Are lockdowns worth their costs?

[Brunolem]

Among those who support the governments' herding of their populations to the promised land of security, many believe that strict lockdowns (confinement) will save countless lives: "stay at home if you wanna live!".

 

But this is not true.

 

As Angela Merkel and many others already said weeks ago, sooner or later around 70% of the population will be infected.

 

Never mind the measures taken, all countries will end up paying more or less the same toll.

 

That is because, among other things, it will never be possible to find and isolate all the asymptomatic persons, who represent the vast majority of the cases, and who will keep on infecting others until herd immunity is achieved.

 

The big difference between countries taking risks and countries hell bent on "flattening the curve", is going to be the costs.

 

Western countries' economies are collapsing (just look at the stats), while other countries, notably in East Asia, are doing their best to mitigate things and keep their economies intact.

 

The result is that East Asia, led by China, will probably come out of this global disaster on top, a situation that will only exacerbate the existing geopolitical tensions.

 

Will the world follow the 1930s scenario, first an economic depression, then a war?

 

 

 

[tonray]

I'm alive and healthy and am saving at least 10,000 baht per month on spending...so YES !

[UbonThani]

Suicide

depression

jobs lost

 

Time to open up. A 2 week lockdownwas enough

[mauGR1]

42 minutes ago, Brunolem said:

Will the world follow the 1930s scenario, first an economic depression, then a war?

 

It's not easy to say, but there are already predictions of frightening scenarios.

I think that very soon, even the most committed supporters of lock downs will be having second thoughts.

[ChipButty]

When you talk with local people they are suffering the food handouts in the area are not enough 10kg rice is not going to last long with a family of 5 to feed.

I did give him everything we had another 10kg of rice almost all the dried food we had plus cooking oil 2 big packs of mama tin's of sardines 

 

Edited April 26, 2020 by ChipButty

[Brunolem]

Here is an interesting complement to my opening post:

 

https://www.aier.org/article/an-egregious-statistical-horror-story-suffused-with-incense-and-lugubrious-accents/

 

[Sujo]

Depends how much you value life over money.

 

How many dead is acceptable.

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

Depends how much you value life over money.

 

How many dead is acceptable.

I value life quite much, but is it worth to destabilize and starve millions to save hundreds ?

I would ask you the same questions, how much you value life, and how many dead is acceptable.

It was clear from the beginning that the cure was worse than the disease, except for the ones who cannot look further than their belly.

[ChouDoufu]

they're worth it if they work as intended, and the country doesn't try to force all locations into the same standardized procedure.  shut down completely for the minimum necessary time, then reopen as appropriate.

 

the purpose is to reduce the immediate uncontrolled spread of the infection, avoid having all those most susceptible catch the disease all at once, overwhelming the health infrastructure.

 

spread it out over time, surely everyone will eventually be exposed, but those that come later will benefit from doctors having more knowledge of the disease, knowing which treatments work, and which cause more harm than good.

 

it's probably safe to completely reopen kermit, texas.  new york city might have to wait a few more weeks.

[Mama Noodle]

14 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Depends how much you value life over money.

 

How many dead is acceptable.

 

Do you have to go out to make your money or are you a pensioner or otherwise fixed income type person? 

 

I bet I know the answer. 

[scubascuba3]

Jury is out whether it improves the situation, what we do know is it kills the economy, businesses, jobs and lives

[Surelynot]

1 minute ago, scubascuba3 said:

Jury is out whether it improves the situation, what we do know is it kills the economy, businesses, jobs and lives

Sweden only record a coronavirus death for people who die and who are then tested and prove positive for corona virus. They don't test all so their numbers are low. So I am told.

[Surelynot]

It would be interesting to see how much support there would be for "opening up economies" if this virus only killed middle-aged, rightwing fascists.

[jvs]

Here in Thailand imo a lot of lives have been saved because of the lockdown(alkohol ban)

Fewer traffic deaths for sure.

We will not be able to make up a balance before this is all over.

If i remember correctly the lockdown in many countries is to prevent an overburden of people in the

hospitals.This seems to me a good idea.

On the other hand ,you can not lock down people without helping them to survive.

You need to give money and food and shelter.

Now desperate hungry people are turning to suicide.

No one knows how and when or even if this is going to end,economies the world over are being hurt very badly.

Next is the discussion what the topic is about,again nobody knows.

Do we have to bail out airlines by giving them billions?

Do we have to bail out very big companies who never pay taxes?

I think we all need to take a few steps back and that means we will not need all those airplanes for the next ten years or so.

This is one of the biggest crisis we have had in modern times.

I think by now we are all aware this is not just another flu.

I do not think this is something some one did on purpose but other people think differently.

Interesting times .

[scubascuba3]

4 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Sweden only record a coronavirus death for people who die and who are then tested and prove positive for corona virus. They don't test all so their numbers are low. So I am told.

Many countries have similar issues, Sweden includes deaths from retirement homes, UK don't

[Surelynot]

1 minute ago, jvs said:

Here in Thailand imo a lot of lives have been saved because of the lockdown(alkohol ban)

Fewer traffic deaths for sure.

We will not be able to make up a balance before this is all over.

If i remember correctly the lockdown in many countries is to prevent an overburden of people in the

hospitals.This seems to me a good idea.

On the other hand ,you can not lock down people without helping them to survive.

You need to give money and food and shelter.

Now desperate hungry people are turning to suicide.

No one knows how and when or even if this is going to end,economies the world over are being hurt very badly.

Next is the discussion what the topic is about,again nobody knows.

Do we have to bail out airlines by giving them billions?

Do we have to bail out very big companies who never pay taxes?

I think we all need to take a few steps back and that means we will not need all those airplanes for the next ten years or so.

This is one of the biggest crisis we have had in modern times.

I think by now we are all aware this is not just another flu.

I do not think this is something some one did on purpose but other people think differently.

Interesting times .

Horses for courses........Thailand seemingly could open up (low infection rate, low death rate)............UK, God alone knows how many would die if we open up too early.

[scubascuba3]

2 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

It would be interesting to see how much support there would be for "opening up economies" if this virus only killed middle-aged, rightwing fascists.

You hear millions in India are currently starving from lockdown and restrictions? so lockdown worth it? suicide figures don't get reported but i hear it's higher than the number of Corona deaths in Thailand

[TheDark]

Yes, slowing down the overheated economy is a good thing. With this slowdown, previous humanoids who run aimlessly the rat race are slowly turning back to human beings. I think that is a good thing.

 

The world was going badly wrong before this pandemic. Moronic populists were gaining power - now we have seen how glueless they are as leaders. Things will change after this is over. 

 

The trickle down economy made the rich even richer and poor even poorer in many parts of the world. I' not too sure, that can continue much longer anymore - or otherwise the ordinary people will make revolutions happen. This time it's not just students who protests, but great middle masses of middle class people who will join in. 

 

The nature looks better, the air looks better, the waters look better. What there is not to love about that.

 

I don't need the latest iPhone or huge 3D-television in my home. Those are not essential items. I prefer clean air and water much more than latest tech gimmick.

 

Global reality check is a good thing overall.

[Lacessit]

There is going to be argument about which is the better course of action for many years to come.

From an entirely selfish perspective:

 

I am in the most vulnerable age cohort.

I have a part pension and income from various assets.

My living costs here have decreased about 45%.

I have enough cash on hand to last me for 18 months, at my former rate of expenditure.

Lockdown is only inconveniencing me from the point of view of travel, and restaurants/massage shops being open. I would like to resume swimming.

 

It doesn't take Einstein to figure out which course I am in favor of.

 

The question is whether 54,000 deaths in the USA is preferable to 83 deaths in Australia, if the economy is going to do better. However, what seems to have gone missing is the fact our environment is benefiting from the slowdown in human activity.

[UbonThani]

23 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I value life quite much, but is it worth to destabilize and starve millions to save hundreds ?

I would ask you the same questions, how much you value life, and how many dead is acceptable.

It was clear from the beginning that the cure was worse than the disease, except for the ones who cannot look further than their belly.

correct

who are they saving?

locking down retirement homes is easily done.

 

People who value life want to open up.

[UbonThani]

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

There is going to be argument about which is the better course of action for many years to come.

From an entirely selfish perspective:

 

I am in the most vulnerable age cohort.

I have a part pension and income from various assets.

My living costs here have decreased about 45%.

I have enough cash on hand to last me for 18 months, at my former rate of expenditure.

Lockdown is only inconveniencing me from the point of view of travel, and restaurants/massage shops being open. I would like to resume swimming.

 

It doesn't take Einstein to figure out which course I am in favor of.

 

The question is whether 54,000 deaths in the USA is preferable to 83 deaths in Australia, if the economy is going to do better. However, what seems to have gone missing is the fact our environment is benefiting from the slowdown in human activity.

That comparison is useless. Different types of cities and structures.

 

The environment? People are eating more food. More animals being killed one thinks.

 

 

[Surelynot]

6 minutes ago, TheDark said:

Yes, slowing down the overheated economy is a good thing. With this slowdown, previous humanoids who run aimlessly the rat race are slowly turning back to human beings. I think that is a good thing.

 

The world was going badly wrong before this pandemic. Moronic populists were gaining power - now we have seen how glueless they are as leaders. Things will change after this is over. 

 

The trickle down economy made the rich even richer and poor even poorer in many parts of the world. I' not too sure, that can continue much longer anymore - or otherwise the ordinary people will make revolutions happen. This time it's not just students who protests, but great middle masses of middle class people who will join in. 

 

The nature looks better, the air looks better, the waters look better. What there is not to love about that.

 

I don't need the latest iPhone or huge 3D-television in my home. Those are not essential items. I prefer clean air and water much more than latest tech gimmick.

 

Global reality check is a good thing overall.

Excellent points raised, opened my eyes.

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, UbonThani said:

That comparison is useless. Different types of cities and structures.

 

The environment? People are eating more food. More animals being killed one thinks.

 

 

The oil price has plummeted, it's called supply and demand. There are next to no airplanes flying.

Here's a video which may help you understand the environmental effect. Bad for the economy, good for the environment. Just one airport in the US, Pittsburgh.

[Brunolem]

13 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

There is going to be argument about which is the better course of action for many years to come.

From an entirely selfish perspective:

 

I am in the most vulnerable age cohort.

I have a part pension and income from various assets.

My living costs here have decreased about 45%.

I have enough cash on hand to last me for 18 months, at my former rate of expenditure.

Lockdown is only inconveniencing me from the point of view of travel, and restaurants/massage shops being open. I would like to resume swimming.

 

It doesn't take Einstein to figure out which course I am in favor of.

 

 

I am very much in the same situation as you, with similar expectations... 

[Brunolem]

13 minutes ago, UbonThani said:

 

The environment? People are eating more food. More animals being killed one thinks.

 

Less income, more eating...and meat on top of that... how is that possible? 

[Captain Monday]

35 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Depends how much,you value life over money.

 

How many dead is acceptable.

Over course not, there is no acceptable number but the cure is worse than the disease now. Lock downs should limited, be of a few weeks maximum with aged and infirm who cannot self-isolate at home isolated to hotels to be fed and cared for at govt expense.  Putting millions out of work and destroying markets and perhaps whole National economies is not the answer. 

[mauGR1]

8 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

The trickle down economy made the rich even richer and poor even poorer in many parts of the world. I' not too sure, that can continue much longer anymore - or otherwise the ordinary people will make revolutions happen. This time it's not just students who protests, but great middle masses of middle class people who will join in. 

 

The irony is that we ordinary folks get insulted by so called "leftists", for making exactly the same point.

I have been called right wing, stalin, reactionary and even trumpian for daring to speak against this madness.

The life for the ordinary people was hard enough before this crisis, and it's going to get much worse.

[UbonThani]

7 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The oil price has plummeted, it's called supply and demand. There are next to no airplanes flying.

Here's a video which may help you understand the environmental effect. Bad for the economy, good for the environment. Just one airport in the US, Pittsburgh.

Makes little difference. All short term. Lots of farm burn offs still which are far worse than planes.

[Brunolem]

50 minutes ago, Sujo said:

 

How many dead is acceptable.

This is from a May 1996 interview on 60 Minutes, about the effects of the sanctions on Irak:

 

We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

 

To which Ambassador Albright responded,

I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.

[cdemundo]

California has had 1684 corona virus deaths, NY State has had 16,509 according to the New York Times.  California started social distancing early.  Hard to know what is best (for reasonable people it's hard anyway, some always know everything), but is seems like social distancing worked.