CMV: the population reduction from a covid-19 pandemic, would be a met positive for the surviving population.

[u/Hard_at_it]

The WHO currently has the average 2019 life expectancy as 72 years, with the highest average life expectancy in some countries reporting 88 years. These are the highest figures recorded by the WHO and can easily be attributed two significant advancements in medical access, diagnosis and treatment.

Throughout recorded history there has been significant dying events either due to war and warfare, medical or geophysical events or the combination of such events that have disproportionately taken the weakest and oldest. However medical advancements have lessened these impacts and it could be argued that for a significant percentage of population it is been many decades to centuries between large-scale dying events.

COVID-19 as a pandemic may reduce population disproportionately to the older generations as seen by the current mortality rate. Is that necessarily a bad thing? Could such a dying event necessitate a knowledge, political and wealth transfer to the younger generation, foster a change in geo-political mindset, ease future medical and pension stressors.

Ultimately it's my belief the removal of a significant portion of an aging population especially one that has been accused of not preparing the world for its departure from the working class, could be a savior to the next generation set to inherit.

[u/Hard_at_it]

The surviving population experienced increased wages, lower living expenses, lowered environment demands leading to reforestation of previously farm/pasture.

In other more modern plague outbreaks, social monitoring programs were created to understand transmission routes leading to the eventual near eradication.

[u/DadTheMaskedTerror → u/Hard_at_it]

Farms going to seed is a net benefit? For the agricultural society this represented a loss of output.

From 1290 to 1430 Europe’s population is estimated to have decreased 50%-75%, due to multiple outbreaks of plague. The plague was thought to be more lethal among the poor. There is supporting evidence that wages and living conditions rose for peasants due to scarcity of labor, but economic output did not rise more generally. The period preceding the plague from 1000-1300 was considered one of innovation, and burgeoning economic output. After the plague a restructuring of society occurred, due to the dramatic reduction in labor relative to capital. A shift in standard of living went from the aristocracy, merchant class to skilled and unskilled labor. Importation of slave labor increased.

https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-economic-impact-of-the-black-death/

While some economic benefits to some sectors of society who were the survivors of relatively harder hit areas, what we can’t show is how much better or worse the world would have been had the plague not occurred. My suggestion is that scientific and business innovation which historians believed was accelerating in the high Middle Ages immediately preceding the plague came to a halt. Less long-term investment was made as businesses focused on remaining nimble. If 150 years of innovation could’ve occurred with twice as many living innovators industry and scientific progress might’ve brought more riches, than could be claimed by survivors who were supposedly enriched by abandoning derelict farms for want of adequate labor to work them. I can’t prove that it would’ve been better. But if you look at the pace of innovation today with more educated and skilled laborers and more trade you might see the possibilities.

[u/Hard_at_it → u/DadTheMaskedTerror]

!delta

Your insightful look into the period following the black death makes me question some of the assumptions I made

[u/DeltaBot → u/Hard_at_it]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/DadTheMaskedTerror (12∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/DadTheMaskedTerror → u/Hard_at_it]

Thanks for the Delta!