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

Covid Lockdown versus Economy Was Always False Trade-Off

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–19 of 19 posts

Re: Covid Lockdown versus Economy Was Always False Trade-Off

#11

Post by sojournerc »

fzeroracer wrote: post #10
sojournerc wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a vaccine is not found, you're bound to have a catastrophe on your hands. > Whether or not you quarantined, the economy would collapse because you would have a massive death toll and paranoia throughout the country. You make assumptions in these two statements without a lot of nuance or support. I think the economy would be much better off if we had encouraged self- quarantine for at risk groups, but allowed oth…

> I think the economy would be much better off if we had encouraged self- quarantine for at risk groups, but allowed otherwise healthy people to go about their business. Giving people information to make their own decisions, encourage social distancing etc etc We tried to do just that in Texas. It failed. Badly. There are multiple reasons why this idea of opening up simply won't work: 1. Many Americans are fundamenta…

Right, but the people who went to the bars made that decision despite being aware of the risks.

I would much prefer a society that allows people to do dumb things than a nanny-state that purports to keep us "safe".

Living is a risky situation. That's just the way it is.

If my 97 year old grandma wants to go have a mimosa and socialize, I think that should be her choice, even considering the risk.

We drive on highways, I go outside where mosquitoes carry West-Nile disease, I eat food prepared by someone else at a restaurant, I smoke a cigarette.

These are all risk trade-offs that we allow individuals to make their own decision on. Why is _this_ disease, this risk, so different?

We're encouraging a sort of generalized agoraphobia - if _you_ don't want to take the risk of going out, then stay home and you'll be perfectly safe. Don't impose that fear on others...

Re: Covid Lockdown versus Economy Was Always False Trade-Off

#12

Post by fzeroracer »

sojournerc wrote: post #11
fzeroracer wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the economy would be much better off if we had encouraged self- quarantine for at risk groups, but allowed otherwise healthy people to go about their business. Giving people information to make their own decisions, encourage social distancing etc etc We tried to do just that in Texas. It failed. Badly. There are multiple reasons why this idea of opening up simply won't work: 1. Many Americans are fundamenta…

Right, but the people who went to the bars made that decision despite being aware of the risks. I would much prefer a society that allows people to do dumb things than a nanny-state that purports to keep us "safe". Living is a risky situation. That's just the way it is. If my 97 year old grandma wants to go have a mimosa and socialize, I think that should be her choice, even considering the risk. We drive on highways…

Except we don't allow people to do dumb things when it puts other people at risk.

If your grandma decides to go drive after downing a few mimosas she'll be arrested for driving intoxicated. If she decides to go 80mph on a 30 speed limit road she'll be arrested for putting others at risk. And you can't smoke a cigarette anywhere you want because other people don't want your second hand smoke mucking up the area.

And this disease much like those is not about you. Arguments you make are inherently selfish because it's about your freedoms but not about the freedoms you take away from others. You are essentially arguing for those that are at risk to remain in permanent lockdown because others can't be bothered to take basic protective measures. You're demanding to take away other people's freedom so you can have marginally more freedom.

Re: Covid Lockdown versus Economy Was Always False Trade-Off

#13

Post by sojournerc »

fzeroracer wrote: post #12
sojournerc wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but the people who went to the bars made that decision despite being aware of the risks. I would much prefer a society that allows people to do dumb things than a nanny-state that purports to keep us "safe". Living is a risky situation. That's just the way it is. If my 97 year old grandma wants to go have a mimosa and socialize, I think that should be her choice, even considering the risk. We drive on highways…

Except we don't allow people to do dumb things when it puts other people at risk. If your grandma decides to go drive after downing a few mimosas she'll be arrested for driving intoxicated. If she decides to go 80mph on a 30 speed limit road she'll be arrested for putting others at risk. And you can't smoke a cigarette anywhere you want because other people don't want your second hand smoke mucking up the area. And t…

How does going to a bar take away freedom from others?

I'm not suggesting "permanent lock-down", rather the opposite - those who are at risk are perfectly capable of managing that risk themselves as they see fit - wear a mask - sanitize hands - avoid people - great! no one's stopping that.

There were diseases before this one, and there will be others to follow it.

If becoming a vector of transmission is equivalent to "taking away freedom from others" than we'd better never leave home again since we can never know what pathogen might be hiding out there in the world.

If I want to expose myself to such vectors, that's my prerogative. My example of my Grandam willingly taking risk to socialize is nothing like outright dangerous behavior that puts others at risk (speeding 80 in a 30). They are not equivalent.

Re: Covid Lockdown versus Economy Was Always False Trade-Off

#14

Post by fzeroracer »

sojournerc wrote: post #13
fzeroracer wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except we don't allow people to do dumb things when it puts other people at risk. If your grandma decides to go drive after downing a few mimosas she'll be arrested for driving intoxicated. If she decides to go 80mph on a 30 speed limit road she'll be arrested for putting others at risk. And you can't smoke a cigarette anywhere you want because other people don't want your second hand smoke mucking up the area. And t…

How does going to a bar take away freedom from others? I'm not suggesting "permanent lock-down", rather the opposite - those who are at risk are perfectly capable of managing that risk themselves as they see fit - wear a mask - sanitize hands - avoid people - great! no one's stopping that. There were diseases before this one, and there will be others to follow it. If becoming a vector of transmission is equivalent to…

Your argument fails to address my point that when you're willingly exposing yourself like that you're exposing others who had no clue or idea to it as well.

Again, you're arguing to take away other people's freedoms because you can't make the token effort to try and reduce spread yourself. Because wearing a mask is about people who are sick taking measures to prevent others from getting sick, not about those who are at risk trying to avoid the virus.

Your example of grandma is an equivalent. She's doing something dangerous and then impacting other people around her that have no choice.

Re: Covid Lockdown versus Economy Was Always False Trade-Off

#15

Post by sojournerc »

fzeroracer wrote: post #14
sojournerc wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does going to a bar take away freedom from others? I'm not suggesting "permanent lock-down", rather the opposite - those who are at risk are perfectly capable of managing that risk themselves as they see fit - wear a mask - sanitize hands - avoid people - great! no one's stopping that. There were diseases before this one, and there will be others to follow it. If becoming a vector of transmission is equivalent to…

Your argument fails to address my point that when you're willingly exposing yourself like that you're exposing others who had no clue or idea to it as well. Again, you're arguing to take away other people's freedoms because you can't make the token effort to try and reduce spread yourself. Because wearing a mask is about people who are sick taking measures to prevent others from getting sick, not about those who are…

>when you're willingly exposing yourself like that you're exposing others who had no clue or idea to it as well.

How? Others are free (or should be) to associate with me or not.

Your assessment of danger is different than mine. I suppose that's the crux of my point.

Re: Covid Lockdown versus Economy Was Always False Trade-Off

#16

Post by fzeroracer »

sojournerc wrote: post #15
fzeroracer wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument fails to address my point that when you're willingly exposing yourself like that you're exposing others who had no clue or idea to it as well. Again, you're arguing to take away other people's freedoms because you can't make the token effort to try and reduce spread yourself. Because wearing a mask is about people who are sick taking measures to prevent others from getting sick, not about those who are…

>when you're willingly exposing yourself like that you're exposing others who had no clue or idea to it as well. How? Others are free (or should be) to associate with me or not. Your assessment of danger is different than mine. I suppose that's the crux of my point.

Because they have no clue whether or not you're sick and if you are, you're taking zero preventative measures to stop others from getting sick?

Let's assume you had a non-remote job. Would your coworkers have the freedom to associate with you or not? How about any family you're living with? What about people at any stores you visit? Especially since the coronavirus has a significant lagtime before symptoms appear which means you have no clue whether or not you're actually exposing others until you get sick and work backwards from there.

Then if you do end up as being a vector for the coronavirus, the people around you pay the price. Your business has to shut down to prevent the spread of it, people have to self-quarantine because now it's highly likely that they have it too.

In the course of your single-minded drive for personal freedoms, you've just caused massive damage to other people and companies and took away their freedoms.

Re: Covid Lockdown versus Economy Was Always False Trade-Off

#17

Post by eiji »

nappa-leon wrote: post #4

The US government failed on many fronts, but the main one is testing. I think that people misunderstood the point of the lockdowns, possibly due to bad marketing from the flatten the curve people. The truth is that without a vaccine reopening would always spike cases, but a robust testing system, with possibly maybe 10x the number of daily tests, would allow us to remove contagious individuals from public and flatten…

Our tests per Capita don't seem to be behind other countries. It seems to me the "more testing needed" rhetoric is similar to the "we start dieing like flys in three weeks" position. Just triple tests another tenfold and we will be fine? It ignores reality.

Re: Covid Lockdown versus Economy Was Always False Trade-Off

#18

Post by sojournerc »

fzeroracer wrote: post #16
sojournerc wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>when you're willingly exposing yourself like that you're exposing others who had no clue or idea to it as well. How? Others are free (or should be) to associate with me or not. Your assessment of danger is different than mine. I suppose that's the crux of my point.

Because they have no clue whether or not you're sick and if you are, you're taking zero preventative measures to stop others from getting sick? Let's assume you had a non-remote job. Would your coworkers have the freedom to associate with you or not? How about any family you're living with? What about people at any stores you visit? Especially since the coronavirus has a significant lagtime before symptoms appear whi…

Quite the hypothetical you got there.

You've made a lot of assumptions, like going to a bar guarantees infection.

I _do_ take preventative measures when I go out. I wear a mask. I wash my hands. I keep distance as possible.

There is little evidence of transmission within stores where people are wearing masks and keeping distance. I have coworkers who are nervous, and I do accommodate them by taking the prescribed precautions.

Someone is in contact with me who doesn't know my recent history can wear a mask, and can keep their distance. They have every freedom in that regard, yet I don't have freedom to sit with a friend at a bar?

You should be aware that asymptomatic spread is likely not very common: https://time.com/5850256/who-asymptomatic-spread/

> The highest estimate was a transmission rate of 2.2%, suggesting “asymptomatic spread is unlikely to be a major driver of clusters or community transmission of infection.”

It's good to be aware of _high-risk_ situations - such as shouting in a mob (you assume Texas spike was due to bars opening).

You've yet to address my point... We all take risks every day.

What's your goal? to keep everyone perfectly safe all the time? Padded rooms for everyone!

Re: Covid Lockdown versus Economy Was Always False Trade-Off

#19

Post by fzeroracer »

sojournerc wrote: post #18
fzeroracer wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they have no clue whether or not you're sick and if you are, you're taking zero preventative measures to stop others from getting sick? Let's assume you had a non-remote job. Would your coworkers have the freedom to associate with you or not? How about any family you're living with? What about people at any stores you visit? Especially since the coronavirus has a significant lagtime before symptoms appear whi…

Quite the hypothetical you got there. You've made a lot of assumptions, like going to a bar guarantees infection. I _do_ take preventative measures when I go out. I wear a mask. I wash my hands. I keep distance as possible. There is little evidence of transmission within stores where people are wearing masks and keeping distance. I have coworkers who are nervous, and I do accommodate them by taking the prescribed pre…

> It's good to be aware of _high-risk_ situations - such as shouting in a mob (you assume Texas spike was due to bars opening).

It seems you're incorrectly assuming that protesting was the reason behind the spike in infections. The reality is that we've seen multiple studies come out now [1] [2] [3] which indicate that outdoor spread of the coronavirus is much harder than indoors. You can stop spreading that lie, because all evidence points towards our attempt to rapidly reopen and people packing into enclosed locations.

> What's your goal? to keep everyone perfectly safe all the time? Padded rooms for everyone!

My goal was to dismantle your terrible arguments because it's the same tired nonsense of 'we all take risks every day' and 'we need to reopen the economy'. By your own argument we should remove speed limits, remove laws against drunk driving and anything of the sort because we're all taking inherent risks by being on the road and it doesn't make sense to to keep people safe.

[1] https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/494348-new-study-finds...

[2] https://apnews.com/a288340b3bd3fbc62e564b3d0adfaa2e

[3] https://www.nber.org/papers/w27408.pdf

Post reply on HN