
Plan for 5 Years of Lockdown - boffinism
https://boffinism.com/covid-19-lockdown-plan-for-5-years-of-lockdown/
======
fennecfoxen
I don’t think so. The world at large will much rather take the death count
than five years of mass unemployment, no one getting basic medical services
and cancer screenings … and there is the whole part where economic output is
sorta needed to pay for things (like rent and food for the 20%+ unemployed).

My own mother still needs urgent dental surgery. It’s going on two months now.

You hear the trite content free version of this tradeoff in people whining
“you just want to protect your 401(k)”. Imagine after five years, all 401(k)s
are wiped out, most hospitals are bankrupt for lack of running any profitable
procedures, and the US is throwing together some emergency single-payer system
... but it is struggling with recruitment because there’s not enough tax
revenue to get the budget to pay enough doctors. (You want to sell bonds? Who
has money to buy bonds?) How many die in this scenario?

~~~
kennydude
> most hospitals are bankrupt for lack of running any profitable procedures

That's a very American problem due to having private hospitals...

~~~
BjoernKW
It's still a problem, though. "Haha, told you so." is not a solution.

Besides, publicly funded hospitals and healthcare systems in general need
money, too. If there's hardly any tax income anymore because there's hardly
any taxable income anymore funds for publicly funded hospitals will dry up,
too.

~~~
true_religion
In the American case, we might have to end one or two of the many foreign wars
that we are waging, but we would get by.

------
piokoch
A 2020 A.D. blog post. Title has nothing to do with the content and the
content itself is a bunch of speculations and pessimistic predictions that are
so far not based on any scientific evidence.

~~~
majewsky
Without commenting on the merits of the article content...

> Title has nothing to do with the content

You might be misparsing the title in the same way that I originally did. It's
not "[this is the] plan for 5 years of lockdown", but "[you should] plan for 5
years of lockdown" which is a correct summary of the position argued by the
article.

------
dahfizz
I think humanity is going to learn to accept coronavirus, just like we have
accepted pneumonia or the flu. There will always be some cases and some deaths
every year. The uncomfortable question is when those numbers are low enough
that its not worth it to quarantine anymore.

Lockdown has very real costs. We are seeing crazy unemployment, a huge spike
in calls to suicide hotlines, and very likely an increase in all-cause
mortality as people are unable to get regular preventative care. Someone who
would have had that weird lump checked out last year isn't going to right now.

We are already seeing protests pop up all over the place. And as most places
have seen daily new cases start to fall, lockdown will become unenforceable as
people get too restless.

------
jdlyga
Why should anyone trust an article like this written by someone who knows
nothing about infectious diseases?

------
biznickman
Great job with a sensationalist unrealistic title. This isn't a scenario
grounded in fact and it's written by a speculative software engineer. Not a
medical professional or epidemiologist.

~~~
mattbee
Sooo this post is flagged, but patio11's conspiratorial epic gets a long day
of front page discussion. I'd prefer hn flagged _any_ amateur covid19 policy
discussion, it's just a bit embarrassing.

------
Jemm
The thing about viruses, especially Corona viruses is that they mutate. The
chance of mutation grows with infection rates.

So letting the virus run its course is not as simple as people would like to
believe. If we do let the virus infect 60 to 70% of the population, we vastly
increase the risk of a much worse pandemic.

Personally I think that the people who want to re-open the most are rich
people who realize that they stand to lose a lot of money both by not getting
the income from an active economy and secondly by higher taxes and asset
nationalization from governments who are going to have to support lost income
and social services.

My final thought is that many people now perceive the virus as mainly
targeting elderly, poor, frail, drug addicted and ethnic communities; which
sadly many people consider to be acceptable losses.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
It could mutate to become less deadly although I'm not sure what pressures
would cause that. The Spanish flu got worse in the second wave, it killed many
more otherwise healthy 25-35 year olds.

~~~
majkinetor
The evolution dictates that it should become less deadly because dead host
mostly means dead virus and live host may mean more live viruses.

~~~
gremlinsinc
Except it's showing to mutate pretty damn fast and some of the mutations are
way deadlier, don't know which 'came first' or how that proves one way or the
other that it'll get worse or better.

The are currently > 30 known mutations:
[https://nypost.com/2020/04/21/coronavirus-has-mutated-
into-a...](https://nypost.com/2020/04/21/coronavirus-has-mutated-into-at-
least-30-different-strains-study/)

But a lot of deadliest viruses kill fast and are less viral, so only way to
spread is become less lethal.

This virus has the luxury of being both deadly AND extremely viral (because it
takes it's time killing people).

Even if you don't die, nobody knows the long term effects of the virus on
lungs, kidneys, heart, etc...

So, while a lot of diseases do mutate to be less severe, that doesn't need to
be the case with Sars-cov-2.

------
amigiac
Countries that end their lockdowns early will be seen as a problem and we will
see travel bans.

~~~
rabboRubble
In the 80s, the USA was an exporter of HIV because Reagan refused to address
the "gay plague".

I'm laying odds that the USA will be an exporter of COVID cases around the
world. Assuming the rest of the world will accept travelers from the USA
without mandatory quarantine.

------
IshKebab
Don't be ridiculous. There's no way the country could afford that, nor would
people agree to it.

There's no way a lockdown like this will go on for more than a year _even if
it means more people die_.

~~~
nogabebop23
You've been down voted but I agree with your position. Humans will prioritize
their well-being over others survival; this is an unpleasant truth. I think
everyone has a different threshold of what they will accept & rationalize, but
at some point they will no longer shoulder personal hardship for the greater
good. They will collapse their support to a sub-tribe, like country, community
or family and choose "us" over "them", even though the differentiation is very
recent.

~~~
SethBraud
I think this is not true and lot of people are living out of moral
superiority, fake altruism, based on the ego. They want to be a cultural hero
by saying stuff that imply moral superiority and people with other opinions
are evil!

There are good reasons to be sceptical about locking down a complete economy,
but everybody is afraid to speak out, because they know they will be destroyed
by the moralists!

The communists believed in altruism... they thought they were right and people
around them evil. The human mind is corrupt. Some people simply live in a
fantasy world. The christians, communists and fascists had 1 thing in
common... they thought they were right and used the truths as a weapon against
other people.

Speaking about other people as "evil", is sometimes projection or an egoic
illusion.

------
Paianni
Five years is not realistic. More likely is one to two years of lockdowns
broken up with periods of 'relief' to allow a degree of economic recovery.

The supply chain will just disintegrate otherwise.

~~~
lettergram
I actually think the supply chain largely has been upended. That’s the real
story here...

I tried to buy a part for my dryer two weeks ago and it was going to take >2
months. I ended up then trying to buy a dryer and the only one I could
purchase was already in store. If I tried to order one again it was >2 months
(on an unknown timeline).

China is having massive production issues, there are import fees/inspections
and now a 2 week quarantine on incoming goods.

It’s all kinds of messed up and now there’s a good reason to change production
location.

~~~
mumblemumble
Rumor has it that power plants are having a hard time getting replacement
parts, too.

I expect, though, that these sorts of things will get sorted out. For one, no
government is going to be keen on letting people who are confined to home and
dependent on computers and the Internet to keep their little corner of the
economy going go without power for long just because it's suddenly next-to-
impossible to get some special precision bracket from the overseas factory
that got the contract to make it back in 2005, while at the same time the
domestic economy has hordes of ex-machinists who aren't _quite_ ready to
retire yet yet, and would be more than happy to quit their jobs as greeters at
the local big box store in order to return to a job that pays more _and_
reduces their risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2.

Worst case scenario, perhaps we won't return to the "easily availability of
basically everything so everything's basically disposable because the global
supply chain is so fluid that it's easier to buy new broken crap than replace
old broken crap" that we enjoyed so far this millennium. But I doubt it'll get
much worse than the level of availability that developed economies enjoyed
when I was a kid. Which is still pretty good. It would take a bit longer to
rejigger the design of consumer products so that they return to using more
standardized parts that can easily be stocked locally instead of all this
fragile, disposable, special snowflake industrial design. But I could see that
shifting fairly quickly, too, if things are still looking bad in 5 years.

------
RubenSandwich
This author is asserting 5 years of lockdown but gives no reasons why
specifically 5 years. They talk about the possibility of no vaccine working
and herd immunity not working if the immune window is too small, etc. But how
does that equate to 5 years of lockdown? Why 5 years and not just say
indefinitely then? Am I missing something?

~~~
nathanyukai
Also I don't think the global economy can afford 5 year lockdown, it will
cause starvation among with other cause of death, which might end up 'killing'
more than covid-19

~~~
hef19898
No idea why it would be 5 years. But a lockdown would not result in
starvation. Why would it? We "only" lock down social life (bad enough with all
kinds of negative impacts on people, society and economy), but the food supply
won't brake down. Why would it? All necessary things will be kept open.

~~~
PizozhokKovidlo
> All necessary things will be kept open.

Worldwide, that's not to be taken for granted. Here in Russia, the police is
sometimes stopping agricultural workers from planting their crops because of
the lockdowns. (Source in Russian:
[https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4311038](https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4311038))

~~~
tonyedgecombe
We've had a few incidents of idiocy in the far reaches of the state but it
soon gets dealt with.

------
lazylizard
So how about 2months of lockdown every 6mths? How sustainable is that? How
about 2mths every year?

How long before we realise its not going away? At the 3 year mark when no
successful vaccine is found???

------
imvetri
Thanks for sharing and thinking through the worst case which will possibly
help to think what other measures we can take in order to keep ourself survive
through this pandemic

------
Robotbeat
Sign me up for early vaccine trials then.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
I don't think I'll be rushing to volunteer. Things done in a hurry have a
tendency to go wrong.

~~~
Robotbeat
Those developing vaccines are professionals and are going through all the
necessary steps. Phase I human clinical trials are already 6-7 weeks in for
the Moderna vaccine. By the time there’s enough vaccine for Phase III trials,
I’ll be comfortable enough with the risk. Besides, by volunteering early, I’m
doing a service to others. Any additional risk I’d be taking would be buying-
down risks for others later, so I’d be happy.

------
PizozhokKovidlo
Sorry to be saying this but the post seems so smug and smarter-than-thou.

> I know. I know. No one wants to hear this.

> But, but… vaccine?

Would this kind of antagonism really convince anyone?

------
febeling
At some point you have to assume people get sort of religious satisfaction out
of being pessimistic.

God ("nature"?) is punishing us, because we have sinned.

There are so many variables in play right now, which we don't know about.

Things that could help us are:

* unrecognised infections make the mortality compute to flu levels

* we find a vaccine timely

* we find treatment timely

* we find specifics about transmission and can avoid it with low-impact responses instead of lockdown

* there are explanations for why it's so regionally different (NYC/Italy vs. Singapore/Germany)

* some sort of seasonality

* we find more specific risk factors which can be remidiated (air pollution?)

Probably more.

Why point out it could all go bad? That seriously can't count for an
intelligent assessment of the situation. It's an expression of fear. Why don't
you read the optimistic reading more often? It's almost like people think fear
was virtuous.

~~~
watwut
> Why don't you read the optimistic reading more often? It's almost like
> people think fear was virtuous.

Being pessimistic is not the same thing as being afraid. Being cautious is not
the same thing as being afraid. Acting on negative prediction does not mean
one is acting out of fear.

~~~
febeling
Being pessimistic just means having negative bias.

Being cautious is emotionally neutral, we should strive for it, for sure.

Acting only on negative predictions without weighing in positive predictions
or the uncertainty of the original prediction is stupid and unscientific, and
likely the result of fear. That you see all the time right now.

Where do people discuss the postponed cancer operations and their casualties,
what is the cost of livelihoods destroyed, like yoga studios and hair dresser
small businesses? How do you even measure it? Who's stating their opinion on
coronavirus lockdown, while also adding the disclaimer about their steady and
safe monthly salary as a conflict of interest? People who want to reopen don't
care about the "money," they care about economical survival, most probably in
most cases.

~~~
watwut
I can do this too. Being optimistic just means having positive bias.

My point was about optimistic bias you get when you frame every discussion
about negative aspects of something as fear. Which is exactly what you was
doing there. This rhetorical trick:

> Why point out it could all go bad? That seriously can't count for an
> intelligent assessment of the situation. It's an expression of fear. Why
> don't you read the optimistic reading more often? It's almost like people
> think fear was virtuous.

Buying this, there is no way to rationally point out that things could be bad.
You just ruled out arguments of the people you disagree with without engaging
with them. Only optimistic prediction or information is allowed in rational
discussion.

> Where do people discuss the postponed cancer operations and their
> casualties, what is the cost of livelihoods destroyed, like yoga studios and
> hair dresser small businesses? How do you even measure it?

I distinctively remember those being discussed. You can discuss them. I am not
saying that these should not be discussed.

But they are not optimistic. They are pessimistic and if I wanted to frame
them as "fear", I could. And it would be equally dishonest rhetorical trick.

~~~
febeling
The "rhetorical trick" is your construction here, possibly even unaware. I
didn't argue for taking only positives into account. I could go on an say you
use the straw man fallacy against me now, but let's skip that part and talk
like grownups.

I'm arguing for balanced assessment of risk and opportunities.

Because that's what is meant with "why point out it all go bad" part. The lack
of counter arguments. You created the "only good" bit in your mind.

I'd challenge you to perceive opposing views not as bad faith, deceptive or
dishonest. The world has far less of those types than current media and
political climate makes you think.

