
Covid Lockdown versus Economy Was Always False Trade-Off - gHeadphone
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-06-26/covid-lockdown-versus-economy-was-always-false-trade-off
======
eiji
What is missing is that no country, not Denmark, or any other country besides
maybe New Zealand has eradicated the virus. So we are exactly where we were in
February or March. With one difference. We know what groups of people are at
risk, and which groups aren't.

Any country that decides to relax restrictions will see a surge in cases, not
necessarily deaths, but cases for sure. That's true for sun belt States just
as much as for Denmark.

Those advocating for low case counts at all costs are basically advocating to
close parts of public life for good. Which can be a meaningful public policy
position to have. But then say so. Don't talk about flattening the curve and
hospital capacity. That's disingenuous.

If you are a governor or president anywhere, communicate clearly what your
objective is. Are you working towards a kind of heard immunity situation while
not overextending hospitals? Okay. In that case rising case counts can be
expected. Some states are doing that. But say so. We are not stupid.

Are you trying to keep new cases below 10 per million and you hope to wait it
out for a vaccine? Okay. Say so. In that case, I'll probably close my gym and
skip that state for my concert tour. But I know what I'm in for. I know who is
accountable for the decisions being made. You probably want to extend direct
financial support to those businesses that you are preventing from opening.
Otherwise they will sue you and eventually they will win, albeit might take
some time for courts to get there.

The approach taken will be very different regionally. It's very likely that
people in Texas have different preferences than people in New York or
Michigan. They have a very different makeup and think and live differently.

What I'm missing is clear strategy communicated by governors to which their
constituents can hold them accountable.

~~~
dopylitty
"Those advocating for low case counts at all costs are basically advocating to
close parts of public life for good."

This is not true. Once cases are low enough a competent government can prevent
outbreaks from spinning out of control, as has been seen in South Korea,
China, and even Australia where new outbreaks have happened but haven't lead
to exponential growth.

The problem in the US is that the governments in many states, and certainly at
the federal level, aren't even trying to a competent response and instead
threw up their hands. That's why they're seeing exponential increase.

A several month lockdown is necessary to get cases low enough that a competent
government response and protective measures can keep them low even with
increased economic activity.

~~~
eiji
I understand your position, and I could agree that it can be one of different
strategies to move forward, but a few things are missing in my opinion. You
have to clearly state this as your policy. The Powercenter has to declare this
strategy to be theirs. This accomplishes a few things. It gives the opposition
a clear option to oppose and outline an alternative that could be voted on.

You also have to clearly state what low cases mean. It's been almost four
month and everything is random. Random opening. Random closing. But what I see
are centers of power avoiding to declare something as their strategy, and
share what they consider unacceptable.

------
nappa-leon
The US government failed on many fronts, but the main one is testing. I think
that people misunderstood the point of the lockdowns, possibly due to bad
marketing from the flatten the curve people. The truth is that without a
vaccine reopening would always spike cases, but a robust testing system, with
possibly maybe 10x the number of daily tests, would allow us to remove
contagious individuals from public and flatten the curve while reopening.
Without testing we do have to choose lockdown or hospital overload, but we can
still boost testing. The lockdown was like telling your kid a task would take
ten minutes, and they would be in timeout until they completed it. If they
choose not to do the task, you don't just let them out. Governors can have all
the plans they want, but telling them all to come up with their own testing
plan without federal use of the DPA is ludicrous.

~~~
eiji
Our tests per Capita don't seem to be behind other countries. It seems to me
the "more testing needed" rhetoric is similar to the "we start dieing like
flys in three weeks" position. Just triple tests another tenfold and we will
be fine? It ignores reality.

------
troughway
Tried to bring out this salient point here
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23635489](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23635489))
but seems like HN is more interested in pushing the up and down arrows than
they are in using that thing between their ears.

~~~
sojournerc
> If a vaccine is not found, you're bound to have a catastrophe on your hands.

> Whether or not you quarantined, the economy would collapse because you would
> have a massive death toll and paranoia throughout the country.

You make assumptions in these two statements without a lot of nuance or
support.

I think the economy would be much better off if we had encouraged self-
quarantine for at risk groups, but allowed otherwise healthy people to go
about their business. Giving people information to make their own decisions,
encourage social distancing etc etc

Why will we have a catastrophe if a vaccine is not found?

~~~
fzeroracer
> I think the economy would be much better off if we had encouraged self-
> quarantine for at risk groups, but allowed otherwise healthy people to go
> about their business. Giving people information to make their own decisions,
> encourage social distancing etc etc

We tried to do just that in Texas. It failed. Badly.

There are multiple reasons why this idea of opening up simply won't work:

1\. Many Americans are fundamentally unwilling to go along with social
distancing and mask wearing protocols. All it takes is one or two people
refusing to self-quarantine to get an entire business sick and force them to
shut down.

2\. We did nothing to ramp up our testing. In fact our president has been
signalling that he wants to reduce testing so that the numbers look better.

When individuals were given their own decisions, they went to bars packed in
like sardines and caused a second wave to appear.

~~~
sojournerc
Right, but the people who went to the bars made that decision despite being
aware of the risks.

I would much prefer a society that allows people to do dumb things than a
nanny-state that purports to keep us "safe".

Living is a risky situation. That's just the way it is.

If my 97 year old grandma wants to go have a mimosa and socialize, I think
that should be her choice, even considering the risk.

We drive on highways, I go outside where mosquitoes carry West-Nile disease, I
eat food prepared by someone else at a restaurant, I smoke a cigarette.

These are all risk trade-offs that we allow individuals to make their own
decision on. Why is _this_ disease, this risk, so different?

We're encouraging a sort of generalized agoraphobia - if _you_ don't want to
take the risk of going out, then stay home and you'll be perfectly safe. Don't
impose that fear on others...

~~~
fzeroracer
Except we _don 't_ allow people to do dumb things when it puts other people at
risk.

If your grandma decides to go drive after downing a few mimosas she'll be
arrested for driving intoxicated. If she decides to go 80mph on a 30 speed
limit road she'll be arrested for putting others at risk. And you can't smoke
a cigarette anywhere you want because other people don't want your second hand
smoke mucking up the area.

And this disease much like those is not about you. Arguments you make are
inherently selfish because it's about _your_ freedoms but not about the
freedoms you take away from others. You are essentially arguing for those that
are at risk to remain in permanent lockdown because others can't be bothered
to take basic protective measures. You're demanding to take away other
people's freedom so you can have marginally more freedom.

~~~
sojournerc
How does going to a bar take away freedom from others?

I'm not suggesting "permanent lock-down", rather the opposite - those who are
at risk are perfectly capable of managing that risk themselves as they see fit
- wear a mask - sanitize hands - avoid people - great! no one's stopping that.

There were diseases before this one, and there will be others to follow it.

If becoming a vector of transmission is equivalent to "taking away freedom
from others" than we'd better never leave home again since we can never know
what pathogen might be hiding out there in the world.

If I want to expose myself to such vectors, that's my prerogative. My example
of my Grandam willingly taking risk to socialize is nothing like outright
dangerous behavior that puts others at risk (speeding 80 in a 30). They are
not equivalent.

~~~
fzeroracer
Your argument fails to address my point that when you're willingly exposing
yourself like that you're exposing others who had no clue or idea to it as
well.

Again, you're arguing to take away other people's freedoms because you can't
make the token effort to try and reduce spread yourself. Because wearing a
mask is about people who are sick taking measures to prevent others from
getting sick, not about those who are at risk trying to avoid the virus.

Your example of grandma is an equivalent. She's doing something dangerous and
then impacting other people around her that have no choice.

~~~
sojournerc
>when you're willingly exposing yourself like that you're exposing others who
had no clue or idea to it as well.

How? Others are free (or should be) to associate with me or not.

Your assessment of danger is different than mine. I suppose that's the crux of
my point.

~~~
fzeroracer
Because they have no clue whether or not you're sick and if you are, you're
taking zero preventative measures to stop others from getting sick?

Let's assume you had a non-remote job. Would your coworkers have the freedom
to associate with you or not? How about any family you're living with? What
about people at any stores you visit? Especially since the coronavirus has a
significant lagtime before symptoms appear which means you have no clue
whether or not you're actually exposing others until you get sick and work
backwards from there.

Then if you do end up as being a vector for the coronavirus, the people around
you pay the price. Your business has to shut down to prevent the spread of it,
people have to self-quarantine because now it's highly likely that they have
it too.

In the course of your single-minded drive for personal freedoms, you've just
caused massive damage to other people and companies and took away _their_
freedoms.

~~~
sojournerc
Quite the hypothetical you got there.

You've made a lot of assumptions, like going to a bar guarantees infection.

I _do_ take preventative measures when I go out. I wear a mask. I wash my
hands. I keep distance as possible.

There is little evidence of transmission within stores where people are
wearing masks and keeping distance. I have coworkers who are nervous, and I do
accommodate them by taking the prescribed precautions.

Someone is in contact with me who doesn't know my recent history can wear a
mask, and can keep their distance. They have every freedom in that regard, yet
I don't have freedom to sit with a friend at a bar?

You should be aware that asymptomatic spread is likely not very common:
[https://time.com/5850256/who-asymptomatic-
spread/](https://time.com/5850256/who-asymptomatic-spread/)

> The highest estimate was a transmission rate of 2.2%, suggesting
> “asymptomatic spread is unlikely to be a major driver of clusters or
> community transmission of infection.”

It's good to be aware of _high-risk_ situations - such as shouting in a mob
(you assume Texas spike was due to bars opening).

You've yet to address my point... We all take risks every day.

What's your goal? to keep everyone perfectly safe all the time? Padded rooms
for everyone!

~~~
fzeroracer
> It's good to be aware of _high-risk_ situations - such as shouting in a mob
> (you assume Texas spike was due to bars opening).

It seems you're incorrectly assuming that protesting was the reason behind the
spike in infections. The reality is that we've seen multiple studies come out
now [1] [2] [3] which indicate that outdoor spread of the coronavirus is much
harder than indoors. You can stop spreading that lie, because all evidence
points towards our attempt to rapidly reopen and people packing into enclosed
locations.

> What's your goal? to keep everyone perfectly safe all the time? Padded rooms
> for everyone!

My goal was to dismantle your terrible arguments because it's the same tired
nonsense of 'we all take risks every day' and 'we need to reopen the economy'.
By your own argument we should remove speed limits, remove laws against drunk
driving and anything of the sort because we're all taking inherent risks by
being on the road and it doesn't make sense to to keep people safe.

[1] [https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/494348-new-study-
finds...](https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/494348-new-study-finds-few-
cases-of-outdoor-transmission-of-coronavirus-in-china)

[2]
[https://apnews.com/a288340b3bd3fbc62e564b3d0adfaa2e](https://apnews.com/a288340b3bd3fbc62e564b3d0adfaa2e)

[3]
[https://www.nber.org/papers/w27408.pdf](https://www.nber.org/papers/w27408.pdf)

