Ask HN: Is UK government insane or genius?

Post by haunter » Sat, Mar 14, 2020, 10:50 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #214

haunter wrote: post #54

I like tomp's comment from a few days ago, feels like the UK playing a game theory https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22555643 1) no pandemic, no action -> government was "right", avoided wasting money -> reelected 2) no pandemic, action -> government was "wrong", wasted a lot of money, damaged the economy, inconvenienced the lives of the population -> voted out 3) pandemic, no action -> government was "wrong", cau…

Nah, that was the thinking before the pandemic, when "action" was either close the borders and crash the economy, or not and hope that nothing happens. Now, I think the following consequences need to be taken into account: (1) politicians have very little skin in the game (given they have priority access to hospitals, security, flights, ...) (2) the only skin in the game is next election, which in the UK won't happen…

Post by knzhou » Sat, Mar 14, 2020, 10:51 PM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #262

The UK approach is highly interesting. It's assuming that a government telling people to social distance themselves is highly effective. You then direct the elderly to social distance themselves; they are mostly protected from the virus; it runs rampant through the general population; and after a two months of relatively mild, mass cases among the young, you've effectively built a herd immunity firewall around the el…

Post by theseadroid » Sat, Mar 14, 2020, 10:52 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #57

Scientifically, yes. Politically, suicide. Herd immunity is what you hope for once the infection has gone through the population. To the extent that they try to build it by telling people they must be infected with it (questionable, and arguably a misinterpretation of public statements) it will be perceived as an attempt to cull the lower classes for the benefit of the ruling ones.

Post by js2 » Sat, Mar 14, 2020, 10:53 PM UTC

codeulike wrote: post #231

knzhou wrote: post #209

Their reasoning is that if the only things you can do are China-style lockdown or nothing, then the disease will just resume exponentially growing the second lockdown ends, so it's pointless to do it at all. While that may be technically right (under some optimistic, unverified assumptions, e.g. no reinfection), it's a false dichotomy. Singapore, Hong Kong, and South Korea aren't under lockdown, they're stopping the…

But where is South Korea going with its strategy - are they going to keep doing that forever? And whats China's long term strategy? Wuhan is still locked down.

Post by elliekelly » Sat, Mar 14, 2020, 10:54 PM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #186

enraged_camel wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very wrong. While you yourself may not have contact with old people, you can still act as a vector and spread it to someone who does.

Indeed, which is why it's on them not to go out. So long as nobody who has contact with old folks goes out, we're basically doing the UK plan ad-hoc. The rule shouldn't be "nobody go out" the rule should be "nobody with exposure to the vulnerable should go out" -- and if they do, they're being totally irresponsible. I, however, am not, and I'm supporting the local economy.