
US states set to reopen as coronavirus could push jobless rate to 16% - yogiUSA
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa/next-wave-of-us-states-prepare-to-reopen-as-coronavirus-could-push-jobless-rate-to-16-idUSKCN2280L0
======
shirro
Just another Pearl Harbor/9-11 for the US. They could have responded early and
mitigated this like Australia/NZ/Taiwan but now there is massive community
spread there is no right answer. You open things up and more people die. You
close them down and people likely die from poverty related things. The only
sane solution was to act early and prevent this.

Why even have intelligence services, scientific expertise, governments,
infectious disease agencies and emergency plans if they are all ignored until
it is too late. I don't understand how so many countries messed this up.

~~~
Pick-A-Hill2019
Not a specific commentary on the US reaction (or any particular country) but
some of it comes down to complacency. Zika, Ebola, SARS, MERS and various
other outbreaks occured and were contained which lead to a general feeling
that (especially in the early days) this would be another 'Non-Event'. It
reminds me of a post a few months back asking if Y2K was actually a problem.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22556156](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22556156)

~~~
fragmede
Moreover, some of the places with the best reactions (eg Taiwan) were hard hit
by previous epidemics and already had practice with responding to an epidemic.

------
r00fus
Opening up does at least one thing: removes the ability for workers to claim
unemployment benefits if the employer also opens up.

More zero-hour contracts? You betcha.

~~~
LanceH
Reduction in hours is a reason to claim unemployment.

~~~
dexterdog
What about reduction in salary for FTEs?

~~~
LanceH
From Texas: "To be eligible for benefits based on your job separation, you
must be either unemployed or working reduced hours through no fault of your
own. Examples include layoff, reduction in hours or wages not related to
misconduct, being fired for reasons other than misconduct, or quitting with
good cause related to work."

Also quitting due to significant change in work agreement is a valid reason
for unemployment benefits.

Every state is probably different.

------
brightball
We have to find a way to get to a new normal, where we can go about our daily
lives with some reasonable level of safety measures. It’s simply not
sustainable to maintain a shut down long term.

~~~
newacct583
Isn't what this article is about? "Some" states are "opening up", so I guess
we'll get data soon as to how much economic benefit they got vs. how many
lives were lost.

This doesn't sound, to me, like a very ethical experiment given that the cost
of waiting it out for another two-ish months is comparatively easily
calculated and not terribly "doomsday" in scope. Whereas a return to the days
of late March where the death count was doubling twice a week very much... is.

Now... in practice? The "lockdown" won't really be released like that in these
states, because people aren't going to be willing to travel or dine even if
it's "legal". So these states will probably see a moderately worst outbreak
and see moderately better results, and we'll all get to continue these
arguments forever.

Probably. Or it could be a total disaster. I wouldn't bet on that result,
exactly, but I wouldn't be shocked if it happened either.

For evidence: consider pork production. That is an "essential" industry. It's
never been "locked down". Yet per the news today I see that 25% of the
industry is effectively shut down by viral outbreaks anyway. That's what we
should expect if we insist people go to work -- unexpected, uncontrolled
outbreaks in locations and businesses and industries. We're not going to get
to anything resembling a normal economy.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
That's interesting, I hadn't seen calculations like that. What's the cost of
waiting it out for another two-ish months?

~~~
newacct583
The point is: not much more than the cost of "opening up" right now. Because
"lockdown" isn't magic the government can control at a whime. People aren't
going to engage in a full employment economy if they're justifiably scared of
dying.

Or, possibly but not probably: the cost of opening up is vastly higher if we
end up looking at 2-300k needlessly dead Americans.

~~~
mewpmewp2
But further lockdown can also mean more deaths from low economic activity. How
do you know which deaths are worse?

~~~
newacct583
Is there any reasonable modelling that puts worst case US recession deaths in
the hundreds of thousands? I saw a pretty spun looking number in (I think) The
Federalist back in March that claimed a staggering 40k deaths if we didn't
open up right away. Needless to say that spin didn't survive reality well,
that's not only the median worst case of the viral outbreak it's the status
quo.

~~~
mewpmewp2
I would be interested in seeing such model as well

Some things to consider is also the type of deaths. Now I haven't calculated
myself which decision is the correct one here, but just throwing out some
factors that might (or might not) be favourable towards the decision to open
markets sooner.

If most people who die are elderly and they would die in few years anyway are
these deaths comparable to younger people who commit suicides or die from
poverty due to recession - who otherwise might be productive members of
society for the following 30 years?

If 75%+ of people who die are non-working elderly and maybe 80-90% of those
would have died in the following 0-8 years would that mean 0-8 years of saved
resources/care/medicine costs meaning economy would be better off and in the
following 0-8 years we can expect proportionally fewer deaths?

Probably more factors here, but I would like to go to the next point now...

The steps on how to decide should be:

1\. Predict deaths (and what kind of deaths) for each following week/month due
to economic recession, plus any other damages. Lost technological advancements
etc which can indirectly also mean more deaths. Consider all the things that
can indirectly cause deaths. There's also decrease in some type of deaths like
traffic accidents during quarantine. Should we consider these?

I tried to Google for how many deaths 2008 caused - first thing I found was
260,000 extra cancer deaths, but I have no idea about validity:
[https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/economic-
do...](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/economic-downturn-
excess-cancer-deaths-atun/) This is 2.5x more than current deaths from
coronavirus and probably within more productive demographic. Just citing that
to suggest there's some possibility that recession could cause more deaths.

2\. Consider the pace on how fast can hospitals increase their capability to
handle steeper curve.

3\. Predict how fast Corona would spread after opening. How would hospitals
fare? Would this mean more deaths overall from Corona or same amount as if we
had keeping a flatter curve. I think the only real way to know this is to
start touching the waters, so in this case it seems like reasonable to try
with few places first and get measurements from there to see if it's worth it.

~~~
maxerickson
Sure, they are comparable. Maybe not 1 to 1, but you could make up some metric
that evened things out a bit:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-
adjusted_life_year](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year)

(even if you don't agree with that metric, equivalence at some ratio is pretty
clear, unless old people are just completely disposable)

At the moment it seems that individual susceptibility is a bigger factor than
medical capacity, and we are researching dozens of possible treatments and
working towards a vaccine. Makes it even harder to gauge the trade offs, as an
effective treatment would pay big dividends when combined with a slowed
spread.

I also wonder about attributing poverty deaths to economic shut downs. They
are pretty preventable, and more a failure of our broader society than a
result of the specific policy. The societal failure when it comes to suicide
is less direct, but it's a factor there also.

~~~
mewpmewp2
> I also wonder about attributing poverty deaths to economic shut downs.

But this is always the case. If you can't solve this issue during normal
times, how could you solve this issue during crisis? Force part of the society
to pay more taxes during this time? There's certainly a lot of people dying
all over the world due to poverty - these deaths could be prevented as well.
Since there's less production things are probably even more scarce and
expensive during crisis - if economy is shut down and people can't be
productive.

Regarding ethical/moral dilemmas, to me it seems like the trolley problem is
definitely highlighted during this crisis (it to some extent exists also
during normal times), but now it's extremely apparent in my opinion.

Especially because also another question is very apparent - how valuable are
different human lives?

Loosening economy means less deaths within general population, while it means
more deaths specifically for elderly. Loosening isn't binary either so there's
a balanced line that you have to draw. So you have to draw that balance
between somewhere where you have to weigh economic damage, young productive
human lives vs lives that are about to end anyway.

For instance. Would you save 20 people who were expected to live 1 year
compared to a person who would go on to live 40 years?

If we considered years and probably higher quality years it would be 40 > 20
however death count would be 1 < 20

------
paypalcust83
Testing first, scientific analysis next, and opening last.

Or people can go to an Oklahoma restaurant packed shoulder-to-shoulder without
masks with their governor and expedite the restart the pandemic curve to end
up with 100k more deaths.

~~~
bufferoverflow
Oh, it will be more than 100K deaths if there are no measures at all. Once you
run out of healthcare capacity, you're on your own.

------
Seibai
It's worth noting that reopening early will also cause economic damage, and
possibly more that not doing so would.

People dying costs money, both in the lost productivity of the dead and
reduced productivity among those emotionally affected. More people will die
with an early end to lockdown than would if it was maintained for another
month or two.

I expect lots of grim economics research to come out of this.

~~~
mewpmewp2
Depends. In the conditions where coronavirus killed strictly only the old and
weak and it had 2 percent death rate it would on average kill people around 2
years before their actual deaths. Let's just say everyone who would have died
at 88 will now die at 86 instead.

This means that any costs are just advanced 2 years.

But since those 86 year olds do not provide value to the economy at this
point, only consume resources, it will probably offset that by some margin. 2
years worth of resources and care.

Very simplistic way to look at this, but it could also make sense even if not
only the elderies die. There is a possibility it is a net positive for the
economy.

~~~
maxerickson
Average age is much lower than 86.

Michigan has had hundreds of people in their 40's and 50's die (~13% of
deaths):

[https://www.michigan.gov/coronavirus/0,9753,7-406-98163_9817...](https://www.michigan.gov/coronavirus/0,9753,7-406-98163_98173---,00.html)

~~~
mewpmewp2
Yeah, I described extremes (for simple maths) to just show that it's plausible
that a virus could have this effect given those conditions.

If you look here, you can see only 72% who die are above 64

[https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-
se...](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-
demographics/)

Median I would guesstimate based on this data to be around 72 or so.

But the point is how many people are dying who weren't productive members of
society and how many years these people would have lived if coronavirus didn't
strike them.

For illustration purposes if it always killed those first who were closest to
death anyway and death rate was 2% it would mean I guess 74 * 0,02 years lost
for median person or 1.5 years.

This number will increase of course because true nature is more random.

And to be completely fair then if in US each year dies a bit less than 1% of
people and not all of them at old age. So let's say it's 0.6% dying of old
age, then 2% death rate might mean around 3 years lost for median person.

But as I said this are illustrative and non-precise calculations.

If I had to guess I would say it's reasonable to estimate that median person
would lose 1 - 7 years of their life due to coronavirus.

------
jinushaun
"Royal Rose, 39, owner of a tattoo studio in Greeley, Colorado, told Reuters.

Rose said she was reopening her shop after closing a month ago, not because
she wants to but because bills are piling up and she feels she has no choice."

I don't think people will be rushing out to get tattoos...

~~~
aaron-lebo
You must not know many people with tattoos. ;)

------
ptero
Seems that both sides, lock-down-until-proven-safe and stop-all-restrictions-
yesterday, at least in the US are more focused on spin than facts.

What we need is an open and honest discussion, where conflicting opinions are
not ridiculed or shut down but vigorously debated. This would put a premium on
clear logic substantiated by numbers and estimates on error bounds. And
explanations that an average engineer can follow; not super-complicated things
that require a supercomputer to run and a bunch of PhDs to interpret.

In the end it comes down to figuring out what additional risks we, as a
society, are willing to accept to stave off specific erosions of personal
freedoms and economic impacts. If we do not learn to make this choice
consciously it will be made for us by whoever is loudest today (and swapped by
whoever is loudest tomorrow).

~~~
germinalphrase
We don’t have a (publicly facing) political system that rewards nuance.

~~~
ptero
I am not even talking about nuance, just some basic engineering clarity; and
just between friends, no politicians nearby. I have seen a couple of times
that the topic got discussed between otherwise calm, smart people. Both times
it very quickly got into name calling, no technical arguments involved.

~~~
mythrwy
Engineering clarity and politics apparently don't mix. Not a good state to be
in. How did democracy ever become "the loudest bullshitter calls the shots"?
How sustainable is this?

------
icelancer
It'll get far worse than that, with the Western Pact of States looking to have
80% of the lockdown through at least June, with no concrete plans or metrics
to open up beyond that.

~~~
aviraldg
[https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2020/04/California...](https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2020/04/California-Roadmap-to-Modify-the-Stay-at-Home-
Order.pdf)

~~~
usaar333
Those aren't really metrics - it's very subjective. e.g. I read those 6
metrics and I'm like "ok, Bay Area can lift SIP".

------
sheeshkebab
“Opinion polls have generally shown a bipartisan majority of Americans want to
remain at home to protect themselves from the coronavirus, despite the impact
to the economy.”

I’ll trust public opinion with my next health decision, it’s always spot on.

~~~
eric_b
It's remarkable that people are begging their governors to take away their
civil liberties.

Table 2 is all a rational person should need to see to realize the quarantine
is the work of fear-mongering by politicians and the media:

[https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm)

(For those who need an explanation - over the last two months, the data
compiled in this chart shows that for people under 54, they are vanishingly
unlikely to die from COVID. It shows that there is no rational reason that
people under 54 should be locked down.

The flu killed 5x more people under 24 in the last two months than COVID did)

~~~
betterattrib
Help me understand your position.

I look at table 2 and see almost 30k people that died DESPITE a nationwide
lockdown. Given what we know about the virus, that number would've hit 2M-4M
had we not had the lockdown. What am I missing?

~~~
mikem170
I think the idea is that as more data comes in it looks like this virus is not
as bad as was first feared. There is no current data supporting a U.S. death
toll of 2-4 million.

And a lockdown at this point doesn't save any lives, it only postpones the
inevitable spread of the virus. It is not reasonable to stay in lockdown for a
couple years until there is a vaccine, not for a virus that kills only 1 of
500 people.

~~~
bagacrap
yes, additionally, it is probably better to face the tide of covid cases
during the warm weather rather than waiting for cold weather to compound its
severity

