Thanks. I hope you’ll realize that a lot more people have skin in the game than you anticipated. Really, though, it’s not just through my career that I have skin in the game. It’s because I’m alive that I have skin in the game.
Here, you’re arguing with epidemiologists, poorly. Folks have explained to you repeatedly in this thread the nuances you’re missing (mainly about logistics and severity of illness, but also about ability to isolate and track illness), and you’re just not understanding. I’ll try one more time, but recognize that I’m no expert: if you really want to understand this epidemic, you need to read what epidemiologists are saying.
If we continue social distancing, we have time to set up logistical procedures like increased testing and contact tracing measures.
If we reopen AFTER these measures are implemented, we can continue flattening the curve even after we open.
If we continue flattening the curve, we drastically decrease the risk of overrunning our health care system in the summer and fall and winter and next spring.
If we continue flattening the curve, we drastically increase the chance that a vaccine will be developed quickly enough that a lot of people on the tail end of the curve never have to get sick at all.
You’ve been dismissing #3, apparently on the basis that systems haven’t been overwhelmed in the US. Again, that’s like dismissing the cost of lifeguards because so few drownings happen at the beaches where lifeguards are present. Why pay for these people, when obviously they’re not needed, and that money could be spent elsewhere?
The reason systems haven’t been overwhelmed is because we’ve been social distancing. Until we have contact-trace and testing systems in place, if we stop social distancing, #3 is extremely likely.
This thread turned out to be the shame and blame game against people who have jobs, with the OP pretending to take the moral high ground in defense of the unemployed. I was hoping it was going to become an analysis of the pros and cons of alternative approaches to dealing with the pandemic. Or at least a discussion of the different paths that the States could take.
Oh well.
At this point, several States are now opening up, some of them substantially. so I guess we’ll see how it plays out instead of guessing and pointing fingers. Or maybe that will keep on happening anyway.
About those lifeguards…
I avoided it not because it is inconvenient, but because any analogy ends up going down a rabbit hole of what means what and what other factors need to be accounted for. But you’ve brought it up multiple times so I’ll tell you why it more supports my argument than yours.
Drownings: those are the people that will be infected (or die, I guess)
Lifeguards: those are the restrictions put in place to slow down the “drownings.” More lifeguards = stricter lockdown parameters and more social distancing.
If that isn’t what you mean by those, by all means, correct it.
You bet putting lifeguards on duty cut down the drownings. The problem is that we put lifeguards every 15’ of beach because it looked like the drownings were going to be massive if we didn’t. We told Colorado to pay for it. Now that the drownings have shown themselves to be far more controllable than we first thought, people are still insisting we keep lifeguards every 15’ and we’ll make Nebraska, Oklahoma, and North Dakota pay for them. Meanwhile, many of the people that continue to be allowed to swim because there are lifeguards, aren’t paying anything. And, in the end, the SAME NUMBER OF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DROWN.
I’m not dismissing any arguments. I’m asking what are the long term (really long term) benefit to what we are doing. This is why it is so important we understand what flattening the curve means. I’ve cited multiple times where it means the same number will get infected. You can insist it mean something else, but my thoughts aren’t just things I’ve made up in my head.
I think it is foolish to think a vaccine is even months away. Not impossible, but if that is the best reason for causing millions to suffer like this you’ll need something better.
Epidemiologists that I’ve read about seem to be saying we need to get better testing and tracing. But I then ask, to what end? Is that to reduce the number infected or is that to keep from overwhelming health systems? I’ve never heard an epidemiologist say we can contain this. Have you? Because unless you contain it, the only logical conclusion is that THE SAME NUMBER OF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET INFECTED.
Your point 3 is not one I’m dismissing. It is the entire reason we needed to lockdown the way we did. You know, post lifeguards. But we aren’t even remotely close to overrunning our medical system. We have margin. In some places, huge margin. We need to be vigilant about outbreaks and be prepared in local areas to respond. But to continue to lockdown the entire country because a few areas got close to being overrun is insane.
I think there are two salient points to be discussed. How much are we at risk of overrunning medical systems and how much can we reduce the number infected. I’ve cited, multiple times, that the latter is 0. If that changes, then I’m in agreement we can discuss the change in how much we reopen. The former is harder to know. We looked at Italy and Spain and say, “Uh, oh! We better act drastically and fast.” We sorta did, and it worked. Now is the time to reassess how much of a response is truly needed.
My OP demonstrates that the benefits we could once agree on or the risk to not acting were demonstrable. They are no longer so. If you want to increase unemployment benefits, are you going to pay for it? Or is that something else someone else needs to pay for.
I answered the epidemiologists statement in my other post. If you can point to epidemiologists who are saying that flattening the curve means fewer will be infected, I’ll listen to that argument. Until then, you can scream all you want about what is being said by epidemiologists, but until the benefit is fewer infected, there are no real benefits.
What the hell does this mean? If I’m right that the lockdowns should stop and others are calling for continued lockdowns without being willing to pay for them and are asking others to pay for them, they aren’t hypocrites? The definition of a hypocrite is someone who says one thing but does another. “Sacrifices must be made.” “Are you going to?” “No, of course not!” = hypocrite.
That would be a fantastic reason! I’d be behind that, to an extent.
How many lives are you going to save? How many are you going to kill while trying to save those? How many families are you willing to bankrupt while trying to save those lives?
One of the big sticking points in the thread at this point is what flattening the curve really means. I’ve posted several links that say it means the same number of people will get infected. So, by and large, the same number of people are going to die.
If locking down will save hundreds of thousands of lives, it is probably worth it. I’ve yet to see any evidence that is true. It may save lives in the short term, but I’m taking saving lives after all this is said and done.
Well that is still a whole load of an ignorant talking point. You are still missing that taxes have been mentioned many times before to you, we are all in this together in the end by paying our taxes, taxes that IMHO are too low nowadays and we already do know who are the ones that would like to keep it that way.
The hypocrisy argument is orthogonal. If the lockdowns are useless, it doesn’t matter that your hypocrisy argument is meritless, the lockdowns should still stop. If the lockdowns are saving lives, it also doesn’t matter that your hypocrisy argument is meritless, the lockdowns should still continue.
Doctors keep telling us we should get more exercise and eat right. Heart attacks and cancer are the top killers of people in this country. Not to mention the obesity epidemic and associated illnesses, like diabetes. Just think of how many lives we can save and how much better off we’d all be if we hired a personal chef and trainer for everyone in this country. Pay for it? You are concerned that millions of other people are going to be out of work while you get a personal chef and trainer? That is absurd! They don’t mind paying for it because it benefits all of us.
Actually, simple logic again, more than 50 percent of people that drown are children. The ones that are rescued are more weary of entering bodies of water, more cautious or learn to swim. Less likely to drown tomorrow.
This is, again, incorrect. But you’ve had this explained to you over and over and over and over, and there are plenty of resources available to explain why this is so. I don’t especially think I can explain it any better this time, so I’m gonna live with the fact that you can’t, or won’t, understand this point.
…you are aware that saving lives is one of the reasons for the lockdown?
The projections are hardly a secret. 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. 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.”
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?
And if you don’t think that question is fair, then I suggest you read the question you just asked me again. This isn’t a binary situation. You can address the financial crisis **and **try and save lives at the same time. You aren’t restricted to choosing one or the other.
I live in New Zealand.
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.
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.
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.
This might be a helpful entry point into your misunderstanding. Why don’t you post several links from epidemiologists saying that “the same number of people are going to die,” if that’s what it means?
If you can’t, why do you think epidemiologists aren’t saying this?
You’ve been shown the cites multiple times. The number infected is the same. The fact you are choosing to ignore that is not really something I can help you with.