What do you feel is stupid about the response to this? 1% is a lot of people. The whole point of social distancing and staying at home is to not overwhelm the healthcare system and to give more time to develop proper care procedures.
Playing devil's advocate for a moment, 1% would be approximately the same number of deaths we get in a typical year. Slightly more, yes, but some number of the COVID deaths are probably people that had a high likelihood of dying this year anyway, so it seems like an okay estimate.
In that case we are doubling our deaths for a year. Very significant, but in the grand scheme of things it poses no real danger to the species. I haven't decided if I agree with the position that collapsing the economy is worse than letting those deaths happen, but I understand how someone could feel that way. Ask me again after I lose my cushy software job because it's a luxury companies can no longer afford with nobody buying anything.
And yet you did not address the issue that the health care systems will collapse. Why are you (and many others) ignoring that outcome?
Everyone seems to get tied up in the % of fatalities. Debating those numbers are a waste of energy, everyone is just cherry-picking numbers that support their own arguments. But we know for a fact that without containment measures (and even with them), this virus can result in the health care system getting overwhelmed and possibly collapsing.
This has a number of impacts, 1) Health care workers will die at a much higher rate than normal. This will have lasting impacts. 2) Anyone who needs health care for any reason will be in trouble (cancer patients, diabetes patients, pregnant women, accidents, etc...). I read somewhere that ~30% of home births require emergency hospitalization. How would our economy do if ~30% of pregnant mothers died during child birth? 3). Even without government mandated shut-downs, people will reduce economic activity to avoid the risk of getting COVID or getting into an accident that would require a hospital visit. Many companies were cancelling events and implementing WFH policies before local governments required it.
This isn't really an either/or option. The economy is going to take a massive hit regardless of the actions we take. But by implementing shut-downs we can save lives and also potentially get back to normal business faster than we would otherwise.
I'm in the fashion industry right now, I get the layoff worries. But, okay, worst case, I get laid off and then I get a less cushy job in an industry that's less affected. Maybe I draw down my savings for a couple of months before I find one. It's not the end of the world. That's a major benefit of having a skillset as portable as ours.
I'd definitely rather risk that than risk a couple million people dying over the course of a few months - 1% of 70% of 320M, and that's just in the US. What effect on the economy do you expect would come of that?
> What effect on the economy do you expect would come of that?
On the economy? Very little. Most of the people dying are not in the job market any more nor are they big consumers. It might even reduce the load slightly on Social Security and Medicare.
No, the risk of letting a couple million extra people die this year is a social/moral one, not an economic one IMO.
Even in countries with no lockdown in place, economic activity is way down.
For instance in Sweden, at least when I read about it a few days ago, restaurants and everything were still open.
If I remember correctly, they had between 10-20% of the usual activity.
Even if it's not mandated, people don't want to take the risk, either for others or for themselves.
All of this to say: I don't think the options are between close the economy to save people (at least short term), and don't close the economy and bear the hit.
The latest one is not an option, the economy will mostly shut down by itself
>I'd definitely rather risk that than risk a couple million people dying over the course of a few months - 1% of 70% of 320M, and that's just in the US. What effect on the economy do you expect would come of that?
A hugely positive one because the deaths are for people who no longer work and generally are net drains on the economy, with either multiple diseases, old age or some other disability.
The effect of wealth transfer between generations alone would be amazing, with 20-40 year olds inheriting housing for the first time since the 90s in large numbers.
> I haven't decided if I agree with the position that collapsing the economy is worse than letting those deaths happen
Have you considered the position that a collapsed economy is inevitable due to deaths? Or that it would lead to less pollution, saving lives (although who knows what the net-net would be)?
7M people die annually from air pollution, according to the WHO. Early estimates of pollution reduction are in the 20-50% range; even a sustained 5% reduction is 350k lives saved/year.
