What Price Should We Pay to Fight COVID-19?

[GuitarStv]

People are willing to pay $544,000/life saved out of their own pocket for safety improvements to cars. The NHTSA is willing to spend $3 million per life saved in traffic safety measures: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/809835. EPA puts the number at $10 million: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-value-of-life/.

Estimates I've seen showed if we did nothing we'd have around 2.2 million deaths and with all of the changes we're implementing, we'll probably be somewhere around 200k deaths.

So 2 million deaths times $544k is just over $1 trillion. If we use $3 million per life saved, that's $6 trillion. If we use the EPA's $10 million / life, thats a total cost of $20 trillion.

I think I've found upper and lower bounds for this question. That said, I think the closest comparison would be how much we paid 9-11 victims families. The federal government paid on average $1.7 million/death in the 9-11 attacks. That would put us as society willing to pay $3.4 trillion to prevent 2 million COVID-19 deaths from happening.

Not every life saved is equal. Saving a young, healthy person has more value than saving an elderly person with other health issues because the young person is more likely to have more years and a higher quality of life during those years.

I missed this earlier, but was re-reading the thread and wanted to comment.


Not every life saved is equal - agreed.  But the assumption that saving a young healthy person has more value than saving an elderly person with health issues is flat out wrong.


I think that this is rooted in the implicit assumption that 'quality of life' and number of years lived determine value.

Take an honest look here, and tell me . . . does the younger guy's better quality of life really make him the more valuable human being?







The problem with attempting to assign a different value to individuals lives is that doing so always means you will make bad assumptions . . . and bad assumptions lead to bad conclusions.  The only I can see way to avoid getting bogged down in an flawed argument of "who's live has more value" is to treat all lives as having the same value.

Of course lives are of different value. The fact that a generalisation fails to take into account outliers doesn't mean that the generalisation shouldn't be made. Obesity correlates with poor health but there are plenty of thin people who are unhealthy and there are plenty of fat people who are healthy. The presence of outliers and anecdotal contradictions isn't an argument against a principle.

Where do you draw the line?  Women and minorities make less money on average . . . should their lives be worth less?  Should poor people be worth less than the rich?

The generalization shouldn't be made because there are a lot of people who don't fall into what it claims . . . and because it very quickly leads us down a dark path.

[Bloop Bloop]

No, it doesn't lead us down a dark path at all. And even if it did, the slippery slope argument is logically fallacious.

I don't draw any particular line. It's all shades of grey and averages. In this context I look at the likely (average) number of years of life remaining, based on life tables.

You might have a point if you wanted me to not differentiate between, say, someone with an IQ of 120 and someone with an IQ of 80 - I would not differentiate there - but I would easily differentiate between a sentient human and someone in a persistent vegetative state.

[GuitarStv]

No, it doesn't lead us down a dark path at all. And even if it did, the slippery slope argument is logically fallacious.

I don't draw any particular line. It's all shades of grey and averages. In this context I look at the likely (average) number of years of life remaining, based on life tables.

By saying that years of life are a valid predictor of the value of a person's life, you are drawing a particular line.  You're saying that youth/health is the single most important determining factor in the value of an individual.

Maybe you'll see the flaw in your claims here if I put the exact same reasoning into a different context.  I can look at salary charts to see that black people make significantly less on average than white people.  Therefore black people's lives really should be less valuable.  I'm not drawing any particular line here, of course.  Just talking about shades of grey and averages.

:P

You might have a point if you wanted me to not differentiate between, say, someone with an IQ of 120 and someone with an IQ of 80 - I would not differentiate there - but I would easily differentiate between a sentient human and someone in a persistent vegetative state.

How would you differentiate between someone in a vegetative state and someone who is severely developmentally delayed with an IQ of 10?  Is the differentiation so easy?

[Davnasty]

On average, a younger person has more years left than an older person.

Generally speaking, 2 years of life is more valuable than 1.

Are either of those statements controversial?

[GuitarStv]

On average, a younger person has more years left than an older person.

Generally speaking, 2 years of life is more valuable than 1.

Are either of those statements controversial?

Yes, I take issue with the second statement as used in this context.  On the surface it appears obvious and correct (if I live for two years, it's more valuable to me than if I live for one year).  But the way it's being used here in this context is to subtly devalue the life and worth of anyone who is elderly or sick without any real basis.

Years of life aren't comparable from person to person in terms of value.  There are far too many other factors in play to try to make that comparison - so I have a problem with it.

[Davnasty]

On average, a younger person has more years left than an older person.

Generally speaking, 2 years of life is more valuable than 1.

Are either of those statements controversial?

Yes, I take issue with the second statement as used in this context.  On the surface it appears obvious and correct (if I live for two years, it's more valuable to me than if I live for one year).  But the way it's being used here in this context is to subtly devalue the life and worth of anyone who is elderly or sick without any real basis.

Years of life aren't comparable from person to person in terms of value.  There are far too many other factors in play to try to make that comparison - so I have a problem with it.

Yes, there are lots of factors at play but that's why we should look at questions like this in terms of the population, not the individual. That's why I used phrases like "on average" and "generally speaking".

If you had the choice to save 1 million cumulative years among a population or 2 million and you knew nothing of the individuals who would live those years, which would you choose?

I actually think your idea that some lives are more valuable than others is more controversial than what you're arguing against.

[GuitarStv]

On average, a younger person has more years left than an older person.

Generally speaking, 2 years of life is more valuable than 1.

Are either of those statements controversial?

Yes, I take issue with the second statement as used in this context.  On the surface it appears obvious and correct (if I live for two years, it's more valuable to me than if I live for one year).  But the way it's being used here in this context is to subtly devalue the life and worth of anyone who is elderly or sick without any real basis.

Years of life aren't comparable from person to person in terms of value.  There are far too many other factors in play to try to make that comparison - so I have a problem with it.

Yes, there are lots of factors at play but that's why we should look at questions like this in terms of the population, not the individual. That's why I used phrases like "on average" and "generally speaking".

Capitalist society values people in economic terms.  Therefore a person who is paid more is valued higher than one who is paid less.  "On average", and "generally speaking" . . . black people make less money than white people . . . so using your logic, their lives should be worth less.  That doesn't sit right with me.

If you had the choice to save 1 million cumulative years among a population or 2 million and you knew nothing of the individuals who would live those years, which would you choose?

Given that scenario, I'd save the 2 million.

But that's not the question under debate here though.  First of all, we do know the individuals we're talking about.  They're our family members and friends.  The debate about value of life is brought up as a way of justifying re-opening the economy while a pandemic is raging.  And the people in favour of re-opening are (quite naturally) very interested in devaluing these lives as much as possible.

I actually think your idea that some lives are more valuable than others is more controversial than what you're arguing against.

I don't think it's possible to put a different value rating on life from human to human.  It's an inherently flawed task.  But that's exactly what you're doing when you're saying that an old person is worth less than a young person.  It's saying that Stephen Hawking is worth less than Johnny Knoxville because Hawking had ALS.

[Davnasty]

On average, a younger person has more years left than an older person.

Generally speaking, 2 years of life is more valuable than 1.

Are either of those statements controversial?

Yes, I take issue with the second statement as used in this context.  On the surface it appears obvious and correct (if I live for two years, it's more valuable to me than if I live for one year).  But the way it's being used here in this context is to subtly devalue the life and worth of anyone who is elderly or sick without any real basis.

Years of life aren't comparable from person to person in terms of value.  There are far too many other factors in play to try to make that comparison - so I have a problem with it.

Yes, there are lots of factors at play but that's why we should look at questions like this in terms of the population, not the individual. That's why I used phrases like "on average" and "generally speaking".

Capitalist society values people in economic terms.  Therefore a person who is paid more is valued higher than one who is paid less.  "On average", and "generally speaking" . . . black people make less money than white people . . . so using your logic, their lives should be worth less.  That doesn't sit right with me.

My logic suggests all life years are equally valued regardless of the individual. I'm arguing in terms of age and nothing else - not IQ, not net worth, not economic value, nothing but age.

You've added in the bit about capitalist society and economic value and used some tortured logic to turn it into racism.

[GuitarStv]

On average, a younger person has more years left than an older person.

Generally speaking, 2 years of life is more valuable than 1.

Are either of those statements controversial?

Yes, I take issue with the second statement as used in this context.  On the surface it appears obvious and correct (if I live for two years, it's more valuable to me than if I live for one year).  But the way it's being used here in this context is to subtly devalue the life and worth of anyone who is elderly or sick without any real basis.

Years of life aren't comparable from person to person in terms of value.  There are far too many other factors in play to try to make that comparison - so I have a problem with it.

Yes, there are lots of factors at play but that's why we should look at questions like this in terms of the population, not the individual. That's why I used phrases like "on average" and "generally speaking".

Capitalist society values people in economic terms.  Therefore a person who is paid more is valued higher than one who is paid less.  "On average", and "generally speaking" . . . black people make less money than white people . . . so using your logic, their lives should be worth less.  That doesn't sit right with me.

My logic suggests all life years are equally valued regardless of the individual. I'm arguing in terms of age and nothing else - not IQ, not net worth, not economic value, nothing but age.

You've added in the bit about capitalist society and economic value and used some tortured logic to turn it into racism.

Is your argument not that age (life year remaining) determines the intrinsic value of a human being?

To me, that seems about equal to arguing that economic value, IQ, or any of a dozen different (and also bad) ways of classifying the value of a human being are used.

[habanero]

My logic suggests all life years are equally valued regardless of the individual. I'm arguing in terms of age and nothing else - not IQ, not net worth, not economic value, nothing but age.

Im surprised how many does not get this. And that one suddenly pretends this does not happen all the time in healthcare economics. The metric used is generally not only age, however, but quality-adjusted life-years. So say saving your life but tying you to a machine for the next 50 years is valued (much) lower than treating you and giving you an expected 50 years at normal functionality.

FWIW in healthcare economics the US puts a much higher value on a life-year than most, probably all European countries. That is one reason why the US spends so much as a percentage of GDP on health care. If I got Covid-19 at the age of say 86 I would most likely get nowhere near an ICU or a ventilator despite capacity being available. Here patients over 80 make up only 6% of those admitted to an ICU due to Covid-19 but they make up 26% of the fatalities (and again, we count every single Covid-19 fatality regardless of whether it occured at a hospital, in a care home or in someone's own home) and we have never been out of ICU beds or ventilators due to Covid-19 so no tirage ever took place out of the ordinary routines.

[Davnasty]

I actually think your idea that some lives are more valuable than others is more controversial than what you're arguing against.

I don't think it's possible to put a different value rating on life from human to human.  It's an inherently flawed task.  But that's exactly what you're doing when you're saying that an old person is worth less than a young person.  It's saying that Stephen Hawking is worth less than Johnny Knoxville because Hawking had ALS.

No, its saying that 76 year olds as a group have less years left than 49 year olds. That's it.

[Davnasty]

On average, a younger person has more years left than an older person.

Generally speaking, 2 years of life is more valuable than 1.

Are either of those statements controversial?

Yes, I take issue with the second statement as used in this context.  On the surface it appears obvious and correct (if I live for two years, it's more valuable to me than if I live for one year).  But the way it's being used here in this context is to subtly devalue the life and worth of anyone who is elderly or sick without any real basis.

Years of life aren't comparable from person to person in terms of value.  There are far too many other factors in play to try to make that comparison - so I have a problem with it.

Yes, there are lots of factors at play but that's why we should look at questions like this in terms of the population, not the individual. That's why I used phrases like "on average" and "generally speaking".

Capitalist society values people in economic terms.  Therefore a person who is paid more is valued higher than one who is paid less.  "On average", and "generally speaking" . . . black people make less money than white people . . . so using your logic, their lives should be worth less.  That doesn't sit right with me.

My logic suggests all life years are equally valued regardless of the individual. I'm arguing in terms of age and nothing else - not IQ, not net worth, not economic value, nothing but age.

You've added in the bit about capitalist society and economic value and used some tortured logic to turn it into racism.

Is your argument not that age (life year remaining) determines the intrinsic value of a human being?

To me, that seems about equal to arguing that economic value, IQ, or any of a dozen different (and also bad) ways of classifying the value of a human being are used.

To me, it seems very different than using those other metrics to classify the value of human life. It's the only one that gives us an idea of how many years someone has left to live.

[Davnasty]

My logic suggests all life years are equally valued regardless of the individual. I'm arguing in terms of age and nothing else - not IQ, not net worth, not economic value, nothing but age.

Im surprised how many does not get this. And that one suddenly pretends this does not happen all the time in healthcare economics. The metric used is generally not only age, however, but quality-adjusted life-years. So say saving your life but tying you to a machine for the next 50 years is valued (much) lower than treating you and giving you an expected 50 years at normal functionality.

FWIW in healthcare economics the US puts a much higher value on a life-year than most, probably all European countries. That is one reason why the US spends so much as a percentage of GDP on health care. If I got Covid-19 at the age of say 86 I would most likely get nowhere near an ICU or a ventilator despite capacity being available. Here patients over 80 make up only 6% of those admitted to an ICU due to Covid-19 but they make up 26% of the fatalities (and again, we count every single Covid-19 fatality regardless of whether it occured at a hospital, in a care home or in someone's own home) and we have never been out of ICU beds or ventilators due to Covid-19 so no tirage ever took place out of the ordinary routines.

Ya, I support the use of QALY's as well but I didn't want to get into factors other than age since it seems that's already complicated enough.

[tct]

On average, a younger person has more years left than an older person.

Generally speaking, 2 years of life is more valuable than 1.

Are either of those statements controversial?

Yes, I take issue with the second statement as used in this context.  On the surface it appears obvious and correct (if I live for two years, it's more valuable to me than if I live for one year).  But the way it's being used here in this context is to subtly devalue the life and worth of anyone who is elderly or sick without any real basis.

Years of life aren't comparable from person to person in terms of value.  There are far too many other factors in play to try to make that comparison - so I have a problem with it.

Yes, there are lots of factors at play but that's why we should look at questions like this in terms of the population, not the individual. That's why I used phrases like "on average" and "generally speaking".

Capitalist society values people in economic terms.  Therefore a person who is paid more is valued higher than one who is paid less.  "On average", and "generally speaking" . . . black people make less money than white people . . . so using your logic, their lives should be worth less.  That doesn't sit right with me.

My logic suggests all life years are equally valued regardless of the individual. I'm arguing in terms of age and nothing else - not IQ, not net worth, not economic value, nothing but age.

You've added in the bit about capitalist society and economic value and used some tortured logic to turn it into racism.

Is your argument not that age (life year remaining) determines the intrinsic value of a human being?

To me, that seems about equal to arguing that economic value, IQ, or any of a dozen different (and also bad) ways of classifying the value of a human being are used.

I'm not saying its right/wrong to place value on years of life left, but it certainly is applied this way in our courts. My grandfather lost his life when his truck went into gear on its own and ran him over.  He was not the only person this happened to with this particuliar truck model. Younger accident victims received millions of dollars. My grandmother received less than one hundred thousand for the loss of her husband. Being that he was 80 yrs old, it was decided that my grandfathers life was not worth as much as the younger victims.

[Davnasty]

The debate about value of life is brought up as a way of justifying re-opening the economy while a pandemic is raging.  And the people in favour of re-opening are (quite naturally) very interested in devaluing these lives as much as possible.

I try my best to argue each point individually and not take a "side" of any debate. When I make an argument against what someone else has said it's because I believe they are wrong, not because they're on the other side.

[Jon Bon]

Here is a good reason to open up as fast as possible:

Covid and the resulting economic depression is going to push 40-60 million people into extreme poverty. Or living on $1.90 a day. Maybe we are thinking about valuing their lives as well?

Sure we might lose 500,000 people in this country (SWAG) but would we lose more due to malnutrition, (regular) diseases, and conflict?

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article242853646.html

[GuitarStv]

The debate about value of life is brought up as a way of justifying re-opening the economy while a pandemic is raging.  And the people in favour of re-opening are (quite naturally) very interested in devaluing these lives as much as possible.

I try my best to argue each point individually and not take a "side" of any debate. When I make an argument against what someone else has said it's because I believe they are wrong, not because they're on the other side.

Fair enough.  I appreciate you taking the time to explain your perspective.

[Telecaster]

On average, a younger person has more years left than an older person.

Generally speaking, 2 years of life is more valuable than 1.

Are either of those statements controversial?

Not at all.  But to put it into context, let's do a back of the envelope thought experiment.    A 40 year old has an estimated 45 years of life left, something like that.  Compared to a 65 year old who has 20 years.  Numbers aren't exact but close enough for illustration. 

We know the IFR for those over 65 are something like 15 times more than those at age, say, 40.   So if you prevent infection in a 65 year old, you save way more years of life than preventing infection in a 40 year old. 

[Wrenchturner]

Triage is brutal but necessary.  And the economy has to be a factor in the assessment.  Here's a table from a survey done in April by the Fed Reserve bank of Chicago.

https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/blogs/midwest-economy/2020/chamber-survey-results

Summary
In late April, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago collaborated with the executive associations of the chambers of commerce in its five District states (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin) to conduct a survey on the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on chamber members’ businesses. This survey was based on the methodology of the broader Chicago Fed Survey of Business Conditions (CFSBC). The new survey asked questions about the impact of the outbreak so far and expectations for the coming months. The survey was voluntary, and we primarily heard from small businesses in industries heavily affected by Covid-19.

The main results are as follows:

Many small businesses in the Midwest are experiencing the negative effects of the massive global economic shock caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.
The new social distancing requirements necessary to slow the virus’s spread have put significant capacity constraints on many businesses’ operations.
Many of the small businesses we heard from—especially those in the entertainment, tourism, recreation, restaurant, and retail sectors—are in danger of financial distress.
There is substantial uncertainty about what will happen over the next few months and years.
These results show that many businesses are facing very difficult challenges that are unlikely to go away quickly.
----------------------------------------------

It's almost a guarantee, imo, that we will get this wrong.  Either we will be too cautious or too eager in regards to shutting down businesses and maintaining distancing.  Unfortunately it is very difficult to tell in advance, and there will be great criticism in retrospect.  That being said, I believe the economic consequences are being undervalued at this time.  Perhaps since economic death throes are harder to observe than human death throes.

[dougules]

Here is a good reason to open up as fast as possible:

Covid and the resulting economic depression is going to push 40-60 million people into extreme poverty. Or living on $1.90 a day. Maybe we are thinking about valuing their lives as well?

Sure we might lose 500,000 people in this country (SWAG) but would we lose more due to malnutrition, (regular) diseases, and conflict?

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article242853646.html

The false dichotomy in that is that reopening won't magically take us back to the economy of 2019 minus a few sick people.  If the pandemic is allowed to run unfettered, it will create its own economic havoc.  The choice is not a wrecked economy vs. an uncontrolled pandemic.  The choice is a wrecked economy vs.  an uncontrolled pandemic + a wrecked economy. 

[Bloop Bloop]

Hasn't the US opened up now for a few weeks? And it's not creating more economic havoc than when things were locked down. People are playing on the beach, partying, and hitting the shops.

[js82]

Hasn't the US opened up now for a few weeks? And it's not creating more economic havoc than when things were locked down. People are playing on the beach, partying, and hitting the shops.

"Opened up" is a matter of degree, and varies by locality.  NYC and San Francisco are still technically under full lockdown(fatigue and declining compliance with the orders are another matter) for all practical purposes - the latest estimate is that NYC could start relaxing in 10 days or so.  Most less-affected areas have relaxed restrictions, but are not back to "full open" yet.

 

[OtherJen]

Hasn't the US opened up now for a few weeks? And it's not creating more economic havoc than when things were locked down. People are playing on the beach, partying, and hitting the shops.

"Opened up" is a matter of degree, and varies by locality.  NYC and San Francisco are still technically under full lockdown(fatigue and declining compliance with the orders are another matter) for all practical purposes - the latest estimate is that NYC could start relaxing in 10 days or so.  Most less-affected areas have relaxed restrictions, but are not back to "full open" yet.

Most of Michigan is still under some form of shutdown.

[T-Money$]

While I like your second paragraph your first is full of shit.

No, you're the one who's full of it.  You just went on a diatribe without addressing my point - i.e. the stupidity of the partisanship around mask-wearing.
 You went on a tangent instead of making any attempt to address my original assertion regarding the partisan nature of pushing non-compliance with sustainable social distancing measures / mask use.

Yes, discharging still-contagious patients to nursing homes was a major mistake.  But that does not negate the fact that partisanship associated with people actively discouraging mask-wearing is also utterly stupid.  One stupid does not negate another stupid.

Representatives from both parties have had their share of screw-ups during this crisis.

Almost everything these days for whatever reason is turned into a series of of politicized, "deconstructed" administrative value judgments -- regardless of political affiliation (for another thread, but I find this train of thought to be incredibly dehumanizing).  Mask wearing is not an exception.  The continued, absurd lockdowns are clearly political.  Left-wing Governors are trying to save as much face as they can while they continue to irrationally hurt their citizens.

I agree with you that partisanship is stupid, but it is pervasive. 

[T-Money$]

I agree with you about compliance being a central issue at this point - although I think our partisan environment contributes to that, with one political faction actively pushing non-compliance.

Again, per your above comments about nuance, I think the *right* response in the moment is to maintain sustainable actions(not shutdowns, but wearing masks in indoor spaces, etc.) - this is something that most people would accept and doesn't cause economic harm like business shutdowns do.  *and* any sustainable action that effectively lowers R still has the effect of reducing the terminal number of infections and hence saving lives.

While I like your second paragraph your first is full of shit.

About one-half of the US deaths from COVID-19 were from nursing homes.  That number is in reality likely higher:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2020/05/26/nursing-homes-assisted-living-facilities-0-6-of-the-u-s-population-43-of-u-s-covid-19-deaths/#40e8dceb74cd

Instead of protecting those that have risk from COVID-19, it was the Democratic Governors of New York, Michigan and PA forced COVID-19 patients into nursing homes, thereby seeding the virus into areas that house the populations with the most risk.   Earlier this week the New York Times reported COVID has been more severe in Democratic areas.  The reason should be obvious, because the policies enacted by Democratic Governors were irrational and a failure. 

PA:

https://www.buckscountycouriertimes.com/news/20200501/states-ordered-nursing-homes-to-take-covid-19-residents-thousands-died-how-it-happened

NY:

https://nypost.com/2020/04/23/nursing-homes-cant-reject-coronavirus-patients-cuomo-says/

MI:

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/editorials/2020/05/20/editorial-whitmer-order-endangers-nursing-homes-end-now/5220929002/

Each state has "celebrated" left wing Governors that seem to appear on TV stations like CNN daily, even though their policies were extremely destructive.  Not only did these states have much higher death rates than their right-wing counterparts, but the widespread lockdowns (which are still on-going to this day) hurt their economies even more.

Florida locked down nursing homes and prioritized shipments of personal protective equipment (PPE) to those facilities, putting them on the same level as hospitals.  Florida is God's waiting room, so the lack of COVID-19 fatalities is truly remarkable.

At the onset of the pandemic it was reasonable to isolate and protect those most vulnerable.  Left wing politicians rejected that idea, instead going for a theoretical and extremely unlikely (if not impossible) worst case scenario that killed more people and was much more destructive to the economy -- there is no correlation between long-term widespread lockdown and reducing COVID death, in any nation.

Much of the economy can be opened up without seeing huge viral spikes, yet the Northeast Democratic Governors still have much of their lockdowns in place, quarantining the healthy and those not at risk while they bury those that should have been protected.

So what were you saying about "partisan compliance" again?  Demanding equal outcomes when humans are inherently different from one another is a cornerstone of modern left wing thought.  Safety is an expensive illusion, in the hands of left wing ideology it also is apparently much more fatal.

This is another right wing talking point that has "some basis" in truth, but overall is just BS.

Yes, Covid patients were discharged to Nursing Homes.  But remember that NYC, PA, MI per your examples were also in the process of being overwhelmed by the sick. These folks needed 24/7 care but did not need to be in the hospital any longer. They could not go home either. Where else could they go? Meanwhile MORE people would die if those hospital beds didn't open up. Big grab bag of crappy choices. Don't forget, T-Money, that many of these infections originated in those same Nursing Homes (see Washington state).

That talking point is just a way of distracting from the body count. You should be smarter than this T-Money, this far into this thread.

By the way, I'm a physician and I often discharge patients to Nursing Homes and Skilled Nursing Facilities after hospitalization.

I strongly disagree with you.

https://www.npr.org/2020/05/07/851712311/u-s-field-hospitals-stand-down-most-without-treating-any-covid-19-patients

There were thousands of beds surrounding NYC that were never, ever used.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/coronavirus-crisis-some-hospitals-overwhelmed-many-underutilized/

PA was never remotely overwhelmed by the sick.  The hospitals, even those adjacent to NJ were never close to being overwhelmed.  I was under the impression the tent hospitals in NYC were never used significantly, as was that ridiculous Red Cross boat.   In London, the Hyde Park tent hospital was never used.

In retrospect, claims like these weren't even theoretically possible:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/28/coronavirus-one-10-people-uk-could-hospitalised/

This was an absurd failure in the study of medicine and governmental policy.

A human-made fiasco was created by bad science and fear. 

We listened to the loudest instead of listening to the smartest:

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/

Professor Ioannidis Stanta Clara iFR study has been heavily criticized, yet it turns out he was likely correct as the CDC estimates have acquiesced with his findings. 

The response from the medical community and NE state governments to this virus has been a F*ing catastrophe. 

It's going to be a long hot summer in American cities.  Throw some more kindling to the fire and the 25% unemployed and locked down are going to project their anger...I can't not think of  more dysfunctional response.  "Experts" are more destructive than I could even imagine.  The Hippocratic Oath is hard to abide by when the industry is blind to the consequences of their recommendations.

Unfortunately the world took the failed science of the "experts" at face value.  Perhaps after all the destruction is realized that mistake will not happen again.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/

[T-Money$]

Seems like all the criticism Georgia received to be the first East Coast state to open up was “projection”.    Now that face masks are mandatory US cities can burn to the ground and few if any can be prosecuted.   A continuation of failed, knee jerk policies where the consequences are not considered because people are still behaving with hysteria and irrational fear.

[GuitarStv]

The reason to re-open was because of the massive job losses and tanking of the economy that this produced, right?  I guess time will tell.  So far, opening early due to hysteria and fear about the economy doesn't seem to have paid off though.

[BoostJunky]

This shutdown has crushed the small business I saved up my whole life to start 10 years ago. We may have to close shop since NYS still won't start Phase II.

Noone seems to care about any of that though or we may lose our home and everything for a minute percent chance of someone catching it and passing away.

Cuomo however can kill 11,000 people in nursing homes and thats no big deal.

Such hypocrisy. Keep "staying home and staying safe". The shutdown is completely politically backed for funds.

[T-Money$]

George Floyd was the spark that ignited 25% unemployment and people locked down against their will in their homes for  2 months.  It's going to be a long hot summer.   Burn, baby burn. 

Aggression towards the government at this time is justified, although hopefully the serious injuries will be avoided, but it's impossible to predict the behavior of angry crowds.  The way the government treats people, whether it be the employed healthy or a minority on the street potentially causing at most a misdemeanor.  The government has stepped on all of our necks and they will continue to lose control.  The National Guard can't police every city...

The price we paid to "fight COVID" will have long lasting impacts on the nation.  Poor, poor choices.   We are about to see the risks of what destroying the futures of tens of millions will look like.  Hopefully we don't turn on each other.

Luckily for the protesters they can legally hide their faces and protect against pepper spray and smoke.  Again, poor, poor choices. 

It's all such a shame because all of it is a human made creation.  This all could have been so avoidable if people think before they act, but this is what hysteria and fear bring.