[umvi]

> Some regulations save a thousand lives at a 0.02% increase in costs. Repealing those is bad. Enacting them is good. Some regulations save two lives at a 5000% increase in cost, which could equally be saved by some less expensive regulation. Enacting those is bad. Repealing them is good.

Not to get political but this reminded me of covid-19. Masks and social distancing are an obvious 0.02% increase in costs that save a thousand lives. Lockdowns and extended stay-at-home orders and shutting down businesses so that we start needing to send out trillions upon trillions of stimulus cash to keep companies and people afloat start to cross into "save 2 lives at a 5000% increase in cost" territory

[NZGumboot]

I totally agree that lockdowns are super expensive, and should only be used as a last resort, but I think you're missing the purpose of lockdowns. The purpose is not to save the lives of <however many people are dying right now>. The purpose is to bring the R number <https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52473523> below one, so that the number of sick people doesn't increase to the point where the health care system is overwhelmed (which would lead to a substantially increased death rate).

Taiwan is an example of a country that managed to eliminate covid-19 without lockdowns, so it is possible, but part of their success is likely due to the fact that the authorities acted very early to impose strict quarantine rules and contact tracing (when there were fewer than 10 new cases per day!) AFAIK every other country that has managed to eliminate community transmission has done so via lockdowns.

[slaw]

The purpose of lockdowns and other methods to fight with covid-19 was to keep old people alive for few more months.

'The observed temporary excess mortality likely arises because people in vulnerable groups die weeks or months earlier than they would otherwise, due to the timing and severity of the unusual external event.' https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.11.20229708v...

[ldng]

That is not the point and never was ! When your hospital is saturated by people that ultimately will survive but need 3 to 4 weeks to recover, you're going to die from anything but covid.

You're in a car crash? To bad hospital is saturated. You got 4th degree burn in a burning building? To bad hospital is saturated.

Do you realise that is the problem?

[slaw]

Sweden's hospitals were never saturated despite no lockdown. Italy's hospitals are saturated every flu season.

Hospitals are saturated, because we want to keep these people alive for few more months. Younger people don't need hospitalization.

You are in car crash, too bad hospitals are only admitting people with covid. This is current situation in Poland.

[ldng]

Sweden did not need lockdown because, like Asia, people there were more disciplined. Numbers show road traffic dropped significantly during the first semester : people stayed home without being ordered to. Some culture will never do that by themselves.

Youngers are less affected but some absolutely do need hospitalization. Reality is not as black or white as you're making it.

The situation is like that in Poland ... and the solution is geronticide ?

[slaw]

Belarus didn't do lockdown just like Sweden and had the same result. Are Belorussians also disciplined?

Correct solution is to treat covid like very strong flu.