If this virus was far deadlier and affected young people, I think the tone on this very site would change in a heartbeat.
Similar to what happened after the financial crisis with additional financial regulation.
I have no doubt another pandemic will happen, and we'll likely have forgotten what it's like, so having policies in place becomes even more important.
But that's only temporary.
It's like developers starting over and promising themselves that they won't accrue technical debt this time. And then life happens and you need to push that feature quickly and a few years down the line, you're sitting there saying "we need to start over, this is too much trash held together by hopes and dreams".
Companies will cut corners, because that's their main focus. Politicians will reduce regulations, because that's how they stimulate locale economy, and we're back at square one in no time.
The only lasting shift, aside from potentially more work from home, is people making sure they'll always have an extra package of toilet paper. They won't flee the cities (where viruses can spread much better), even though the rent is killing them, and they won't go into voluntary lock down the next time a thousand people die in China of some lung disease.
In fact, most of the hard problems the world faces will require investments that take longer than 10 years to return on.
The economy is important - but maybe our economy needs to be a little less growth oriented and a little more resilient.
> The economy is important - but maybe our economy needs to be a little less growth oriented and a little more resilient.
I absolutely agree, but I also believe that's not going to happen. And it's not because there's some cabal that won't let it, it's just that everybody wants more and I don't see that changing. Our economic setup with the constant demand for growth is just the result of that. I don't believe you can put the genie back in the bottle, few people are at a point in life where they'd be happy to stay at that level for the rest of their days.
This is pointless, circular logic. It is funded to be a threat to defend its interests, from threats, that may never materialize.
It will change in the right circumstances. We may be closer to them than most think.
That sure might change, and it won't be pretty for US citizens, but it will be great for plenty of countries. Until they get under China's rule, of course.
As soon as the government can detect a 16-times increase in the number of cases, act, and still be soon enough for the next 200-times increase not to be a tragedy, it is a good time to leave the quarantine. Right now Italy can't stand the first increase.
The good news is that each time the disease spreads, those numbers become smaller, the bad news is that we don't know by how much.
It won't be able to hold a long-standing quarantine. Probably a couple of months tops. That's not even mentioning the economy. As I said, endured isolation will have very bad side effects.
Yes, there are economic consequences, but the alternative is quite a lot of avoidable deaths.
In Italy, where I'm in my third week being shut in, experts and doctors are being quoted tiredlessly by the news: the problem is that they're doing their job (which is good!) however they do not realize the impact of their suggested measures. Not their fault by any means, but:
a. They're effectively scaring the population (an WHO advisor here suggested 6-9 months lockdown, which is likely impractical and will have devastating consequences on the social fabric, even without thinking about the economy)
b. The politicians are so scared of the virus that they're completely abdicating their functions (in Italy the Parliament was closed for two weeks, and the judicial system has been completely shut down as well) and doing whatever they're being told.