Is the media and government response to this crisis proportionate to the response to other recent viruses with drastically higher death tolls? No.
Is this overzealous response causing damage to the US economy? Yes.
The problem with this view is that short of a massive amount of people dying, nothing will prove to you that this disease is in fact both more deadly and more highly infectious than the ordinary flu.
If the number of deaths doesn't go up very much in a few months, you will say "see I told you that this was all an overreaction". But that's not true is it? If the number of deaths doesn't go exponential, it's because the mitigation and social distancing measures we are taking by closing schools/arenas/etc worked, not because the disease isn't deadly enough.
You keep on bringing up statistics to compare this to the flu when this is in fact something very different. And I can only say that I feel relieved that you are not in any position of power to make decisions for the health and safety of citizens anywhere.
Consider these points:
- In an ordinary flu season, are there many reports of ICU beds overwhelmed? How many people cannot receive a ventilator or ECMO machine or be intubated due to flu complications during an entire flu season because there are not enough beds? And how many have had to be turned away in just 2 months time from COVID-19?
- Does the ordinary flu impart lung damage to people, causing shortness of breath when they walk to >15% of those that recover? This is taken from a recent study of people who had recovered from COVID-19 in Hong Kong.
- Does the flu even in the worst cases cause ICU stays of >20 days? Because from everything I have read average ICU stays for COVID-19 patients are 1.5 to 2 times longer than those of patients with the flu who develop pneumonia or other complications. And while that may not seem like a big difference, a long ICU stay means less beds for others, and means you reach maximum capacity faster and have to turn away more people.
- Let's talk about infectiousness as well. The flu has an R0 of around 1.5, while COVID-19 has an estimated R0 of between 2-8. The range is so large because they really have not had much time to analyze the data, but my personal estimate is that the R0 is way higher than 2. If I had to guess I would say between 5-7, which means it's doubling time is orders of magnitude shorter than the doubling time for the flu.
Of course, please don't let any of the doctors, scientists, policy makers, or corporations convince you that this is dangerous. Indeed, many people feel this is an overreaction or unnecessary disruption to their lives. Lastly, you talk about how much damage this is causing to the US economy. I actually disagree in the long term picture. Yes, short term assets are dropping, but this was a bubble that was going to burst soon-ish anyway, and this black swan event just happened to be the pin to burst that bubble. Second, I see lots of long term positives coming from this event, not the least of which are:
1) equities are finally resetting to close to reasonable levels which actually allows younger people an opportunity to get into the market
2) the US is finally realizing the cost of having all their manufacturing in one country (namely China) and I think this will have a great effect on both getting companies to diversify their supply chains and reduce just-in-time supply chain practices
3) I think this crisis is just what the US health care system needed to be forced to be more efficient (accommodate surge capacity testing, treatment, reduction of bureaucracy in drug development and approval. I think they've been able to be so slow and inefficient because they never had a real crisis to deal with. And this is will absolutely force them to be more agile. That agility will likely carryover and be a huge benefit for getting future medicines/tests to market faster, which in turn will enhance the overall quality of life (just not in the near near term).
4)I think another large positive is that people will finally become more realistic about healthcare reform. Yes, it needs to happen. But all the talk about how it should happen has so far been too simplistic. A real life SHTF crisis is just what this country needed to actually think through what healthcare reform means, and what is needed in that reform aside from just access to care and drugs/treatments being cheaper. Yes, we can make drugs/treatments cheaper and access to care cheap or free, but if that means that you can't see a doctor when you are sick because all the hospital beds are full, or you can't get a ventilator because the hospital doesn't have enough, then that cheap or free healthcare suddenly isn't serving you very well. I think the discussion will shift to what we, as Americans, are willing to pay for health care that will meet our needs.
Of course, I also realize that all the printing and supply chain shocks are going to lead to (and already leading to) lots of inflation. But do I think that this is an overzealous response that will cause lasting damage to the US economy? No, not at all. In the short term, it will suck, but economic shocks like this are good in the long term to introduce resilience, improve efficiency, and bring assets back to reasonable levels.
Member
