[salmon30salmon]

Thank you. I honestly believe that there is a non-trivial percentage of the population that _likes_ the COVID world and wants to keep it going as long as possible. Some may like working remotely, others may like the wider acceptance of meal and grocery delivery, others may prefer the reduction in greenhouse gases. That is the only way I can rationalize the insistence of lockdowns here on HN and elsewhere.

Either that or COVID is another social issue that is being exploited by nefarious actors to divide western nations.

Or both.

[Mediterraneo10]

> I honestly believe that there is a non-trivial percentage of the population that _likes_ the COVID world and wants to keep it going as long as possible.

I believe two factors at play can be identified:

1) Among ordinary internet users, the “stay home and save lives” recommendation in spring of last year became highly memetic, and although the median age of death is now there for anyone to learn, the blanket admonishment continues to be rather unthinkingly repeated across society even though in many countries the lockdown is really starting to bite the economy. It is not that people consciously like the COVID world, they are simply perpetuating the social pressures that formed at the outbreak of the epidemic a year ago. (It doesn’t help that often one cannot public take an anti-lockdown stance and participate in street protests, because then one risks being lumped in with the anti-vaxxers and 5G crazies that tend to be so visible at those protests.)

2) Elected officials cannot ease off the restrictions, because the opposition will immediately accuse them of killing grandma or whatever. In this case, the opposition may in fact be acting much like a “concern troll”; they might not really care about the elderly (and deep down, they themselves might be thirsting for an end to lockdown), but they cannot ignore the political point-scoring that they could do with such a position.

[ryandrake]

I don’t think “wanting to live and not spread around a deadly disease” is some overly-woke activist cause or concern-trolling.

It’s ok to admonish people for drunk driving, which is a lot like “horsing around during a global pandemic”: optional, careless risk-taking behavior, that is risky for both you and everyone else. Why is it fine to shame people for drunk driving but not for spreading COVID?

[drcross]

I agree. I think it's a combination of factors-

The people who are currently on a good WFH salary are seeing their savings grow thinking they are doing well for themselves because soon they will buy a house but what they don't realise is that eventually they will have to pay for the 400k people on the pandemic unemployment payment, the 5 billion that was lost this year in tourism, the 10 million we are spending weekly on PCR testing. This all adds up and with only 2.3 million wage earners in Ireland they are going to be stung for a lot of tax to pay for this.

There are people with short term or part time jobs who are happier to be paid 350 per week for staying at home. Why would you want to work a menial job if you didnt need to?

Like Prof. Johan Giesecke from Sweden said, the western countries got themselves into a lockdown without thinking of a plan on how to get out of it and no one wants to be seen as the person who made the decision to kill loads of people.

There's also the vaccine angle which is sure to make those companies lots of money this year.

[discreteevent]

They may not be stung for the tax. Zero interest loans with an infinite term are effectively being granted by the ECB.

[drcross]

Yeah I agree, but on that topic I think we're heading into completely unchartered territory with an event horizon beyond which I cannot see, the only wisdom I have that might prepare us for what might unfold is- "there's no such thing as a free lunch" and "there's a time when you have to pay the Piper".

[ryandrake]

It’s pretty simple to me: I like being alive and want to continue living. I’m old, but not “will probably die next year” old, and I’m out of shape. I have a family and a kid who wants to keep her daddy around. The economy will recover. People will get back to working and shopping later. What we can’t do yet is come back from the dead.

[umanwizard]

> People will get back to working and shopping later.

Yes, but...

We all have a small finite number of years on this earth, and even fewer when we're young. I'll never get 2020 back, and who knows how much of how many people's lives will be lived in poverty and other forms of misery because of the economic destruction we've opted into to slow the spread of the virus.

Would you tell someone condemned to a prison term that it's not a big deal because they will eventually get out and go back to living normally?

[dragonwriter]

> And who knows how much of how many people’s lives will be lived in poverty and other forms of misery because of the economic destruction we’ve opted into to slow the spread of the virus.

Plenty of less-rich countries took much stronger steps to prevent economic destruction even with stronger control measures than the US took.

We didn’t opt into poverty/misery to slow the spread of the virus, we opted into it because the federal administration wanted to use the pain to generate opposition to slowing the spread of the virus.

[ryandrake]

We could have 1. Done a real lockdown, with strict, nationwide enforcement, trashing the economy for a few months but beating the disease. Or 2. Done nothing and saved the economy, shouldering massive loss of life as the virus ran unopposed through the population.

But, no, we somehow managed to do the worst of both worlds: 3. we implemented uncoordinated, half-assed business closures and widely-ignored “stay-at-home” schemes which both trashed the economy and resulted in widespread death. Great job!

[umanwizard]

It's unclear whether "1" was actually possible, given the political/legal structure of the United States. Who, exactly, would be promulgating and enforcing such an order?

[ryandrake]

With competent federal coordination and incentives, all 50 states could have used their emergency powers or even legislation to implement stricter lockdowns with real enforcement.

State and local police would enforce it, again, with the proper incentives. Fire the few local yokel sheriffs refusing to enforce. They have the ability, need the willingness. If they can catch me going 70 in a 45 or avoiding my income taxes, they can catch me going to Olive Garden.

We have the political ability but not the political will.

[drcross]

I think it's selfish that you'd prefer to remain unfit and see a generation of children your daughter's age lose a year of socialising and education than to choose to isolate yourself and let them live their lives if you really were so worried about a disease with a average IFR of .05%. It's a crab in a bucket mentality.

[ryandrake]

Part of the benefit of living in a civilized society is that civilized people don’t throw entire demographics to their death for the convenience of others. We are supposed to have the decency to make sacrifices for the benefit of the greater good, but our ability to do this seems to be quickly disappearing.

I’m really sorry my kid can’t go on play dates for a year, because it helps save other people’s lives. I also feel sorry that some people don’t have the empathy to understand why we need to make that trade-off. We have really lost our way as a culture if we really think grandma should die so the rest of us can live our normal lives.

Imagine we had your attitude during world war 2. “I’m not gonna go rivet airplanes or ration food because I have freedom and I want to live my life!!”

[JSavageOne]

Nobody's throwing anybody to death. You seem to be advocating forcing everyone hostage in their homes, all over a virus that's not particularly dangerous (eg. 0.05% death rate for thus under 40, median age of death = 82). That's outrageous, and of course people don't want that because it's torture, and completely pointless and unnecessary. What a position of privilege to be able to advocate this garbage while being able to work remotely when many have lost their jobs and businesses.

We never had any government mandated home hostage orders during WWII.

[oceanplexian]

I would liken it to missing a day at the gym. Even if you regularly work out if you start missing 1, 2, 3 days eventually you stop going altogether. The same thing has happened with WFH. People have already gotten used to working at home 100% of the time. Even if COVID was wiped off the face of the Earth there will be a large number of people who have simply gotten into a new routine and will never go back willingly unless if they are forced to.

[john_alan]

Totally agree. Weird stuff.