It not only could but it saves lives, I'm not disputing that. But the question is at what cost to the individual, the society, the economy and their future. What happens if the economy crashes? Is it reasonable and the price worth paying? We should be allowed to not only ask these questions but discuss them.

A crashed economy is not the end of the world.

We'll live, for the most part. There will be ups and downs and yes some people will suffer and die from the economy.

It was a shit economy anyway, unless you were one of the lucky ones. Most people had a stressful, shitty time of it.

In comparison, a few % of the entire population of Earth dying unnecessarily because the hospitals couldn't treat them all at once seems a much bigger deal. How about we get excited about preventing that. That seems like Something Worth Doing.

> We should be allowed to not only ask these questions but discuss them.

Yes of course, and people are. But surely it is fairly obvious that we have a fast time-based emergency in progress, and also one that is most effectively controlled by a coordinated response; both rule out having drawn-out big social discussions and debates before starting to act.

There may be a major econonomic depression, numerically larger than the Great Depression in statistics. Technically. There will also be quite a lot of economic hardship caused by the deaths and disability caused. But much less of that than if the draconian quarantine measures were not done!

I for one do not believe it will last the way the Great Depression did, even if it proves technically larger in numbers. Because we are witnessing one of the greatest mass cooperation and social transformation events in human history right now, worldwide too, in the fight against the new disease. I'm talking about the cooperation and volunteerismm, and that very rare spirit that comes from humans all over the world realising we're fighting the same thing for once. I believe we will carry that spirit on in the economic aftermath and will rebuild in remarkable ways, very different from the 1930s. I hope to live through the pandemic to see the transformation that follows, and to help make it happen.

>It was a shit economy anyway, unless you were one of the lucky ones. Most people had a stressful, shitty time of it.

that's provably false by nearly every economic metric.

Do you mean something like : "Ignore the state of the market, UBI isn't ubiquitous and we still have homeless and poor?" ? I agree with that statement; but no one with any sense and a clear conscious would say that it was "a shit economy".

I meant: "Most people had a stressful, shitty time of it."

As measured by lives lived in quiet fear and desparation over a long time.

As measured by how we treat the worst off in society.

As measured by the quality of safety nets, and whether it's applied to people by dint of inalienable fundamental rights and dignity, or if safety is kept only for a subset of people we approve of / we decide are lucky.

As hinted at by life expectancies reducing in some developed countries.

As hinted at by increasing poverty and child poverty in some developed countries.

As hinted at by the housing crises, and increasing numbers of precarious economic situations of huge numbers of people in many developed countries.

As hinted at by an enormous class of people with second-class status in many developed countries.

I'm not going to say it is worse than 20, 50, 100, 200 years prior.

It appears to be better; it looks better than ever on many metrics.

And the economy has obviously produced a great deal of wealth and benefit. Shared unevenly (see especially USA healthcare right now, and healthcare for irregular immigrants everwhere), but benefits are there. We certainly should not stop doing the good things we've been doing.

But I still think the economy we have (or had, perhaps) has been "shit" for most people compared to what it could and should be.

(I don't mean it in the more mundane way people say "shit economy" to mean "worse than usual", "in a downturn" etc.)

> Is it reasonable and the price worth paying?

It's a fair question, and it's one I considered before I called.

I don't know what happened in the end. Very possibly nothing. I had hoped that a uniformed police officer would stop by, talk to the partiers, mention that there was a complaint, also mention something about COVID-19, urge people to go home, and then depart.

Even in economic terms, the cost of say 5 hospitalizations from infections down the road is much, much greater than the utility these people enjoy from a house party.

Obviously, the value of a life is greater still.

I’m arguing in your terms but I don’t think economics is exactly the right framework for this decision.

If you want to ask those questions, you also need to ask what's the alternative. What happens if we continue business as usual and 5% of the population dies in a couple months? What if the virus mutates and another 5% die in the next couple months after that? What if immunity only lasts for half a year, and we get a 5% death rate every year from now on? Is it reasonable and the price worth paying?

Where are you getting the 5% from? You're just adding the 5% on and on prior to "What if's" that don't sound plausible to me. Although if you did quote experts there I would like to know, that could change my view. To my current knowledge it is more and more looking like its fatality rate is sitting around 1%. People, especially older ones, die, we often supress that thought in the western culture. And many die, everyday. If the economy crashes many more will die most certainly.

hanspedah, people believe 5% is the death rate that occurs if medical services are not available (and would thus be much higher than the death rate if medical services are available). And if there is no mitigation, the vast majority of people that would need medical care wouldn't be able to get it.

what people , where?

I have read a ton of conflict in that number, any citations would be appreciated.

Can't have livelihood if you aren't alive!