COVID-19 - appropriate government response?

[Avskum]

I was surprised that the UK government is not taking the same measures as other governments to slow the spread of the virus. Instead they're trying to reach "herd immunity" for the population. This strategy seems completely crazy to me, since around 200k (some doctor's estimate on a BBC news show) older people will likely die to due to not getting treatment, as the health services will be overloaded. On the other hand, going for a full shutdown, like other countries have done, is extremely expensive, and a cynic would argue it's no big deal if a bunch of elderly people die. On the other hand, there are probably many hidden social costs to the UK's approach, e.g. losing trust in the government.

Thoughts?

[brimstoneSalad]

What they're doing is unconscionable. It's not just older people, anybody over 40 is at higher risk, and particularly anybody overweight. There also seems to be a genetic component to how the immune system reacts, fit young people can easily die from this too if unlucky in that regard -- and it's probably going to be a lot worse for Europeans than it was for Asians.

Even if it were just 5% of the elderly population dying, that in itself would be a major blow to the economy. Grandparents babysit for free, they don't always work much but they engage in the economy in many other ways. And ANYBODY with the misfortune to have a medical problem while the hospitals are flooded will be in bad luck. Car crash? Hoping for an ambulance? Nope, you're dead.

A few weeks of shutting down major gathering places is a small price to pay. It's not forever; vaccines are in progress. It's just about slowing the burn so that hospitals can keep up with patients and so that researchers can make some progress on treatment and prevention.

[Jebus]

Even if it were just 5% of the elderly population dying, that in itself would be a major blow to the economy. Grandparents babysit for free, they don't always work much but they engage in the economy in many other ways

How does grandparents babysitting for free help the economy? Old people dying sooner must certainly be good for the economy. What am I missing here?

[teo123]

Even if it were just 5% of the elderly population dying, that in itself would be a major blow to the economy. Grandparents babysit for free, they don't always work much but they engage in the economy in many other ways

How does grandparents babysitting for free help the economy? Old people dying sooner must certainly be good for the economy. What am I missing here?

Because there being people who will do babysitting for free means that the resources don't need to be spent on paying babysitters, so those resources can be invested better.

[Jebus]

Because there being people who will do babysitting for free means that the resources don't need to be spent on paying babysitters, so those resources can be invested better.

That's like saying that the economy would be better off if hotel rooms were free.

[teo123]

Because there being people who will do babysitting for free means that the resources don't need to be spent on paying babysitters, so those resources can be invested better.

That's like saying that the economy would be better off if hotel rooms were free.

No, if hotel rooms were free, there won't be any left for those who actually need them. That's not an issue with grandparents who babysit children.

[Jebus]

No, if hotel rooms were free, there won't be any left for those who actually need them. That's not an issue with grandparents who babysit children.

I thought, since it was an impossible hypothetical that you could imagine a world with an unlimited amount of hotel rooms. Regardless, it is not good for the economy when people do not spend their money. So if someone manages to save money by getting a free babysitter. . .

1. The person who does the free babysitting won't have any extra money to spend.

2. The person who saves money from the free babysitting could either. . .

Spend the money on something else which would be neutral for the economy

or

Save the money which would be bad for the economy.

[teo123]

Regardless, it is not good for the economy when people do not spend their money.

How? Saving is a form of investment. Sure, maybe the Paradox of Thrift plays some role, but not all economists agree it even exists.

Spend the money on something else which would be neutral for the economy

Why would it be neutral? Not all spending is equal.

[Lay Vegan]

Western countries should be modeling China and South Korea’s approach to the pandemic-travel restrictions, strict quarantines, aggressive testing/screening of citizens, encouraging social distancing, and more transparency etc. The U.S. government in particular seems to be struggling with these measures...

Side note-I don't think coronavirus spells the end of humanity. Odds are, if a randomly selected person gets infected, he or she will will get past it. But there are people who face worse odds than a randomly selected person. Governments above all should be encouraging nearly everyone to stay home and wash their hands frequently to avoid spreading the disease to those less fortunate individuals.

This isn’t just about protecting the elderly. People who could otherwise survive will die due to a lack of access to overcrowded and understaffed hospitals. Basically, #flattenthecurve, as @brimstoneSalad mentioned. https://www.vox.com/2020/3/15/21180342/ ... distancing Also, immunocompromized young adults are a thing.

How does grandparents babysitting for free help the economy? Old people dying sooner must certainly be good for the economy. What am I missing here?

Why wouldn’t the elderly shop, use services (that employ people) and pay taxes as any young person would?

Why wouldn’t seniors shop, use services (that employ people) and pay taxes as any young person would?

1. The person who does the free babysitting won't have any extra money to spend.

2. The person who saves money from the free babysitting could either. . .

Spend the money on something else which would be neutral for the economy

or

Save the money which would be bad for the economy.

Many parents wouldn’t be “saving money,” rather they would scrambling to find alternative care options (made even more scarce by the pandemic) or they would be required to miss work by watching after their children (actually losing money as a result).

[brimstoneSalad]

How does grandparents babysitting for free help the economy? Old people dying sooner must certainly be good for the economy. What am I missing here?

or they would be required to miss work by watching after their children (actually losing money as a result).

This @Jebus. Asia and particularly China is an even better example, where grandparents raise the grandchildren freeing up the parents to work long and hard hours in the cities doing construction, in factories, etc.

Raising children is an economically essential task for the next generation, but at the same time that input doesn't have immediate payoff so by relieving that there is substantial immediate economic payoff.

In antiquity women used to do that job while the men worked, but in the modern day that's changed and grandparents help fill this role allowing families to essentially double economic productivity in some cases. Of course the grandparents do cost some to feed and provide medical care for, but due to low prices of food today that's not as substantial as the input if they're babysitting even a couple times a week. Plus they do other stuff, not just sit at home and play bingo.