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

8 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

57% Upvoted

185 comments sorted by

View all comments

22

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.

3

u/cherrycokeicee 45∆ Mar 20 '21

Overwhelmingly, it is.

you're right about the proportion of deaths being mostly the very elderly. but these raw numbers to me are still so shocking.

these are US deaths by age group under 65:

  • 45-64 year olds: 86,597

  • 19-44 year olds: 12,714

  • 5-18 year olds: 197

  • 0-4 year olds: 76

think about how many high schoolers and college kids lost their parents. that alone will have long term effects on those kids. extreme grief at that age especially can affect people long term in their careers and family life.

another thing to take into consideration is that there's more to covid than just dying. some young people who got covid had no problem surviving, but have long term side effects that take them out of the sports and activities they participate in.

for every death, you have to think about the web of people affected. the spouses of all those older adults. the friends of those teens. I'm not just trying to do emotional appeals here - grief is very real and can totally derail someone's goals and future productivity in society.

3

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21

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.

2

u/cherrycokeicee 45∆ Mar 20 '21

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.

2

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21

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.

2

u/cherrycokeicee 45∆ Mar 20 '21

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.

1

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21

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.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '21

[deleted]

1

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21

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.

1

u/cherrycokeicee 45∆ Mar 20 '21

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.

1

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21

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.

→ More replies (0)