Restarting America means people will die – five thinkers weigh moral choices

Source on that 20-30 million number?

We're barely testing anyone. I know of only two people tested among my NYC friends. One who is still in the hospital after surgery to improve his breathing. One who is a healthcare worker exposed to a known carrier. Two other friends exposed to a known carrier who got sick couldn't get tested because there weren't enough tests. Nor could the 5 others I know who had COVID-19-like symptoms. Nor could I.

Reflect, please, but do not think so highly of yourself to assume that whatever solution you have in your head won't cause more death and unnecessary suffering.

We're not the first people who thought we could change the world for the better.

In 2018, ~2.8 million Americans died, and 11.8% were in poverty as defined by the US Census criteria.

Presuming the numbers were slightly different in 2011, I have a cynical picture of how that study came to its conclusion.

samatman has a good angle on questioning the accuracy of that number. Still, there's no question that poverty does in fact kill people - if not as bad as Columbia's study says, then still significantly more than zero.

The problem is, doing nothing was going to lead to 250,000(ish) people dying in America from Covid, without reducing the number dying from poverty. So that probably is not the right answer.

The trick is going to be keeping people from dying from Covid without making poverty a lot worse for a lot of people. I don't have a good answer, but I know that "not stopping everything" wasn't the answer.

the archive.md link returns 403 forbidden.

If you’re trying to avoid the paywall, note that the NYT has removed the paywall on Coronavirus related articles. Including this one.

The risk, so to speak, is that people will be so fond of communist mode that they'll reject attempts to turn it back off. Any laws for this would be drafted in a hurry under crisis scenarios, so they would likely have many vulnerabilities that could be exploited, ones that wouldn't necessarily exist in non-crisis bills aimed at achieving the same goals.

A more concrete example: We could pass a "communist mode" bill that makes everyone's health expenses free (covered by the federal government) during the duration of the crisis, to ensure all covid-19 victims get treated and possible cases get tested so we can trace their contacts and control the spread. Alternately, we could introduce a national health program instead, not a crisis one. As it turns out we've had lots of prototype "medicare for all" legislation already and had debates about it.

Upsides to the crisis bill: Potentially easier to pass, because we can tell nay-sayers that it's an emergency measure. Any resistance from industry types can probably be defused in the same way - after all, hospitals are actually struggling revenue-wise right now, so having a steady flow of patients funded by the government potentially helps them.

Downsides to the crisis bill: Once people are used to it, they'll be very angry if it disappears. There will be political incentive to extend it. Industry may grow used to the federal money and get familiar with ways to raise prices and make more off the crisis system than they did before. Any actual changes will likely be uneven, on a state-to-state basis or targeting specific groups that can't fight for themselves, similar to how many US states simply opted not to take free federal money to expand programs like medicare to more residents. The duration of this crisis is unknown, so you risk setting your end date too early (and having to fight over an extension, like the debt ceiling), or setting it too late and carrying high expenses forward for a potentially disastrous program.

Also keep in mind that it being a mode means it can be turned on or off for political reasons. People on either party could definitely hold the populace hostage through that means, just like how the debt ceiling (and resulting cuts to programs and services) has been used in the past.

Such a mode would likely provide the unprecedented power to America's leadership. It also seems likely that the next election will be delayed. Still think this is a good idea?

How about instead of a "communist mode" and "capitalist" mode, what if we do what the rest of the civilized world does and have a "socialist" mode which operates alongside capitalism and provides a robust social safety net, and we considered actually funding and competently staffing government programs rather than opting for the Grover Norquist model of constantly trying to reduce government to "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub" and expecting the free market to pick up the slack in providing for the general welfare?

And how about we finally realize that trying to run the American government like a business and electing "CEOs in Chief" is a bad idea?

Neither extreme addressed global issues.

Every economic system is fragile and has dysfunction. The question is: how do we have less fragility and dysfunction; but I suspect you're getting at something else.