
Bill Gates calls for nationwide shutdown - evo_9
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/490523-bill-gates-calls-for-nationwide-shutdown-shutdown-anywhere-means-shutdown
======
Ididntdothis
I definitely feel the US is constantly behind the curve in this. After trying
to downplay it for a while the administration had to accept reality but
instead of taking strong measures they still do things only very reluctantly.
Then on the other hand they close parks while at the same people are crowding
in stores without masks or gloves.

~~~
jerf
One of the characteristics of an exponential spread is that you _will_ be
either behind or ahead. If it seems like nobody is at "just right", it's
because "just right" is an exponentially small target.

I would suggest cutting people _some_ slack in both directions.

(It wasn't _that_ long ago when our government was being criticized as moving
too fast and xenophobically shutting the borders before it was justified.
Moving back and forth between "too far ahead" and "too far behind" is also a
thing that will continue to happen.)

~~~
shock-value
In this situation most would agree it's better to be ahead; the criticism is
justified.

~~~
jerf
Would they? First of all, the criticism I mentioned _was_ when the governent
was "ahead"; experience indicates people were not "agreeing it was good to be
ahead". "Ahead" in this case may be shutting down the economy far more than is
justified. While it may be fun to talk about "the rich" and stuff, remember
that "the economy" is what feeds all of us, clothes us, houses us, and keeps
us in electricity and clean water. It is even now not necessarily clear that
we _aren 't_ "ahead", once you put aside the partisan political sniping, and
doing ourselves much greater damage than is actually justified. Thousands of
deaths are bad, but a 30% employment rate (and presumably growing) is going to
be bad too. I am _not_ implicitly claiming one is worse than the other... I'm
saying right here, right now, we don't actually _know_.

The "correct" response is an exponentially small target. Right now in the fog
of war we don't even know what it would be. It would fit the evidence that the
coronavirus fatality rate really is sub-.5%, if you count all the asymptomatic
cases that _may_ exist, and that we're badly overreacting. It would fit the
evidence that coronavirus is still, if anything, downplayed, that there is no
reserve of asymptomatic cases, and that even if it doesn't kill you there will
be a generation of people crippled by it just like there was by polio. The
nastier end of the rumors I'm hearing are _really nasty_ [1]. It will only be
visible in hindsight.

[1]: Can the virus kill the part of the brain responsible for determining
whether or not you have enough oxygen in your blood, and then also kill your
lungs, so that you think you're recovered and doing well and everything's fine
even as your blood oxygen level sinks until you just keel over dead? Is that
what the videos of people literally keeling over dead in the streets of China
were? Dunno. Won't know for a while yet. But _if_ it can do stuff like that,
it could be a scar on us for the rest of our lives. Or that could be something
else entirely, up to and including some intelligence agency's way of
fearmongering. Heck if I know. Maybe it is ultimately just a bad cold that
tends to cause pneumonia and everything else is just the Internet doing its
echo-y thing. Zoonoses (diseases that jump the species barrier) have a history
of that sort of thing.

~~~
mindslight
> _It is even now not necessarily clear that we aren 't "ahead", once you put
> aside the partisan political sniping, and doing ourselves much greater
> damage than is actually justified_

I haven't been out in over a week, but have we actually gotten to the point
where everybody now wears a mask in public?

The shutdowns were partly necessitated by an utter failure to produce and
distribute PPE (whether by market or by fiat), which made it impossible for
most people to just take reasonable precautions and then continue about (most
of) their daily lives. Until the supply catches up until everybody who wants a
mask has one, and front line grocery store workers have them provided by their
employers, I would say we're most definitely still "behind".

~~~
0xffff2
>I haven't been out in over a week, but have we actually gotten to the point
where everybody now wears a mask in public?

Certainly not in the bay area. I just got back from shopping (first time I've
been out in about a week and a half). I couldn't find a mask in stock online,
so I cut up and old shirt and some coffee filters and sewed my own. No one
looked at me funny, but I was a bit surprised to find that maybe 1/3 of the
people in the store had any kind of mask on. Most people seemed to be making
very little effort to keep their distance either. Lots of good the little
markers for the checkout lines are going to do when people are still walking
past each other barely a foot apart in the aisles.

------
ddebernardy
As the saying goes, you can depend on Americans to do the right thing when
they have exhausted every other possibility. (Not by Churchill [1].) Plus,
it's not a given that it _is_ the right thing to do, especially if there's no
plan for what comes after; and there reportedly are early signs of social
unrest on this side of the pond [2]. A shutdown can't last until there's a
vaccine. At best it buys you time.

[1]: [https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/11/11/exhaust-
alternative...](https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/11/11/exhaust-
alternatives/)

[2]: [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/01/singing-
stops-...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/01/singing-stops-italy-
fear-social-unrest-mount-coronavirus-lockdown)

~~~
balladeer
> At best it buys you time.

That's the very point. It takes some (or a lot of) burden off the health
infra. Lockdown is being done in many countries so that not everybody will
need hospitalisation at the same time.

~~~
ddebernardy
Sure, but for how long will it remain sustainable? The lockdown hasn't lasted
a month in Italy and they're already seeing early signs of food theft that
could potentially degenerate into food riots. I'm struggling to imagine how
any country will make it sustainable for more than a month or two. Yet on
paper, a prerequisite for stopping the lockdown seems to be that you've been
testing on a fairly large scale, which only Korea seems to have pulled off.

The situation in France, for instance, is unenviable at the moment and
absolutely not sustainable: albeit to a lesser degree as in the US, there's
not enough PPE for essential staff, not enough masks for everyone else, and
most crucially not enough tests to go about. Yet there's a full lockdown with
fines and all, and insofar as I'm aware there isn't enough financial help for
employers or employees or the self-employed or anyone else. It's only a matter
of time before everyone realizes that they're going into this like it's 1914,
expecting it'll all be over by the autumn.

It won't.

It won't, because of asymptomatic cases and because the virus is spreading in
developing countries. Rich countries won't want to shell out the trillions
that might be needed so the latter can cope with the situation. (And that will
translate into yet another migration crisis to boot. Etc. Etc.)

For better or worse, the current lockdown measures in a growing number of
countries are only postponing the inevitable mass outbreak by a few weeks.
That is, unless countries get their act together and find a huge pot of money
to tap into -- and in periods with a collapsing economy, the only sane pot of
money to tap into is wealth. I'm not holding my breath.

~~~
balladeer
Till the time widespread testing is ensured (and hospitals have some
breather). Then test and isolate the clusters and keep relatively relaxed
other "relatively unaffected" areas and not impose full blown lockdown.

------
csomar
I live in a country going through the second week of Shutdown. This is simply
stupid and irresponsible. Unlike China which had a limited regional shutdown
and where the government controlled lots of everyday life; most of the other
countries are running with the private sector.

A 3-4 months shutdown is going to bankrupt pretty much everyone. Those who
were running thin but also those who were saving a bit. Unless you have a 1
year expenses upfront and probably own your house in your name, you are going
bankrupt and will be relying on the government for help.

Next we are going to see massive disruption for pretty much everything and
every consumer good. This is a good opportunity for government intervention
and for government (or Big Co) to own pretty much everything.

The virus might kill 100k in the US (or millions) let's just assume that cost
and prepare for a future outbreak.

~~~
alexashka
What number of deaths would it take to convince you to agree to a 3-4 month
shutdown?

What qualifications do you have to assume this virus might kill 100k and not
10 million? Are you ok with 10 million?

Assuming you have friends who have elderly parents, are you ok with visiting
them to tell them they are likely to die but it's for a good cause - 'the
economy'.

~~~
csomar
> What number of deaths would it take to convince you to agree to a 3-4 month
> shutdown?

None. You are either ready for a massive shutdown or you are not. I actually
was convinced of the shutdown until just a couple days ago. Things start to
break. Your car insurance might expire. Your heater might go down but there is
no one to repair it. Cabin fever (even though I'm an introvert and probably
handling it better than most people out there). Some people are stuck in one
place and need to move to another place.

As time goes by, I can see more and more people changing to the opinion that
this was a bad idea. They are not ready and the shutdown risk completely
devastating their life or worse.

> What qualifications do you have to assume this virus might kill 100k and not
> 10 million? Are you ok with 10 million?

We know it's deadly but not that deadly. The numbers from Korea, Italy and the
Diamond princess are not good but they are not world-ending either. They are
painful but that's it.

> Assuming you have friends who have elderly parents, are you ok with visiting
> them to tell them they are likely to die but it's for a good cause - 'the
> economy'.

I have elderly parents. The guideline is that they stay at home. They have a
garden, a couple dogs and enough food. But at some point I expect that they'll
probably be okay with the risk and seeing me rather than spending 2 year
confined with no human contact.

~~~
xur17
> Cabin fever (even though I'm an introvert and probably handling it better
> than most people out there).

This part has been interesting - I live alone, and have worked from home for a
while, but it's still starting to get to me. I can't imagine people that live
by themselves and are used to going to the office every day / are more
extroverted.

~~~
csomar
They are going bonkers. I live in a small compound with gardens. I have a
strict policy for not interacting with neighbors or not getting into their
affairs (for lengthy reasons). A couple days ago I was about to call the
police for what's possibly a bad fight/domestic violence for the neighbors
next door. The neighbor above me had decided she wants to become a singer and
now (as I am typing) is loudly signing. The one above that (second floor) is
dropping kitchen object every other day and comes to collect/apologize for
that.

This is fine.

------
mmm_grayons
Mr. Gates is already rich and insulated from a likely downturn. It's important
to balance the welfare of Americans with their financial welfare, and we can't
just borrow our way out of the economic fallout that a months-long shutdown
would produce.

Edit: ITT people saying I want to sacrifice 2 million for the economy. I
didn't say remove all preventative measures, I said we need to balance. I'd
guess this looks something like a production possibilities frontier graph:
we'll be sacrificing a lot of economy to get a little more health past a
certain point, and vice-versa. It's the job of lawmen to strike that balance.

~~~
celticninja
I think you will be surprised that you can borrow your way out of it. what do
you think is going to happen, humans are going to survive coronavirus only to
be killed because the economy is no longer functioning? the market is there
for the benefit of humans not the other way round.

~~~
mmm_grayons
Okay, fair points. Here are some of the issues I see with that. You have two
options, borrow or print, right? If you borrow, you pay it back. If you print,
you don't, but your citizens absorb a serious financial blow. So let's say we
don't want to ruin the savings of Americans, so we borrow. Who lends? As of
Dec. 2019, 74% of our debt was held by the public [0]. Odds are on that
Americans fleeing to financial security would buy the better part of new debt
issued, too.

So, you've kicked the can for 10 years; now it's time to pay back. Where do we
get the money now? If you cancel it, you're destroying the retirements of
millions of Americans, not just hurting some abstract entity of "the Market".
Remember that a large number of people feel the effects of a market downturn,
even if through a retirement account or pension plan.

So, to avoid retirees eating dog food, you now have to pay back. How do you
propose to do this, given we already have a truly colossal $23.6 trillion in
debt?

[0]: [https://www.thebalance.com/who-owns-the-u-s-national-
debt-33...](https://www.thebalance.com/who-owns-the-u-s-national-debt-3306124)

~~~
celticninja
look you were able to find $2.4trillion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and
your economy didn't collapse. that is 10% of your total national debt. this is
not going to cost that much (and even if it does it's money better spent than
on those wars).

now you are asking how do you pay it back? well you could start by taxing some
of the ~600 billionaires that live there. the top eight richest billionaires
own as much combined wealth as "half the human race".

so it's not like there isn't a pot of money there, and taking some of it
certainly is not going to cause those people hardship. now you look at some of
the major corporations and they're very low tax compared to revenue and profit
and you have another pot of money that you can access again without causing
too much hardship on the company.

the money is out there it's just very unfairly distributed.

~~~
thefunnyman
I completely agree. It's incredible to me how many people in this and similar
threads argue that we should just give up on isolation and allow many more
millions to die. This pandemic is the perfect argument for UBI and universal
healthcare and yet many are still unwilling to even entertain such ideas.
Human life is worth saving and we have the means.

------
erex78
The ads on this page are ridiculous. Here’s a link to the actual op-ed:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bill-gates-heres-
how...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bill-gates-heres-how-to-make-
up-for-lost-time-on-
covid-19/2020/03/31/ab5c3cf2-738c-11ea-85cb-8670579b863d_story.html)

------
__s
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bill-gates-heres-
how...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bill-gates-heres-how-to-make-
up-for-lost-time-on-
covid-19/2020/03/31/ab5c3cf2-738c-11ea-85cb-8670579b863d_story.html) would be
the better link, no?

~~~
hackonr
Paywall, no?

~~~
__s
> The Washington Post is providing this story for free so that all readers
> have access to this important information about the coronavirus. For more
> free stories, sign up for our daily Coronavirus Updates newsletter.

------
srge
"Having places shut down and places not shut down is like having a peeing
section in the pool."

\-- Fun comment on Reddit from user deafmute88

~~~
buzzerbetrayed
I also saw that comment and laughed. However, I really don’t think it is a
good comparison at all. It’s more just funny to think about.

~~~
hugs
How about a smoking section on an airplane or in a restaurant?

~~~
koolba
Man I miss those.

------
drtillberg
This Gates dude has a 66,000 sq/ft house. Easy for him to say that everyone
should just stay at home with no access to public parks and beaches. And he
has a private waterfront.

For the rest of us, there's no no scientific study that says staying 24hrs/day
in our little hovels is more healthful than occasionally walking and enjoying
public amenities while maintaining appropriate physical separation from
others.

~~~
twox2
No one is saying you shouldn't take the occasional walk while maintaining
physical separation, in fact, that's what's being encouraged here. The reality
is that the physical separation part needs to be enforced across the country
in order to make a dent.

~~~
drtillberg
The article referenced a closure of beaches. New York recently closed "parks."
This is counterproductive. People need spaces in order to be socially distant.
If you close all the spaces, they will not be distant.

~~~
twox2
This is not counterproductive. People have been mobbing the parks. The parks
need to be closed. I live in Brooklyn and the groups I've been seeing until
VERY recently are disturbing. When you close the parks, there's no where for
groups of people to hang out. Need to go on a walk? Sure go on a walk and stay
away from people. Not everyone needs to be on the street at the same time
either. The reality is that in a densely populated city, parks or not, you
can't find the distance unless you go out early morning or late at night and
stay off the beaten path.

------
pcr910303
Sorry, I'm not really aware about the situation of COVID-19 in the US, is it
that serious so that there are shutdown opinions? What is the current status
in the US?

Big clusters or unprecedented outbreaks can be controlled with mass/rapid
testing and selective quarantine - is the US's situation that bad to all-stop
the economy?

~~~
twox2
Mass/rapid testing is not a thing here due to gross incompetence at a federal
level. Some regions are outliers and have been able to ramp up on their own.

------
RickJWagner
.... and just yesterday HN had an NPR article explaining that Germany is doing
so much better because they have local regions that can make autonomous
decisions, unencumbered by a one-size fits all mandate.

There are lots of opinions on how to fight coronavirus. It's hard to tell
which ones are right.

// Yesterday's contradictory words of wisdom
[https://www.npr.org/2020/03/25/820595489/why-germanys-
corona...](https://www.npr.org/2020/03/25/820595489/why-germanys-coronavirus-
death-rate-is-far-lower-than-in-other-countries)

------
thewindowmovie
US seems to be going through different stages of denial. First it was that
only Chinese will spread the disease. Then it was dismissed as mere flu. Now
they seem to have acknowledged the severity of the situation.

It is disheartening to read in this thread some comment taking the human life
so lightly. Is not that the US going to support those going through
unemployment with cheques and other benefits? Is it not more important for the
people to be healthy so that the economy can be restarted once all this is
over? It is depressing to read the comments from citizens of the wealthiest
country in the world.

~~~
dingaling
It's not necessarily that people are taking human life lightly, just that
priorities may not be the same for everyone.

In the UK we've already had cancer patients who have died because their
treatment was cancelled to free-up hospitals for COVID patients. Nine murders
have been attributed to people not being able to cope with lockdown in their
own homes. Why are the lives of ( primarily ) old people with comorbidities
considered of higher priority than them?

Pragmatically one could argue that economically and socially it would be
fairer to just let people who contract COVID die. But politics intervenes and
forbids that.

~~~
gitrog
> Pragmatically one could argue that economically and socially it would be
> fairer to just let people who contract COVID die. But politics intervenes
> and forbids that.

Really? And what if two thirds of the world contracted it and ~3% of those
died. I ask you to provide your own proof, models or what not, that letting
this virus run rampant won't have equally or even more disastrous affects
economically and socially.

------
chrisco255
This is ignorant. The country is the size of a continent. Each subregion
should be managed based on current and developing conditions, density of
population, weather conditions, etc. Some states have zero deaths, presently
and only a few dozen cases. Even China didn't shut down the whole country.
Masks and fever checks along with testing should be enough to slow the spread
without triggering Great Depression 2.

~~~
btilly
_This is ignorant._

What makes you think that you are better informed on infectious diseases than
the guy whose charity has been engaged with the issue for about 20 years now?

It is buried in
[https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/03/27/scient...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/03/27/scientists-
track-coronavirus-strains-mutation/5080571002/) but among the other useful
tidbits is this. In California today, about 50% of new COVID-19 cases are from
out of state travel. 30% are from people known to be at high risk (medical
workers and family members of people who have it). And 20% from community
spread. Which means that California's biggest problem now is that __other
states __aren 't taking sufficient action to reduce the spread of COVID-19.

~~~
chrisco255
You want to argue that Bill Gates has never made a bad judgment call in his
life? Are you kidding me? I know the guy called a future pandemic. I watched
his TED talk. Doesn't change the fact that he's wrong on this call. I am
saying with caveats: 1) leave the country open 2) require masks in public 3)
temp checks for fevers 4) expand and continue drive thru testing

It's not hard to grasp that rural areas are going to have a slower rate of
transmission as a matter of course because social distancing is built into
those communities. For one, there's less public transportation. Two, all major
gatherings have already been cancelled. Three, people are already voluntarily
limiting social contact.

This disease is going to fester for another year or so. It's not practical any
more to try to contain the outbreak. The idea at this point is to limit the
number of cases at any given time to prevent overburdening the local
community's medical resources. My mother is a nurse. They've cancelled all
elective surgery in preparation for a tsunami of patients in central Florida.
As a result their hospital has less than 50% utilization right now. It's
slower than it normally is for their hospital! All these other health problems
are getting the back burner for COVID-19. How long can you carry that on for?
The disease may peak in NYC in 2 weeks but peak in Montana in 2 months. New
Mexico may peak in October. You've got to have a rolling adaptable policy for
each region. You cannot do blanket policies.

~~~
gitrog
Where did he argue that Bill Gates has never made a bad judgment call? You
still have zero evidence for your take on this, no matter how practical it may
seem. You are going on your intuition and common sense on how to solve this
crisis for an entire country?

Your mothers' hospital should be running tests with that other 50% of unused
utility right now. Conduct trials on patients found to be positive, etc.
That's literally the second point Gates made.

> It's not practical any more to try to contain the outbreak. The idea at this
> point is to limit the number of cases at any given time to prevent
> overburdening the local community's medical resources.

Lockdown is the most effective way of limiting the number of cases.

The only thing your intuition and experts agree on is the knock that the world
economy is going to take. I challenge you to provide models that show that
your "practical" handling of this situation won't have the same disastrous
effects on the economy when instead of 3% of a smaller number of the
population die, 10% of a much larger portion of the population die. These
numbers are in line with countries that implemented lockdown early or have
very strong government influence versus countries that implemented lockdown
too late.

~~~
schadara
Ok, let's say we lockdown for 2-3 months. What do you think will happen again
after we open back up?

~~~
gitrog
A lot will have to happen _during_ lockdown, you can't just sit idly by.
Basically it will buy time.

Of course the virus will still spread once lockdown is lifted, but for
countries like the US (not even to mention Italy and Spain) who started behind
the curve any time you can buy to bolster your response should be taken.

~~~
schadara
To that end, I agree with you there.

3blue1brown's latest video on YouTube demonstrates that we can also buy time
by using a combination of mitigation techniques short of a full lockdown. It's
a video of a computer simulation created by a mathematician fwiw, but it shows
some of our options, and that brute force may not be required.

Sometimes I want to advocate for a full global lockdown, but I think about the
random emergency appendectomy, and other weird edge cases that would be
complicated by a lockdown of any magnitude.

------
motohagiography
"We can start now by building the facilities where these vaccines will be
made," Gates wrote. "Because many of the top candidates are made using unique
equipment, we’ll have to build facilities for each of them, knowing that some
won’t get used."

"Private companies can’t take that kind of risk, but the federal government
can. It’s a great sign that the administration made deals this week with at
least two companies to prepare for vaccine manufacturing. I hope more deals
will follow," he added.

Arguably, this is precisely the kind of risk that venture capital and startups
take every day. Yes, government needs to co-ordinate funding for this and
execute where it can. Anything that helps them is great.

However, if someone wants to put $10 million (total of large seed rounds or a
small A) into building these facilities as well, open it up, as there is a
huge amount of cash sitting on the sidelines right now, and if a small team
can get these built, it's worth examining the potential.

------
bg117
Nations need to have a soul but companies need not. Health is wealth and
sometimes, life is more valuable than dollars.

------
StillBored
Easy for Bill Gates, he won't be standing in the food lines in 12 months when
the result of this shutdown starts to really hit home.

We are going to look back on this as a huge mistake. Its one thing if 50% of
the population dies and your trying to save them. Its another thing when its
somewhere around 2%, which is roughly the yearly death toll, which means about
2x the number of people who were going to die this year are going to die.

~~~
r00fus
Wouldn't it be the original death toll + 2%? Ie, double the death total for
the year? That sounds like a BFD to me.

Not to mention the rest of the deaths that will happen due to the medical
system being overloaded after free-transmission period took place.

------
claudeganon
Unless they’re going to scale up grocery delivery or contactless pickups, I’m
not sure it’s going to matter.

I had to pick up a prescription yesterday and everyone was mad rushing and
hanging out at the store because nothing else is open. Never seen the parking
lot that full and this was in the middle of the day, well into a lockdown.

~~~
celticninja
shut down or lockdown generally means you can't leave unless you have a good
reason such as getting food or medicine it doesn't mean nobody can leave the
house ever without the express permission of the government

~~~
claudeganon
I understand full well what it means, but if you have no limits on how these
stores operate and everyone congregating at them, you’re undercutting a lot of
your response. See also how businesses are skirting the limits and lobbying
behind the scenes about essential vs non-essential work.

~~~
xur17
I've been surprised by the number of businesses that are classified as
"essential". I have a friend that works for a place that is essential, so she
still went to the office a few times a week despite being fully able to work
remotely.

------
iso1631
The bill to implement it would have to be called the "START" Bill.

------
nojvek
Ideally if we closed off the borders early to non-citizens + temporary
residents, we’d be in an entirely different situation.

The administration did things half-assed. At the first notice of the virus,
Trump was in denial. The first case was on Jan 20th. After 40 days they were
still downplaying it saying it will go to zero.

The borders and airports were where it would spread. Ideally every incoming
passenger would have been tested. Every single one.

The other way would be to lock down hotspots. Like China locked out Wuhan from
rest of country. However in US many things are just hard to achieve since we
are a democracy.

US most likely will have more deaths than other countries, mostly because we
have third highest population. China and India seem somewhat competent. I
guess time will tell.

------
Simulacra
Is Bill willing to pay for it? I really don't want to see anything from the
mega billionaires right now other than zeros on the checks they are giving to
charity, government, and people.

~~~
ceejayoz
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation)

> As of 2018, Bill and Melinda Gates had donated around $36 billion to the
> foundation.

Yes, he is.

~~~
Simulacra
"As of 2018..donated around $36 billion to the foundation.."

You mean Bill's foundation? How about as of April 1st, 2020 how much as Bill
and Melinda given in billions separate from their foundation? Is there
something more...current you can find?

~~~
ceejayoz
You've moved the goalposts so far we're playing a different sport. I know
March 2020 seemed like a decade, but 2018 is a pretty recent number, and $36B
is a pretty big number even if it's two years old.

~~~
Simulacra
Forgive me for second commenting, but I missed one salient point: the genesis
of this discussion is that Bill Gates would like the entire economy to shut
down. My argument is that gates should instead be looking to inject
significantly more cash separate from his foundation, directly into our
economy, before he starts demanding the economy shut down.

------
iso1631
Interesting fact

27% of the Senate are over 70, 66% over 60. This disease almost exclusively
affects people over 60.

~~~
timbit42
It affects people with particular underlying medical conditions more than
those who are older. It's just that those who are older tend to have more
underlying medical conditions, but any young person with particular underlying
medical conditions is at greater risk than a 99 year old with no underlying
medical conditions. I saw yesterday a healthy 99 year old survived it.

------
knocte
Bill Gates for president!

~~~
knocte
downvoters: relax! it's April's fools day

------
de_watcher
More like you need to turn it off and on again.

------
throwaway040120
I'm not impressed by Gate's OpEd. Nothing about making the social changes
necessary to keep functioning the way places like Korea have been able to. No
mention of Facemasks. All he says is that we should shut everything down for
months, test more, and make a vaccine. If you look at his suggestions from a
month ago[1] they seemed to be mainly to help poor countries and fast track
vaccines. Just a month ago he was completely blind to how much of a problem
this would be for wealthy countries, and how weak their response to it was.

[1] [https://www.gatesnotes.com/Health/How-to-respond-to-
COVID-19](https://www.gatesnotes.com/Health/How-to-respond-to-COVID-19)

~~~
cowpig
That's funny, I just read the article you linked from a month. It mostly says
that it'll take a ton of investment and immediate action because COVID-19 will
become a pandemic. That all seems correct in hindsight.

And why do you think Bill Gates should be talking about facemasks?

~~~
throwaway040120
> It mostly says that it'll take a ton of investment and immediate action
> because COVID-19 will become a pandemic. That all seems correct in
> hindsight.

None of what Gates' recommended in his article from a month ago would have
made an impact on things now. He didn't criticize the way governments in the
West were handling the outbreaks in their countries, or suggest that we start
locking things down. More investment in vaccines is great, but that's
something that wont have an impact anytime soon. Gates' newest piece says that
the U.S. missed the opportunity to get ahead of the virus, but he didn't
suggest a different course when things were actually unfolding.

As for masks, there's a lot of evidence that they might be vital to the effort
to slow the spread of this[1], and our inability to act on this is yet another
example of our poor response.

[1]
[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HLrm0pqBN_5bdyysOeoOBX4p...](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HLrm0pqBN_5bdyysOeoOBX4pt4oFDBhsC_jpblXpNtQ/preview#)

------
verytrivial
> "Private companies can’t take that kind of risk, but the federal government
> can. It’s a great sign that the administration made deals this week with at
> least two companies to prepare for vaccine manufacturing. I hope more deals
> will follow," he added.

I assume this is Gates trying to bait Trump and his handlers into making this
all a 'Greatest deal in the world!' ego massage for the one person both
legally capable yet emotionally incapable of acting.

------
glitchc
Bill Gates should stick to writing software that works, instead of preaching
destruction of the economy /s

------
treis
I'm tired of the "shutdown everything" acting like the underpants gnomes.
Gates argues for a 10 week or more shutdown and then says we are ~18 months
from a vaccine. If we are 18 months from the definitive solution shutting down
for 10 weeks doesn't solve much.

Sure, it might knock the infection load back down to what it was in late
January. But then 2-3 months later we will be right back where we are now.
What's the plan then? Another 10+ week shut down?

Covid-19 is with us for the foreseeable future and we have to figure out how
to live a normal life with it. The effort should be focused on getting us to
that place. Ubiquitous masks, temperature checks at public places like work,
stores, etc. and a culture shift to stay home when you're sick.

~~~
DanBC
> temperature checks at public places like work,

People infected with covid-19 may not ever get a temperature. We've focussed
heavily on that because it seems obvious, but it's possible that plenty of
people spreading covid-19 have anosmia but no other symptoms.

Some people will get temperature, but they can spread covid-19 before their
temperature starts and after it's finished.

~~~
treis
We don't need one method to stop all transmissions. Some will be stopped with
a temperature check, some by masks, some by symptomatic people staying home,
some by washing hands, etc. The goal is for all of those "somes" to add up to
infected people, on average, transmitting it to fewer than 1 other person.
That will lead to it eventually dying out.

------
tathougies
I doubt Mr Gates has been to most of the country or is really capable of
understanding he people who live there

~~~
djsumdog
Very true. This idea is an extreme measure and there are costs that are
outside the virus, costs that could cost more lives:

[https://battlepenguin.com/philosophy/covid-19-is-two-
disease...](https://battlepenguin.com/philosophy/covid-19-is-two-diseases/)

~~~
tathougies
Right. And a lot of the middle of the country 'flyover states', are incredibly
rural and already enact social distancing. They are currently not as affected.
People think the United States is one homogenous entity, and that if New York
City is endangered, the entire country is. Nothing can be further from the
truth.

New York City is 1400 miles from Oklahoma City. To put that in perspective, if
a simultaneous lockdown of the entire United States is warranted based on an
outbreak in New York City, then a lockdown of Mo i Rana Norway is warranted
due to the spread in Lombardy. Or, being 3800 miles away, locking down Nome,
AK because of New York, is like locking down Darwin Australia in December due
to the outbreak in Wuhan.

In other words, the distances make these suggestions absolutely ridiculous.

In reality, the virus takes _time_ to spread over land, and the US has a lot
of empty land. Lockdowns will need to happen in the interior to flatten the
curve, but only after the virus starts to manifest there. The goal with
lockdown is to not overwhelm the healthcare system while simultaneously
insuring enough people get it to ensure herd immunity.

Interior states should encourage people to prepare and suggest those
especially at risk to limit interactions. For the most part they are. As they
become more affected, they should institute a lockdown at the latest possible
moment they can to avoid an overwhelmed healthcare system. In the meantime,
they should take advantage of their working economy to prepare.

The rest of the country benefits from the continued industry of the middle
states while they are in lockdown. When it comes time for us to open back up,
and them to start lockdown, we should return the favor, by maintaining some
semblance of our economy

------
tinyhouse
He has a point. People in shutdown states/cities try to "escape" to other
places that don't have a shutdown yet. States with very few cases might feel
safe but it's shown already that acting early is best.

------
ceilingcorner
Is Bill Gates an elected official? Is he a medical doctor?

Sorry, I understand that he means well, but we need more democratic engagement
and less opinions from billionaire industrialists.

~~~
Havoc
He played a big part in polio eradication efforts. I’d say he has some
credibility to speak on this

~~~
gnulinux
His part was paying experts who know how to deal with infectious diseases to
eradicate polio. Don't get me wrong, he's an awesome person, and we should all
be thankful to him for helping. But I agree with GP that we need more
democratic engagement and less opinions from billionaires.

It just so happens that we think Bill Gates is a good person and listening to
him due to his billions ends up being good. This is clearly not always the
case, so taking someone's opinion just because they're immensely rich is a
slippery slope.

EDIT: As a disclaimer, I agree with him on this, we need a national shut down.

~~~
emiliobumachar
He's presumably still paying experts who know how to deal with infectious
diseases, and listening to them.

------
Overtonwindow
I disagree here. I don’t think a total shut down of the economy is necessary,
and I would like to see the nations billionaires stepping up with more cold
hard cash. I appreciate what Bill and Melinda have done through their
foundation, but I’m a little suspicious. I guess I just like to see more from
him then shut down the economy and everybody stay home in our mansions… I mean
homes.

------
howmayiannoyyou
A $19 trillion dollar economy is largely shut down to protect - mostly but not
entirely - those 65 and older. That's fine, but let's be direct about it.
We're sacrificing our doctors, nurses, jobs, national security and much more
for our aged and elderly. I'm not saying this is wrong. I'm not saying we
should do differently. I really just want to see is clearly stated in this
thread.

~~~
lm28469
How many times will this have to be repeated: not doing anything will cause
more people to die because of overcrowded hospitals, health workers would be
even more stressed and people under 65 would die of unrelated health issues
due to lack of beds and available health worker. People will be sick, sick
people can't work (dead people too), the economy would tank either way.

This isn't on on/off switch: "let the old die and keep 100% of the economy" VS
"try to save the old and destroy the economy"

~~~
logicchains
>the economy would tank either way.

If we look at the Spanish flu, the economy recovered pretty well after that,
although the war also ended which may have had something to do with it. Look
at it this way: even if 20% of people are really sick and can't work, that's
still 80% of people working, which is way more than the near 0% of people
working if there's a complete lockdown. And even in the worse case of 2% of
the population dying (and all being working age; in practice we'd expect most
to be retirees), that would on average reduce GDP by 2%, which is way less
than it's predicted to fall if there's a 2+ month long complete shutdown.

What about if people panic and stop shopping / going to bars, restaurants etc?
Well clearly there's still a non-insignificant proportion of people interested
in patronising those businesses even with the virus around, otherwise lockdown
measures wouldn't be necessary because everyone would be staying at home
anyway.

~~~
mantas
20% are sick and can't work. Then a good chunk of other 80% are not needed
because a good chunk of customers are gone. Then quite a bit of people are
scared of getting virus, ain't in the mood because of their relatives dying
and/or economic situation and don't consume. Demand goes even lower. More
people loose their jobs and demand goes even lower. And the spiral continues.

Bars and restaurants are great for spreading the virus. Once people learn it
the hard way, remaining people won't go there that much.

In my country patronising of bars and restaurants fell down the cliff in a
couple days mid-march. Closing them down due to quarantine was just a
formality in many cases. Sure, some people would still go. But they wouldn't
have enough traffic to cover fixed costs.

------
djsumdog
This is an unprecedented measure. I can understand the need to do everything
possible, but there are other costs. Shutting down rural areas could shut down
food supplies, which we're already seeing with seasonal fruit pickers in
Europe.

COVID-19 becomes critical in people because their immune system overacts and
ends up hurting living cells. If they recover, it's just some dead bloodcells
and they can be replaced. When our society starts overrating with out social
immune system, people die. I wrote about this hidden cost last week:

[https://battlepenguin.com/philosophy/covid-19-is-two-
disease...](https://battlepenguin.com/philosophy/covid-19-is-two-diseases/)

~~~
lm28469
> Shutting down rural areas could shut down food supplies, which we're already
> seeing with seasonal fruit pickers in Europe.

Do you really thing the government didn't think about that question ... It's
not like two weeks down the line all the experts will be like "damn, we forgot
about the food".

The only affected crops are hand picked fruits, which aren't a necessity. All
grains, potatoes, most veggies are picked by machines, there won't be any food
shortage, unless you only feed on raspberries.

~~~
djsumdog
> Do you really thing the government didn't think about that question

Yes.

------
calibas
Bill Gates' meddling is a big part of what got us into this mess. He's
practically bought out the WHO, here's some good reading on that:
[https://www.politico.eu/article/bill-gates-who-most-
powerful...](https://www.politico.eu/article/bill-gates-who-most-powerful-
doctor/)

So we have a weak WHO that people are manipulating for their personal goals,
altruistic or not. Then there's this outbreak in China, and the WHO just
completely screwed up every opportunity to contain the thing. They went right
along with the Chinese government and announced no evidence of human to human
transmission (their travel advisory said if you go to Wuhan you should wash
your hands).

Now in my opinion the WHO should be tearing into the Chinese government for an
apparent coverup and allowing the virus to spread internationally. Instead
Tedros, WHO head and Bill Gates connection, is praising China.

