Fed to inject $1.5T to prevent ‘unusual disruptions’ in markets

Re:Fed to inject $1.5T to prevent ‘unusual disruptions’ in m... by tropdrop on Thursday March 12, 2020 @09:48PM (#22564001)

Classic "the [solution] that exists isn't good enough, therefore we can't use it at all!"

A pandemic is not the time to be picky - if anything, a high false positive rate helps. Would you rather 10 people quarantined, of whom only 2 are sick, or all 10 released into the wild because no test kit (of any sort) was available?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fed to inject $1.5T to prevent ‘unusual disruptions’ in m... by 6510 on Friday March 13, 2020 @08:50AM (#22566823)

Even without a test you could quarantine people who get off flights. We've been doing it for years with pets traveling from specific countries.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fed to inject $1.5T to prevent ‘unusual disruptions’ in m... by fragmede on Thursday March 12, 2020 @11:37PM (#22564509)

To be fair, a test with high false-negative rate would be problematic. 10 people released into the wild, who think they don't have it, is worse than 10 people released into the wild who are uncertain about their status.

Not saying that's what happened here (perfect is the enemy of the good!), just that it could be worse. It could always be worse.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fed to inject $1.5T to prevent ‘unusual disruptions’ in m... by Jommi on Saturday March 14, 2020 @09:42PM (#22580414)

I would rather anyone with symptoms and ability to self quarantine instead of burdening the economy and healthcare system.

[ Parent | on HN ]