Keep in mind death is not the only negative outcome of this. My wife's uncle is relatively young (50s), completely healthy, gainfully employed, and has contracted Covid. He's been in the hospital for over a month, has been on a ventilator for weeks, is currently off but has been in and out of the ICU, his lung has collapsed, he can't feed himself, he can't walk, and he's currently re-learning how to swallow. If he makes it out of the hospital (that's a question mark right now), he's not going to be able to support himself. He won't be able to walk without getting winded so he will need a wheel chair, which will prevent him from doing the job he had before he went in. His experience, which has a decidedly negative economic impact and which is not uncommon for those who have needed to be hospitalized by covid, is completely missing from the "covid only impacts old people who were unproductive and probably would have died anyway" narrative.

This is absolutely true and this would get a lot worse if people decide to end the lockdown early. If one needs money to feed their family now, the chance of them either passing or being incapacitated are not to be taken lightly.

I had hoped the government would freeze all the mortgages, bills and offered real assistance to people in need. The stimulus check for the hoi polloi is a joke. I personally don't need it, why did I get it? I know I could donate it to the poor but that's not the point I'm trying to make. That stimulus seems to be a way of saying "but we already helped you".

I'm sorry to hear that. I'm not arguing that covid only impacts old people, I'm saying 4 things (in general, maybe not the one particular quote above):

a ) covid won't destroy society in any case

b ) we cannot endure a lockdown until the disease is eradicated or a vaccine is produced

c ) a lockdown ended before the disease is eradicated or a vaccine is produced will just lead to a second wave of the disease

d ) the economic burden of the lockdown will increase exponentially as more businesses run dry

I don't want your uncle to be sick. But I'd rather your uncle get sick than have you, your wife, and your uncle lose your jobs; and then have your uncle get sick anyway.

You're getting downvotes but it's true. There are other considerations that are completely being ignored by the ivory tower types. It's shocking to some, but jobs are how people afford to live their lives (buy food, pay rent, pay tax which funds government, etc).

I'm more concerned about social and political unrest that often results from mass unemployment, people losing their homes, not enough to eat, etc than losing people to the virus (which still stucks). 22 million unemployed and growing is enough to swing elections in dark directions...

If 20% die but 8 out of 10 are very old and sick, then globally 4% die who are healthy or not very old.

4% of an (healthy not very old) population dying still means overall the economy would contract by 4% (because product/service demand is down 4%), which would still be the greatest recession in the last 8 decades.

Your comment ("not much") is thus completely false.

Sure, but the idea that this virus kills 20% of all people is stupid. You just made that number up. We don't have much we can do to treat this disease. Nobody believes it would ever go that high. If somehow it does, even more than 80% will be old and sick.

4% of a population dying also does not mean the economy contracts by 4%. You just... made that up too.

Lastly, you've assumed that a 4% annualized economy contraction from one month in a quarter means that we'll see 4% by just keeping this going. That's... wrong. The negative impact of lockdowns will compound. I don't give a shit if the economy shrinks by 4%. It's absolutely fine if we have a bit of a shitty economic time. Prolonged wide scale poverty for millions of people is an entirely different beast.

«kills 20% of all people is stupid. You just made that number up»

I did not claim that. I just took this percentage from the hypothetical situation you used to build an argument (you yourself said if 10-20% die then it wouldn't mean much to the economy.)

«4% of a population dying also does not mean the economy contracts by 4%.»

Yes it does. Basic economics. With everything being equal, the size of an economy is linearly proportional to the number of persons. A population half the size of another one will buy half the number of cars, half the food, will spend half on entertainment, etc. So if 4% of average individuals die worldwide, consumption (thus the economy worldwide) is down 4%. Like I said, it's basic economics.

«Lastly, you've assumed that a 4% annualized economy contraction from one month in a quarter means that we'll see 4% by just keeping this going»

No I don't assume that. Read again what I wrote. I am only talking about the impact of a certain percentage dying, not about the impact of the lockdown.

You sound like Dennis from Always Sunny talking about how girls need to sleep with him if they're alone on a boat because of the implication of what would happen if they refuse, but denying that he actually said anything threatening.

> "I don't need to explain what a 10-20% death rate would do to society, however."

Yes, you didn't claim anything. But the implication is clear. When I responded I assumed you meant 20% CFR.

> Yes it does. Basic economics. With everything being equal, the size of an economy is linearly proportional to the number of persons.

I don't know what else I can say other than this is a dumb statement that you just made up.

* It's not a basic tenant of economics

* All things aren't equal, ever

* It's not a linear relationship, nor even always positively correlated over time depending on context

And lastly if you actually believe your math, then its clear that for any realistic death rate the economic impact is negligible.

Note that you are confusing me with another user (Filligree) who started the thread and initially threw these "10-20%" figures. Personally I do not believe 10-20% of the world population will die.

«I don't know what else I can say other than this is a dumb statement»

Not dumb. It's a good approximation, especially because post-pandemic times (after people have regained their jobs, which might take months/years) will be identical to pre-pandemic times with the ONLY difference being that a certain percentage of Americans will have died prematurely. That percentage will directly translate to an economic loss.

Look, the fact your post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23019875) was severely downvoted indicates most HN users disagree with you. I tried to take the time to explain to you why. You don't get it. I don't have any more energy to spend on this discussion.

You're right, that was another user, rendering most of this moot. I got 3 downvotes, and I don't particularly care if three people disagree with me. Similar opinions expressed elsewhere have gotten more upvotes. Shitty appeal to the people fallacy.

> Not dumb. It's a good approximation, especially because post-pandemic times (after people have regained their jobs, which might take months/years) will be identical to pre-pandemic times with the ONLY difference being that a certain percentage of Americans will have died prematurely. That percentage will directly translate to an economic loss.

This is simply not true. The world does not click back to the state it was with fewer people. Millions of people are now unemployed. Thousands of companies will no longer exist. The lockdown is killing small businesses disproportionately fast and that gap is going to be filled by larger businesses. Larger businesses have fewer local employees. The wealth gap is going to be greatly exacerbated, and this will affect everyone. Supply chains will change, inflation will change, consumer spending habits will change. The economy is going to feel different, and in a large part driven by how long everything takes to restart. x% of people dead meaning x% worse economy is just an irrelevant, naive comment.

I don't really care to debate this further either because... it's not interesting