[pefloresjr]

Yes, we know the current situation sucks. We know that there are only bad options. What do you want to happen? What do you think is the optimal path?

I know this is Kobayashi Maru.  I don't think it's winnable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru

I would have thought my intent obvious.  I don't think we're balancing our response, and I don't think we're properly factoring into account other factors.  As near as I can tell, the preferred response is Catholic-like; e.g., save every life possible no matter what, with no or little other consideration.  My take is that it will ruin the economy and society for generations to come.  And whenever I hear someone say that, I hear how callous they are, and they get shouted down.  Some voices claim that the economy would be toast either way, which is intuitively ridiculous.  It didn't tank during the Spanish Flu, why would it tank this time around?

http://www.usstuckonstupid.com/sos_downc...e=&color=c

The Spanish Flu hit during our involvement in World War 1 so I don't think that is a useful comparison.  I don't know why you feel serious negative economic effects from hundreds of thousands or millions of deaths is intuitively ridiculous.  I do think there needs to be more economic analysis of large numbers of deaths along with the economic impacts those deaths have on their families and business.  Those deaths would also have impacts on the consumer and other spending, so I think it is intuitive that there is no option here where the economy is not seriously impacted.  You said in another thread that this stay at home response would only make sense if the U.S. death toll were 50 million.  I don't think very many Americans would agree with that for emotional reasons and because it would also result in financial ruin for untold numbers of individuals and businesses.   I wish we all had clear analysis to use here, but we don't.  

Going back to your Star Trek reference, when Americans are faced with the option of letting their comrades in enemy territory die to save potential greater harm, or take the chance of dying by trying to save the comrades, they are going to take the chance of greater harm by trying to save the comrades every time.  I don't see that changing anytime soon.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

Yes, we know the current situation sucks. We know that there are only bad options. What do you want to happen? What do you think is the optimal path?

I know this is Kobayashi Maru.  I don't think it's winnable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru

I would have thought my intent obvious.  I don't think we're balancing our response, and I don't think we're properly factoring into account other factors.  As near as I can tell, the preferred response is Catholic-like; e.g., save every life possible no matter what, with no or little other consideration.  My take is that it will ruin the economy and society for generations to come.  And whenever I hear someone say that, I hear how callous they are, and they get shouted down.  Some voices claim that the economy would be toast either way, which is intuitively ridiculous.  It didn't tank during the Spanish Flu, why would it tank this time around?

http://www.usstuckonstupid.com/sos_downc...e=&color=c

The Spanish Flu hit during our involvement in World War 1 so I don't think that is a useful comparison.  I don't know why you feel serious negative economic effects from hundreds of thousands or millions of deaths is intuitively ridiculous.  I do think there needs to be more economic analysis of large numbers of deaths along with the economic impacts those deaths have on their families and business.  Those deaths would also have impacts on the consumer and other spending, so I think it is intuitive that there is no option here where the economy is not seriously impacted.  You said in another thread that this stay at home response would only make sense if the U.S. death toll were 50 million.  I don't think very many Americans would agree with that for emotional reasons and because it would also result in financial ruin for untold numbers of individuals and businesses.   I wish we all had clear analysis to use here, but we don't.  

Going back to your Star Trek reference, when Americans are faced with the option of letting their comrades in enemy territory die to save potential greater harm, or take the chance of dying by trying to save the comrades, they are going to take the chance of greater harm by trying to save the comrades every time.  I don't see that changing anytime soon.  

Cheers,
Pete F.