Hacker News Reader

Comment by jazzyjackson | Hacker News Reader

It is the same conflation as "the lockdown hurts the economy"/"an out of control pandemic hurts the economy"

Maybe being told to stay indoors spikes hopelessness, or it could be that living in a country with an out of control pandemic with no end in sight spikes hopelessness.

There's a lot of factors that make the world a stressful, bleak looking place besides stay at home orders.

View on HN

We have other pandemics that we could probably test this hypothesis with, but I suspect that it would be more accurate to say that how we see this particular pandemic is what causes both the massive economic damage and the feelings of hopelessness, suicides, etc. Businesses are losing customers not because the government imposed a lockdown, but because people think they can stop the pandemic and avoid death by staying away. Though there's probably not going to be much enthusiasm from the media towards exploring this idea, since it puts the economic damage etc squarely on their heads.

> Businesses are losing customers not because the government imposed a lockdown, but because people think they can stop the pandemic and avoid death by staying away. Though there's probably not going to be much enthusiasm from the media towards exploring this idea, since it puts the economic damage etc squarely on their heads.

Perhaps let's first explore the question whether they were right. Epidemiology 101 seems to say they absolutely were. The less people interact in close quarters, the less a sickness spread.

I have a feeling we're forgetting here that there's an actual virus on the loose. The pandemic isn't a media construct, it's not a mass hysteria. So I think we should also entertain the option that a virus spreading fast through our communities is also responsible for some of the economic damage.

Maybe we overreacted just a little bit. Some of these people might’ve just needed a friend.

I'd like to remind people that the pandemic does not significantly increase the risk of death for healthy people under 50. It makes little sense to force young people to stay at home and get fired when the healthy are at little risk of dying and such a lockdown will not completely eliminate a pandemic.

I thought that by now we wouldn't have to go over this every time.

- This coronavirus spreads asymptomatically, which means people under 50 mingling with each other are deadly threats to people over 50. In particular, to their parents, grandparents, aunts, and neighbors.

- The chance of dying is low for young people, the chance of suffering serious damage to lungs and other internal organs that takes months to recover is a bit higher (some of it may be permanent, but that's yet to be determined).

- The chance of dying for everyone goes up several times if the medical system gets DDoSed by COVID patients.

EDIT:

> It makes little sense to force young people to stay at home and get fired

One of the most important effects of the lockdown being done top-down by governments is that employers can no longer fire people who wanted to protect themselves, their families and their communities from getting sick. Leaving this choice entirely to individuals is in practice equivalent to forcing them to choose between staying safe and having a job.

> people under 50 mingling with each other are deadly threats to people over 50

This is why those at risk of death should self-isolate.

>the chance of suffering serious damage to lungs and other internal organs that takes months to recover is a bit higher

Do you know where I can find the statistics for the risk of permanent lung scarring by age, or something approximating this? This is something I hadn't considered but would like to explore more.

>The chance of dying for everyone goes up several times if the medical system gets DDoSed by COVID patients

It's almost entirely getting DDoSed by old people.

>employers can no longer fire people who wanted to protect themselves

Employers are firing everyone. We're hitting some of the highest unemployment levels in American history. This is a moot point.

This is incorrect. The infection fatality rate for COVID-19 is about 0.2% (1 in 500, or 200 per 100,000) for ages 20-40. [1] The baseline death rate for ages 25-29 is about 100 per 100,000. [2] Getting COVID-19 puts you at roughly triple the chance of death from all other causes combined. It's about 5x the risk of unintentional injury, 12x the risk of suicide, 16x the rate of homicide, 20x the risk of cancer, and 200x the risk from HIV or diabetes.

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid#case-fatalit...

[2] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/LCWK1_2015.pdf p. 4

Your comment says "The infection fatality rate for COVID-19 is about 0.2%" but you reference "Case fatality rate of COVID-19 by age" as the source.

The infection fatality rate and the case fatality rate are two very, very different concepts.

"The IFR differs from the CFR in that it aims to estimate the fatality rate in all those with infection: the detected disease (cases) and those with an undetected disease (asymptomatic and not tested group)... The IFR will always be lower than the CFR..." [1]

Spanish government's estimates of COVID-19's IFR are[2]:

For the age group under 50, the estimated IFR is about 0.003%

For the age group 50 - 69 yo, it's 0.04%

And for those over 70, it's 4.1%

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_fatality_rate#Terminology

[2] https://www.mscbs.gob.es/profesionales/saludPublica/ccayes/a... Look for the table on page 15

As if there are no households with members above and below 50?

Keeping all the elderly together in shared living spaces didn't work to their advantage by the way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com