[g1313]

Let me just be clear that my current personal position is that we should be continuing with distancing, and trying to relieve the economic pain that people are feeling through unprecedented levels of disaster relief / "stimulus" funding, and we will pay those consequences later - it seems like there is debate among economists on how much debt becomes a problem, and I don't pretend to be an expert to know, but given the level of disagreement there's probably not a clearly wrong answer.

I'm also aware of the consensus from the UChicago survey of economists that removing distancing and shelter in place will not improve the economic situation. I think it would be more persuasive if they could be more precise. I don't think anyone is saying it would avoid any or even most layoffs, but if we are talking about 50M people out of a job, could 10% of those jobs be saved? 20%? We've seen plenty of anecdotal examples of people (particularly younger) who seem content to proceed with business as usual.

I think if society tries to reopen and the ambulances keep coming, a lot of overwhelmed doctors and nurses who dont even have proper equipment to protect themselves now, would simply stop coming to work.

Also, as I pointed out above, plenty of people would continue to self-isolate. Who is going to be going to a conference in the coming months? Eating out? Seeing a concert? Sure, without the order some people would, but enough to avoid massive layoffs?

That's why, as I pointed out above, basically every economist asked about this says it would be worse to re-open. So what, exactly, is the alternative that doesn't cause economic pain? As far as I can tell the options are "economic pain with minimal deaths" and "economic pain with maximal deaths". Who on earth would choose the latter? You'd have to deny the opinions of the experts, which is what got us into this damned mess in the first place.

[g1313]

Let me just be clear that my current personal position is that we should be continuing with distancing, and trying to relieve the economic pain that people are feeling through unprecedented levels of disaster relief / "stimulus" funding, and we will pay those consequences later - it seems like there is debate among economists on how much debt becomes a problem, and I don't pretend to be an expert to know, but given the level of disagreement there's probably not a clearly wrong answer.

I'm also aware of the consensus from the UChicago survey of economists that removing distancing and shelter in place will not improve the economic situation. I think it would be more persuasive if they could be more precise. I don't think anyone is saying it would avoid any or even most layoffs, but if we are talking about 50M people out of a job, could 10% of those jobs be saved? 20%? We've seen plenty of anecdotal examples of people (particularly younger) who seem content to proceed with business as usual.

I think if society tries to reopen and the ambulances keep coming, a lot of overwhelmed doctors and nurses who dont even have proper equipment to protect themselves now, would simply stop coming to work.

Also, as I pointed out above, plenty of people would continue to self-isolate. Who is going to be going to a conference in the coming months? Eating out? Seeing a concert? Sure, without the order some people would, but enough to avoid massive layoffs?

That's why, as I pointed out above, basically every economist asked about this says it would be worse to re-open. So what, exactly, is the alternative that doesn't cause economic pain? As far as I can tell the options are "economic pain with minimal deaths" and "economic pain with maximal deaths". Who on earth would choose the latter? You'd have to deny the opinions of the experts, which is what got us into this damned mess in the first place.