Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

ma.ttias.be

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 436 posts

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

#41

Post by yardie »

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…

More likely. People will see the government is ineffective. This raises questions on why have one at all. Some citizens stop paying taxes because of it. This turns into an actual movement because of compelling arguments now with evidence. Government becomes insolvent and wipes out the bond market. Inflation spirals and a full panic begins.

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

#43

Post by fxtentacle »

TLDR: It's cheapest to let old people die, so that the young can continue working.

A very cruel view on humanity, but I would be surprised if these thoughts hadn't crossed our politicians minds.

Also, many initiatives by young people (e.g. limiting climate change, re-structuring society to be more equal-opportunity) are being blocked by old people who wish to preserve the status quo. So there is a general dislike by young people - those mostly unaffected by Covid - against the elderly - those most likely to die from Covid.

And for many years, there have been heated discussions about whether it is fair to force an ever smaller number of young people to pay for an ever growing number of old people, even if those old people directly undermine the young people's livelihood, for example by driving up rental prices or by voting to stop free education (which they themselves benefited from, when young).

So you could probably even win some young votes with a platform of "let's sacrifice the unneeded grumpy grandmas for the greater good".

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

#44

Post by bluetomcat »

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…

That's probably not the decision-making strategy of most governments, but it's a compelling POV for looking at the situation. Let it spread fast, wreak havoc and disrupt the social order, or control it within the capacity of health systems, or try to minimise the infections with constant awareness of the society for a prolonged period of time, affecting the economy in the long run.

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

#45

Post by Sosh101 »

tomp wrote: post #31

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 ou…

And 1 requires much less effort and coordination than 4a.

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

#46

Post by matwood »

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

Yikes! If true, do you know why that is?

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

#47

Post by lm28469 »

rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #37
lazyier wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It also depends on the country's government.

Afaik in Germany the country's government can't force schools to close or public events to be cancelled. These decisions have to be taken locally (at state/city or even district level). All the health ministry can do is tell people "you shouldn't do A B C and you should do X Y Z"

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

#48

Post by seszett »

AllegedAlec wrote: post #17
artemonster wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What?

After the last elections on 26 May 2019, the winnings parties have been unable to form a coalition, so there is no real cabinet at the moment which has the power to do the things that need to be done.

We do have a government though (quite a few of them even, but the federal government is the one that matters here) with all the power needed to do whatever it deems necessary.

And the federal government has said that indoor meetings with more than 1000 persons are "not recommended". The Brussels government has cancelled those, the Walloon cities don't have events of more than 1000 persons planned in the near future, and the Antwerp government seems to be using the whole thing as an opportunity to criticize and reject any responsibility on the federal government without taking any decision (as far as I know, the Simple Minds concert hasn't been cancelled yet, and is supposed to have a lot more than 1000 people).

There are actually a lot of governments which each have the power to do things. I personally think that the only reason they don't do anything useful is pure incompetence, irresponsibility and political calculations.

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

#49

Post by PeterisP »

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…

The actions taken during February in Wuhan and neighboring provinces seem to have stopped the spread there, so effective actions can be taken.

Thing is, it appears that there's little overlap between actions that seem reasonable and actions that are effective. If you wait until drastic actions seem justifiable, then by that time it's too late to be effective (i.e. the Italy lockdown which would have helped Italy if it was done 2-3 weeks earlier); and if you take effective actions, then most people and media will wonder why you're so authorative and unreasonable (e.g. the reaction to early Wuhan containment measure enforcement).

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

#50

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F »

tomp wrote: post #31

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 ou…

But all their experts have been telling them that (1) cannot happen, for quite some time.

Another explanation is that government don't realize how much their words and actions have an effect on people's behavior, or they only focus on the worst possible effects ("what if people don't understand or react badly?"). In which case, they downplay the danger only to delay their decision. Because they're afraid of themselves (and can't have trust in the population).

Post reply on HN