Hacker News Reader

Comment by eirini1 | Hacker News Reader

obviously you listen to the epidemiologist, not the economist. The economist is an expert on the economy and not on pandemics, and therefore will always give advice that is aimed at keeping up the economy and not saving people and preventing the spread of the virus. Its baffling to me that you think an economist has any kind of valid input on this matter. At best an economist could advise you on how to keep the economy afloat under the restrictions the epidemiologists has advised.

View on HN

We could easily eliminate a greater share of premature deaths if the government sent soldiers to force Americans to exercise at the point of a bayonet. Probably more than will die in this pandemic (~650,000 deaths due to heart disease each year). Does that mean this is a wise course of action? Of course not. The negative consequences in terms of reduction of civil liberties vastly outweighs the medical benefit. The same logic needs to be applied here.

The epidemiologist isn't trained in thinking about the persisting scar on opportunity left by lockdowns. A response to a pandemic that solely cares about limiting lives lost due to the virus stands to inflict massive harm as people lose their jobs and social unrest triggered by the suspension of civil liberties.

Medical professionals are experts in medicine. Not in making holistic decisions about the course of society. They absolutely should have a prominent spot in sharing information with the leaders of society, but their advice needs to be weighed against the costs of carrying out that advice.

Economic problems come with a cost on human life. There are numerous studies and paper that show how bad being poor and unhappy are for a person's health. Why WOULDN'T we consider the economic ramifications?

Maybe we would, but it isn't like there is consensus on economist side. And it isn't like not having a lockdown is good for the economy , because that has clear economical consequences too:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/opinion/coronavirus-reope...

>> At best an economist could advise you on how to keep the economy afloat under the restrictions the epidemiologists has advised.

> Why WOULDN'T we consider the economic ramifications?

He's not saying that. He's talking about who should be giving the marching orders. Let me put it another way: in a war, the generals decide what equipment the military needs and the economists figure out how to produce it. You don't have the economists saying: the economy is good at making buses, it makes sense to us to weld extra armor to them rather than to design a tank from scratch, so go fight the war in armored buses.

But before you go to war, the leaders listen to a diversity of opinions. Could diplomacy work? Could sanctions? What about an alliance prior to war? Could we use covert methods? The problem here is that we waged war without having that discussion. We went straight to the Generals (in our case, epidemiologists) without getting the opinion of the diplomats, allies, covert ops (economists, labor groups, civil rights groups) etc.

> But before you go to war, the leaders listen to a diversity of opinions. Could diplomacy work? Could sanctions? What about an alliance prior to war? Could we use covert methods? The problem here is that we waged war without having that discussion. We went straight to the Generals (in our case, epidemiologists) without getting the opinion of the diplomats, allies, covert ops (economists, labor groups, civil rights groups) etc.

You're leaning a bit too hard on the analogy: you can't negotiate with a virus. The pandemic is more akin to an attack by an irrationally implacable enemy with a couple months advance warning of the threat at the border. In the analogy, the policy options are: resist, Y/N? If Y, then how effectively?

When a country is attacked, does its leadership typically first consult with its economists to determine if resistance is cost effective vs. just letting the enemy take territory or kill citizens with little opposition? Usually the generals evaluate what they can achieve, and if success unachievable, then alternatives are considered. Surrender is always an option, but it's usually towards the bottom of the list.

> When a country is attacked, does its leadership typically first consult with its economists to determine if resistance is cost effective vs. just letting the enemy take territory or kill citizens with little opposition?

Yes, countries very often let the enemy take territory or kill citizens because resistance wouldn't be cost effective. All countries of course try to project the image that they wouldn't, that their territory and the lives of their citizens are priceless. But border skirmishes happen all the time and the vast majority of them don't lead to war.

People's lives and livelihoods are strongly coupled to the economy though. Heavy economic damages result in skyrocketing suicides and homelessness. It's not like shutting down the economy only hurts "gluttonous corporations" and "greedy capitalists"

in a world where losing a job can be just as disastrous to one's health as disease, you really don't think their opinions are valid whatsoever? not everyone has large savings or the ability to work from home.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com