Why some governments appear not to be acting on the Covid-19 threat • Hacker News Board

Re: Why some governments appear not to be acting on the Covid-19 threat

#31

Post by tomp » Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 11:25 AM UTC

I think it's a different reason. Let's analyze the outcomes from game theory perspective, along two dimensions: virus becomes pandemic or not, and governments do something or nothing.

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", caused loss of lives and damaged the economy -> voted out

4) pandemic, action - this is the trickiest scenario, so let's consider two options:

4a) pandemic, action, it works -> government was "right", saved lives, spared the economy -> reelected

4b) pandemic, action, doesn't work -> government was "wrong", their actions failed, they're incompetent -> voted out

There's two winning scenarios, (1) and (4a), but the problem is that (4a) has vanishingly small probability of success... with little information available about the virus, and rampant globalization, it's hard to know what action makes sense, is correct and viable... Case in point is Italy, which did act in time (they banned flights from China 2 weeks before the outbreak), but still failed (i.e. their action was "correct" but not "correct enough") because their neighboring countries (e.g. Germany - not technically a neighbor but within Schengen Zone) failed to act.

So, politicians choose (1), no action, as the most likely winning scenario.

Re: Why some governments appear not to be acting on the Covid-19 threat

#32

Post by b0rsuk » Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 11:25 AM UTC

mtsr wrote: post #4

varjag wrote: post #2

Doesn't seem very well thought out. The economic cost of the first scenario (numerous deaths in peak period) would likely be the highest with the impact both on workforce and market sentiment. The impact of long tail scenarios lower because death toll would not be just redistributed but also reduced by likely an order of magnitude.

I interpreted it like this: deaths are less expensive than lost productivity. This might actually hold given the groups that are the most at risk are probably least productive: the old and the infirm.

This may explain why sexually-transmitted diseases get so much attention. They're probably the only kind of diseases that hit younger population much harder than senior citizens. THOSE are the diseases that make the rich earn less money.

From an ethical point of view, governments owe seniors the money and care, because they had worked for state prosperity. Also, if young people had more foresight, they would realize the way seniors are treated today will be more less the way they themselves will be treated. But old age and death is a depressing topic and no one likes to dwell on it.

Re: Why some governments appear not to be acting on the Covid-19 threat

#33

Post by tda » Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 11:25 AM UTC

Just a little thought experiment: If the current wisdom is actually that almost everyone will be infected eventually, wouldn't it (ignoring any ethical issues) be wiser to deliberately infect medical personnel as soon as possible, so the 5-10% of infected that need IC treatment can actually get it, before the medical system is overrun by the infected general population. In a few weeks, all doctors are immune (or deceased) so that they are much better prepared when the number of cases in the general public explodes

Re: Why some governments appear not to be acting on the Covid-19 threat

#34

Post by johnpowell » Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 11:25 AM UTC

aetherspawn wrote: post #12

Had an interesting thought earlier. Seeing as a majority of deaths are in the range 60 years and above, and very little of the casualties affect younger (working) people, from the governments POV the virus will do well to decrease the disproportionate number of older pension receivers and nursing home residents in comparison with the dwindling number of young people working and paying taxes. In other words, the gover…

You assume that the government cares about expenditures. Old people vote. So it would be in your best interest to keep the people that voted you into office alive.

Re: Why some governments appear not to be acting on the Covid-19 threat

#35

Post by dexen » Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 11:25 AM UTC

davedx wrote: post #24

dexen wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The economic cost of the first scenario (numerous deaths in peak period) would likely be the highest with the impact This is self-evident, both due to first-order and second-order effects. How the author manages to stand it on its head is amazing. It's worth noting that approaching, or exceeding, the capacity of the medical system (or any other) drives the costs sky high by and of itself - not to mention other, unre…

> There is always the slowest country to act, and its citizens would feel entitled to the kind of far-fetched speculation the author posted. Sounds about right. Belgium and the Netherlands aren't doing very much yet. One interesting fact I discovered when discussing with my wife last night that I think does shape the discussion here: In the Netherlands, seasonal influenza has ~1% mortality rate -- in the U.S. it's mo…

>In the Netherlands, seasonal influenza has ~1% mortality rate -- in the U.S. it's more like 0.1%.

(I'm not a healthcare professional nor actuarian; the following is freehand speculation)

There are two key factors. Firstly, USA is much less densely populated, with various additional compounding aspects: social stratification, with many segments of society living mostly in their own areas, and lesser dependence on mass transport. Modern technology and abundance of land allows maintaining a degree of isolation when needed.

Secondly, the healthcare system in USA vs Netherlands is tale of semi-private vs nationalized system. The former has more incentives to be proactive and minimize costs, vs the later having incentives to make a good showing, with payments being assured anyway.

Re: Why some governments appear not to be acting on the Covid-19 threat

#36

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 11:26 AM UTC

helij wrote: post #19

mtsr wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I interpreted it like this: deaths are less expensive than lost productivity. This might actually hold given the groups that are the most at risk are probably least productive: the old and the infirm.

Not aimed at you, but, I am disgusted at even a mention of these kind of 'calculations'. And yes, I am prepared to take a hit in my earnings, paying higher taxes if needed after this if that is what it takes for at least one person more to live.

[deleted]

Re: Why some governments appear not to be acting on the Covid-19 threat

#37

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F » Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 11:26 AM UTC

lazyier wrote: post #20

varjag wrote: post #2

Doesn't seem very well thought out. The economic cost of the first scenario (numerous deaths in peak period) would likely be the highest with the impact both on workforce and market sentiment. The impact of long tail scenarios lower because death toll would not be just redistributed but also reduced by likely an order of magnitude.

No it's not. It's just one guy making up random shit on a blog and is pretending that governments think like him. The reality is probably closer to the fact that there isn't anything governments can do about it. They can try to shut down the borders of the country, but that is going to a lot worse and probably won't stop it anyways. Just because governments can do something and do do something doesn't mean that that…

Denmark did close every school and most administrations. France did not.

Many decisions can be taken, but are not (for various reasons). Most experts recommend to limit contacts rather than closing down borders, and no one is pretending to stop the virus but they all should try to flatten the curve. You don't seem to pay attention to the current situation.

Re: Why some governments appear not to be acting on the Covid-19 threat

#38

Post by pishpash » Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 11:26 AM UTC

anotheryou wrote: post #8

I see how the struggle for economic reasons, but I have too little faith in them being smart enough for that plan and doubt they have good enough data scraping by the max capacity line so closely with confidence. Even the graph in the article is weird, why is there a sharp limit at max capacity in the T2 curve? the virus doesn't care about max capacity....

Yeah, no. Nice hyperactive imagination to find any plausible justification for inaction.

The intuitive impulse is there (trade off hospitals getting "creamed" vs. shutting down economy), but the implementation isn't realistic, so with the incubation period and lag in testing, all governments act too late. It's an impossible control problem.

On the other hand, maybe the right time to act is to watch your stock market. It's a forward predictor. When it starts to tank, go all out.

Re: Why some governments appear not to be acting on the Covid-19 threat

#39

Post by DanBC » Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 11:27 AM UTC

> Why aren’t we going for green though, that seems even better?

Because we want to avoid Covid-19 becoming a recurrent winter illness like other coughs and colds and flu. Those already cause considerable pressure on healthcare systems, and adding annual covid-19 season on top would be pretty rough.

Re: Why some governments appear not to be acting on the Covid-19 threat

#40

Post by A-Train » Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 11:28 AM UTC

lazyier wrote: post #20

varjag wrote: post #2

Doesn't seem very well thought out. The economic cost of the first scenario (numerous deaths in peak period) would likely be the highest with the impact both on workforce and market sentiment. The impact of long tail scenarios lower because death toll would not be just redistributed but also reduced by likely an order of magnitude.

No it's not. It's just one guy making up random shit on a blog and is pretending that governments think like him. The reality is probably closer to the fact that there isn't anything governments can do about it. They can try to shut down the borders of the country, but that is going to a lot worse and probably won't stop it anyways. Just because governments can do something and do do something doesn't mean that that…

What? There is tons of stuff governments can do to flatten the curve. Educating people, closing schools, people gatherings, obligatory masks for all (or DIY bandanas), testing more.