When economies shut down, at some point people will also start dying and suffering. Is there a quantification for that? How do we trade those lives with other lives? Do we have a morally clear picture of who we're trading for whom?
As I've already pointed out, that's a false equivalence. COVID-19 != flu. We can (and I believe should) respond differently to different things. It's so simple a child could get it.
And how many people are dying from economic damage? How does one quantify that? Does one bother to quantify that at all? Do share.
If you have a sense of moral clarity, why don't you just share it, instead of hinting that things are so obvious that a child can understand it?
They're not high enough to put strain on hospital resources, and therefore to move from a mostly-individual to a mostly-collective type of problem. Nobody else is likely to die because you didn't get a flu shot (BTW the existence of a vaccine is also a factor here) and tied up a ventilator that they also needed. That's a real concern with COVID-19.
> hinting that things are so obvious that a child can understand it?
I wasn't hinting.
How is it clear that we shouldn't organize as an entire society to deal with influenza? Because hospital resources aren't taxed? That makes it enough of "your" problem vs "our" problem, when tens of thousands die per year?
Remember, when kids go to school sick, it's not some "individual" matter. Tens of thousands of people die per year from influenza. One might say it's a kind of murder. Oh wait, it's not. They're not overtaxing the medical system, what am I thinking. This is an individual matter. It's so clear now. This is truly moral clarity for children.
Lives are at stake -- so put the numbers on the table and explain who is sacrificing for whom. How many people are going to die from economic downturn? Five?
BTW, I have actually discussed this with children, and they have no trouble understanding how the current situation is different than flu. Maybe that's because they're not obfuscating for the sake of argument itself.
Influenza kills tens of thousands per year, and people are getting sick through social contact. The fact that the medical system is having trouble doesn't change the how -- sick people getting other people sick. That's the part that makes it a social problem, the part where one person's actions potentially kills another.
The "logic" can be made pretty clear but you just prefer to respond with... "logic" instead of figures. I've asked who is paying for whom and how much. That is the uncertainty I see in the situation, and the discussion which I see lacking.
There's not even a 6-month vision for what's going to happen.
https://www.healthaffairs.org/pb-assets/documents/blog/blog_...
http://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/resources/COVID-19/20...
Even if those patients were spread evenly over the whole year and across hospitals, which is totally unrealistic, that's tens of thousands who couldn't get the care they need and would probably die. This has already happened in Italy, which has a better ratio of resources to population than the US. BTW, that doesn't even count the people who need those resources for completely separate reasons (including the flu you pretend to care about), or those who get a bed/ventilator and die anyway, or those who never even get as far as the hospital. Add all that up and COVID-19 could exceed even heart disease as the year's #1 killer - as I already said.
By contrast, hospitals have been absorbing the congruent load related to flu, on top of the normal load from everything else, for years. "More than we can handle" vs. "less than we can handle" is a pretty basic kind of difference, and a good example of the quantitative becoming qualitative. And if you had spent half the effort looking these numbers yourself that you've spent stealth-advocating for one position by attacking its opposite (didn't see you giving chrismeller this much of a hard time for a less-supported answer) you'd be familiar with those numbers already.
> one person's actions potentially kills another
The set of actions that could potentially kill another is vast. Making that the standard without addressing likelihood or intent or anything else is solipsistic.
> I've asked who is paying for whom and how much
Ah, always with the dollars. I won't even dignify that with a detailed response. It's your turn to take an actual stand, and defend it as you demand others defend theirs. What numbers are you assuming for the economic collapse you've predicted? What rational basis is there for believing that the cure is literally worse than the disease? Can you debate with facts instead of "avoid bad things" and emotion?
You won't get an answer because they realize that putting an actual dollar amount on the lives of those who will die isn't quite acceptable yet, even on a libertarian paradise site like HN.
If 97 people have died in the US so far... you've got a _long_ way to go, even looking at an exponential growth rate, to even approach the top 10 causes of death in the US. According to the CDC 47,000 people killed themselves in 2017 [1], and that's #10. Also 100% preventable.
You also have control over your own susceptibility and spread of something like the flu or the common cold, but no one in the US ever wears a mask to prevent that (though in other countries that is a common sight).
1: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
Edit: It wasn't 8 people who have died, it was 97 according to the CDC. My bad.
Do you know how exponential growth works? The exponent matters. A lot. There's a big difference between 1% growth per week and 10% growth every day. According to the actual math and models being used by epidemiologists, over four million people could need ICU-level care for COVID-19.
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200317.45791...
Since we don't have anywhere near that many ICU beds, and there's an even more acute shortage of ventilators, a high percentage of those people wouldn't get the care they need and would therefore die - eclipsing even heart disease in the list you cite. So no, measures to reduce that exponent are not unreasonable. We need to reduce both the number of contacts people have per day and the likelihood that each contact will lead to infection. Please study some math beyond what you've only partially remembered from grade school.
> You also have control over your own susceptibility and spread of something like the flu or the common cold
Those are far less likely to reach a level where they require hospitalization, let alone ICU-level care. Yes, they're preventable (not 100% BTW), but there's no danger of affecting others by increasing strain on scarce hospital resources, so it's not a very constructive comparison.
The mask culture in the US is lacking as you point out. But there is a flu vaccine. They give those out free at every corner/office in the country, pretty much. Yet the US still sees 10s of thousands of dead per year. Also of note, the flu is less fatal (case level) & less transmittable than COVID-19.
> If 97 people have died in the US so far
160[0]
Look back at 1918, 1957, 1968 flu pandemics[1]. 1918 isn't too recent, but the last two mentioned killed 100k+ in the US, and at least 1 million worldwide.
If we get less deaths from COVID-19 than we do with seasonal flu - that doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't worth reacting to.
With how easy COVID-19 spreads, the relatively high % of required hospitalization, and lack of a vaccine is exactly why Hubei/Lombardy got in the state they did. Some would prefer to "wait and see" if it gets to those levels in the US, but many would rather act now instead of later.
It will certainly be interesting to see how the COVID-19 situation pans out. For the record, I hope you end up being correct!
[0] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_pandemic#Influenza_p...
More people die of those things in a year than have died of COVID-19 so far but that's the wrong comparison. There's real science and math behind predictions of a much higher toll which would make the comparison look very different.
There's also an aspect of who has control over outcomes. People can protect themselves from various ills by eating right, exercising, not smoking, etc. There's no connection to other people's actions or outcomes. With communicable disease, the person who's not worried about their own outcome can cause the literal death of other people who had no choice about being born with certain medical conditions that made them more susceptible. You might feel you're Living Right and you're at no risk yourself, but - as has been pointed out many times but apparently not enough - It's Not Just About You. Your actions are connected to others' outcomes. There's a social responsibility to avoid becoming a vector for infection.