Not sure why this is getting downvoted. We're all on approximately the same exponential trend as Italy, just a few days behind. The US, for example, is looking to be 11 days behind. Do nothing and we'll end up where they are now.
I don't understand it. Your refrigerator breaks, something goes wrong with your sink, how forcing shops to close is helping? I could understand maybe shops that are selling clothes, but so many things depend on each other. You need working appliances to be able to cook for yourself and keep proper hygiene.
It's funny how the only global crisis deemed worth shutting down society over is the one that impacts 65+ year olds. Global warming, pension underfunding, unsustainable healthcare, and education costs don't count, because the crisis is 15 years away (eg after they die).
Crippling the global economy (and shutting down schools!!!) to stop COVID-19 hurts the future of 15-35 year olds the worst. But any reform is STILL going to be spent increasing healthcare funding -- to benefit the retirees impacted by COVID. $0 fixing the the damage to Gen Z, whose education and job prospects were delayed by (potentially) years, depending on whether we get sent into a recession.
> $0 fixing the the damage to Gen Z, whose education and job prospects were delayed by (potentially) years, depending on whether we get sent into a recession.
I mean Gen Z and younger millenials are in for the biggest and easiest opportunity to get rich in our lifetimes. A combination of low interest rates, and then high market supply when a lot of old people die leaving their houses vacant, means a reduction in prices and cheap financing, as well as undervalued equities. Perfect time to get rich.
It's wrong to think of this as a disease that impacts 65+ year olds.
It impacts all ages, a significant proportion of young people also get severe breathing difficulties and need to be intubated/ventilated in intensive care units to be able to breathe, it's just that for young people the ordeal is harsh but survivable, while elderly people are more frail and die.
And the current situation is given the availability of healthcare. While everything is (still) good, it mostly kills 65+ year olds. If it spreads so much that there's no capacity to hospitalize young people and provide them with oxygen, then it will also kill large quantities of young people.
I don't think your point should be downvoted because even if it's not correct, it's a valid contribution to the discussion.
Personally I don't think the difference is just about timeframe (although certainly the immediacy of the threat contributes), but also about permanence. People assume that when COVID-19 has passed, things will go back to normal. If scientists said we could ban personal cars for a month and fix global warming, I suspect it'd get done. Similarly if they said for instance that we could never go to large public gatherings again, ever, there'd be a great outcry.
This is also an interesting study in momentum though. When countries start taking drastic measures on COVID-19 it makes others look bad if they don't follow along. I've never really bought the argument when the US says they can't do x or y for climate change because others aren't doing it, and so they'll be behind economically. The US is a leader - act like one. When America makes policy, others follow.
The measures we're discussing here are intended to help avoid collapse of hospitals due to overload and shortage of staff. A collapse would affect young people too: they couldn't get treatment. Some of them would die as a result. We're talking about a known-effective solution; undisputed within the medical community. The measures are also temporary.
Compare this to the measures we could (and should) bring to bear on the youth problems you mention: The solutions are controversial, often need years to ramp up, with huge costs indefinitely. This is not to say these solutions should not be attempted! Just that you are comparing a temporary hack in a crisis to long-standing problems.
Knowing the inhabitants of a burning building are cancer patients, would that affect your decision to evacuate? After all, you could invest the evacuation effort into treatment instead! And the fire might turn out not so bad, right?
As someone in the group you mentioned and is directly impacted (college student), I’m fine with closing stuff down if it stops people from literally dying.
Do you think the response would be any different if this disease primarily affected younger people instead? I could imagine even more aggressive measures in that case.
> It's funny how the only global crisis deemed worth shutting down society over is the one that impacts 65+ year olds
Many young people have grandparents whose lives they value. I am sure our son would be very distraught if one of his grandparents died, even though as a six year old he is at basically zero direct risk from this disease himself.
(And yes, he will inevitably have to deal with that distraught eventually... but much better at 16 or 26 than at 6.)
You're almost right except that the damage to the stock market overwhelmingly impacts boomers who are trying to retire, not the young who hold nothing but cash
Crippling the global economy hurts old people worse than it hurts the young because the young are far more resilliant to disruption in their daily lives.
chupa-chups|6 years ago
baggy_trough|6 years ago
3JPLW|6 years ago
https://twitter.com/EcolEpig/status/1237430984678703104
comboy|6 years ago
vanniv|6 years ago
dang|6 years ago
Gravityloss|6 years ago
food deliveries will still be permitted
all cafes/restaurants will be closed unless can guarantee at least 1 metre distance between customers
public services like post, transport remain
f34r34r43r34r34|6 years ago
Bombthecat|6 years ago
rv-de|6 years ago
madengr|6 years ago
bpodgursky|6 years ago
Crippling the global economy (and shutting down schools!!!) to stop COVID-19 hurts the future of 15-35 year olds the worst. But any reform is STILL going to be spent increasing healthcare funding -- to benefit the retirees impacted by COVID. $0 fixing the the damage to Gen Z, whose education and job prospects were delayed by (potentially) years, depending on whether we get sent into a recession.
tathougies|6 years ago
I mean Gen Z and younger millenials are in for the biggest and easiest opportunity to get rich in our lifetimes. A combination of low interest rates, and then high market supply when a lot of old people die leaving their houses vacant, means a reduction in prices and cheap financing, as well as undervalued equities. Perfect time to get rich.
PeterisP|6 years ago
It impacts all ages, a significant proportion of young people also get severe breathing difficulties and need to be intubated/ventilated in intensive care units to be able to breathe, it's just that for young people the ordeal is harsh but survivable, while elderly people are more frail and die.
And the current situation is given the availability of healthcare. While everything is (still) good, it mostly kills 65+ year olds. If it spreads so much that there's no capacity to hospitalize young people and provide them with oxygen, then it will also kill large quantities of young people.
dugditches|6 years ago
A lot of issues with shutting down schools is in regards to childcare and food(meal programs) in the United States. Not their 'futures'.
Nition|6 years ago
Personally I don't think the difference is just about timeframe (although certainly the immediacy of the threat contributes), but also about permanence. People assume that when COVID-19 has passed, things will go back to normal. If scientists said we could ban personal cars for a month and fix global warming, I suspect it'd get done. Similarly if they said for instance that we could never go to large public gatherings again, ever, there'd be a great outcry.
This is also an interesting study in momentum though. When countries start taking drastic measures on COVID-19 it makes others look bad if they don't follow along. I've never really bought the argument when the US says they can't do x or y for climate change because others aren't doing it, and so they'll be behind economically. The US is a leader - act like one. When America makes policy, others follow.
lolc|6 years ago
Compare this to the measures we could (and should) bring to bear on the youth problems you mention: The solutions are controversial, often need years to ramp up, with huge costs indefinitely. This is not to say these solutions should not be attempted! Just that you are comparing a temporary hack in a crisis to long-standing problems.
Knowing the inhabitants of a burning building are cancer patients, would that affect your decision to evacuate? After all, you could invest the evacuation effort into treatment instead! And the fire might turn out not so bad, right?
saagarjha|6 years ago
lovecg|6 years ago
skissane|6 years ago
Many young people have grandparents whose lives they value. I am sure our son would be very distraught if one of his grandparents died, even though as a six year old he is at basically zero direct risk from this disease himself.
(And yes, he will inevitably have to deal with that distraught eventually... but much better at 16 or 26 than at 6.)
Der_Einzige|6 years ago
Crippling the global economy hurts old people worse than it hurts the young because the young are far more resilliant to disruption in their daily lives.
piratesjustarr|6 years ago
dang|6 years ago
foxx-boxx|6 years ago
[deleted]
foxx-boxx|6 years ago
[deleted]
lurquer|6 years ago
[deleted]