<story><title>California governor issues statewide &apos;stay at home&apos; order</title><url>https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-california-stay-at/california-governor-issues-statewide-stay-at-home-order-idUSKBN21707B</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>twblalock</author><text>At some point we do have to consider that shutting down the majority of the economy will ruin more lives than letting the virus infect everyone.&lt;p&gt;Keeping in mind that most young people who get the virus will survive, this is a massive generational sacrifice by the same people who left college around the time of the 2008 crash to protect older people. Anyone who thinks this is only going to last 3 weeks is just not being realistic.&lt;p&gt;Of course nobody wants to callously stand by while older Americans die of the virus. My own parents are at risk. I myself have asthma and I don&amp;#x27;t really know what my chances would be. However, the worst-case scenario in 20 years is that the older people we saved by sheltering in place will be gone, but the consequences of shutting down the economy will still haunt everyone living.&lt;p&gt;There are long-term trade-offs to consider here, particularly ruining the lives of the young in order to save the old, and I don&amp;#x27;t think they are being considered properly.&lt;p&gt;In an ideal world we would not need to make choices like this, but the choice is real and we can&amp;#x27;t fumble it.&lt;p&gt;I feel like a bit of a dick for posting this, but after reflection I do think it&amp;#x27;s a valid point and we cannot escape the trade-offs I described.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>pcwalton</author><text>&amp;quot;Letting the virus infect everyone&amp;quot; at a 1% death rate means 3 million deaths in the US, right up there with the worst catastrophes of the 20th century. You can change the death rate and projections of number infected needed to get herd immunity and move that number around, of course, but not enough to change the overall moral calculus.</text></comment>
<story><title>California governor issues statewide &apos;stay at home&apos; order</title><url>https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-california-stay-at/california-governor-issues-statewide-stay-at-home-order-idUSKBN21707B</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>twblalock</author><text>At some point we do have to consider that shutting down the majority of the economy will ruin more lives than letting the virus infect everyone.&lt;p&gt;Keeping in mind that most young people who get the virus will survive, this is a massive generational sacrifice by the same people who left college around the time of the 2008 crash to protect older people. Anyone who thinks this is only going to last 3 weeks is just not being realistic.&lt;p&gt;Of course nobody wants to callously stand by while older Americans die of the virus. My own parents are at risk. I myself have asthma and I don&amp;#x27;t really know what my chances would be. However, the worst-case scenario in 20 years is that the older people we saved by sheltering in place will be gone, but the consequences of shutting down the economy will still haunt everyone living.&lt;p&gt;There are long-term trade-offs to consider here, particularly ruining the lives of the young in order to save the old, and I don&amp;#x27;t think they are being considered properly.&lt;p&gt;In an ideal world we would not need to make choices like this, but the choice is real and we can&amp;#x27;t fumble it.&lt;p&gt;I feel like a bit of a dick for posting this, but after reflection I do think it&amp;#x27;s a valid point and we cannot escape the trade-offs I described.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>Zenst</author><text>&amp;gt;2008 crash to protect older people&lt;p&gt;I had no idea they had audited the age of the bankers who caused that mess.  Only one I&amp;#x27;m aware of was &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Nick_Leeson&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Nick_Leeson&lt;/a&gt; who brought down an entire bank at the age of 25.&lt;p&gt;As for your darwinistic-eugenics as an old person, sure I&amp;#x27;m happy with that, but the question is - would you be happy with that when your older and somebody else&amp;#x27;s kids suggests the same thing.  Not that easy to answer.&lt;p&gt;But whatever age people are, the penchant to begrudge the age groups above them to varying degrees and reasons tends to be strong, at least until they reach their 40&amp;#x27;s.  At least that is what I have observed from many years of experience of many age ranges.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; In an ideal world we would not need to make choices like this, but the choice is real and we can&amp;#x27;t fumble it.&lt;p&gt;I suspect the film Logan&amp;#x27;s Run would be worth a watch if you have not seen it. &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.imdb.com&amp;#x2F;title&amp;#x2F;tt0074812&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.imdb.com&amp;#x2F;title&amp;#x2F;tt0074812&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Oh I&amp;#x27;d also add, we have not seen results of sterility post infection - that data might change your perspective if we end up finding out that the chances of becoming sterile due to infection of this are high.  Which is still an unknown and not to be ruled out.</text></comment>