This same argument can be made about any infectious disease season. The only difference is a matter of degree. This virus is probably ~5 times as bad as the flu so we should spend ~5 times as much to mitigate the externalities. Not ~500 times as much like we have.
I fear that after this every time there's a bad flu season we will see this same shit again because "think of the most vulnerable among us, you're literally killing them!!"
no the problem is that severe COVID cases take up space in the hospital for a long time, so it's relatively easy for cases to snowball, people to be unable to admitted into hospitals at capacity, and then for lots more unadmitted people to start dying because they can't get treatment. which is what happened in Wuhan.
There are rare long-term side effects from many infectious viruses. Anyone who gets pneumonia from anything will be down for the count for a while, but they'll get better, and that isn't unique to this virus. And myocarditis (the heart inflammation people are talking about) is a side effect of all sorts of viral and even bacterial infections (wikipedia lists basically every common human virus as a cause), it will normally get better on its own, although in rare cases it can cause issues.
None of this is new! This coronavirus is a novel coronavirus, not a magical one. It has effects that are in line with other viral illnesses in humans. It's just a bit more virulent than them. It's a matter of quantitative difference, not qualitative difference.
Possible permanent smell/taste loss? Possibly permanent reduction in lung capacity?
There is a qualitative difference as well. The lingering side effects of the Lyme-causing bacteria is on a level apart from what happens when you get food-poisoned.
You’re right, I’m an economist, not a doctor. So I look at the world in terms of trade offs. And the trade offs western societies have made with this virus are so unlike the trade offs made with any other infectious disease in recent memory that it makes me concerned about what the new trade offs will be going forward.
1. The tradeoffs are mostly US-only, other western societies had the political will to prevent unemployment and evictions. This is not intended to mean "US bad, others good", just that the tradeoffs are not objectively there, but instead mostly a result of societal decisions (e.g. France had 1% lower unemployment in June 2020 than in June 2019 https://countryeconomy.com/unemployment/france?sc=LAB- )
2. Sweden tried this route. They now have the deaths plus the economic fallout (-6% GDP, just like the locked down neighbours Denmark and Norway), mostly due to the international interconnectedness (collapsing supplier chains etc.)
More specifically, other western societies had the political will to prevent all the people who weren't working and were being paid by the government at less than their normal wage from counting towards the unemployment stats - generally some sort of furlough scheme where on paper they were still employed by their original company. Still meant they weren't working, with no guarantee there'd be jobs for them to go back to, but it sure looked better on the stats. (At the cost of arbitrarily screwing over people who for whatever reason couldn't take advantage of furlough and ended up actually-unemployed.)
The US tried something a little like this with forgivable loans to pay businesses' paychecks, but the trouble is they did this after rolling out an unemployment boost that left less well-paid people better off than if they were employed, so it was a little difficult to convince business owners who didn't want their employees to try and murder them in their sleep to take it up.
I wouldn't be so quick to proclaim Europe's victory over this virus. With what's happening in Spain, and now France and Germany, this may be a European "Mission Accomplished" moment in another month.
that's what's known as the "slippery slope" argument. The response to this virus is just so shocking that oh wow, what if this is the new norm? It's not at all. this virus is not "the norm", this is a 100 year event. don't hurt your head on that slope!
Heh, despite the fact that you are being rude to me I'll still answer in good faith because the distinction is important.
If we are spending hundreds of times as much mitigating a virus five times as bad as common illnesses (yes a once in a century event) are we now going to spend dozens of times more money/effort mitigating the flu every year? If yes then we will see lockdowns like this regularly going forward. If no, then the vast majority of the response to COVID is an emotional overreaction, not rational risk mitigation/pricing in externalities.
I will say in mid-March, when things looked quite different based on our limited knowledge of the virus, that the response wasn't entirely unwarranted. But we've known for months that this isn't nearly as bad as feared. It isn't the second coming of smallpox. Yet we still have most of the restrictions and shaming from March, even to this day.
> If we are spending hundreds of times as much mitigating a virus five times as bad as common illnesses
how do you quantify "five times as bad" ? if I run my car into a brick wall at ten miles an hour, vs. 50, one event damages my car the other kills me. is that "five times as bad"?
> are we now going to spend dozens of times more money/effort mitigating the flu every year? If yes then we will see lockdowns like this regularly going forward.
no, why would we? the flu does not overwhelm hospitals [edit: the 2018 flu season comparison is a counterpoint but there is no argument this is anything on the scale what covid has done in places like NYC], cripple the entire medical system such that thousands of patients are left to die in hallways and parking lots, and spread exponentially to kill hundreds of thousands of people within just a few months.
> If no, then the vast majority of the response to COVID is an emotional overreaction, not rational risk mitigation/pricing in externalities.
you have made no argument to support this case.
> I will say in mid-March, when things looked quite different based on our limited knowledge of the virus, that the response wasn't entirely unwarranted.
what exactly "looked quite different" ? the main things that were known in march, e.g. spreads exponentially, r0 is something like 2 or 3 if steps aren't taken, has a 20% hospitalization rate, has a high death rate for those hospitalized which has improved somewaht but that is predicated on the fact that hospitals are availble, are still true.
There were a lot of tweets from people who work in public health about the argument you're making. "If people said we overreacted, then we will know we did our job". That's how it works when you prevent a horrible thing from going out of control. People who for whatever reason don't seem to understand what happened will crow about how unnecessary that was. Can you see how this looks to anyone who is actually trained in this area?
flu may not kill as much as covid or spread as fast as covid but still thousand of people die every year, so somehow that is acceptable without lockdown ?
that's a disingenuous argument because the scale and breadth of the 2018 flu season vs. what covid continues to do are not in the same league at all, by an order of magnitude (see below). there was not a global lockdown for the 2018 flu season I recall, there will not be one for a future flu season of similar magnitude, and the point remains that it's a logical fallacy to suggest the covid lockdown represents the action that would be taken for a 2018-style flu season because there is simply no comparison.
yes because the hospital system was not overwhelmed to the extent that it would be with an unchecked coronavirus. The nationwide overwhelming of hospitals with covid is with lockdowns and mask wearing throughout the nation. if steps had not been taken, the death toll would be approaching the millions by now, not just for covid cases but for all kinds of untreated emergencies.
Without the lockdown the the hospital system are not overwhelmed, at least no more overwhelmed than what happen in the past.
Due to lockdown the hospital are furloughing, lying off nurse, freeze hiring.
Just look at Sweden where they didn't lockdown.
Doesn't mean I say we should not take any step. Step to make vaccine still has to be done, improving treatment still have to be done, increasing health care capacity still have to be done.
> You’re right, I’m an economist, not a doctor. So I look at the world in terms of trade offs. And the trade offs western societies have made with this virus are so unlike the trade offs made with any other infectious disease in recent memory that it makes me concerned about what the new trade offs will be going forward.
I would hope economists would make judgements based on more than aping what happened "in recent memory," but somehow I'm not surprised. IIRC the last time we had major pandemic like this, gathering places were closed (like now), social distancing was done (like now), masks were worn (like now), and some people chafed against the restrictions and decided that it was better to endanger others (like now).
Any flu that clogs your lungs and gives you a fever can give you long term lung or neurological damage. I've seen little to nothing that suggests covid is uniquely dangerous in this regard.
I fear that after this every time there's a bad flu season we will see this same shit again because "think of the most vulnerable among us, you're literally killing them!!"