[Retric]

While many people will likely get very sick, they only stay that way for ~2-6 weeks. Further, around half of people below 50 will show minimal if any symptoms. So, while most non essential jobs are shut down we are likely to see a surplus of labor in terms of trucking etc.

My guess is plenty of essential jobs will have heavy overtime while many people are unemployed. Simply because the disruptions are going to cascade through individual factories very quickly. The economic impact is largely going to be a question of how much do we shut down to save lives?

[chasd00]

"The economic impact is largely going to be a question of how much do we shut down to save lives?"

i think about that a lot. I have so much respect for the task force setup to work on this, but man, i'm glad i'm not on it.

[tmountain]

That thinking negates the economic impact that a bunch of people dying is going to have on the economy. There are really two options here.

1) A huge impact on the economy and fewer people die.

2) A huge impact on the economy and lots of people die.

Nobody has the capability to predict the real outcome of one scenario over the other from an economic perspective.

If the US does everything perfectly, we'll probably lose 200k people to COVID-19. If we "reopen the economy" prematurely, the number could easily be 5x to 10x that figure.

Loss of human life has a very tangible impact on the economy, so folks should not be thinking of this as a binary decision ("do we save lives vs do we save the economy").

[Retric]

That’s incredibly simplified. Policy makers don’t have a simple switch to which results in some specific known outcome. Nobody wants millions of Americans to die or for another outbreak to happen in 6+ months. Unfortunately, avoiding both without shutting everything down until a vaccine is developed is tricky.

[tmountain]

I'm pointing at the fact that it keeps getting presented like a binary decision in the media over and over again, and that's not an appropriate characterization.

[Retric]

If that’s what your thinking don’t say: There are really two options here.

Frankly, the US with effective leadership could have less than 1/10th your quoted 200,000 deaths, just look at South Korea. Any time someone says their are two options on a complex issue it’s a straw man argument which is what I objected to.

[samstave]

>Policy makers don’t have a simple switch to which results in some specific known outcome

BS: Donald Trump was specifically asked yesterday how he feels about the poor and especially illegal immigrants who will have zero access to help, both financial and medical.

He litaerally tilted his head and said "what are you gunna do?" knowing what that outcome is going to result in.

[withinboredom]

> around half of people below 50 will show minimal if any symptoms.

I have a middle finger for you for how cold hearted you sound. As though “it’s no big deal”. My wife went through this (previously healthy 34 year old) and it was terrible. The docs just said: “there’s nothing more we can do”

[monktastic1]

I'm sorry for what you're going through. Maybe reading a thread on the economic implications of this disaster -- which will inevitably discuss both the terrible parts and the silver linings -- isn't the healthiest thing for you right now?

[marnett]

Unfortunately in mitigating a national crisis it is a balance - and largely a dehumanized balance where everyone is diminished to a statistic.

[yutyut]

How is your wife now? Sorry if that’s too personal.

[withinboredom]

She's doing better now, thanks for asking! She's still got a bit of a cough, but will almost surely make a 100% recovery.

[yutyut]

Great to hear.