[toomuchtodo]

The old and frail will die eventually. It’s reasonable to discuss how much we’re willing to sacrifice for the additional time afforded them in aggregate.

This is not to sound cold or callus. I’ll be old one day (but am also not going to expect extraordinary resources to live a few extra months). These are necessary discussions in a finite world.

[maxerickson]

It's likely enough that lockdowns are the better strategy for the economy. If that is the case, it's not even a sacrifice.

Severe infection and death rates are still quite high among people that are not especially old or frail; and then it sort of depends a lot of whether 'frail' is an apt description of the people that are more susceptible.

[toomuchtodo]

> It's likely enough that lockdowns are the better strategy for the economy.

I would like to see data supporting this. Because at the moment, things are pretty bleak.

[simonsaidit]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/03/upshot/corona...

I think everyone would like better data but one point I can follow is that scared people are bad consumers. I can’t find the exact story but I recall some research on Denver vs Philadelphia where the hard lockdown came out ahead later and the psychology of dealing with the disease contributed to this.

[maxerickson]

There's not data about the impact of either policy choice.

For example, bar and restaurant traffic would probably be down quite a lot regardless of lockdowns.

For reopening, a potential downside of doing it too early is that the spread rapidly spirals out of control again, with greater death and real panic ensuing.

[stOneskull]

I wouldn't want to take people's freedoms away to protect me a little bit. Why live longer anyway without freedoms.

[toomuchtodo]

There is a balance to be struck. I put forth it is reasonable to curtail some freedoms, temporarily, for public health and safety. Such curtailments should not be extended indefinitely though.