undefined | Better HN

0 pointstwblalock5y ago0 comments

I don't really expect companies to plan for the government ordering the majority of economic activity to halt for an undefined length of time.

This isn't just some "rainy day" to save for. This is unprecedented, and it's only necessary because the government did not take steps to contain the outbreak sooner.

Money given to companies after this is not a bailout in the 2008 sense. It should be viewed as compensation for damages caused by the government's bungled response to the virus.

0 comments

CydeWeys5y ago

I'm not defending the US's response at all, but pretty much every country has shut down over this. It's not clear how that could have been prevented. Yes, it would have prevented a lot of deaths, but the total shutdown seems to have been inevitable everywhere.

twblalockOP5y ago

Look at South Korea and Singapore and Taiwan as examples of countries that applied testing early and haven't needed to tell everyone to shelter in place. They have seen some economic disruption, but nothing like the what the US and the EU are experiencing.

zaroth5y ago

> This is unprecedented, and it's only necessary because the government did not take steps to contain the outbreak sooner.

The whole world is shut down over COVID. Even with borders closed as much as possible it has spread. There is no intervention by the US government that could have been done in January that would mean the country would be open for business today.

twblalockOP5y ago

> There is no intervention by the US government that could have been done in January that would mean the country would be open for business today.

Sure there was. Other countries did it. The US and the EU were caught unprepared but several countries in Asia did the right thing, probably because they had previous experience with SARS.

A total societal lockdown is not the only viable response to a disease like COVID-19. It might be the only viable late-stage response, but early testing, tracing, and quarantining has worked in other countries and it could have worked here if our government had been on the ball.

fzeroracer5y ago

This is objectively incorrect. There were many countries that took a far more aggressive stance against the coronavirus and as a result have been able to better deal with it and the economic impacts.

The fact that people are repeating this lie is mind boggling and deserve to be called out because we literally saw this coming. We had months to prepare when we saw other countries dealing with the problem and did nothing.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointstwblalock5y ago0 comments

I don't really expect companies to plan for the government ordering the majority of economic activity to halt for an undefined length of time.

This isn't just some "rainy day" to save for. This is unprecedented, and it's only necessary because the government did not take steps to contain the outbreak sooner.

Money given to companies after this is not a bailout in the 2008 sense. It should be viewed as compensation for damages caused by the government's bungled response to the virus.

0 comments

CydeWeys5y ago

twblalockOP5y ago

zaroth5y ago

> This is unprecedented, and it's only necessary because the government did not take steps to contain the outbreak sooner.

twblalockOP5y ago

> There is no intervention by the US government that could have been done in January that would mean the country would be open for business today.

Sure there was. Other countries did it. The US and the EU were caught unprepared but several countries in Asia did the right thing, probably because they had previous experience with SARS.

fzeroracer5y ago

This is objectively incorrect. There were many countries that took a far more aggressive stance against the coronavirus and as a result have been able to better deal with it and the economic impacts.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse