Doesn't seem very well thought out. The economic cost of the first scenario (numerous deaths in peak period) would likely be the highest with the impact both on workforce and market sentiment. The impact of long tail scenarios lower because death toll would not be just redistributed but also reduced by likely an order of magnitude.
No it's not. It's just one guy making up random shit on a blog and is pretending that governments think like him.
The reality is probably closer to the fact that there isn't anything governments can do about it. They can try to shut down the borders of the country, but that is going to a lot worse and probably won't stop it anyways.
Just because governments can do something and do do something doesn't mean that that something is meaningful or will have a positive impact.
The actions taken during February in Wuhan and neighboring provinces seem to have stopped the spread there, so effective actions can be taken.
Thing is, it appears that there's little overlap between actions that seem reasonable and actions that are effective. If you wait until drastic actions seem justifiable, then by that time it's too late to be effective (i.e. the Italy lockdown which would have helped Italy if it was done 2-3 weeks earlier); and if you take effective actions, then most people and media will wonder why you're so authorative and unreasonable (e.g. the reaction to early Wuhan containment measure enforcement).
Another interesting penalty of delayed action is that any exponential increase that happened while you were delaying needs to be balanced by a period of exponential decrease once you have measures in place. Exactly how much depends on assumptions, but e.g. delaying applying measures by 2 weeks could mean they need to be kept for 4 additional weeks.
So the overall cost picture is strongly in favor of early action.
Denmark did close every school and most administrations. France did not.
Many decisions can be taken, but are not (for various reasons). Most experts recommend to limit contacts rather than closing down borders, and no one is pretending to stop the virus but they all should try to flatten the curve. You don't seem to pay attention to the current situation.
Yeah, and we don't know the reasoning behind either decision. I can come up with maybe a hundred different parameters that could be relevant or not.
At this point we can trust authorities to have a reasonable approach to this and that they monitor the situation closely. Or we can assume they don't.
In the first case, we follow the action plan. In the latter we do what we can, best based on actions that worked elsewhere. Just complaining about how insufficient actions are in our eyes doesn't help.
Anyway, there plans for stuff like this government drawers everywhere. Ranging from school closures to plan keeping critical infrastructure up. Heritage from the cold war.
And even if the US federal government seems to screw up, states like New York and Washington seem to react rather decisively. And we shouldn't forget that things in China are calming down to an extent ad-hoc hospitals are closed down and medical supplies can be shipped to Italy.
Afaik in Germany the country's government can't force schools to close or public events to be cancelled. These decisions have to be taken locally (at state/city or even district level). All the health ministry can do is tell people "you shouldn't do A B C and you should do X Y Z"
In the places where they have shut down schools, they can't really do it either. But when government says "do X" and has good reasons, the institutions comply. I'm in the board of a private institution in a country with a shutdown order, and there was really no discussion between the board members that this institution would shut down too, despite there being no legal backing at all.
That seems to be exactly the reason in Germany. The federal government has no say regarding public gatherings or schools. They have given out recommendations, some have followed, others have not. There's no repercussion for cities not following the government's decision.
You can hide behind "I lack the legal authority" or you can act. This is one of the rare occasions that absolutely do call for the old "ask for forgiveness" mentality. Nobody in the lower tiers would complain about central government to take a very difficult decision off their plate. (some people will complain, those who still think they can just pretend that the epidemic does not happen, but they will complain anyways)
The difference is that, in China, if you don't comply the state security detains you and you get sentenced to re-education camp at best.
In other places there are no real consequences for you, even if people die. But there are legal and economic consequences if you shut down without top cover. That is why the government and legislative paralysis is so damaging -- with no safety net, people will prefer the unknown loss over the certain loss.
This is correct afaik, I'm pretty sure the decision to close schools is with the ministries of education of each German state, however if federal institutions put out strong recommendations, state and local administrators will likely follow very soon after. Federal ministries may not have absolute control here (unless they declare a state of emergency or something) but they do have plenty of influence.
Japan has a different culture. When the government puts out a "strong recommendation", the society generally follows. This even happens with corporations. There's a culture of conformity there that just isn't present in western nations.
a) There's a time-lag of probably 1-2 weeks between someone becoming infected, until their case hits the official statistics.
b) There will be different rates of testing between different areas, healthcare systems, and countries, which will be hard to quantify.
c) There will be fundamental differences between countries (e.g. patterns of population density, quality/availability of healthcare, etc.) which mean that direct per capita comparisons (as you made) are of little value.
Denmark's case number has increased far more than that of other countries in recent days. They probably had to act as they'd overtake Italy in less than a week with cases/capita if growth continues like that.
The case #'s only go up if you test more people. In Ohio for instance they are only testing very few people and there is now evidence of community spread because the 4th person confirmed had no known contact but you basically need to be in intensive car to get tested or have an obvious connection. So the case # in and of themselves could vary based upon testing criteria. Not sure if they have the same standards in Denmark vs France.
The fact that they refuse to do things like closing borders and immediately ceasing all travel by foreigners or citizens who've traveled traveled abroad meanwhile ending arbitrary social events is the reason you know it's hype up media nonsense.
Most of the actions taken are those most likely not affecting those in the target older or immuno-compromised demographic likely to have the serious consequences.
Shutting down borders helps if the virus hasn't reached your country.
If it has, there's no point in banning incoming people (maybe you can stop people from leaving so other regions don't get infected, but that's a less strong incentive). If you already have the virus in your country, the best thing you can do is slow its spreading, by banning large groups of people from congregating.
Has there every been a time when, "Country X can't do what country Y can, because X is too [big/small] while Y is [small/big]" has not been a useless comment?
Is there a generic term for this sort of fallacy, where someone brings up a random difference between [cities/states/countries] as an excuse for why one can't do what the other has already done, without ever bothering to explain why the difference matters?
It's even worse than useless. Giant states are often assumed to be much better than small states, because "efficiency". Yet, whenever actual conditions are examined, and (inevitably) small states turn out to be better for humans, we get this sort of "well of course smaller problems are easier to solve" apologia.
I mean, I'm sure in some cases being bigger or smaller is helpful. It just feels incredibly lazy, borderline disingenuous to throw it out there without bothering to connect the dots or analyze how size would matter in that specific case.
> small states turn out to be better for humans
Source/examples of this? In Europe, the larger countries like the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain don't seem obviously worse off to me than their smaller counterparts. Like if you compare the UK to Ireland, Germany to Austria, Spain to Portugal, etc.
How is it a useless comment? If you want to compare the actions of Denmark to France, it's more relevant to compare it to a particular region. Grand Est, for example has a similar population as Denmark.
This is almost common sense in the business world. No one thinks BigCo and LittleStartup are capable of the same things or that one's ability or inability to do something is equivalent.
Well, in that case, let's compare: the Grand Est region has about the same population as Denmark, slightly more COVID-19 cases than Denmark (587 vs 514), and more deaths (9 vs 0). And yet, most schools and the administration are still open.
For now. In business, people deciding on the very weak data basis we have to discuss we have, would rightfully be have their asses kicked. Yet, here we are, doing exactly this.
> there isn't anything governments can do about it.
Banning public events, locking down geographical areas, closing schools, pulling in retired medical workforce etc.
> doesn't mean that that something is meaningful or will have a positive impact
You can see the impact of measures such as enforcing lockdowns (e.g. Wuhan cases) and you can compare the spread of the virus in countries which take measures vs those that do not.
What? There is tons of stuff governments can do to flatten the curve. Educating people, closing schools, people gatherings, obligatory masks for all (or DIY bandanas), testing more.
States struggle to get enough masks for medical staff, diverting any for the general public doesn't seem smart. And self made masks will have so little effect that they could be detrimental if people decide to be less careful because they wear a masks.
To the other points, education about hand washing and behavior in public is the one thing governments have all done for weeks now. It just seems that this isn't nearly enough.
This mentality is just false. If more people of the general populous have masks, how does that not reduce transmission therefore flatten the curve?
Now I understand the logic behind there being shortages. But saying that the general populous shouldn't wear masks because it doesn't do anything doesn't sound accurate.
Without training it is very hard to wear PPE correctly. Even if you change masks regularly, it is hard not to touch the outside (hot side) of the mask with your hands. Reusing masks makes this even more likely.
Most people don't get a good fit of the mask either. Respirators are a bit easier but nowhere near enough of them.
Practically speaking all it does is burn through a small supply of masks.
> The reality is probably closer to the fact that there isn't anything governments can do about it.
They can proactively close schools, government jobs. They can roll out bailout programs to encourage business closings that would otherwise cause the businesses to go bankrupt. They can aggressively close borders, and enforce quarantines with military force. They can mandate the production of respirators, testing kits and other medical necessities.
Government can do A LOT that no other actor can, so I don't quite get where you're coming from with this statement.
Well, there is still no panic and hospitals are not overrun with patients. Russia is not China and far from being able to hide such things from public.
Yeah, the Russian government seems really trustworthy. /s You can depend on them to investigate the whistleblowers, who will mysteriously die from a sudden case of "community-acquired pneumonia".
Doctors in Russia are accusing the government of covering up its coronavirus outbreak and denying them protective equipment
>“While the whole world is facing an outbreak of a new coronavirus, Russia is facing an outbreak of a community-acquired pneumonia,” Vasilyeva said. “And as usual, we’re facing the lie of the authorities.”
>She said Russian authorities were referring to coronavirus cases as ordinary pneumonia, implying that they’re distinct from the coronavirus pandemic.
>Russian authorities strongly denied her claims. A statement from the Moscow Department of Health accused her of seeking “to discredit Russian medicine and relevant government agencies” and called for authorities to investigate her.
Coronavirus: Reported spike in pneumonia cases in Moscow as Russia accuses critics of fake news
>“I have a feeling they (the authorities) are lying to us,” said Anastasia Vasilyeva, head of Russia's Doctor's Alliance trade union.
>“I don't believe the coronavirus numbers,” said Ekaterina, a Moscow accountant. “I remember what they told us about Chernobyl at the time. It's only now that we're finding out what really happened.”
Not being able to hide things from the public has never kept Putin or Trump from lying through their teeth about anything.
The Moscow Times is currently reporting that there are 28 cases so far. We'll see how that turns out, regardless of whether they're currently telling the truth about it.
>"It's going to disappear. One day it's like a miracle, it will disappear," Trump said at the White House Thursday as the virus marched across Asia and Europe after US officials said the US should brace for severe disruption to everyday life.
>The President also warned that things could "get worse before it gets better," but he added it could "maybe go away. We'll see what happens. Nobody really knows."
It looks like a great cover up, which will be used if/when origins of virus will be traced back to RF. Such behavior is typical for RF. IMHO, it's better to watch actions of RF government and army. AFAIK, they already agitated some desperate Chinese, which lost someone they love, to spread virus at Evil West. They have plans to spread virus within Ukraine, as reported by Ukrainian intelligence agency. It looks like they have no fear of this virus and plan to use this situation for their advantage.
There’s a lot that governments can do. Ireland just closed schools and universities, and banned large indoor gatherings, for instance, and directed companies to make work from home available where possible (though this last one is really more a suggestion). This won’t get rid of the virus, but it may help to slow it and thus reduce deaths.
Closing borders, certainly at this point, seems largely futile.
I've read (true, who knows?) that in the USA this isn't legally possible. Federal government doesn't have that power.
This may be behind Trump's move to stop flights only to Europe, and not domestic flights. He has the power to do the former but not the latter, apparently.
It has everything to do with deflection, point out that the problem is over there, even though the virus is spreading inside already unchecked. The Governor of Ohio is putting an order to shut down all mass gatherings like sporting events and also suggesting people stay at home. Ohio State was closed before any cases where confirmed but it doesn't seem like other states are taking it as serious outside of California and Washington and testing is still only happening for cases that are in intensive care or had traveled still. So we have no idea what the true lay of the land is at this point.
If the internment of Japanese-American citizens during WW2 [1] was legally possible for the federal government, to me it would seem odd if cancelling Coachella wasn't.
The US courts have since explicitly rejected the reasoning used to justify the internment of Japanese-American citizens. It would not be legally possible today.
He's not just making shit up--the curves are reasonable. However, where he's very, very wrong is thinking that the government is deliberately waiting from T1 to T2. We don't have enough data to actually figure where T1, T2 and T3 are, and counting it in terms of known cases ensures you blow past T2. Look how fast Italy went from first infections to T3.
Govts CAN do plenty: close schools, theaters, offices, events, parades, mandate WfH, quarantine affected areas, distribute supplies, educate... there's a ton governments can do.
That's probably not the decision-making strategy of most governments, but it's a compelling POV for looking at the situation. Let it spread fast, wreak havoc and disrupt the social order, or control it within the capacity of health systems, or try to minimise the infections with constant awareness of the society for a prolonged period of time, affecting the economy in the long run.
>The economic cost of the first scenario (numerous deaths in peak period) would likely be the highest with the impact
This is self-evident, both due to first-order and second-order effects. How the author manages to stand it on its head is amazing. It's worth noting that approaching, or exceeding, the capacity of the medical system (or any other) drives the costs sky high by and of itself - not to mention other, unrelated cases that also need treatment. With a few weeks worth of disruption to healthcare, even mild cases of other illnesses can spiral out of control and become costly (or even deadly) on their own.
I wouldn't read too much into a country having a muted or slow response to the pandemic; it's the expected outcome of political and economical systems differing across the globe. There is always a slow country to act, and its citizens might feel entitled to the kind of far-fetched speculation the author posted.
> There is always the slowest country to act, and its citizens would feel entitled to the kind of far-fetched speculation the author posted.
Sounds about right. Belgium and the Netherlands aren't doing very much yet.
One interesting fact I discovered when discussing with my wife last night that I think does shape the discussion here: In the Netherlands, seasonal influenza has ~1% mortality rate -- in the U.S. it's more like 0.1%. This leads to different framings of the comparative severity of Coronavirus in the Netherlands.
>In the Netherlands, seasonal influenza has ~1% mortality rate -- in the U.S. it's more like 0.1%
Completely false, it seems 0.1% also in the Netherlands.
"In the Netherlands, our closest comparisons are the Mexican flu of 2009/2010, with a mortality rate of just 0.02%, and the regular flu epidemics, with an average mortality rate of 0.1%"
from:
https://healthcare-in-europe.com/en/news/on-the-implications...
>In the Netherlands, seasonal influenza has ~1% mortality rate -- in the U.S. it's more like 0.1%.
(I'm not a healthcare professional nor actuarian; the following is freehand speculation)
There are two key factors. Firstly, USA is much less densely populated, with various additional compounding aspects: social stratification, with many segments of society living mostly in their own areas, and lesser dependence on mass transport. Modern technology and abundance of land allows maintaining a degree of isolation when needed.
Secondly, the healthcare system in USA vs Netherlands is tale of semi-private vs nationalized system. The former has more incentives to be proactive and minimize costs, vs the later having incentives to make a good showing, with payments being assured anyway.
> The former has more incentives to be proactive and minimize costs
On an individual basis perhaps in theory, but not on a population basis. See underinsured people afraid to go to a doctor until their condition is so bad it warrants an ER visit.
The actual numbers of the cost-effectiveness of US healthcare also shows the complete opposite of "minimizing costs" where it's twice as expensive as any other system
I don't know, but I live in the Netherlands (as an expat) and their approach to healthcare is legendary for its sloppiness. The most common joke is about doctors responding to any health complaint by handing some paracetamol and saying "come back in two weeks if you don't feel better".
Three days ago the government held a special meeting about the coronavirus, in which they deliberated that people should stop shaking hands. That's all. They tell people who have come back from a high risk area and have flu symptoms NOT to call their gp and just stay home.
I'm not saying healthcare is bad ("sloppiness" wasn't a good choice of a term). In fact it's very well organised.
It's more that the Dutch seem to be extremely... relaxed, maybe a bit fatalistic, about illness. It's a "suck it up" attitude. The fact that they're so slow in taking action now doesn't surprise me.
Maybe cultural. One of the reasons I love working with the Dutch is their calm professional approach to things. Not the worst trait to have in times of crisis.
The outcome may sound dystopian. But once you put monetary value on a life - I think insurances do around a few million per person - then the economic damage will be worth several lives anyway no matter which scenario you choose. And that kind of calculation does make sense because at some point economic damage starts to translate directly to deaths, at the latest when your food and medical supply collapses, probably sooner than that. So you end up trading some deaths for other deaths.
Of course I'm not saying that anyone has done those tradeoffs optimally, especially considering that those relations probably are non-linear in practice.
But we are nowhere near that point. Issue some Fiat money to businesses most heavily impacted. Reduce the spread of the virus. Save lives. Worry about the money later.
It is worse than that - a dystopia is a result of humanity's folly. It being favored is a sad inherent result of "evolutionary" systems where it isn't what is more than what is morally right or wrong much less optimal. It rests upon one dumb tautology: All other things equal things which perpetuate spread more than things that do not. The process while producing quite a bit of emergent complexity is fundamentally dumb.
Self perpetuation is fundamentally based only on the implications of the strategy. If keeping elders alive past nominal utility helps spread well then it is effectively favored. Which may or may not be known ahead of time.
That said by being smarter than it we have both the ability and responsibility for the consequences for decisions to follow or defy its nudges as we can and see fit.
Not aimed at you, but, I am disgusted at even a mention of these kind of 'calculations'.
And yes, I am prepared to take a hit in my earnings, paying higher taxes if needed after this if that is what it takes for at least one person more to live.
Another way of thinking about it is that there are other non-coronavirus interventions you can perform that will convert money into lives. if you spend money performing coronavirus interventions then you retard your ability to perform these other interventions that might be more efficient at converting money into lives.
Every second you spend on HN instead of moonlighting for extra cash to donate (it goes without saying you already donate your salary beyond what's required for subsistence) is frankly disgusting to me. You're murdering by the second.
What? This has nothing to do with the slippery slope fallacy. . It's not because we're aren't there yet that saying that it could happen is a fallacy. With that logic any type of planning or forecast about the virus is just a slippery slope since we aren't there. And If you agree that forecasts about the virus are okay, I dont see why forecasts about the economy depending on what policy is enforced (full isolation that would ruin the economy or allow people to get infected to keep it going) are worst?
Because grandparent said they would sacrifice a realistic tax increase to save lives in the COVID-19 outbreak, the parent asked about a confiscatory 99% tax rate and asset seizure, which would be wholly unnecessary for paying for the current crisis.
Yes, current crisis. Everyone agrees on the fact that the virus will probably spread and become much more widespread. Isn't it logical that costs will go up too, especially if the state decides that the economy isn't worth the loss of lives? Is slippery slope just saying that cause and effect exist now?
I don't see how the original comment was unreasonable in asking what is the threshold where economic losses are too high. Halting all economic activity to completely stop the spread of the disease and prevent deaths amounts to a 100% taxation since you are forced to not work and generate revenue. Whether that is acceptable or not isn't my point, but asking the question isn't a fallacy
You guys missed the point of my post. GP was saying that he found it reprehensible to make calculations on human life. My point was that he had already made such a calculation, implicitly. The value of a stranger to him is exactly worth however % income decrease he's willing to take + % increase in tax. Everyone makes this calculation every day.
Even in the red scenario, the number of people who will end up sick for a long time and require a lot of care outnumbers the death toll.
Caring well is always better than not caring. Unless we won't care in the green scenario either. But then, who think we won't care if we have time and resources?
This may explain why sexually-transmitted diseases get so much attention. They're probably the only kind of diseases that hit younger population much harder than senior citizens. THOSE are the diseases that make the rich earn less money.
From an ethical point of view, governments owe seniors the money and care, because they had worked for state prosperity. Also, if young people had more foresight, they would realize the way seniors are treated today will be more less the way they themselves will be treated. But old age and death is a depressing topic and no one likes to dwell on it.
> This may explain why sexually-transmitted diseases get so much attention.
At least in my country, we spend radically more per-capita on healthcare for the old than we do for the young [1] simply because the old need more of it.
For men age 5-45 we spend less than £1000, for men age 80-85 we spend more than £4500. It's a similar story for women, but with a bump for women of childbearing age.
I don't see any evidence of a bias in favour of the working-age population.
As with many things, there are two ways of looking at this. One is that old people need it the most. Another is that helping younger people is more cost-effective because they have more life ahead of them and if you cure them they're unlikely to get another disease soon. The latter is more heartless, but you can't deny there's some merit to it.
"This may explain why sexually-transmitted diseases get so much attention. They're probably the only kind of diseases that hit younger population much harder than senior citizens. THOSE are the diseases that make the rich earn less money."
This seems implausible to me. Given that the rich tend to be of rather old age themselves, I'd wager that they'd invest in preventing their own deaths
Of course it's true, but do we want to live in a society where we prioritize economic output over the life of people? Many do not and governments were elected by those.
> The economic cost of the first scenario (numerous deaths in peak period) would likely be the highest with the impact both on workforce and market sentiment
The deaths from Coronavirus are mostly not people of working age. The death rate for 50-59 is around 1%, below that it drops to 0.2%. For seniors it's as high as 20%.
If you want to be cold-blooded about it, there is certainly a case to be made for shrugging and plowing on, as that will minimize the duration of the impact (quarantines, etc) and the people who will die are mostly not economically productive.
To be even more crass - before long we will probably be in a triage situation where there are more cases than resources available to treat. There are only about 20 full-service respirators per 100k people, around 62k nationwide, and many of those are already in use (people will still get in car accidents, have strokes, get meningitis, whatever). We can't treat everybody. So who gets it? Little Timmy who has a long and productive life ahead of him, or great-aunt Susan who's 75 and barely gets around anymore?
At a first approximation there will be around 100 times as many seniors who need treatment as youngs. From a social perspective it's pretty obvious that treatment should be prioritized for those younger patients.
(reminder that not making a choice is still making a choice, whether that means treatment ends up being first-come first-serve or a financial/insurance basis. Triage sucks, but you have to prioritize your resources somehow or other, the whole problem is there is not enough treatment to go around.)
