what I was asking. I hear an awful lot of people talking about how we need to continue this but until they have some skin in the game I’m not sure it is fair for them to really be saying that. If they are willing to sacrifice, too, that is a different story. And if they are willing to sacrifice, now is the time to step up. Lots of people need help. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/211 "2020-04-27T21:34:10Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > But, see… you are one that is saying you are willing to share in the sacrifice. That is what I was asking. I hear an awful lot of people talking about how we need to continue this but until they have some skin in the game I’m not sure it is fair for them to really be saying that. If they are willing to sacrifice, too, that is a different story. And if they are willing to sacrifice, now is the time to step up. Lots of people need help. I’m a state worker, and this means two things: 1. My job is safe for now. 2. My pay is in serious jeopardy in the next fiscal year. I’ve been fighting for years to improve educator salaries in my state, building up to the 2020 election cycle. Our chances of achieving meaningful funding reform are being dashed by this epidemic. So in that respect, I have skin in the game. In another sense, I DON’T WANT TO DIE. We all have skin in the game when it’s a pandemic. And I don’t want my elderly parents to die, and it’s grotesque for you to suggest that people don’t have skin in the game just because maybe their jobs are currently not threatened. As for whether I’m donating money–I don’t discuss that, because touting that shit is tacky. Your suggestion that a person can only advocate for listening to the policy advice of epidemiologists if they’re willing to go broke in the process is absolutely foolish. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/212 "2020-04-27T21:44:05Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > I hear an awful lot of people talking about how we need to continue this but until they have some skin in the game I’m not sure it is fair for them to really be saying that. If they are willing to sacrifice, too, that is a different story. And if they are willing to sacrifice, now is the time to step up. Lots of people need help. “I hear an awful lot of people talking about how we need to stop this but until they have some skin in the game I’m not sure it is fair for them to really be saying that. If they are willing to sacrifice, too, that is a different story. And if they are willing to sacrifice, now is the time to step up. Lots of people need help.“ ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/213 "2020-04-27T21:48:04Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I don’t think you need to take “personal responsibility if the economy reopens and sick people flood hospitals. But, you expect me to take “personal responsibility” if the economy doesn’t reopen and people lose their jobs. > > I’ve pointed out a few times in our last couple exchanges that I don’t think I’m obligated to give up my paycheck because of my views on a public health matter. But you disagree and insist that people should put their money where their mouth is. That’s fine, I disagree, but I don’t understand why the “pro-opening” viewpoint is exempted from doing the same thing of putting a personal financial stake on their policy views. I see what you are saying. We view flattening the curve differently. As I said, the information I’ve seen says the same number are going to get sick. It’s been cited. I don’t think the marginal number that will get better treatment developed in the next month is worth the millions of jobs, but I can see a reasonable argument being made that it is a significant number. There really is no way to know that, so I respect your opinion that is a justification for keeping the lockdown. I happen to disagree on that point. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Flattening the curve means buying time to allow more resources to come to bear to lessen the costs of the pandemic. It isn’t just about “let’s not overwhelm our hospitals.” For example, the time we buy can be used to build a system to test and contact trace illness outbreaks, to more quickly isolate people who are at risk of getting sick. Or more simply, to produce way more tests to get out to doctors and labs. Or, maybe buy time to get vaccines tested and produced. Got it. We disagree on what flattening the curve means, which is why I was asking about it earlier. Obviously my thought process hinges on that. When there is information out there that says flattening the curve is about reducing deaths, I’ll certainly change my thoughts on what we should be doing. I disagree trying to buy enough time for a vaccine is a realistic view, but I’ve stated that before. > [@Ravenman](#): > > I mean, Trump isn’t using any of the time that’s being bought, but that’s what a marginally functioning adult would do with a flattened curve - take action that may result in fewer deaths, not the same number of deaths over a longer period as you seem to imply. We certainly agree on that. I feel like this entire mess could have been GREATLY reduced with effective, coordinated leadership. I can’t imagine how much better off we’d be right now if we had that. It is inexcusable for us to be in the position we are in right now. I really wish the Senate would do its job. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/214 "2020-04-27T21:48:19Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Do you have a cite of that being done before the news that they were overwhelmed took place? What difference does it make? ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/215 "2020-04-27T22:04:46Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I’m a state worker, and this means two things: > > 1. My job is safe for now. > 2. My pay is in serious jeopardy in the next fiscal year. > > I’ve been fighting for years to improve educator salaries in my state, building up to the 2020 election cycle. Our chances of achieving meaningful funding reform are being dashed by this epidemic. > > So in that respect, I have skin in the game. > > In another sense, I DON’T WANT TO DIE. We all have skin in the game when it’s a pandemic. And I don’t want my elderly parents to die, and it’s grotesque for you to suggest that people don’t have skin in the game just because maybe their jobs are currently not threatened. > > As for whether I’m donating money–I don’t discuss that, because touting that shit is tacky. Your suggestion that a person can only advocate for listening to the policy advice of epidemiologists if they’re willing to go broke in the process is absolutely foolish. Serious question here, but I imagine you’ll jump on me for asking. When was the last time a state worker had to take a cut in pay? It is not something I ever hear of. I don’t want to die, either. I don’t want anyone to die. If I thought doing all this was saving a significant number of lives I’d be all over it. I have been supporting it up until now. Unfortunately we are facing the reality that many are going to die. I’m working on the assumption that the number of people infected will be the same, with or without lockdowns. As long as we keep from overwhelming the healthcare system, under that assumption, the number that will die from this will be the same no matter what we do. The first part is not baseless assertion. It’s been cited. The second part is open to some debate as Ravenman and others have said. Maybe a delay can help develop protocols to help. But is that offset by the number that die because of a lack of healthcare? Those are open questions. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/216 "2020-04-27T22:07:23Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > “I hear an awful lot of people talking about how we need to stop this but until they have some skin in the game I’m not sure it is fair for them to really be saying that. If they are willing to sacrifice, too, that is a different story. And if they are willing to sacrifice, now is the time to step up. Lots of people need help.“ I’m certainly willing to risk getting sick and all that entails. What other sacrifices are you looking for? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/217 "2020-04-27T22:38:55Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > As I said, the information I’ve seen says the same number are going to get sick. It’s been cited… When there is information out there that says flattening the curve is about reducing deaths, I’ll certainly change my thoughts on what we should be doing. [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2007263](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2007263) “ That choice begins with a forceful, focused campaign to eradicate Covid-19 in the United States. The aim is not to flatten the curve; the goal is to crush the curve.” This editorial lays out an actual strategy. I think the term “flattening the curve” was useful in getting people to understand that their behavior has an effect on a virus. But “flatten the curve” by itself isn’t a strategy. It’s small thinking when we should be thinking big. I mean, when you think of someone who talks about “flattening the curve,” do you think of someone who thinks “let’s make an almost insignificant reduction in the number of deaths! Hell yeah!” instead of someone who wants to make a big impact in the number of deaths? I think you might be not thinking this through the whole way. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/218 "2020-04-27T22:43:53Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > I’m certainly willing to risk getting sick and all that entails. What other sacrifices are you looking for? Dude, I’ve explained it like three times already. I’m starting to think you are looking at this debate as “you’re either with me or against me” and not reading what I’ve repeatedly written, as your questions don’t seem to pertain very closely to what I think I’ve been clear about. Could be that my writing in unclear, but I’ve gone to pains to be as direct as possible in what I’ve been saying. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/219 "2020-04-27T23:04:00Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2007263](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2007263) > > “ That choice begins with a forceful, focused campaign to eradicate Covid-19 in the United States. The aim is not to flatten the curve; the goal is to crush the curve.” > > This editorial lays out an actual strategy. I think the term “flattening the curve” was useful in getting people to understand that their behavior has an effect on a virus. But “flatten the curve” by itself isn’t a strategy. It’s small thinking when we should be thinking big. > > I mean, when you think of someone who talks about “flattening the curve,” do you think of someone who thinks “let’s make an almost insignificant reduction in the number of deaths! Hell yeah!” instead of someone who wants to make a big impact in the number of deaths? > > I think you might be not thinking this through the whole way. [WebMD](https://www.webmd.com/lung/qa/what-is-flattening-the-curve) [CNBC Article on it.](In contrast to a steep rise of coronavirus infections, a more gradual uptick of cases will see the same number of people get infected, but without overburdening the health-care system at any one time.) In contrast to a steep rise of coronavirus infections, a more gradual uptick of cases will see the same number of people get infected, but without overburdening the health-care system at any one time. The opinion piece you cited is from a doctor who has a goal of crushing the curve. A laudable goal, but did you read his 6 steps to try and accomplish it? Not the least bit practical. Sorry, that is not a cite I can see as one that is redefining how the use of “flattening the curve” has been used by others. He isn’t redefining the term, he is saying the goal needs to be different. That is a huge difference. Your second post about how you’ve posted many times on what sacrifices you think I should make, I assume you mean that if people get sick at work if we open things up that businesses should be financially responsible for it. You’ve said that it need to be a “if I need to sacrifice, you need to as well if you want your policy implemented.” I’ve answered, I thought, but I guess _I_ wasn’t clear. Company being open is the way things run by default. Saying companies should be held responsible for being getting sick is not something that has ever been done. Unless you are now proposing companies will also need to be responsible if employees/customers get the flu. Is that what you are saying? Also, I’ve addressed this by saying that if flattening the curve means the infection rate doesn’t change (again, if that is true and I understand you dispute that), then it make no sense to hold a company responsible for something that is inevitable and unpreventable by anything the company can realistically do. I apologize if that isn’t what you are saying and if I’m missing it still. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/220 "2020-04-27T23:11:00Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > I’m certainly willing to risk getting sick and all that entails. What other sacrifices are you looking for? Will everyone you come in contact with know how willing you are to take risks…and how willing you are to risk _their_ health? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471.md?page=12)