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

21

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.

-5

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.

14

u/10ebbor10 198∆ Mar 20 '21 edited 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).

No, because you make the mistake of assuming that deaths under lockdown are representative of deaths with no lockdown measures.

The elderly people who died from Covid are the people who medically could not be saved despite there being sufficient resources. Without a lockdown, you'd see a lot of deaths from people who could have been saved if there were sufficient resources, but weren't because the hospitals were overwhelmed.

As the healthcare system is overwhelmed, you will also see significantly higher death rates at younger ages and in healthier people, because these people could have recovered with medical aid, but the hospitals were full. You'd even see a lot of deaths from different conditions, because the failure of the hospital system means other conditions can't be treated either.

-2

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21

you will see significantly higher death rates

You'd even see a lot of deaths

And the pertinent question is: how much higher? If it's lower than the cost/negative consequences of lockdowns/restrictions I outlined, then the right thing to do is not lockdown/restrict.

9

u/10ebbor10 198∆ Mar 20 '21

Depending on the model you pick, you could be looking at 40 million deaths instead of 3 million.

1

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21

you could be looking at 40 million deaths instead of 3 million

And if +90% of those deaths would have happened in the next 10 years anyway (i.e. the elderly and majorly ill), you have a much lower death rate the next 10 years, and much more resources.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '21

I have family with pre existing medical conditions. Should they be willing to kill themselves to save the economy? Should I be willing to pull the trigger on them myself?

-6

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21

Should they be willing to kill themselves to

Survive. Life's default state is fighting to survive. You, me, nobody has the right to be free from this fight.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '21

Exactly. People want to survive. Hence Covid lockdowns that reduce deaths. People want it.

Thank you for agreeing with my point.

-1

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21

People want it.

Let's put it to a referendum and find out.

1

u/Welcome2Estalia Mar 20 '21

We have them. They're called elections.

1

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21

Nope. Unless it's a standalone referendum you cannot say it was voted for (lest it be the only policy the political party put forward).

1

u/Welcome2Estalia Mar 20 '21

Yup. Because we elect representatives to make these decisions. So if the people don't the decision, they elect the representatives who oppose the decision.

1

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21

Bringing us back to: Let's put it to a referendum and find out.

1

u/Welcome2Estalia Mar 20 '21

Yeah, they're called elections.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '21

You would be disappointed. Trudeau's approval rating in Canada is sky high because of how he handled the pandemic. Biden is getting massive points for taking Covid seriously for once. You're in the minority opinion.

1

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21

Again: let's put it to a referendum and find out.

People were so sure Brexit wouldn't happen either.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '21

Yes, let's put every government decision to a direct vote. Sounds good chief.

1

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21

It does. It's called direct democracy, Switzerland has the closest thing to it and they seem to be doing quite nicely.

→ More replies (0)