# 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:** 14
**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 28, 2020, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/261 "2020-04-28T15:10:40Z")
The fascinating thing here is that cmosdes has looked very superficially at some intro articles to flattening the curve, and believes they have discovered a crucial dynamic that all the epidemiologists around the world advocating lockdowns haven’t noticed. Rather than think, “Huh, I guess I’m missing something,” it’s easier for cmosdes to believe they’re smarter than the sum total of the epidemiological community. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2020, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/262 "2020-04-28T15:39:08Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …you are aware that saving lives is one of the reasons for the lockdown? > > The projections are [hardly a secret](https://www.geekwire.com/2020/coronavirus-modelers-raise-projected-u-s-death-toll-lengthen-timeline-state-state-recovery/). And we know that there has been an excess of deaths above normal levels that haven’t been attributed but are likely to [have been caused by Covid-19.](https://www.ft.com/content/6bd88b7d-3386-4543-b2e9-0d5c6fac846c) But we haven’t seen a spike in deaths attributed to the lockdown. So until we do start to see a spike I don’t think we have to worry about “How many are you going to kill while trying to save those.” The spike in deaths due to unemployment is not likely to come. It is likely to be a long, drawn out event because of a lack of insurance for people in the US. It probably won’t show up on a graph like you are asking for. The projected death toll is around 74k from what you linked. When I quoted that in another thread I was told I was daft (paraphrasing) but here you are quoting it to me from the source I used previously. Too bad you weren’t there to defend that number in another thread. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > As for the bankruptcy question: this is your thread, I think you are better placed to answer that question. What value are you placing on a human life? If you had the option of either losing the person you loved the most in your life, or going bankrupt, which would you choose? Too many variables to answer the question in general. My dad is 90. Decent health, but he has no desire for intubation any any resuscitation. I doubt I’d spend much on his care since he himself has said he doesn’t want it. For anyone else close to me, it would highly depend on the circumstances. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > And this statement is simply nonsensical. There is no basis to this assumption. We only had \*\*one \*\*new case in the country today. That was after a five week lockdown. Today was the first day of a reduced Lockdown, and in two weeks after another incubation period we will hopefully reduce the lockdown again. If you think we can contain it, that goes against what I’ve been hearing. Without containment, it will continue to spread until something else stops it. We can develop a vaccine, but that is very likely a long way away. Perhaps we can keep it slowed until a vaccine is developed, but given the likely time until a vaccine is available that will be a tough path. Not out of the question, just difficult. Very difficult. If the statement is nonsensical, you’ll need to propose a mechanism by which it is contained and no new infections are allowed to happen. The vaccine option is possible, I just see as an unlikely option. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > A lockdown done properly and effectively can stop this virus in its tracks. Effective social distancing followed up by massive testing and a regime of contact tracing while protecting your medical practitioners is the key. > > Do all of those things and you can start to open up the economy again, and you can do that in a way that will save lives. Assuming that “by and large, the same number of people are going to die” is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard and isn’t supported by any of the evidence. It will only come true if you \*\*don’t \*\*do the four things I just mentioned. Not supported by any evidence? Seems over the top. We know for a fact some people are going to die if they get infected. Absent your assertion that the disease can be completely contained, the disease will continue to spread. It has been cited multiple times the same number of people are gong to be infected. Treatments can be developed to help those that might have otherwise died, but unless you feel that represents a significant portion of the people, it doesn’t change significantly the number of susceptible people that die if they are infected. It certainly can help some, but I’d have serious doubts it is a significant number. We can try to alter the profile of those infected, keeping it away from the most vulnerable, which might have some impact on the death rate. But when we are talking about upwards of 70% of the people will end up infected, there isn’t a lot of room to alter that profile. I could be wrong, but it isn’t baseless. Honestly, the concept that we can contain this is far less supported by any evidence than anything I’ve said. I don’t disagree we have a shot at reducing deaths. I just disagree it represents a significant number of deaths. I’d put 100,000 as a significant number, especially when we are balancing that at millions of other lives significantly impacted by these decisions to try and save that 100,000. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > If you’ve “yet to see any evidence” I think the only reason for that is because you intentionally don’t want to see it. You can look at Australia, New Zealand, Vietnam. All starting to reopen their economy again, all locked down early and hard, Australia had 84 deaths, New Zealand 19 deaths and Vietnam (last I looked) had zero deaths. If you can’t see the evidence can I suggest you look a bit harder. I never questioned that we can reduce deaths in the short term. If there is evidence those countries are going to suffer fewer deaths overall than they otherwise would have absent the lockdowns, I’d like to see it. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2020, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/263 "2020-04-28T15:50:05Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > infected!=dead While true, you need to account for who is going to be saved by doing all this. As I posted to Banquet Bear, there are some thoughts I’m basing this on. We agree that some people, if they get infected, will die. We can also agree, I hope, that some people if they get infected might survive if we can develop protocols to better treat them. Finally, there no doubt that a vaccine changes all of this. I’ve talked about a vaccine before. I have a hard time accepting a treatment that is 12 to 18 months away will significantly alter the death count. If you disagree, that’s fine, and that is where we can leave it. If you are willing to bet other people’s lives and livelihoods on that chance… I hope one day you get the opportunity to explain to them why you did that. Developing new protocols will most definitely help. It will absolutely help some patients that might not otherwise have survived. I’ve no idea if it is realistic to think that might represent thousands or hundreds. So that is an unknown for which we must decide how much we are willing to spend to hope for that. Altering the profile of those infected is another way to change whether someone infected will die. Keeping it away from those most vulnerable will prevent more deaths. Which then raises the question of just how good a job can we do, long term, in keeping it away from the most vulnerable. If only 5% need to be infected to stop this thing, we have a really, really good shot at keeping it away from the most vulnerable. But we are looking at upwards of 70%. You really think you can push a significant number of the most vulnerable into that 30%? Good luck. ---
**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 28, 2020, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/264 "2020-04-28T15:58:17Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > While true, you need to account for who is going to be saved by doing all this. > > As I posted to Banquet Bear, there are some thoughts I’m basing this on. > > We agree that some people, if they get infected, will die. We can also agree, I hope, that some people if they get infected might survive if we can develop protocols to better treat them. Finally, there no doubt that a vaccine changes all of this. > I’ve talked about a vaccine before. I have a hard time accepting a treatment that is 12 to 18 months away will significantly alter the death count. If you disagree, that’s fine, and that is where we can leave it. If you are willing to bet other people’s lives and livelihoods on that chance… I hope one day you get the opportunity to explain to them why you did that. You’re betting people’s lives on the chance that they wouldn’t survive anyway. It’s a gamble either way. The difference is, I’m basing my bet off epidemiological advice. You’re basing yours off what you have a hard time accepting. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2020, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/265 "2020-04-28T16:03:47Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > You’re betting people’s lives on the chance that they wouldn’t survive anyway. It’s a gamble either way. The difference is, I’m basing my bet off epidemiological advice. You’re basing yours off what you have a hard time accepting. Eh, not an unfair statement. I can live with that. ---
**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 28, 2020, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/266 "2020-04-28T16:26:02Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > I never questioned that we can reduce deaths in the short term. If there is evidence those countries are going to suffer fewer deaths overall than they otherwise would have absent the lockdowns, I’d like to see it. > **[How U.S. Cities Tried to Halt the Spread of the 1918 Spanish Flu | HISTORY](https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-pandemic-response-cities)** > > How U.S. city officials responded to the Spanish flu played a critical role in how many residents lived—and died. > [@](#): > > As civilian infection rates climbed day by day, Krusen refused to cancel the upcoming Liberty Loan parade scheduled for September 28. Barry writes that infectious disease experts warned Krusen that the parade, which was expected to attract several hundred thousand Philadelphians, would be “a ready-made inflammable mass for a conflagration.” > > Krusen insisted that the parade must go on, since it would raise millions of dollars in war bonds, and he played down the danger of spreading the disease. On September 28, a patriotic procession of soldiers, Boy Scouts, marching bands and local dignitaries stretched two miles through downtown Philadelphia with sidewalks packed with spectators. > > Just 72 hours after the parade, all 31 of Philadelphia’s hospitals were full and 2,600 people were dead by the end of the week. > > George Dehner, author of Global Flu and You: A History of Influenza, says that while Krusen’s decision to hold the parade was absolutely a “bad idea,” Philadelphia’s infection rate was already accelerating by late September. > > “The Liberty Loan parade probably threw gasoline on the fire,” says Dehner, “but it was already cooking along pretty well.” > > The public health response in St. Louis couldn’t have been more different. Even before the first case of Spanish flu had been reported in the city, health commissioner Dr. Max Starkloff had local physicians on high alert and wrote an editorial in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch about the importance of avoiding crowds. > > When a flu outbreak at a nearby military barracks first spread into the St. Louis civilian population, Starkloff wasted no time closing the schools, shuttering movie theaters and pool halls, and banning all public gatherings. There was pushback from business owners, but Starkloff and the mayor held their ground. When infections swelled as expected, thousands of sick residents were treated at home by a network of volunteer nurses. > > Dehner says that because of these precautions, St. Louis public health officials were able to “flatten the curve” and keep the flu epidemic from exploding overnight as it did in Philadelphia. > > “It’s that crush of new cases in such a short period of time that completely overwhelms a city’s capacity,” says Dehner. “That magnifies whatever problems you’re already having.” > > According to a 2007 analysis of Spanish flu death records, the peak mortality rate in St. Louis was only one-eighth of Philadelphia’s death rate at its worst. It is not only lives, but the evidence points at the stronger pandemic response getting us a better economic recovery. > **[The data speak: Stronger pandemic response yields better economic recovery](https://news.mit.edu/2020/pandemic-health-response-economic-recovery-0401)** > > A study the 1918-1919 flu pandemic suggests taking care of public health first generates a stronger economic rebound later. The study, co-authored by MIT economist Emil Verner, finds cities that acted more emphatically to limit social and civic... > [@](#): > > Looking at the effect across 43 cities, however, the researchers found significantly different economic outcomes, linked to different social distancing policies. The best-performing cities included Oakland, California; Omaha, Nebraska; Portland, Oregon; and Seattle, which all enforced above average duration and intensity of social distancing in 1918. Cities that instituted significantly fewer than days of social distancing in 1918, and saw manufacturing struggle afterward, include Philadelphia; St. Paul, Minnesota; and Lowell, Massachusetts. > > “What we find is that areas that were more severely affected in the 1918 flu pandemic see a sharp and persistent decline in a number of measures of economic activity, including manufacturing employment, manufacturing output, bank loans, and the stock of consumer durables,” Verner says. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2020, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/267 "2020-04-28T16:32:36Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > It is the difference between an ignorant retort and one that has validity, your failure is that timelines are being ignored and IIRC I noticed in another thread that the number of beds you talk about was late to come. Sorry, no, that’s not true. We have never run out of beds in the US. We haven’t scratched the surface of running out of beds. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2020, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/268 "2020-04-28T16:44:33Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > The spike in deaths due to unemployment is not likely to come. It is likely to be a long, drawn out event because of a lack of insurance for people in the US. It probably won’t show up on a graph like you are asking for. …you are making assertions without evidence. I don’t think we should worry about something that isn’t going to spike, that would be so statistically insignificant that it “wouldn’t even show up on a graph.” You’ve literally torpedoed your own argument. > [@](#): > > The projected death toll is around 74k from what you linked. When I quoted that in another thread I was told I was daft (paraphrasing) but here you are quoting it to me from the source I used previously. Too bad you weren’t there to defend that number in another thread. What other people may or may not have called you in another thread is completely irrelevant to what we are discussing here. I’m not going to rely on your recollection of what was said somewhere else on the board: that would be unfair to the person you were debating. And you do realize that 74K is a projection? The question you asked was “how many lives are you willing to save?” We know how many you are **projected to lose**. I’d be willing to lockdown to the point where testing is ramped up, where there is a comprehensive contact tracing regime, that medical staff are protected and it looks like the spread is being bought under control. > [@](#): > > Too many variables to answer the question in general. My dad is 90. Decent health, but he has no desire for intubation any any resuscitation. I doubt I’d spend much on his care since he himself has said he doesn’t want it. For anyone else close to me, it would highly depend on the circumstances. So excuse my bluntness: but is that a yes, you are willing to sacrifice your dad to avoid bankruptcy, or no, you aren’t willing to sacrifice your dad to avoid bankruptcy? > [@](#): > > If you think we can contain it, that goes against what I’ve been hearing. Without containment, it will continue to spread until something else stops it. Why should I put any faith in “what you’ve been hearing?” I’ve cited three countries that have implemented lockdowns that have kept the spread of the coronavirus under control. The fact that countries \*\*have \*\*contained it goes against “everything you’ve heard.” > [@](#): > > If the statement is nonsensical, you’ll need to propose a mechanism by which it is contained and no new infections are allowed to happen. The vaccine option is possible, I just see as an unlikely option. I don’t need to propose jack-shit. The claim “by and large, the same number of people are going to die” is nonsensical because if you implement effective social distancing, ramp up the testing, have an effective contact tracing regime and protect your healthcare workers you can reduce the number of people infected and lower the number of people that die from Covid-19. There is no inevitability to the death toll. You aren’t fated to have "the same number of people die. > [@](#): > > Not supported by any evidence? Seems over the top. Lets see if you bring any evidence to the discussion then. > [@](#): > > We know for a fact some people are going to die if they get infected. Absent your assertion that the disease can be completely contained, the disease will continue to spread. It has been cited multiple times the same number of people are gong to be infected. Treatments can be developed to help those that might have otherwise died, but unless you feel that represents a significant portion of the people, it doesn’t change significantly the number of susceptible people that die if they are infected. It certainly can help some, but I’d have serious doubts it is a significant number. We can try to alter the profile of those infected, keeping it away from the most vulnerable, which might have some impact on the death rate. But when we are talking about upwards of 70% of the people will end up infected, there isn’t a lot of room to alter that profile. I could be wrong, but it isn’t baseless. Honestly, the concept that we can contain this is far less supported by any evidence than anything I’ve said. Nope. Not a word of evidence. Just a giant wall of text full of unsupported assumptions that completely ignores my salient point. My point stands. > [@](#): > > I don’t disagree we have a shot at reducing deaths. I just disagree it represents a significant number of deaths. I’d put 100,000 as a significant number, especially when we are balancing that at millions of other lives significantly impacted by these decisions to try and save that 100,000. Of course it isn’t significant: **to you**. Apparently you are willing to let your own father die to avoid bankruptcy. How you value life and how the rest of us posting in this thread value life are clearly two very different things. > [@](#): > > I never questioned that we can reduce deaths in the short term. If there is evidence those countries are going to suffer fewer deaths overall than they otherwise would have absent the lockdowns, I’d like to see it. I think I know where we can find your position on this [graph](https://twitter.com/SiouxsieW/status/1254887079680462849). The projections prior to lockdown were again no secret. That we both flattened then stomped the curve are a matter of public record. When we are dealing with projections the “evidence” you are looking for comes down to whether or not you believe the projections. I do believe the projections and I think the fact that we locked down early and hard probably saved thousands of lives. We’ve [eliminated](https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/27/asia/new-zealand-elimination-coronavirus-jacinda-ardern-intl/index.html)the virus here. 2000 [tests](https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-current-situation/covid-19-current-cases#lab)yesterday and only 1 new case. Our economy is opening up again. What more evidence do you need? ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2020, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/269 "2020-04-28T17:06:54Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > We’ve eliminated the virus here. 2000 tests yesterday and only 1 new case. Our economy is opening up again. > > What more evidence do you need? That is awesome. Let’s hope it holds. It would give a great blueprint for the rest of us to follow. It will definitely be something to watch over the next several months and into the end of the year. ---
**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 28, 2020, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/270 "2020-04-28T18:15:05Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Sorry, no, that’s not true. We have never run out of beds in the US. We haven’t scratched the surface of running out of beds. > **[Photos show bodies piled up and stored in vacant rooms at Detroit hospital -...](https://whdh.com/news/photos-show-bodies-piled-up-and-stored-in-vacant-rooms-at-detroit-hospital/)** > > (CNN) — Photos shared among emergency room staff at Sinai-Grace Hospital in Detroit show bodies being stored in vacant hospital rooms and piled on topRead More > [@](#): > > Two other emergency room workers confirm the photos are an accurate portrayal of the scene taking place at the hospital during early April, during one 12-hour shift they describe as overwhelming. > > The ER workers spoke to CNN on the condition of anonymity out of concern for their jobs. > > The two sources tell CNN that at least one room, which is typically used for studies on sleeping habits, was used to store bodies because morgue staff did not work at night, and the morgue was full. > > “All I know is we ran out of beds to keep our patients on so we couldn’t spare any for the bodies,” said one ER worker, who witnessed the bodies in the room. > **[A week in the life of a night nurse treating coronavirus patients in New York...](https://www.businessinsider.com/a-week-of-a-coronavirus-nurse-at-new-york-presbyterian-2020-4)** > > Business Insider followed a nurse at NewYork-Presbyterian, the state's top hospital for 19 straight years, for five shifts over calls and texts. > [@](#): > > Business Insider followed one nurse who works in New York-Presbyterian Hospital for one week, or five night shifts, using calls and text messages. In 2019, US News and World Report ranked New York-Presbyterian Hospital No. 5 in the US and No. 1 in New York, its 19th-straight year at the top of the state’s ranking. > > The nurse, who wished to remain anonymous for fear of losing her job, said she had not received a standard protocol from her health system on how to treat patients who are positive for COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus. Though her hospital has enough masks and workers on the floor, she said her ICU does not have space for many critical care patients. One item that the number of beds in a surge ignores, in a surge it is more likely for them to get a shortage of doctors and nurses that can treat the worse cases, increasing the risks for the medical staff. > **['It's a fierce ongoing war': An ICU doctor who flew from Utah to New York to...](https://www.businessinsider.com/utah-doctor-describes-new-york-icus-as-coronavirus-cases-stabilize-2020-4)** > > Dr. Dixie Harris is one of 100 healthcare workers who flew from Utah to New York to help overwhelmed hospitals care for COVID-19 virus patients. > [@](#): > > At the hospital, the ICUs are full, she said. Intensive-care nurses are assigned to four patients, with another nurse not necessarily specializing in intensive care assigned to help. > > For the most part, it’s similar to her usual work in critical care, though there are more patients than usual, and the patients are sicker. The possibility of catching the virus herself, in turn requiring more substantial protective gear, was also a new hazard. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2020, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/271 "2020-04-28T18:36:40Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [Photos show bodies piled up and stored in vacant rooms at Detroit hospital - Boston News, Weather, Sports | WHDH 7News](https://whdh.com/news/photos-show-bodies-piled-up-and-stored-in-vacant-rooms-at-detroit-hospital/) > [A Week in the Life of a Coronavirus Nurse at New York-Presbyterian](https://www.businessinsider.com/a-week-of-a-coronavirus-nurse-at-new-york-presbyterian-2020-4) > One item that the number of beds in a surge ignores, in a surge it is more likely for them to get a shortage of doctors and nurses that can treat the worse cases, increasing the risks for the medical staff. > > [Utah Doctor Describes New York ICUs As Coronavirus Cases Stabilize](https://www.businessinsider.com/utah-doctor-describes-new-york-icus-as-coronavirus-cases-stabilize-2020-4) You have the worst habit of linking things without giving it any thought. The United states has the most ICU beds per capita of any nation on earth. Under no circumstances was that limit challenged anywhere in the US (as of this date). We have the transportation capacity to relocate patients from one hospital to another both within cities and to other cities if necessary. We do it every day. In my city we have a hospital dedicated to children yet we fly kids all the time to other hospitals that are deemed better for a particular medical issue. There are your extra beds. ---
**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 28, 2020, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/272 "2020-04-28T20:20:17Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The United states has the most ICU beds per capita of any nation on earth. Under no circumstances was that limit challenged anywhere in the US (as of this date). Because magic, that’s why not! Epidemiological models predicted that without lockdowns, our limits would be overwhelmed, and a lot more people would die. But then we had lockdowns all across the country, PLUS MAGIC, and we didn’t overwhelm our limits. The lockdowns clearly had no effect, because, and I cannot stress this enough, MAAAAAAGIC. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2020, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/273 "2020-04-28T20:22:23Z")
The death and hospitalization rates are where they are because of all the social distancing and quarantines. Without these, both would be much, much higher. ---
**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 28, 2020, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/274 "2020-04-28T20:30:15Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > You have the worst habit of linking things without giving it any thought. > > The United states has the most ICU beds per capita of any nation on earth. Under no circumstances was that limit challenged anywhere in the US (as of this date). We have the transportation capacity to relocate patients from one hospital to another both within cities and to other cities if necessary. We do it every day. > > In my city we have a hospital dedicated to children yet we fly kids all the time to other hospitals that are deemed better for a particular medical issue. > > There are your extra beds. You must have a magic duplicator of ICU doctors and nurses. And I defer to what the nurses and doctors reported rather than your opinion. ---
**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 28, 2020, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/275 "2020-04-28T21:21:24Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The death and hospitalization rates are where they are because of all the social distancing and quarantines. Without these, both would be much, much higher. Come on. Just because the models based on previous epidemics predicted that resources would be overwhelmed unless we engaged in social distancing is no reason to think that our engaging in social distancing helped resources not be overwhelmed. Why draw that conclusion, when there’s MAAAAAAGICCCCCCC ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2020, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/276 "2020-04-28T21:43:37Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You must have a magic duplicator of ICU doctors and nurses. And I defer to what the nurses and doctors reported rather than your opinion. No, you picked a quote that served your needs instead of thinking about it. NYC is not located on the moon. Patients can be transported to outlying hospitals. We do it all the time. We didn’t begin to tap into the ICU reserves in the US. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2020, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/277 "2020-04-28T22:13:46Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > No, you picked a quote that served your needs instead of thinking about it. NYC is not located on the moon. Patients can be transported to outlying hospitals. We do it all the time. We didn’t begin to tap into the ICU reserves in the US. Why do you suppose this didn’t happen? How would you see it playing out? NYC: Hey Mississippi, we’re out of ICU capacity, we noticed you’ve got spare, so we’ll be moving some patients over there. MS: And contaminate facilities that we may need in a few weeks? Like hell you are. Aetna: Who will be picking up the bill to transport a patient in critical condition? Trump: IDK you guys figure it out. Free market or something. Oh and you have to deport all the Mexicans first. I agree that I like the concept of a coordinated national health service led by competent political leadership. What we actually have is… not 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 28, 2020, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/278 "2020-04-28T23:20:38Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > No, you picked a quote that served your needs instead of thinking about it. NYC is not located on the moon. Patients can be transported to outlying hospitals. We do it all the time. We didn’t begin to tap into the ICU reserves in the US. We could probably just airdrop COVID patients on minibikes, for example. We do it all the time, amirite? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2020, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/279 "2020-04-29T00:20:48Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > Why do you suppose this didn’t happen? How would you see it playing out? The same way it plays out every single day in the US. It’s routine to move patients to other hospitals. Routine. But given your signature you think it’s more efficient to bring an entire ship that had to be reconfigured for viral patients then move them to hospitals near the city. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2020, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/280 "2020-04-29T00:27:10Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The same way it plays out every single day in the US. It’s routine to move patients to other hospitals. Routine. In case you haven’t noticed, nothing about the healthcare system is operating in a routine manner right now. Patient load is many times the routine level. And I notice you sidestepped the choice of who gets to choose which patients get relocated where. NYC is going to offload their overflow into MS or AL or NB, and those states are simply going to accept them in a spirit of goodwill? This cuts against everything we’ve seen about the Hunger Games style of interstate resource allocation. You can’t transport a patient to a facility that won’t accept them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471.md?page=15)