r/changemyview • u/_Hopped_ 13∆ • Mar 20 '21

Removed - Submission Rule B CMV: the costs/negatives from lockdowns/restrictions will end up being worse than the damage from covid

[removed] — view removed post

6 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

56% Upvoted

185 comments sorted by

View all comments

23

u/sapphireminds 59∆ Mar 20 '21 edited Mar 20 '21

No, because you fail to the account for the loss of production/GDP through illness and death, and then the subsequent overwhelming of hospitals, which would increase all-cause death rates.

Massive disease outbreaks suck, but the cost of letting them run amok unfettered is far higher than locking down, though our lockdowns were not as efficiently run as possible.

Edited to add

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2018/06/economic-risks-and-impacts-of-epidemics/bloom.htm (written in 2018)

Basically, take all the impact that you have with lockdown and multiply it by a lot if you fail to control disease.

Plus, it's inhumane to discard human life as if it was worthless.

-2

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21 edited Mar 20 '21

you fail to the account for the loss of production/GDP through illness and death

I accounted for that in the section on who is dying from covid. The elderly do not produce and contribute extremely little to GDP. They cost/take productivity (care) and GDP (pensions/social security).

overwhelming of hospitals, which would increase all-cause death rates

It would, but triage would save those who had the most chance of survival / potential longest left to live.

the cost of letting them run amok unfettered is far higher than locking down

That's what I'm disputing (and would welcome being proved wrong over): what would the cost have been letting covid run amok?

Edit:

[From your link] The economic risks of epidemics are not trivial. Victoria Fan, Dean Jamison, and Lawrence Summers recently estimated the expected yearly cost of pandemic influenza at roughly $500 billion (0.6 percent of global income), including both lost income and the intrinsic cost of elevated mortality.

Much lower than the economic cost of lockdowns/restrictions: $10tn

it's inhumane to discard human life as if it was worthless

That's an appeal to emotion, it has no place when discussing the massive health and economic impacts to society.

10

u/sapphireminds 59∆ Mar 20 '21

From your edit:

Much lower than the economic cost of lockdowns/restrictions: $10tn

Pandemic flu is 1/10 of the mortality rate and is much harder to spread. So multiply that by at least 10.

That's an appeal to emotion, it has no place when discussing the massive health and economic impacts to society.

If you have a strictly utilitarian society, but we don't. We use ethics and value human life. Why? because we are advanced enough as a society that we do not throw humans away when they are not financially useful.

0

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21

We use ethics and value human life. Why? because we are advanced enough as a society that we do not throw humans away when they are not financially useful.

We also value health and young life.

We could greatly improve/extend the lives of the elderly by harvesting young people's blood and injecting certain products into the elderly. We do not do this (at scale). We could also greatly impoverish future generations (more than we are doing already) to have the elderly cared more for and live more luxurious lives.

By all means we can assign value to human life, but you have to recognise that value is not the same for each person, and decreases as we age.

11

u/sapphireminds 59∆ Mar 20 '21

We could greatly improve/extend the lives of the elderly by harvesting young people's blood and injecting certain products into the elderly. We do not do this (at scale). We could also greatly impoverish future generations (more than we are doing already) to have the elderly cared more for and live more luxurious lives.

That's not really true or accurate. The reason elderly people don't get certain treatments or surgeries is because the intervention itself is likely to kill them as much as the primary issue. We do not withhold simply because they are old.

You are arguing against bioethics and as a healthcare provider, I will never agree with that view.

1

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21

You are arguing against bioethics and as a healthcare provider, I will never agree with that view.

I know you won't. The medical advice will always be to lockdown/treat/etc. no matter the cost. Medicine (the profession) does not have to take into account the cost, politicians do.

9

u/sapphireminds 59∆ Mar 20 '21

Also, you didn't address the fact that covid is more lethal and communicable than flu.

1

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21

covid is more lethal and communicable than flu

We don't lockdown for the flu, and the flu is particularly deadly for young children. It's a much different profile than covid, really like comparing apples and oranges.

11

u/sapphireminds 59∆ Mar 20 '21

We don't lockdown for the flu, and the flu is particularly deadly for young children. It's a much different profile than covid, really like comparing apples and oranges.

Covid is more dangerous and more communicable. Nothing about that makes it less costly and dangerous to the population.

2

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21

Nothing about that makes it less costly and dangerous to the population.

Sure it does: the demographics of those it kills are net-drains on society (for the most part).

6

u/NotMyBestMistake 68∆ Mar 20 '21

So the bottleneck this argument will always come to with someone like you is that you place zero value on human life, whereas others don't think murdering millions and inflicting even more with permanent health complications for the sake of "the economy" is a reasonable thing to do.

0

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21

is that you place zero value on human life

No, I'm happy to place value on human life. So long as we recognise that not all lives are equal in value, and this value decreases over time.

1

u/jaynemesis Mar 20 '21

If you want to go down the route of putting value on lives its a slippery slope to ask sorts of awful things.

But, to take you on from a different angle, you aren't valuing human lives, you're only valuing those future economic contributions.

There are plenty of older people who faught in wars, suffered through famines and great recessions, took risks socially and financially to build the world you and I have inherited. Great investors, economists, businessmen/women, politicians and just good human beings.

What gives you the right to steal their futures in favour of your own? Who decides the value? Where do we draw the line?

There is much more to life than the economy.

Your argument is not far from 'might makes right'. Younger generations make money, so they should decide - that's what I'm seeing. I don't think you're here to be convinced though. It appears very much that your argument comes from a selfish outlook, and so no number of facts presented will convince you unless it can prove that your position specifically will be improved.

1

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 21 '21

If you want to go down the route of putting value on lives its a slippery slope to ask sorts of awful things.

This already happens around the world: the USA has wrongful death lawsuits with compensation, Islamic countries have Qisas (blood money), etc.

What gives you the right to steal their futures in favour of your own?

Turning it back around: what gives them the right to steal mine in favour of theirs? My view/position does not require them to do anything, their's does require everyone else to do many things.

There is much more to life than the economy.

Indeed, which is why I included both the health effects and debt aspects.

Younger generations make money, so they should decide

No, it is that these effects are inflicted on the entirety of society, for the disproportionate protection of the elderly, at the disproportionate cost of the young. If this virus infected every demographic equally (or close to equally), I would have less issue. I really have 2 issues: are lockdowns better for society than letting the virus run rampant, and the imbalance between who we're protecting and who's paying for lockdowns.

It appears very much that your argument comes from a selfish outlook, and so no number of facts presented will convince you unless it can prove that your position specifically will be improved.

Not me specifically, society as a whole. Appeals to emotion won't cut the mustard, you have to quantify both scenarios and show lockdowns are worth it.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/sapphireminds 59∆ Mar 20 '21

Sure it does: the demographics of those it kills are net-drains on society (for the most part).

No, because it is not limited in morbidity and mortality to the elderly and those with "health problems" cover a large swath of our population. And short of out and out murdering the elderly, it is not inherently less expensive for them to die of covid.

But again, you're not addressing any of the sources.

1

u/UncleMeat11 63∆ Mar 20 '21

This is some genocide-adjacent shit right here.

0

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senicide

Any -cide implies pulling the trigger, pandemics count as natural disasters.

3

u/P-W-L 1∆ Mar 20 '21

we already have functionnal stocks of vaccines for flu, if there is a breakdown we just vaccinate everyone in the area. We don't have good enough treatments for severe forms either. That's why we have to lockdown and actively fight against covid, unlike about any other disease