I’m not going to argue that our political and social economic systems don’t have flaws. I do think directly merging political and economic power into the same institutions would only make it worse.
It sounds like whoever managed to get political support in that community is making the economic decisions, rather than “themselves”. Individual property rights simply devolves that control to the individual or the family. Communal property rights would place control of property into the hands of the elites. I’m not saying the current system is perfect, but I’m the system to you’re describing I don’t see how someone gets a new technology to market without the support of the elites. It’s at least possible today, and leads to the collective increase in standards of living.
Obviously this is a personal preference. For example. I think they’re awful. I don’t think these pants are the solution though. I do appreciate the effort.
If you keep the infection rate low enough you can keep the hospitals from being over capacity and also delay infections until after a vaccine is developed and administered, thus preventing the infection. Both of these states would have the benefit of reducing the total number of deaths. When the lockdown talk started, I thought that was the point.
I’m a layman, but the paper reads more like a series of assertions. Maybe those assertions are self evident for an expert in the field (Id love if someone could reply with follow up information if that’s the case), but it just doesn’t seem to present actual evidence to back up the claims.
If you’re an expert in this field and can elaborate, I would love to read more. I’ve read the paper, but as a layman it’s difficult to discern why something is a “smoking gun” vs nature at work.
I’ve read stories indicating that some of these companies are ramping up production prior to approval in order to have batches of doses to distribute soon after approval happens. Having a government that will protect said company’s intellectual property helps reduce financial risk to the company, making that preproduction a bit less risky overall. It’s also arguable that protecting that IP is a moral justification for the same reason — saving lives. There might not be as many companies developing vaccines and committing to large production runs before they’re even approved without it.
Keep in mind, I’m not outright saying you’re wrong. I do think you’re way oversimplifying things.
I rescheduled the second date with my now wife at the last minute. Worked out well for us, but I was so tired from work that there’s no way that date would have gone well (busy period of a project at the time).
I mean, even with all restrictions lifted a significant enough percentage of people would engage in behavior to avoid the disease that would have a real impact on the economy.
We aren’t talking about 3.5% unemployment vs 20% unemployment. We’re talking a deep recession in both cases. One with a deeper recession and less death, and a less deep recession but more death. Good luck trying to quantify that. I’m just gonna keep working from home, and avoiding bars/restaurants/shopping until it passes.
Of 328 million people if 70% became infected, with a .65% fatality rate, we’d have around 1.3 million dead. The typical leading cause of death (heart disease) kills like 600k a year. Seems like racking up the dead to me. And it would probably be higher if we just pretended like things were normal and let hospitals get overwhelmed. That fatality rate is with a huge reaction by the country.