So what I'm suggesting isn't just to let the old folks die, but it's to place a higher burden on the old to protect themselves, and it's to temper their protection by governmental mandates and expenditures in the same way we do it in other contexts. That's not cold hearted. It's just reality — Hanover

Lol this rules :up:

Possible in developed countries. That is precisely my worry. Just because some countries can afford to hand out funds and suspend taxes doesn’t others can.

Think about the proportion of people in India that live hand to mouth losing what minute income they can scrape together every day. Europe, North America and several Eastern countries can afford to take larger blows with less long term problems than somewhere like Brasil, Indonesia, Philippines or Nigeria where the gap between rich and poor (per person) is a gaping chasm in comparison.

I’d have to say that willfully not looking too far ahead to avoid guilt isn’t something I’d like to aspire to. We’re human though so I cannot pretend we’re limitless and some avoidance is necessary for day-to-day ‘(in)sanity’.

Simply put, if saving 3 people today would with 100% certainty cause 10,000 to die next year my decision would be easy enough if I was making the choice. The reality is MUCH messier though, so I’d probably gamble on the more immediate good if the odds and consequences were deemed ‘reasonable’ by my personal judgement. For me the really ‘moral’ decision is never an ‘easy’ decision. I don’t honestly think many of us take on (by choice or force of circumstance) many - if any - seriously difficult decisions. Self preservation involves ‘mental’ as much as ‘physical’ health.

I want to know more and hear more about the economic implications by experts with a foot in both fields of concern. At least there are discussions going on between experts in both fields so maybe together they can help each other enough to offer balanced advice to governments.

Successful psyop.
Legislation granting emergency powers.
Currency reset.
Most people are slow on the uptake.

In the US, 102 people die on average in car accidents per day. That number doesn't take into account the number left seriously injured. A single law prohibiting car usage would save 102 body bags per day. Why don't we pass that law?

There may be other ways we could have done this. We took the path that seemed smartest at the time. We can't change course now because the whole country is waiting for it to bear down. We're prepared according to the information we have.

Dr. Fauci mentioned that we don't know how it's going to effect the rest of the US. Some areas might be like Germany where it's not bad. Other places could experience things like what's happening in NY or Washington. After it's over we can look back and see what made sense and what didn't, but we'll be doing that with information we don't have now.

Wash your hands don't touch your face stand away from other people,
Frank

I'm not sure this really addresses the point I made. It isn't just about the loss of life. It's about hospitals not being able to cope with the massive demand on their resources. There'll probably be a huge economic impact if it all goes to shit.

Incidentally this is also why your question about car deaths misses the point. The healthcare industry can cope with that loss of life. It can't cope with a pandemic, hence the need to flatten the curve.

Incidentally this is also why your question about car deaths misses the point. The healthcare industry can cope with that loss of life. It can't cope with a pandemic. — Michael

The ultimate question is how many people can have their suffering reduced or death averted, regardless of how that can be accomplished (e.g. by having adequate hospital beds, having fewer businesses open for the spreading of a virus, or by having additional highway safety protections to reduce highway deaths), and that question will come down to cost and how much we as a society are willing to invest in those life saving measures.

At some point I just think the other posters here are going to have to admit there is no bright line rule that states we are willing to bear any financial cost to save a single life, but that the question is how much we will financially bear to save a life. Once we admit the latter, we need to take out our calculators and start doing the math, regardless of how offensive that feels.

There may be other ways we could have done this. We took the path that seemed smartest at the time. We can't change course now because the whole country is waiting for it to bear down. We're prepared according to the information we have. — frank

As a general principle, why are we required to see through a plan just because it seemed reasonable at the time but not now? I get that it would should stubborn resolve, but that's not always a good reason to do things.

Mostly better thanks, although now her husband has it.

I guess not everyone subscribes to such a utilitarian position.

As a general principle, why are we required to see through a plan just because it seemed reasonable at the time but not now? I get that it would should stubborn resolve, but that's not always a good reason to do things. — Hanover

It's not clear that what we're doing is unreasonable. It's not clear that another path would be better. Changing canoes in midstream will definitely cause mass confusion. The principle is to base your decisions as best you can on what you know. Applying this principle, we should stay the course we're on.

somewhere like Brasil, Indonesia, Philippines or Nigeria where the gap between rich and poor (per person) is a gaping chasm in comparison. — I like sushi

Indeed. As usual, it is advantageous to be in a rich country where folks can afford to find mass graves distasteful. In such places as those, it's going to be, get it, recover or die without medical assistance, for most people.

Nice to hear. And hope everything goes fine with her husband too.

That wasn’t the thrust of my point, but fair enough.

I was referring to the economic fallout due to lockdowns potentially killing millions more than the virus itself. The better off countries can take the economic hit much better than others. So my point was a worry about prolonging lockdowns to save peoples lives in developed countries being a possible cause of deaths in less developed countries simply due to the economic downturn not the virus itself.

I’ve seen precious little discussion on the combined issues of this in terms of the global effects - maybe because experts in both fields don’t exist.

I guess not everyone subscribes to such a utilitarian position. — Michael

Yeah they do. They just don't admit it

The debt faucet has been on wide open since the Vietnam War. It would be astonishing if we decided that now is the time to turn it off. Trump might want to do that, but he won't be re-elected if he does and the stock market would crash.

And if you're not American, you don't have anything like a federal government to help you or not, so what are you complaining about?

I was referring to the economic fallout due to lockdowns potentially killing millions more than the virus itself. — I like sushi

How would that happen? I can see authorities wanting poor folk to sit home and starve. I can see how us not buying so many pairs of jeans can put poor people out of work, and perhaps the resulting unrest might kill people. I can't see it being comparable numbers though. I think the dependencies are nearly all in the other direction "I can't live without my arabica coffee".

I guess you'll be in favour of tax-funded UBI? Reduces the amount of suffering. If a few thousand rich people have less money to spend on second homes and diamond watches so that millions more people can get out of poverty or having to have second jobs then the country will be a quantitatively less miserable place.

I guess you'll be in favour of tax-funded UBI? Reduces the amount of suffering. If a few thousand rich people have less money to spend on second homes and diamond watches so that millions more people can get out of poverty or having to have second jobs then the country will be a quantitatively less miserable place. — Michael

For the record, I don't own a second home nor do I own a single diamond. I might have a watch of small value in a drawer somewhere, so I have no self-interest here.

No, I'm not in favor of UBI because I don't think things will be better off offering a segment of the population a disincentive to work and I don't think removing incentives from those who seek them will result in an overall better society on any number of levels.

Your question is an interesting one though because it assumes an open lack of concern for others on the part of the conservative right. I fully understand that you believe that the policies of the right serve no purpose other than to promote the rich (despite the fact that many are far from rich), but if I were to believe that UBI would make us all better off (and what I think is of value might vary from you), then of course I would be in favor of it. I just don't think it would.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/07/820-million-starving-people-number-growing/

https://www.creditdonkey.com/world-hunger-statistics.html

If people don’t have money they can’t grow/buy food. They starve to death or lose their homes/education.

If the lockdown goes on and on then literally millions more are likely to starve to death not to mention those that are simply pushed below the poverty line. Basically I’m worried that all developing countries will be pushed back nullifying the progress of the past few decades and leading to mass starvation and then the inevitable strain poverty puts on the natural environment.

Your not alone in asking this question sadly. It needs addressing more closely I feel.

What do you mean by being better off? You brought up suffering before so I was just addressing that. Does it matter if some people aren’t incentivised to work? They might be happier for it. Do we really need fast food restaurants? We could do away with them and their employees can live off UBI.

What do you mean by being better off? You brought up suffering before so I was just addressing that. Does it matter if some people aren’t incentivised to work? They might be happier for it. Do we really need fast food restaurants? We could do away with them and their employees can live off UBI. — Michael

I don't believe money comes from trees, so the lack of work in a society will result in its eventual failure. Would it be better in a hunter gatherer society for everyone to sit around and bullshit all day instead of hunting and gathering, sure, until dinner time. Same thing for our society, just bigger scale.

Stop being a snowflake @Hanover. You shut down the economy for a couple of months until you get transmission rates below 1:1 then you open it up gradually with lots of social distancing rules in place and the other things you said about extra precautions for the vulnerable. Things eventually get back to normal, but with a bigger debt. End. What you don't do is take off the bandage before the wound has healed, otherwise you start the whole cycle again.

I don't believe money comes from trees, so the lack of work in a society will result in its eventual failure. — Hanover

But the money isn't coming from trees. It's coming from the government, which in turn is coming from tax payers who would have spent that money at fast food restaurants but are now paying it in additional tax. So there's no creation of money here, just a redistribution of existing money.

What does it matter if the money goes from me to the government to the newly unemployed rather than from me to McDonalds to their employees? It might actually be that less money is being spent as this theoretical UBI (although not really universal, just to former fast food employees) can be capped at some minimum wage.

Stop being a snowflake Hanover. — Baden

But I'm unique and delicate, so a snowflake I'll be.

You shut down the economy for a couple of months until you get transmission rates below 1:1 then you open it up gradually with lots of social distancing rules in place and the other things you said about extra precautions for the vulnerable. Things eventually get back to normal, but with a bigger debt. End. What you don't do is take off the bandage before the wound has healed otherwise you start the whole cycle again. — Baden

I like this post, not because I necessarily agree with it, but it's filled with optimism, maybe even the reckless optimism that defines me. It could be I'm being played, though, and you're just saying to me what you know I'll embrace, but whatever, I applaud that then, your ability to figure out your audience and appeal to it, even if it's comprised only of me.

Let me share something of no interest to you, my personal philosophy of tracht gut, vet zein gut, Yiddish for think good and it will be good. I actually believe that, so, yes, I will go with what you said awhile, and everything will be just fine.

Of course, it also leads me to say things like stop all the restrictions and everything will also be okay.

But the money isn't coming from trees. It's coming from the government, which in turn is coming from tax payers who would have spent that money at fast food restaurants. — Michael

The government isn't producing. It's taxing the producers. If the producers are having their money redistributed, they are losing their incentive to produce and then the government will have less and less to dole out to the lazy and worthless who choose to piss their days away philosophizing.

Would it be better in a hunter gatherer society for everyone to sit around and bullshit all day instead of hunting and gathering, sure, until dinner time. Same thing for our society, just bigger scale. — Hanover

FYI: everyone in hunter gather societies actually have a lot of time to sit around and bullshit. Far more than us fools on the capitalist hamster wheel.

FYI: everyone in hunter gather societies actually have a lot of time to sit around and bullshit. Far more than us fools on the capitalist hamster wheel. — praxis

I am aware of this, having been raised in the jungle as a hunter gatherer myself, only to be rescued by missionaries and forced into hours of tedious labor so that I could appreciate the joys of hard work. True story, except for the part of ever having been raised a hunter gatherer.

Let's take McDonalds as an example. According to this they have 210,000 employees and a revenue of $21.076 billion. If we shut down McDonalds and pay their (former) employees $15 an hour, 40 hours a week, for an annual salary of $31,320 to not work, that's $6,577,200,000.

So a (worldwide) tax increase of $6,577,200,000, with $14,498,800,000 that can now be spent/invested elsewhere.

And you think that's going to introduce economic problems that will cause more suffering than is saved by McDonalds' employees not having to work?

I've seen several econ bloggers link to this twitter thread by infectious disease expert Tom Inglesby.

In last 24 hrs there've been prominent US voices calling for a stop to social distancing, citing rationale that they're worse than impact of COVID itself. It’s worth looking very closely at that claim, where we are in US COVID epidemic and what happens if we stop. 1/x
...
These big social distancing measures take time to work. The impact of big interventions in Wuhan China took about 3 wks to start to reverse things. And then everyday after the situation got better. In the US, we're about 7 to 10 days into this, depending on the state.10/x
...
Anyone advising the end of social distancing now, needs to fully understand what the country will look like if we do that. COVID would spread widely, rapidly, terribly, could kill potentially millions in the yr ahead with huge social and economic impact across the country. 15/x
...
We also need to put every conceivable econ program in place to help those being hurt by these social distancing measures. And move ahead rapidly to get our country far better prepared to cope w COVID before people recommend we abandon our efforts to slow this virus. 24/x — Tom Inglesby - MD, Professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health