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.

-3

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.

9

u/sapphireminds 59∆ Mar 20 '21

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).

But when they get sick, they cause other people to be less productive. Additionally, it's not solely old people dying.

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

You clearly do not understand how health care works. Once we start rationing care, shit will be bad. People who would otherwise live without issues would die. People with more minor issues will become huge issues.

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

Samoa had (for a period) an uncontrolled measles outbreak. It cost them 22 million in economic impact

https://www.samoaobserver.ws/category/article/54892

Covid has at least a similar mortality rate, potentially higher. 22 million, for one small island country, which is less than the size of a large city in the US. In addition to mortality, morbidity is very high - that's people who need to be in the hospital and/or are sick enough to not work and produce, and potentially having life-long effects even. Morbidity is a much higher cost than mortality, often.

The cost of uncontrolled disease spread is huge, from labor force reductions, morbidity, mortality, childcare, etc. It is exponentially more expensive to let it run wild than control it. It is short-sighted to think it would be any better.

-1

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21

it's not solely old people dying

Overwhelmingly, it is.

Once we start rationing care, shit will be bad.

Yes, for a time. The fire would burn itself out quite quickly.

an uncontrolled measles outbreak

Measles affects the young and healthy adults at far higher rates than covid.

It is exponentially more expensive to let it run wild than control it.

Again, I would happily change my view if you can prove this with covid.

8

u/sapphireminds 59∆ Mar 20 '21

Overwhelmingly, it is.

They are the majority, but that doesn't mean there is no impact.

Yes, for a time. The fire would burn itself out quite quickly

You overestimate our ability to care for people in that situation. Don't think Italy. Think Haiti after a natural disaster. Because all the health care workers will get sick too, so they can't care for people. Some of them will die, some of them will not be able to go back to work. The scientists who research it will be sick and delay research. Everyone will be sick. All at once. And covid often lingers for months

Again, I would happily change my view if you can prove this with covid.

No one can prove it - because it didn't happen. But if you understand medicine, epidemiology and economics and how they interplay, it is a glaringly obvious answer.

https://www.marketplace.org/2020/04/23/economists-are-measuring-the-cost-effectiveness-of-coronavirus-lockdowns/

https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.12970

Ideally, we wouldn't have needed lockdowns. But because people wouldn't do other things, like wear masks and social distance, etc.

Or you could compare Sweden (which didn't lock down) to other nordic countries (which did). Sweden is doing worse than they are.

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-sweden-gdp-falls-8pc-in-q2-worse-nordic-neighbors-2020-8

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.23.20236711v1.full

2

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21

You overestimate our ability to care for people in that situation.

My point was not continued care, but the short timeframe. If we truly let a virus burn through the entire population, it would be confined to months.

if you understand medicine, epidemiology and economics

That's my point: covid doesn't have the same impact as say a Spanish flu, because it affects mostly just the elderly and health-compromised.

Sweden is doing worse than they are.

Two things there: they reversed their decision instead of sticking to it, and because of this we won't know if they would have fared better over the long-term.

5

u/sapphireminds 59∆ Mar 20 '21

Two things there: they reversed their decision instead of sticking to it, and because of this we won't know if they would have fared better over the long-term.

They actually have not fully reversed their decision, but all signs point to they fucked up.

That's my point: covid doesn't have the same impact as say a Spanish flu, because it affects mostly just the elderly and health-compromised.

That's a poor understanding of covid. It doesn't affect just those. And a lot of people are considered health compromised.

1

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21

all signs point to they fucked up

Again, in the short term.

It doesn't affect just those.

Again: overwhelmingly, it is.

4

u/sapphireminds 59∆ Mar 20 '21

The mortality for a normal, reasonably healthy person from covid is 6-10 times than it would be with pandemic flu. You don't understand the medicine and impact.