Bill Gates: If I were president, this is what I would do to fight coronavirus(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
Bill Gates: If I were president, this is what I would do to fight coronavirus
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/25/what-bill-gates-would-do-to-fight-covid-19-if-he-were-us-president.html
8 comments
Another good one:
“It is really tragic that the economic effects of this are very dramatic. Nothing like this has ever happened to the economy in our lifetimes,” Gates said. “But money, you know bringing the economy back and doing money, that’s more of a reversible thing than bringing people back to life. And so we’re going to take the pain in the economic dimension — huge pain — in order to minimize the pain in the disease and death dimension.”
“It is really tragic that the economic effects of this are very dramatic. Nothing like this has ever happened to the economy in our lifetimes,” Gates said. “But money, you know bringing the economy back and doing money, that’s more of a reversible thing than bringing people back to life. And so we’re going to take the pain in the economic dimension — huge pain — in order to minimize the pain in the disease and death dimension.”
Kind of a meandering way for him to say, essentially: "Revenue can be replaced. People cannot."
For a surprising large number of people, "doing money" means something different than it might to the well heeled. Eating, keeping a roof over one's head, and other trivialities.
While Trump isn't right, dismissing economic impacts of this is the same foolishness with a different political point. And no, handing out cash, which is far as I can tell is the only economic plan on the table anyone is considering is simply papering over the real problems.
Gates's equation of the economy with "money" is advocating for a terribly myopic point of view. Things being made, things being transported from where they're produced to where they're needed, the infrastructure, even the health care facilities and workers, and certainly not least, everyone else are also "the economy".
Any plan that doesn't address the short term health needs without also formulating a real plan to mitigate the economic fallout isn't a plan at all... it's simply closing one's eyes to the next crisis that we ourselves create.
While Trump isn't right, dismissing economic impacts of this is the same foolishness with a different political point. And no, handing out cash, which is far as I can tell is the only economic plan on the table anyone is considering is simply papering over the real problems.
Gates's equation of the economy with "money" is advocating for a terribly myopic point of view. Things being made, things being transported from where they're produced to where they're needed, the infrastructure, even the health care facilities and workers, and certainly not least, everyone else are also "the economy".
Any plan that doesn't address the short term health needs without also formulating a real plan to mitigate the economic fallout isn't a plan at all... it's simply closing one's eyes to the next crisis that we ourselves create.
Thank you.
Thanks for the TLDR (TCBDR?) ... this message is still important given Trump's desire to restart the US economy (by having everyone return to work) and his continuous dismissal of and disagreement with the US Surgeon General. Gates for president actually seems like a pretty good idea at this point.
> Gates for president actually seems like a pretty good idea at this point.
Gates seems like a good idea now because he's knowledgeable about public health, at least more than Trump. But do you want Gates negotiating with China, Nancy Pelosi, and Mitch McConnell? Do you want him to make decisions about law enforcement?
Maybe you do, but my point is that every president has weaknesses. The solution is for them to surround themselves with subject-matter experts and let those people lead. The problem with Trump is that most people loathe working with him, or they end up contradicting him and getting pushed out (like Dr. Fauci).
You may think you want Trump to manage this crisis, but you actually just want what most presidents have offered in the past: someone with at least enough intellectual humility to listen to their own advisers.
Gates seems like a good idea now because he's knowledgeable about public health, at least more than Trump. But do you want Gates negotiating with China, Nancy Pelosi, and Mitch McConnell? Do you want him to make decisions about law enforcement?
Maybe you do, but my point is that every president has weaknesses. The solution is for them to surround themselves with subject-matter experts and let those people lead. The problem with Trump is that most people loathe working with him, or they end up contradicting him and getting pushed out (like Dr. Fauci).
You may think you want Trump to manage this crisis, but you actually just want what most presidents have offered in the past: someone with at least enough intellectual humility to listen to their own advisers.
> But do you want Gates negotiating with China, Nancy Pelosi, and Mitch McConnell? Do you want him to make decisions about law enforcement
Yes, I do. I want anyone who has such a large base of competencies, can consume and comprehend books at a rate that most people consume Doritos, has run one of the largest tech companies in the world and currently runs one of the largest philanthropic organizations, and has learned many lessons on how to communicate with individuals, organizations and government. We could do worse...
Yes, I do. I want anyone who has such a large base of competencies, can consume and comprehend books at a rate that most people consume Doritos, has run one of the largest tech companies in the world and currently runs one of the largest philanthropic organizations, and has learned many lessons on how to communicate with individuals, organizations and government. We could do worse...
Try this one weird trick for a flatter ~belly~ curve!
Opinion pieces in favor of keeping the lockdowns going are a dime a dozen right now. Why are none of these smart people extending their opining to cover exit strategies and timelines? What are the steps being taken to make sure that an eventual relaxation of lockdown doesn't just put us back at the mid-February state of the pandemic?
It's easy to stomach the idea of shutting the U.S. economy down when you're a multi-billionaire. All of the people famous enough to have op-eds published about how they would handle the situation are also rich enough where the economic impact doesn't affect them personally, other than some numbers in their portfolio.
There are millions of people who just got laid off and still have rent / mortgage / car payments due and nothing but unemployment insurance if they're lucky to make ends meet for the duration of this mess.
So what do you do for these people? Sending out checks for $1,200 isn't going to significantly alter the calculus here. The longer the economy stays shut down the more of a knock-on effect from halted production, interrupted supply chains, opportunity loss from unfulfilled manufacturing and shipping capacity, and ending with severe revenue loss at all levels of the economy, putting companies out of business.
I've heard the straw man that "companies are just greedy and value profits over human life," but the reality is that when companies go out of business, all the people they employed for "scraps" are now unemployed and in a buyer's market for what few jobs are left.
I think all of this might be esoteric here on HN where a lot of us seem to be employed in creative or tech positions that can function remotely, but these types of positions are still the exception rather than the rule in the U.S.
I'm not arguing that we should reopen the economy asap, either, but it would be nice to read an op-ed from someone whose livelihood was directly impacted by the shutdown.
There are millions of people who just got laid off and still have rent / mortgage / car payments due and nothing but unemployment insurance if they're lucky to make ends meet for the duration of this mess.
So what do you do for these people? Sending out checks for $1,200 isn't going to significantly alter the calculus here. The longer the economy stays shut down the more of a knock-on effect from halted production, interrupted supply chains, opportunity loss from unfulfilled manufacturing and shipping capacity, and ending with severe revenue loss at all levels of the economy, putting companies out of business.
I've heard the straw man that "companies are just greedy and value profits over human life," but the reality is that when companies go out of business, all the people they employed for "scraps" are now unemployed and in a buyer's market for what few jobs are left.
I think all of this might be esoteric here on HN where a lot of us seem to be employed in creative or tech positions that can function remotely, but these types of positions are still the exception rather than the rule in the U.S.
I'm not arguing that we should reopen the economy asap, either, but it would be nice to read an op-ed from someone whose livelihood was directly impacted by the shutdown.
It’s insane to me that we carry these little GPS trackers around with us everywhere and there is seemingly no middleground between “total government pandemic panopticon” and “try to remember every person you’ve been in contact over the last three weeks.”
If we solve that, then we make it possible for most people to go back about their business but still maintain the capability to send them a push notification saying “hey, you may have been exposed. You should monitor your symptoms and probably stay home”
If we solve that, then we make it possible for most people to go back about their business but still maintain the capability to send them a push notification saying “hey, you may have been exposed. You should monitor your symptoms and probably stay home”
One strategy I haven't heard much mention of is for the government to employ people directly in various capacities to fight the outbreak.
This would both stimulate the economy and boost public confidence in the government's response.
As it stands right now, having the President set unrealistic timelines when the outbreak hasn't even been contained seems like it's going to have the opposite effect in terms of shoring up public confidence.
This would both stimulate the economy and boost public confidence in the government's response.
As it stands right now, having the President set unrealistic timelines when the outbreak hasn't even been contained seems like it's going to have the opposite effect in terms of shoring up public confidence.
This is meta.
If CNBC's adblocker-blocker popup really annoys you, do this. Open up browser devtools. Find the top most div of the adblocker-blocker and delete it.
The adblocker-blocker hijacks scroll events by blocking scrolling. Go to the top most content div and add this to element style
``` overflow: auto; height: 100vh; ```
This will fix scrolling and allow you to read content, without having to turn off the adblocker. You can do this with many other sites.
If CNBC's adblocker-blocker popup really annoys you, do this. Open up browser devtools. Find the top most div of the adblocker-blocker and delete it.
The adblocker-blocker hijacks scroll events by blocking scrolling. Go to the top most content div and add this to element style
``` overflow: auto; height: 100vh; ```
This will fix scrolling and allow you to read content, without having to turn off the adblocker. You can do this with many other sites.
2 things, why do people want to know what bill gates thinks about viruses, and why is his take so non innovative?
> he would prioritize keeping people across America in isolation to “flatten the curve” of the COVID-19 pandemic.
This is literally the content of this article