SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
SI - Site Forums : The History of Silicon Investor

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
Recommended by:
Jerry Held
To: Graystone who wrote (1278)3/30/2020 5:30:09 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) of 1292
 
Yes, this is a math, not political or economic, problem. If there were enough hospital beds and personnel to handle the pandemic, it would be life as usual, buyer beware. But even if we had infinite beds and personnel, at some point "enough" of a workforce succumbs to the point a business is forced to close anyhow. To balance the two requires voluminous reliable data, and experienced statisticians to model it. We lack the former and for some reason dismiss and even discredit the latter.

At some point, by some combination of modeling and trial and error we'll have figured out this balance. People will go back to work en masse and the virus will flare up again en masse. But presumably there will be enough resources to handle a second surge and a much more reliable way to test and treat people. We'll create a new pandemic response team that then successfully stops potential pandemics before anyone notices them. Then some politicians will instead equate this dearth of noticeable pandemics to proof we no longer need such a team, disband it, we'll then get a pandemic, and these same politicians will argue "who could possibly have predicted this?" Rinse and repeat.

- Jeff
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext