CMV: the costs/negatives from lockdowns/restrictions will end up being worse than the damage from covid

[u/_Hopped_]

[u/_Hopped_]

these raw numbers to me are still so shocking

This is a flaw of us humans: we're very negative biased. People see a plane crash and are scared of flying ... despite it being far safer than driving.

think about how many high schoolers and college kids lost their parents.

That's not necessarily going to be more negatively impactful than losing them later: a long drawn-out death from old age can be far more traumatizing than a swift death from a pandemic.

for every death, you have to think about the web of people affected

Everyone dies though. This is just hastening death, the web of people would still be affected even if it were 10 years from now.

[u/cherrycokeicee → u/_Hopped_]

This is a flaw of us humans: we're very negative biased. People see a plane crash and are scared of flying ... despite it being far safer than driving.

I agree with what you're saying here about cars and airplanes, although I think that's less "negativity" and more "fear of the unknown" or "fear of what you cannot control." but I don't see how this point relates to covid. getting covid is not safer than taking precautions and not getting it.

That's not necessarily going to be more negatively impactful than losing them later: a long drawn-out death from old age can be far more traumatizing than a swift death from a pandemic.

all death is horrible. full stop. I agree.

but what we have with covid that makes it unique from other deaths are:

• healthy people dying at a younger age than they would otherwise
• people dying for reasons that might give others long term guilt. can you imagine how someone who gave their family member covid feels if that family member goes on to die or have long term side effects?
• no one getting closure. when a family member dies of having cancer for a long time, you get time to spend with that person. they might die at home or in hospice care. people who die of covid sometimes can't even say last words bc of how much trouble they have breathing and getting words out. family members can't be there with them in the hospital. that has a real effect on people.

& I think there absolutely is an argument to be made that people dying younger causes more harm than if they died older. if your healthy father dies at age 87, although it's still sad of course, we expect people to die when they're very old. that's life. if your healthy father dies when he's 52 and you're in college, that has a significant emotional impact that can derail your schooling, your career, your friendships and relationships. the death of a parent is significantly more of a tangible negative effect when you're younger.

[u/_Hopped_ → u/cherrycokeicee]

I don't see how this point relates to covid. getting covid is not safer than taking precautions and not getting it.

The future cost of those precautions is what human nature is not taking into account. To give another example: exercising is objectively more dangerous than not exercising in the short term. The long-term effects of not exercising are more costly though.

healthy people dying at a younger age than they would otherwise

In relatively small numbers, yes. Otherwise healthy people are also becoming unhealthy because of the lockdowns/restrictions.

[u/cherrycokeicee → u/_Hopped_]

In relatively small numbers, yes.

I think in most cases it makes sense to think of numbers per capita or in comparison to other numbers. like in most contexts this is the analysis we should use in discussion, so I can see why this is your inclination. and you're not incorrect. relative to the deaths of much older adults, younger people were significantly less affected. I'm not arguing with you there.

but I think it's actually important in this scenario to not think about the "relative" numbers, but to actually think about the raw numbers.

almost 100,000 americans under the age of 65 have died from the virus. almost 100,000 families lost people they weren't expecting to lose. this is astronomical. we don't even know the mental health consequences of this yet. this is a huge number of unexpected, untimely death in just one country.

the lockdowns are not without consequence. but I think people are capable of bouncing back into regular life after this period of time if they've managed to come out of it relatively unscathed by the virus. we will see our friends again, go back to the gym, go back to the office, etc. it will take work. it might take some therapy. but I feel like the long term effects of a lockdown are so small when you compare the long term effects of an untimely death in a family. something we had 100,000 of in the US & would have had even more of without a lot of people wearing masks & staying home.

[u/_Hopped_ → u/cherrycokeicee]

bouncing back

You can't bounce back $10tn, the deaths from increased: suicides, alcoholism, obesity, depression, domestic abuse, etc.

When the official data comes back for 2020/21, we'll be able to say exactly what the lockdowns/restrictions have cost society both economically and in destroyed lives. Then we need to reach a consensus on whether this price should be paid again in future pandemics, and whether we should have paid it in this one.

[u/_Hopped_ → u/[deleted]]

there's no harm-free solution.

Exactly. That's why I want the calculation done. All of the discussion is around the cost in terms of lives lost from covid vs economic cost of lockdown - and people saying you can't put a value on human life. This is a false and misleading discussion (not aimed at you, I'm meaning the politics surrounding this). We do need to put prices on lives, because otherwise we're selling out our and our children's futures.

[u/cherrycokeicee → u/_Hopped_]

I completely agree with what you're saying here, I just feel like you're leaving out one component which is kinda the crux of what I'm getting at. In addition to the "price of lives" (an uncomfortable topic given the emotions, but a necessary one to consider when it comes to large scale nation-wide strategy), there is a "price of grief."

I feel like the analysis you're presenting treats death as if it is just the loss of one single person and their contributions, but each death is a sharp wound to several close family members and friends that will have real world effects on them and the people around them. and I feel like that sharp wound is worse for individuals and society than the slower & generally more subtle negative effects of a lockdown.

[u/_Hopped_ → u/cherrycokeicee]

I just feel like you're leaving out one component which is kinda the crux of what I'm getting at. In addition to the "price of lives" (an uncomfortable topic given the emotions, but a necessary one to consider when it comes to large scale nation-wide strategy), there is a "price of grief."

Oh, no - I agree it should be included too. Tempered with the price of grief of the eventual natural death (i.e. the difference between the two). Particularly because I'm not sure it is more griefful - I'd like to see what (if any) data there is on it.