The great Black Swan of our age has alighted upon our shores, and it catches us at the end of a great historical anomaly: an era of peace, safety and prosperity of such uncommon length that most of us have never known anything else. (This goes a long way, as I’ve argued elsewhere, to explaining why we’ve become so pathetically soft and sensitive.)
It being until last month unimaginable that we might actually be liable to the periodic calamities that have gnawed at mankind’s bones since before the dawn of history, we are stricken with sudden, shocking fear, and will do anything — anything — to address the immediate threat. And so we have brought the great engine of Western life to a full stop, that we may retreat to our comfortable homes and bar the door. This may, indeed, “flatten the curve”, and slow the spread of Wuhan virus to the point where medical services are not overwhelmed. In doing so, however, might we not greatly extend the life of this pandemic, causing it to last months or years, rather than weeks or months?
High civilizations, and their economies, are very much like living organisms; the movement of goods and services, and the daily pulse of productive activity, are like the blood that nourishes the body’s cells. What we have done to fight this virus is, in effect, is to bring our civilization’s heartbeat almost to a standstill, to what must surely be the very threshold of death. The result will be that cells throughout the body will begin to die.
This virus is believed to have a mortality rate in the low single digits; perhaps 3%. Most people who get it will be fine. But what will be the effects of the death by asphyxia of the livelihoods (and life savings) of scores of millions of people? What are the odds of food shortages, riots, and staggering increases in crime, suicide, and homelessness?
Are we really making the right choice here? I don’t know the answer. Do you?
6 Comments
I’m with Scott Adams on this. No one knows how this will play out. There is no right answer. Lots of mistakes will be made. The trick is to identify and fix them as fast as possible, then keep pressing on in search of solutions.
Meanwhile, if the press about chloraquine is true, I’ll very soon be going straight to my favourite little shops and pubs and spending like no tomorrow.
The stock market has crashed 35%, and 25% of the work force is unemployed. Those are Great Depression statistics. And they were self-inflicted.
I do not have a clue as to whether the lock down was the correct solution. It was imposed by medical people with no economic understanding. It is an example of what the French call a “déformation professionnelle.”
The pandemic wave in the US might (!) be over by September. But the economic consequences are likely to persist far longer, because many small and some larger businesses will have gone bankrupt and be permanently out of business.
The nightmare scenarios of Peter Turchin and of Strauss and Howe were driven by endogenous factors, not a world pandemic. They argued that the internal stresses due to economics and politics were so large that social unrest and violence were likely in this decade. The pandemic might just be the trigger those scenarios need.
I think we’re making the right call here Malcolm, albeit one with a dreadful cost. No decent society can just intentionally allow potentially hundreds of thousands to die in order to preserve a nation’s economic well-being. What kind of man would I be to say to my parents and stepparents that my quality of life is more significant than your right to live?
Jason,
Yes, that’s the prevailing moral calculation here. But, playing the Devil’s advocate, I’ll make two points in response:
1) We do go to war for various reasons, knowing in advance that people will die. This shows there are indeed some causes that outweigh the certainty of loss of life.
2) It is also likely that many people will have their lives destroyed by the consequences of major social and economic collapse, and that many will die who would not have otherwise.
Again, I don’t know what the right answer is. My only point is that this isn’t the “no-brainer” that many seem to think it is; there are disastrous possibilities on either prong of this terrible fork.
Is it true that Italy counts as a corona death every death such that the person had the virus? If so these numbers are nonsense and I have to suspect it’s deliberate misinformation. But I can’t seem to find clear explanations of how they collect this data despite the thousands of articles about Italy. Which is very strange in itself.
The Men of The West are arising once again.