Comment by EGreg | Hacker News Reader

Comment by EGreg | Hacker News Reader

* Barro's calculation doesn't take into account the economic losses from an extended shutdown. But in an email, he says any decline in gross domestic product has to be weighed against the economic value of saving lives*

Not so simple. Consider that the shutdowns themselves can lead to even worse consequences:

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN21Y2X7

And I just posted an article about millions becoming infected by tuberculosis, an even more serious issue.

Here is the thing...

The politicians and media in the west have utterly failed us, telling us not to wear masks. The WHO still continues to do this and YouTube censors anyone who disagrees. It’s not just bad for free speech — it’s irresponsible! In Austria, masks led to a 90% drop in cases, as they did across Asia.

The lockdowns are a last resort, after public policy has failed to contain the outbreaks

Masks are supposed to protect others from you. They keep the germs in, doesn’t let them escape when you cough or talk. An N95 mask with the valve is actually worse than doubling up surgical masks, because the germs can go through the valve under pressure.

What good is social distancing and quarantines when residents use elevators? Masks on the other hand greatly reduce R0 and aerosols.

Cuomo just found out the “shocking” statistic that most hospitalizations are from people who stayed home. Elevators play a huge role.

Masks and gloves are a way to return back to work, restore social life in common areas too. Please watch this video:

https://youtu.be/oScxm_xy1i4

> Consider that the shutdowns themselves can lead to even worse consequences

Are you saying that when people cannot travel by airplanes, go to a theater or a restaurant, then this is inevitably causing children to die?

What kind of sick society is that, which cannot make a different economic arrangement?

I understand (obviously) there are jobs that are required for functioning of the modern society, but to claim that it cannot be organized (especially given we have Internet) so that people could avoid mass gatherings is insane.

> What kind of sick society is that, which cannot make a different economic arrangement?

Aye. Specifically, the market must work in favour of society - if it's not working in a way that we find to be ethical, we have an obligation to regulate it. It must not be treated as a power that kills people and allows us to throw our hands up and say "that's fine" - if something is to kill hundreds of thousands of children, we must treat it as harshly as the pandemic we're currently in.

What we are discovering under the lockdown arrangements is precisely which jobs are actually required in the economy, and which are there just to cause some financial figure to increase.

Other than the stupefying boredom and colossal holes in the safety net due to the ideological blinkers of politicians and their cronies, exactly what isn't being done that needs to be done in the real world?

The farmers around here are still as busy as ever with their lambs. The wheat is growing in the fields. The rapespeed is below and as fragrant as normal. Supermarkets are stocked, and food is on the shelf. The power is on. The Internet is working. The drains function and refuse is being cleared.

Are some people scared that we might realise just how much activity is really fluff?

> The farmers around here are still as busy as ever with their lambs. The wheat is growing in the fields. The rapespeed is below and as fragrant as normal. Supermarkets are stocked, and food is on the shelf.

Raw milk is being dumped because processing facilities to make it safe to drink are shut down. Meat processing centers are shut down or running at below capacity - beef is already disappearing from shelves. Vegetables likewise, farmers are losing ways to get to market.

The lockdowns have interrupted the path from source to store, and we're approaching a food shortage because of it. People will go hungry if we can't get the economy moving again.

I lack the explanation of the cause of the shut down. Are they being shut down because they cannot find employees or because they they cannot find consumers?

If they actually over produce (i.e. the consumption decreased), then I don't see how you can claim this will lead to shortage. On the other hand, if they shut down because there is undersupply of labour, then surely the people can be employed once they actually become hungry?

Either way, the market mechanism should rectify both situations.

My other reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23134515

Short version: it's workers getting infected, which shuts down the plant to stop further spread. The "market mechanism" can't avoid that.

Two Walmart supermarkets near me are shutdown because employees tested positive for COVID-19 and at least one has died. Which explains why they cancelled my delivery order a few days ago. The app didn’t mention why my order was canceled…

Instacart is more expensive but about 20% of what I order is out of stock.

So basic groceries aren’t as available as they were a month ago.

I think this is what is gonna happen (in the U.S.). Because of lack of coordinated shutdown of non-essential economic activity, much more people will become infected, causing eventual shut downs of more essential activity.

So reopening the economy in order to save it is completely backwards. It's like drinking alcohol when you're suffering from cold, which will cause more heat loss. It might feel better, but in fact, it is making things worse, by not conserving heat on the parts of your body that are less essential for your survival.

> Meat processing centers are shut down or running at below capacity

Why are meat processing centers shut down?

Workers testing positive, leading to quarantining the whole staff to prevent further spread.

For the ones that are still active, the reduced capacity is a mixture of limiting the number of workers to maintain social distancing, and workers just not coming in for fear of getting infected.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/04/16/meat-proc...

Something else I didn't realize, from that link, what is being processed is now unbalanced - the same throughput feeds less people because restaurants aren't open:

> Restaurants typically use the expensive stuff — strips, ribs, tenderloins and sirloin, Bormann said, while retail takes the chucks and rounds and trims. With restaurants mostly shuttered, “all of a sudden 23 percent of the animal isn’t being bought because food service is gone,” he said.

> Are some people scared that we might realise just how much activity is really fluff?

Yes, the people who own shares (or other stakes in the economy) are worried about it, because they might be the ones who ends up with the fluff.

I think the worries have been described in famous Kalecki's essay: http://gesd.free.fr/kalecki43.pdf

The lockdown is just a different way of getting the economy close to the state of full employment - by reducing consumption rather than by increasing production.

> Are some people scared that we might realise just how much activity is really fluff?

Absolutely. The people pushing this simply don't care about ordinary peoples lives. What they care about is this is a direct challenge to their carefully constructed status quo. The one that gaslights people into thinking is we change the power relations even a tiny bit the roof will cave in.

I am not saying that - in fact I am deeply skeptical of the UN’s claims when it comes to this.

However they are speaking about people in other countries. Even in the USA, livestock is euthanized and the food chain is severely disrupted. Supermarket food is going to cost more. Food insecurity exists even in the USA. Malnourishment is a big thing.

If you want to learn more about it, listen to what the UN is warning about:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/04/22/africa/coronavirus-famine...

Is YouTube censoring people just for suggesting masks, or are they taking down channels that are otherwise full of misinformation and just happen to also recommend masks?

They're now mandatory in some countries such as Slovakia.

How many of the "at home" deaths are care homes? Those have been an absolute disaster for their residents.

The care homes actually are far lower than just people who are staying at home: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cuomo-coronavirus-patients-new-...

About YouTube - Well in practice it’s probably more flexible but taking them at their word, they said they’ll take down any videos that contradict the WHO. The WHO are against wearing masks. The CDC has changed their stance finally — since April. Wear masks when indoors!

About the "at home" statistic. What proportion of the population is staying at home? If it's say 90%, then even if the case rate among these people is five times lower than among the people who are not staying home, there will still be more 'at home' cases. Also, there's a big risk of bias - people who are in risk groups are more likely to stay at home, because they know that it would be dangerous for them to go outside.

I'm not saying that there's nothing to the statistic, just that we have to be very careful about how we interpret things, and make sure that we think about the contextual factors.

Generally speaking though, I also think elevators should be taken into consideration more. I haven't heard much about recommendations regarding elevators, but surely it would help if people take the stairs as much as possible? I always take the stairs since the pandemic started, even the few times I've been to the office, which is eight floors up. Granted, a lot of people can't take the stairs because of health issues or because it's just too many floors, but those of us who can, should.

> What good is social distancing and quarantines when residents use elevators? Masks on the other hand greatly reduce R0 and aerosols.

> Cuomo just found out the “shocking” statistic that most hospitalizations are from people who stayed home. Elevators play a huge role.

I don't understand your reasoning here. Obviously if everyone is following the lockdown then most new cases are going to be from people that "are staying home". In quotes because no one is truly isolated so of course there are going to be new cases, such as the elevators that you mention.

Are you suggesting that there wouldn't be significantly more cases if the lockdown was ended?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com