[bpodgursky]

It's funny how the only global crisis deemed worth shutting down society over is the one that impacts 65+ year olds. Global warming, pension underfunding, unsustainable healthcare, and education costs don't count, because the crisis is 15 years away (eg after they die).

Crippling the global economy (and shutting down schools!!!) to stop COVID-19 hurts the future of 15-35 year olds the worst. But any reform is STILL going to be spent increasing healthcare funding -- to benefit the retirees impacted by COVID. $0 fixing the the damage to Gen Z, whose education and job prospects were delayed by (potentially) years, depending on whether we get sent into a recession.

[tathougies]

> $0 fixing the the damage to Gen Z, whose education and job prospects were delayed by (potentially) years, depending on whether we get sent into a recession.

I mean Gen Z and younger millenials are in for the biggest and easiest opportunity to get rich in our lifetimes. A combination of low interest rates, and then high market supply when a lot of old people die leaving their houses vacant, means a reduction in prices and cheap financing, as well as undervalued equities. Perfect time to get rich.

[tapland]

=/ As a COBOL dev I have a great time incoming. Hoooraaaayyyy...

[cameldrv]

Hopefully this will be the final big sacrifice we all have to make to the Boomer generation. My parents are in that generation though, and I'm happy to make it.

[PeterisP]

It's wrong to think of this as a disease that impacts 65+ year olds.

It impacts all ages, a significant proportion of young people also get severe breathing difficulties and need to be intubated/ventilated in intensive care units to be able to breathe, it's just that for young people the ordeal is harsh but survivable, while elderly people are more frail and die.

And the current situation is given the availability of healthcare. While everything is (still) good, it mostly kills 65+ year olds. If it spreads so much that there's no capacity to hospitalize young people and provide them with oxygen, then it will also kill large quantities of young people.

[dugditches]

So shutting down the schools to stop the spread, so children don't spread it to their older family members will hurt youth the worst?

A lot of issues with shutting down schools is in regards to childcare and food(meal programs) in the United States. Not their 'futures'.

[the-pigeon]

And to expand on this.

This is a wildfire. Shutting things down slows the fire's movement which buys time to fully track it and isolate only the affected individuals.

Specific to Italy, their hospitals are already past the breaking point in many areas. So people that would be easy to treat with medical resources are dying because the resources are exhausted. By stopping the immediate spread by isolating everyone their hospitals can get to a stable point in a few weeks.

[stOneskull]

i think that is the main point. it would be good to just let everyone get the virus and then get back to normal, but there aren't enough medical resources for everyone at once.

[bpodgursky]

Are you really arguing that shutting down schools does not set students back educationally?

The prevention measures obviously do hurt the youth the most. Maybe you calculate on the balance it's worth doing, but there's really no question that the shutdown does impact students more than retirees.

[Nition]

I don't think your point should be downvoted because even if it's not correct, it's a valid contribution to the discussion.

Personally I don't think the difference is just about timeframe (although certainly the immediacy of the threat contributes), but also about permanence. People assume that when COVID-19 has passed, things will go back to normal. If scientists said we could ban personal cars for a month and fix global warming, I suspect it'd get done. Similarly if they said for instance that we could never go to large public gatherings again, ever, there'd be a great outcry.

This is also an interesting study in momentum though. When countries start taking drastic measures on COVID-19 it makes others look bad if they don't follow along. I've never really bought the argument when the US says they can't do x or y for climate change because others aren't doing it, and so they'll be behind economically. The US is a leader - act like one. When America makes policy, others follow.

[lolc]

The measures we're discussing here are intended to help avoid collapse of hospitals due to overload and shortage of staff. A collapse would affect young people too: they couldn't get treatment. Some of them would die as a result. We're talking about a known-effective solution; undisputed within the medical community. The measures are also temporary.

Compare this to the measures we could (and should) bring to bear on the youth problems you mention: The solutions are controversial, often need years to ramp up, with huge costs indefinitely. This is not to say these solutions should not be attempted! Just that you are comparing a temporary hack in a crisis to long-standing problems.

Knowing the inhabitants of a burning building are cancer patients, would that affect your decision to evacuate? After all, you could invest the evacuation effort into treatment instead! And the fire might turn out not so bad, right?

[saagarjha]

As someone in the group you mentioned and is directly impacted (college student), I’m fine with closing stuff down if it stops people from literally dying.

[lovecg]

Do you think the response would be any different if this disease primarily affected younger people instead? I could imagine even more aggressive measures in that case.

[bpodgursky]

Yes, it would match the staggering global response to rising youth suicide rates, mental health problems, cell-phone / videogame addiction, and student loan debt.

It would be equal parts hand-wringing, helplessness, and blaming the youth for not being tough enough to deal with communicable diseases (like they did back in the 1950s).

[true_religion]

Remember the staggering global response to polio and smallpox? Diseases that primarily affect the young are treated seriously. No one wants to see a six year old die from a preventable virus.

[skissane]

> It's funny how the only global crisis deemed worth shutting down society over is the one that impacts 65+ year olds

Many young people have grandparents whose lives they value. I am sure our son would be very distraught if one of his grandparents died, even though as a six year old he is at basically zero direct risk from this disease himself.

(And yes, he will inevitably have to deal with that distraught eventually... but much better at 16 or 26 than at 6.)

[Der_Einzige]

You're almost right except that the damage to the stock market overwhelmingly impacts boomers who are trying to retire, not the young who hold nothing but cash

Crippling the global economy hurts old people worse than it hurts the young because the young are far more resilliant to disruption in their daily lives.

[piratesjustarr]

Really?