I think by the end of April we have to start reving things back up one way or the other. A true depression is far too big a risk IMO. Ideally we would have handled the initial impact better, but we didn't, and we aren't a communist country that can lock everybody inside. Blunt the initial impact so that it recedes, and give our supply of ventilators, tests and PPE a chance to catch up. Also come up with a system so that anybody over 60 can stay at home. Most of them aren't in the workforce anyway, or at least don't need to be physically present for a lot of their work. The rest of us are just gonna have to deal with this. Even under lockdown, we aren't gonna kill it entirely. Regardless of what we do, an ember is gonna be left that will flare up again. We just can't have people dying in the street because the whole country got it at the same time. It's likely gonna take at least a year to truly choke this thing out no matter what course we take.
2% fatality rate does not even account for other deaths due to an overburdened medical system. A large percentage of infected will need hospitalization. The sick will take up hospital beds. These take away beds from other diseases including cancer, heart disease, and strokes. Boom those people can't get adequate treatment their chances of dying are increased.
I don't think we will ever actually defeat this virus. Coronaviruses are very common and cause diseases from the common cold to SARS. They mutate easily and as much as we come up with ways to eradicate them they will come up with ways to get around those. This is an arms race. We have science and technology they have evolution. They have the upper hand. What we can hope for is some sort of truce. Where we figure out ways to limit the worst symptoms, lower the death rate and deal with it enough to get back to a functioning economy. If that means seasonal outbreaks where thousands die but not 100's of thousands and not overwhelming our health systems that might be the most likely outcome.
I agree that this isn't an apocalypse and while this is a very pernicious virus it's not the Omega Man. One positive that could come out of this is that it's a good trial run for something that could lead to Omega Man. SARS was much deadlier and perversely would strike young people even harder than older people. Just because we haven't seen a case doesn't mean it isn't still out there hiding in some other vector. Besides that there are many other viruses out there that are just a mutation away from becoming truly bad.
B of A Securities economists write "pay now or pay more later." They argue that declaring victory prematurely or easing restrictions will cause more flare-ups that require more draconian efforts later. The cheapest and least damaging thing is to do go all-in now. I think their note supports my feeling that this economy-vs-health is a false question. The best way to save the economy is to control the virus. https://research1.ml.com/Archive/12..._=1585244048_4677fc71b2767af15fd303d053f7b4a9
Statistically the answer is yes, as the vast majority that would die are the least productive in our society. But when you are dealing with lives, it is an inhumane way to do it, but if this were a computer AI running things, we would already be back at work. DD
I was thinking about this earlier today. Human life expectancy is now 79 years. In 1900 it was about 35 at the same time the human population has increased to around 7 billion doubling since the late 20th Century. In most populations of organisms it is almost impossible to have a lot of them with many of them living for a long time. Usually factors like disease, predation, and resource depletion controls them. While Covid 19 even at it's worst won't be a major check on human population or significantly reduce our life expectancy it is a reminder that we're still a long way from outsmarting nature and attaining practical immortality.
The "novel" in Coronavirus leaves tough questions in the 2 weeks...2 months...years ahead. We are essentially delaying for either an inevitable infection or a vaccine. Social distancing is still neccesary to maintain, and eventually bolster our healthcare infrastructure. If more people said **** it, I'd be considering a career change if I were a frontline healthcare worker. I think it's remarkable and has to be reminded that even in today's pessimism and sobering facts, many people still don't want to leave others holding the bag. During the subprime crisis, most homeowners tried to pay off their overpriced mortgages till the bitter end rather than mailing in the keys once the value of their homes hit 20-40% below loan value. If we were all Ayn Rand "realists", aka corporate sociopaths, the better play would be to take the money and run scott free (then buy again to complete the loop). So no, thanking healthcare professionals is not empty lip service. All the war metaphors casually thrown around in offices or sports talk radio literally applies to them Again, similarities w/ climate change come to pass albeit in a compressed time scale.
Good point, and probably worth an entry in the positive thread. I probably haven't appreciated enough how remarkable it is that with all the craziness and personal cost, billions of people around the planet have stepped up to do their duty by everyone else and more or less observe the stay-at-home orders. I'd say it's "self-interest properly understood" as de Tocqueville described it. But still an amazing amount of cooperation from a species that is ordinarily pretty combative and selfish.
