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

61–70 of 436 posts

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

#61

Post by tomp »

Rastonbury wrote: post #55
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…

That's now how game theory works, the pandemic is not another player who is 2nd guessing the government or vice versa. Instead governments are weighing the probabilities (think a probability tree, according to your scenarios) you kind of point to this in your conclusion.

The point of Game Theory is to analyze the situation according to the actual payoff function for each player, not according to the socially (Pareto) optimal outcome.

The 2 players here are the government, and the voters. The socially optimal scenario is action REGARDLESS of whether it's a pandemic or not (in a hyper-globalized world it would hurt a bit, but only the first time, after that the tourists, supply chains, etc. would adapt) but the voters penalize that outcome (they see action with no pandemic as overreaction not as successful prevention) so governments avoid it.

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

#62

Post by 9nGQluzmnq3M »

I think this theory gives way too much credit to governmental competence. I think Yes Minister's Four Stage Strategy is a much more accurate assessment:

Standard Foreign Office response in a time of crisis:

In stage one we say nothing is going to happen.

Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.

In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do.

Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.

https://youtu.be/nSXIetP5iak

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

#63

Post by TulliusCicero »

keiferski wrote: post #52
rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

France population: 66.99 million. Denmark population: 5.6 million. Doesn't seem like an accurate comparison.

Has there every been a time when, "Country X can't do what country Y can, because X is too [big/small] while Y is [small/big]" has not been a useless comment?

Is there a generic term for this sort of fallacy, where someone brings up a random difference between [cities/states/countries] as an excuse for why one can't do what the other has already done, without ever bothering to explain why the difference matters?

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

#64

Post by jcadam »

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…

Also in the case of 4a it's hard to define "it works."

Because it's hard to know to what degree any actions taken mitigated the severity of the pandemic.

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

#65

Post by croon »

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…

Worst campaign ever pissing off your largest demographic by emphatically proving you don't care about them.

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

#66

Post by Udik »

matwood wrote: post #46
davedx wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I don't know, but I live in the Netherlands (as an expat) and their approach to healthcare is legendary for its sloppiness. The most common joke is about doctors responding to any health complaint by handing some paracetamol and saying "come back in two weeks if you don't feel better".

Three days ago the government held a special meeting about the coronavirus, in which they deliberated that people should stop shaking hands. That's all. They tell people who have come back from a high risk area and have flu symptoms NOT to call their gp and just stay home.

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

#67

Post by mostafab »

nextstep wrote: post #25

I think HN should enact stronger Coronavirus-related moderation like Reddit has. This is a bad post from a software engineer (not a health professional) and it offers an amateur analysis without even providing a real suggestion. What benefit does this provide in a crisis?

posts from health professionals can be even worse. this one was not too bad at explaining the thinking of ruling elites (who think they can fine-tune an epidemic)

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

#68

Post by WilliamEdward »

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 there is obviously a pandemic. I mean the WHO just called it a pandemic. How is 1) even an option? Do they just pretend it doesn't exist? Do they hope it doesn't kill too many people? People wont buy it, that's for sure.

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

#69

Post by keiferski »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #63
keiferski wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France population: 66.99 million. Denmark population: 5.6 million. Doesn't seem like an accurate comparison.

Has there every been a time when, "Country X can't do what country Y can, because X is too [big/small] while Y is [small/big]" has not been a useless comment? Is there a generic term for this sort of fallacy, where someone brings up a random difference between [cities/states/countries] as an excuse for why one can't do what the other has already done, without ever bothering to explain why the difference matters?

How is it a useless comment? If you want to compare the actions of Denmark to France, it's more relevant to compare it to a particular region. Grand Est, for example has a similar population as Denmark.

This is almost common sense in the business world. No one thinks BigCo and LittleStartup are capable of the same things or that one's ability or inability to do something is equivalent.

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

#70

Post by the8472 »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #9
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.

Sounds like some dystopian eugenics shit to be honest, get rid of those who no longer contribute to society. I for one am working towards my old age, I'd hate to be left to just die.

The outcome may sound dystopian. But once you put monetary value on a life - I think insurances do around a few million per person - then the economic damage will be worth several lives anyway no matter which scenario you choose. And that kind of calculation does make sense because at some point economic damage starts to translate directly to deaths, at the latest when your food and medical supply collapses, probably sooner than that. So you end up trading some deaths for other deaths.

Of course I'm not saying that anyone has done those tradeoffs optimally, especially considering that those relations probably are non-linear in practice.

Post reply on HN