- Joined
- Jun 7, 2019
- Messages
- 1,850
- Reaction score
- 1,996
Knowing the right balance is impossible at this point. Meaning, we can't simply look at one side of the equation, lives lost, as the only variable. Stopping the economy to a halt while everyone stays inside has severe consequences, even lives lost that are harder to measure, and the benefits remain a bit unclear. Let's say summer does not significantly kill this virus. That's up for debate as no one knows, and we have no vaccine, so the main known benefit of all the isolation is slowing the need for acute ICU beds. But under those assumptions, in the long run basically everyone stills gets exposed and the virus still runs it's mostly full course.Scariest part for me is that I'm seeing people in this thread, just today, still thinking this thing is not that bad and we're overacting.
We can't stay inside forever and enough people, such as healthcare workers, grocery stores etc, are constantly being exposed and keeping the spread going. There's a massive cost for delaying out what may be inevitable anyway. Means of production will be screeching to a halt. The number of Americans living paycheck to paycheck is astronomical. The faith in government is laughable. They couldn't contain LA after Rodney King or New Orleans after Katrina. There's zero chance government and national guard etc can maintain order in a complete economic shutdown. Other ideas like the Fed printing extensive money is also a joke of a bandade. So, don't know the answer of what's the right balance, but at some point overreacting even in the face of a deadly virus can certainly be worse than facing the virus head on. Heck, we in healthcare face it head on every single day, "Here I am virus, come get me."