comment by RB&W 'The Judge' (U21434)
posted 18 minutes ago
''It's easier to con (sic) a man than convince him that he's been conned (sic)"
+++
This saying in no more evident than within the pages and pages the clueless comments you can read daily on discussion website such as this one
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So true its not even funny.
‘Sweden cannot take draconian measures that have a limited impact on the epidemic but knock out the functions of society," stated its public health secretary Johan Carlson last week, saying out loud what so many are thinking: That the horse has already bolted, a vaccine is probably 18 months away, the coming weeks and months will inevitably overwhelm national health systems, but that far more lives and livelihoods will be destroyed as a result of shutting entire industries than lives lost to this virus.
This a disease, now all-but over in the country it hit first, that has killed 25,237 people worldwide over three months. Every year, mosquitoes kill 130,000 people over that same time-frame. Recessions kill too, albeit in a longer, more drawn-out ordeal - and that’s exactly what Sweden is so wary of.
Sweden has currently recorded 3,046 cases of coronavirus; compared to 3,687 in next door Norway. Since Norway entered lockdown two weeks ago, their unemployment rate has quadrupled. In Sweden, bars and restaurants have stayed open - table service only, to limit crowding - only gatherings of more than 50 have been banned, and schools remain in tact for under the 16s. Life there remains relatively normal.’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/27/swedens-resistance-lockdown-raises-questions-tough-approach/#comments
Interesting
comment by Cinciwolf----JA606 NFL Fantasy Champion 2019----No Emotional Attachments....five long years (U11551)
posted 7 hours, 51 minutes ago
But countries cannot remain locked down like this for a year. Half the population would be homeless and unable to eat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This already reported to be happening in India after a few days. It will be tough for less and moderately economically developed countries to tackle this with a lockdown, India doubly effected with such densely populated cities.
comment by Kunta Kante (U1641)
posted 4 minutes ago
‘Sweden cannot take draconian measures that have a limited impact on the epidemic but knock out the functions of society," stated its public health secretary Johan Carlson last week, saying out loud what so many are thinking: That the horse has already bolted, a vaccine is probably 18 months away, the coming weeks and months will inevitably overwhelm national health systems, but that far more lives and livelihoods will be destroyed as a result of shutting entire industries than lives lost to this virus.
This a disease, now all-but over in the country it hit first, that has killed 25,237 people worldwide over three months. Every year, mosquitoes kill 130,000 people over that same time-frame. Recessions kill too, albeit in a longer, more drawn-out ordeal - and that’s exactly what Sweden is so wary of.
Sweden has currently recorded 3,046 cases of coronavirus; compared to 3,687 in next door Norway. Since Norway entered lockdown two weeks ago, their unemployment rate has quadrupled. In Sweden, bars and restaurants have stayed open - table service only, to limit crowding - only gatherings of more than 50 have been banned, and schools remain in tact for under the 16s. Life there remains relatively normal.’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/27/swedens-resistance-lockdown-raises-questions-tough-approach/#comments
Interesting
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is very interesting. Once the likes of the NHS Nightingale and their like are built around the UK and private companies have built respirators (apparently soon to be 1000 a week) I can see people being told to manage the risk more than now within a 3-4 month period - might be the tough choice the economy/society has to make to keep the wheels moving.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 24 minutes ago
Severe economic damage also costs lives, so this is a genuine topic to discuss. However, in the current concrete situation, I'm not sure the 'accept more deaths as a price worth paying to protect the economy' works. While we have a temporary crisis that's so bad we effectively have to shut down all non-essential parts of the economy and switch to a socialist command economy, insofar as this is done effectively, the economic impact doesn't cost lives. Food and medicine continue to reach people. As long as this is measured in months, not years, people aren't going to die from this kind of economic inactivity. Start up economic activity prematurely and another spike in infections will cause more deaths and, yes, more economic damage.
When you don't have a command economy that ensures everyone has the essentials, then much less severe economic downturns can kill. For instance, research suggests that the austerity period killed far more people in the UK than the Covid-19 death toll (based on current estimates).
This isn't an argument for a long-term command economy, by the way. We should all know the flaws in that model. A well-regulated mixed economy provides the best of both worlds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. The authorities have the info and stats so they should be able to know when/if breaking point is being reached. If it comes to it then too early is a mistake but too late is also a mistake.
These thought process are all well and good until a member of your family gets ill, or a member of a friend's family... Then it is no longer interesting and becomes very, very real.
I think too many people are looking at stats and trying to manage this rather than thinking about the consequences of being part of a society that knowingly killed off parts of a generation. This is much easier to do when those numbers are just on a screen, not someone you know.
The more we try and juggle the virus and the economy, the more likely those numbers start involving people you know.
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Ole's joy Manticore (U2958)
posted 3 minutes ago
These thought process are all well and good until a member of your family gets ill, or a member of a friend's family... Then it is no longer interesting and becomes very, very real.
I think too many people are looking at stats and trying to manage this rather than thinking about the consequences of being part of a society that knowingly killed off parts of a generation. This is much easier to do when those numbers are just on a screen, not someone you know.
The more we try and juggle the virus and the economy, the more likely those numbers start involving people you know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It works both ways
I have a family member who is isolated and their mental health is suffering to a huge degree and I worry more about potential suicide more than I do about them getting Coronavirus.
I know that’s an extreme example but there are more potential casualties to this than just the ones dying from the virus. A balance will eventually have to be struck to manage the risks to all the outcomes of this
and I bet it drives you mad that number punchers in the government make stat based decisions on mental health. I know i get mad about that, because it's also an issue close to my heart.
This is why governments are taking this very seriously... They know they can't just let a generation die off, because that affects almost everyone in society.
I think it’s a bit extreme to say a ‘generation’ will die off - that isn’t helpful as it turns a very logical argument into an instant worst case scenario when it’s not definitely going to turn out that way
The government are right to be careful - of course - but there’s an argument to be made that being too careful/cautious can be counter productive and once this is all over it’ll be interesting to see what countries approaches were the correct ones. Might be a blueprint for any future pandemics.
Using the language of ‘killing off’ is also a bit extreme. It is a contagious viral infection that kills people, not anyone else. On the contrary managing this by emotion on an individual level unfortunately isn’t the most beneficial way to tackle it.
comment by Kunta Kante (U1641)
posted 1 minute ago
Using the language of ‘killing off’ is also a bit extreme. It is a contagious viral infection that kills people, not anyone else. On the contrary managing this by emotion on an individual level unfortunately isn’t the most beneficial way to tackle it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure the government will find a nice phrase that will make you comfortable.
But... Putting people back to work too early will literally be killing more people off.
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Ole's joy Manticore (U2958)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Kunta Kante (U1641)
posted 1 minute ago
Using the language of ‘killing off’ is also a bit extreme. It is a contagious viral infection that kills people, not anyone else. On the contrary managing this by emotion on an individual level unfortunately isn’t the most beneficial way to tackle it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure the government will find a nice phrase that will make you comfortable.
But... Putting people back to work too early will literally be killing more people off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or having people stay off work for long enough might lead to another period of austerity which will lead to people dying off
It’s a balancing act
We're better off being over cautious now and learn that we were. An economy can recover a dead person can't.
If we’re sticking with this idea of thinking about this as killing others, you also kill others if you do not protect the economy. A member of a family, a member of a friend’s family. Like Robb said, it goes both ways. And it’s important to at least appreciate the need for a balance. If you care about the health of others or as you out it, about killing others, both sides intrinsically have to be considered, no ifs or buts.
*put it
comment by kneerash-23 Cara Gold (U6876)
posted 2 seconds ago
We're better off being over cautious now and learn that we were. An economy can recover a dead person can't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly, a dead person can’t which is why it is important to consider the economy, otherwise you will have more dead people, more people with chronic health conditions, more people with social issues needing state support.
comment by Robb, the fourth husband of Joe Exotic (U22311)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Ole's joy Manticore (U2958)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Kunta Kante (U1641)
posted 1 minute ago
Using the language of ‘killing off’ is also a bit extreme. It is a contagious viral infection that kills people, not anyone else. On the contrary managing this by emotion on an individual level unfortunately isn’t the most beneficial way to tackle it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure the government will find a nice phrase that will make you comfortable.
But... Putting people back to work too early will literally be killing more people off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or having people stay off work for long enough might lead to another period of austerity which will lead to people dying off
It’s a balancing act
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At this stage it seems more like trying to win a game of chicken with no brakes on a one way street. Perhaps it's the game that's the problem here
comment by Kunta Kante (U1641)
posted 1 minute ago
If we’re sticking with this idea of thinking about this as killing others, you also kill others if you do not protect the economy. A member of a family, a member of a friend’s family. Like Robb said, it goes both ways. And it’s important to at least appreciate the need for a balance. If you care about the health of others or as you out it, about killing others, both sides intrinsically have to be considered, no ifs or buts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
or we could, maybe, try and use this as a way to find a solution where we don't have to choose between one death over another.
The idea that austerity causes death depends very much on the rules placed by the government in power.
I suppose really these measures can only be lifted once we are testing in sufficient enough numbers to give us an actual clear picture of the situation - and by testing that includes both antigen and antibody. As it is we're running blindfolded into a battlefield.
Ultimately, that's been my main problem with how this has been handled. I think I'm in the minority who didnt really have a problem when it came to the government's (intentional) dithering in enforcing lockdown measures. But looking back, the lack of preparation beforehand was scandalous. We watched this happen in China or over 2 months, but it wasnt until things got bad in Italy before we decided we needed ventilators and upscale testing. Had we just thought about doing this a bit earlier we'd have a better handle on this situation.
Watched an interesting TED talk from Bill Gates the other day - it was from about 5 years ago after the Ebola outbreak where he basically said we are terribly unprepared for a pandemic. Scary how right he was.
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 7 minutes ago
I suppose really these measures can only be lifted once we are testing in sufficient enough numbers to give us an actual clear picture of the situation - and by testing that includes both antigen and antibody. As it is we're running blindfolded into a battlefield.
Ultimately, that's been my main problem with how this has been handled. I think I'm in the minority who didnt really have a problem when it came to the government's (intentional) dithering in enforcing lockdown measures. But looking back, the lack of preparation beforehand was scandalous. We watched this happen in China or over 2 months, but it wasnt until things got bad in Italy before we decided we needed ventilators and upscale testing. Had we just thought about doing this a bit earlier we'd have a better handle on this situation.
Watched an interesting TED talk from Bill Gates the other day - it was from about 5 years ago after the Ebola outbreak where he basically said we are terribly unprepared for a pandemic. Scary how right he was.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes incredibly unprepared. Imagine a new virus a bit more deadly (not hard to imagine as there are many) but with a similar R0 to Covid-19 - society would crumble in a matter of months.
It has never been clearer that the current system is outdated and not fit for purpose.
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 2 hours ago
I suppose really these measures can only be lifted once we are testing in sufficient enough numbers to give us an actual clear picture of the situation - and by testing that includes both antigen and antibody. As it is we're running blindfolded into a battlefield.
Ultimately, that's been my main problem with how this has been handled. I think I'm in the minority who didnt really have a problem when it came to the government's (intentional) dithering in enforcing lockdown measures. But looking back, the lack of preparation beforehand was scandalous. We watched this happen in China or over 2 months, but it wasnt until things got bad in Italy before we decided we needed ventilators and upscale testing. Had we just thought about doing this a bit earlier we'd have a better handle on this situation.
Watched an interesting TED talk from Bill Gates the other day - it was from about 5 years ago after the Ebola outbreak where he basically said we are terribly unprepared for a pandemic. Scary how right he was.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That has been the most shocking thing about all this to me. In a time when we are told terrorism is at an all time level of threat and that biological weapons are possible it turns out our nation's have zero plans in place to combat such situations even for a month.
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Ole's joy Manticore (U2958)
posted 3 hours, 15 minutes ago
These thought process are all well and good until a member of your family gets ill, or a member of a friend's family... Then it is no longer interesting and becomes very, very real.
I think too many people are looking at stats and trying to manage this rather than thinking about the consequences of being part of a society that knowingly killed off parts of a generation. This is much easier to do when those numbers are just on a screen, not someone you know.
The more we try and juggle the virus and the economy, the more likely those numbers start involving people you know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We knowingly kill millions as a society every year.
comment by Cinciwolf----JA606 NFL Fantasy Champion 2019----No Emotional Attachments....five long years (U11551)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Ole's joy Manticore (U2958)
posted 3 hours, 15 minutes ago
These thought process are all well and good until a member of your family gets ill, or a member of a friend's family... Then it is no longer interesting and becomes very, very real.
I think too many people are looking at stats and trying to manage this rather than thinking about the consequences of being part of a society that knowingly killed off parts of a generation. This is much easier to do when those numbers are just on a screen, not someone you know.
The more we try and juggle the virus and the economy, the more likely those numbers start involving people you know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We knowingly kill millions as a society every year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We have allowed genocides when it doesn't involve oil
comment by Kunta Kante (U1641)
posted 3 hours, 42 minutes ago
‘Sweden cannot take draconian measures that have a limited impact on the epidemic but knock out the functions of society," stated its public health secretary Johan Carlson last week, saying out loud what so many are thinking: That the horse has already bolted, a vaccine is probably 18 months away, the coming weeks and months will inevitably overwhelm national health systems, but that far more lives and livelihoods will be destroyed as a result of shutting entire industries than lives lost to this virus.
This a disease, now all-but over in the country it hit first, that has killed 25,237 people worldwide over three months. Every year, mosquitoes kill 130,000 people over that same time-frame. Recessions kill too, albeit in a longer, more drawn-out ordeal - and that’s exactly what Sweden is so wary of.
Sweden has currently recorded 3,046 cases of coronavirus; compared to 3,687 in next door Norway. Since Norway entered lockdown two weeks ago, their unemployment rate has quadrupled. In Sweden, bars and restaurants have stayed open - table service only, to limit crowding - only gatherings of more than 50 have been banned, and schools remain in tact for under the 16s. Life there remains relatively normal.’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/27/swedens-resistance-lockdown-raises-questions-tough-approach/#comments
Interesting
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They’re playing Russian roulette.
Sign in if you want to comment
cost of life breaking point
Page 5 of 5
posted on 30/3/20
comment by RB&W 'The Judge' (U21434)
posted 18 minutes ago
''It's easier to con (sic) a man than convince him that he's been conned (sic)"
+++
This saying in no more evident than within the pages and pages the clueless comments you can read daily on discussion website such as this one
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So true its not even funny.
posted on 30/3/20
‘Sweden cannot take draconian measures that have a limited impact on the epidemic but knock out the functions of society," stated its public health secretary Johan Carlson last week, saying out loud what so many are thinking: That the horse has already bolted, a vaccine is probably 18 months away, the coming weeks and months will inevitably overwhelm national health systems, but that far more lives and livelihoods will be destroyed as a result of shutting entire industries than lives lost to this virus.
This a disease, now all-but over in the country it hit first, that has killed 25,237 people worldwide over three months. Every year, mosquitoes kill 130,000 people over that same time-frame. Recessions kill too, albeit in a longer, more drawn-out ordeal - and that’s exactly what Sweden is so wary of.
Sweden has currently recorded 3,046 cases of coronavirus; compared to 3,687 in next door Norway. Since Norway entered lockdown two weeks ago, their unemployment rate has quadrupled. In Sweden, bars and restaurants have stayed open - table service only, to limit crowding - only gatherings of more than 50 have been banned, and schools remain in tact for under the 16s. Life there remains relatively normal.’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/27/swedens-resistance-lockdown-raises-questions-tough-approach/#comments
Interesting
posted on 30/3/20
comment by Cinciwolf----JA606 NFL Fantasy Champion 2019----No Emotional Attachments....five long years (U11551)
posted 7 hours, 51 minutes ago
But countries cannot remain locked down like this for a year. Half the population would be homeless and unable to eat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This already reported to be happening in India after a few days. It will be tough for less and moderately economically developed countries to tackle this with a lockdown, India doubly effected with such densely populated cities.
posted on 30/3/20
comment by Kunta Kante (U1641)
posted 4 minutes ago
‘Sweden cannot take draconian measures that have a limited impact on the epidemic but knock out the functions of society," stated its public health secretary Johan Carlson last week, saying out loud what so many are thinking: That the horse has already bolted, a vaccine is probably 18 months away, the coming weeks and months will inevitably overwhelm national health systems, but that far more lives and livelihoods will be destroyed as a result of shutting entire industries than lives lost to this virus.
This a disease, now all-but over in the country it hit first, that has killed 25,237 people worldwide over three months. Every year, mosquitoes kill 130,000 people over that same time-frame. Recessions kill too, albeit in a longer, more drawn-out ordeal - and that’s exactly what Sweden is so wary of.
Sweden has currently recorded 3,046 cases of coronavirus; compared to 3,687 in next door Norway. Since Norway entered lockdown two weeks ago, their unemployment rate has quadrupled. In Sweden, bars and restaurants have stayed open - table service only, to limit crowding - only gatherings of more than 50 have been banned, and schools remain in tact for under the 16s. Life there remains relatively normal.’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/27/swedens-resistance-lockdown-raises-questions-tough-approach/#comments
Interesting
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is very interesting. Once the likes of the NHS Nightingale and their like are built around the UK and private companies have built respirators (apparently soon to be 1000 a week) I can see people being told to manage the risk more than now within a 3-4 month period - might be the tough choice the economy/society has to make to keep the wheels moving.
posted on 30/3/20
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 24 minutes ago
Severe economic damage also costs lives, so this is a genuine topic to discuss. However, in the current concrete situation, I'm not sure the 'accept more deaths as a price worth paying to protect the economy' works. While we have a temporary crisis that's so bad we effectively have to shut down all non-essential parts of the economy and switch to a socialist command economy, insofar as this is done effectively, the economic impact doesn't cost lives. Food and medicine continue to reach people. As long as this is measured in months, not years, people aren't going to die from this kind of economic inactivity. Start up economic activity prematurely and another spike in infections will cause more deaths and, yes, more economic damage.
When you don't have a command economy that ensures everyone has the essentials, then much less severe economic downturns can kill. For instance, research suggests that the austerity period killed far more people in the UK than the Covid-19 death toll (based on current estimates).
This isn't an argument for a long-term command economy, by the way. We should all know the flaws in that model. A well-regulated mixed economy provides the best of both worlds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. The authorities have the info and stats so they should be able to know when/if breaking point is being reached. If it comes to it then too early is a mistake but too late is also a mistake.
posted on 30/3/20
These thought process are all well and good until a member of your family gets ill, or a member of a friend's family... Then it is no longer interesting and becomes very, very real.
I think too many people are looking at stats and trying to manage this rather than thinking about the consequences of being part of a society that knowingly killed off parts of a generation. This is much easier to do when those numbers are just on a screen, not someone you know.
The more we try and juggle the virus and the economy, the more likely those numbers start involving people you know.
posted on 30/3/20
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Ole's joy Manticore (U2958)
posted 3 minutes ago
These thought process are all well and good until a member of your family gets ill, or a member of a friend's family... Then it is no longer interesting and becomes very, very real.
I think too many people are looking at stats and trying to manage this rather than thinking about the consequences of being part of a society that knowingly killed off parts of a generation. This is much easier to do when those numbers are just on a screen, not someone you know.
The more we try and juggle the virus and the economy, the more likely those numbers start involving people you know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It works both ways
I have a family member who is isolated and their mental health is suffering to a huge degree and I worry more about potential suicide more than I do about them getting Coronavirus.
I know that’s an extreme example but there are more potential casualties to this than just the ones dying from the virus. A balance will eventually have to be struck to manage the risks to all the outcomes of this
posted on 30/3/20
and I bet it drives you mad that number punchers in the government make stat based decisions on mental health. I know i get mad about that, because it's also an issue close to my heart.
This is why governments are taking this very seriously... They know they can't just let a generation die off, because that affects almost everyone in society.
posted on 30/3/20
I think it’s a bit extreme to say a ‘generation’ will die off - that isn’t helpful as it turns a very logical argument into an instant worst case scenario when it’s not definitely going to turn out that way
The government are right to be careful - of course - but there’s an argument to be made that being too careful/cautious can be counter productive and once this is all over it’ll be interesting to see what countries approaches were the correct ones. Might be a blueprint for any future pandemics.
posted on 30/3/20
Using the language of ‘killing off’ is also a bit extreme. It is a contagious viral infection that kills people, not anyone else. On the contrary managing this by emotion on an individual level unfortunately isn’t the most beneficial way to tackle it.
posted on 30/3/20
comment by Kunta Kante (U1641)
posted 1 minute ago
Using the language of ‘killing off’ is also a bit extreme. It is a contagious viral infection that kills people, not anyone else. On the contrary managing this by emotion on an individual level unfortunately isn’t the most beneficial way to tackle it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure the government will find a nice phrase that will make you comfortable.
But... Putting people back to work too early will literally be killing more people off.
posted on 30/3/20
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Ole's joy Manticore (U2958)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Kunta Kante (U1641)
posted 1 minute ago
Using the language of ‘killing off’ is also a bit extreme. It is a contagious viral infection that kills people, not anyone else. On the contrary managing this by emotion on an individual level unfortunately isn’t the most beneficial way to tackle it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure the government will find a nice phrase that will make you comfortable.
But... Putting people back to work too early will literally be killing more people off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or having people stay off work for long enough might lead to another period of austerity which will lead to people dying off
It’s a balancing act
posted on 30/3/20
We're better off being over cautious now and learn that we were. An economy can recover a dead person can't.
posted on 30/3/20
If we’re sticking with this idea of thinking about this as killing others, you also kill others if you do not protect the economy. A member of a family, a member of a friend’s family. Like Robb said, it goes both ways. And it’s important to at least appreciate the need for a balance. If you care about the health of others or as you out it, about killing others, both sides intrinsically have to be considered, no ifs or buts.
posted on 30/3/20
*put it
comment by kneerash-23 Cara Gold (U6876)
posted 2 seconds ago
We're better off being over cautious now and learn that we were. An economy can recover a dead person can't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly, a dead person can’t which is why it is important to consider the economy, otherwise you will have more dead people, more people with chronic health conditions, more people with social issues needing state support.
posted on 30/3/20
comment by Robb, the fourth husband of Joe Exotic (U22311)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Ole's joy Manticore (U2958)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Kunta Kante (U1641)
posted 1 minute ago
Using the language of ‘killing off’ is also a bit extreme. It is a contagious viral infection that kills people, not anyone else. On the contrary managing this by emotion on an individual level unfortunately isn’t the most beneficial way to tackle it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure the government will find a nice phrase that will make you comfortable.
But... Putting people back to work too early will literally be killing more people off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or having people stay off work for long enough might lead to another period of austerity which will lead to people dying off
It’s a balancing act
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At this stage it seems more like trying to win a game of chicken with no brakes on a one way street. Perhaps it's the game that's the problem here
posted on 30/3/20
comment by Kunta Kante (U1641)
posted 1 minute ago
If we’re sticking with this idea of thinking about this as killing others, you also kill others if you do not protect the economy. A member of a family, a member of a friend’s family. Like Robb said, it goes both ways. And it’s important to at least appreciate the need for a balance. If you care about the health of others or as you out it, about killing others, both sides intrinsically have to be considered, no ifs or buts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
or we could, maybe, try and use this as a way to find a solution where we don't have to choose between one death over another.
The idea that austerity causes death depends very much on the rules placed by the government in power.
posted on 30/3/20
I suppose really these measures can only be lifted once we are testing in sufficient enough numbers to give us an actual clear picture of the situation - and by testing that includes both antigen and antibody. As it is we're running blindfolded into a battlefield.
Ultimately, that's been my main problem with how this has been handled. I think I'm in the minority who didnt really have a problem when it came to the government's (intentional) dithering in enforcing lockdown measures. But looking back, the lack of preparation beforehand was scandalous. We watched this happen in China or over 2 months, but it wasnt until things got bad in Italy before we decided we needed ventilators and upscale testing. Had we just thought about doing this a bit earlier we'd have a better handle on this situation.
Watched an interesting TED talk from Bill Gates the other day - it was from about 5 years ago after the Ebola outbreak where he basically said we are terribly unprepared for a pandemic. Scary how right he was.
posted on 30/3/20
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 7 minutes ago
I suppose really these measures can only be lifted once we are testing in sufficient enough numbers to give us an actual clear picture of the situation - and by testing that includes both antigen and antibody. As it is we're running blindfolded into a battlefield.
Ultimately, that's been my main problem with how this has been handled. I think I'm in the minority who didnt really have a problem when it came to the government's (intentional) dithering in enforcing lockdown measures. But looking back, the lack of preparation beforehand was scandalous. We watched this happen in China or over 2 months, but it wasnt until things got bad in Italy before we decided we needed ventilators and upscale testing. Had we just thought about doing this a bit earlier we'd have a better handle on this situation.
Watched an interesting TED talk from Bill Gates the other day - it was from about 5 years ago after the Ebola outbreak where he basically said we are terribly unprepared for a pandemic. Scary how right he was.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes incredibly unprepared. Imagine a new virus a bit more deadly (not hard to imagine as there are many) but with a similar R0 to Covid-19 - society would crumble in a matter of months.
It has never been clearer that the current system is outdated and not fit for purpose.
posted on 30/3/20
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 2 hours ago
I suppose really these measures can only be lifted once we are testing in sufficient enough numbers to give us an actual clear picture of the situation - and by testing that includes both antigen and antibody. As it is we're running blindfolded into a battlefield.
Ultimately, that's been my main problem with how this has been handled. I think I'm in the minority who didnt really have a problem when it came to the government's (intentional) dithering in enforcing lockdown measures. But looking back, the lack of preparation beforehand was scandalous. We watched this happen in China or over 2 months, but it wasnt until things got bad in Italy before we decided we needed ventilators and upscale testing. Had we just thought about doing this a bit earlier we'd have a better handle on this situation.
Watched an interesting TED talk from Bill Gates the other day - it was from about 5 years ago after the Ebola outbreak where he basically said we are terribly unprepared for a pandemic. Scary how right he was.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That has been the most shocking thing about all this to me. In a time when we are told terrorism is at an all time level of threat and that biological weapons are possible it turns out our nation's have zero plans in place to combat such situations even for a month.
posted on 30/3/20
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Ole's joy Manticore (U2958)
posted 3 hours, 15 minutes ago
These thought process are all well and good until a member of your family gets ill, or a member of a friend's family... Then it is no longer interesting and becomes very, very real.
I think too many people are looking at stats and trying to manage this rather than thinking about the consequences of being part of a society that knowingly killed off parts of a generation. This is much easier to do when those numbers are just on a screen, not someone you know.
The more we try and juggle the virus and the economy, the more likely those numbers start involving people you know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We knowingly kill millions as a society every year.
posted on 30/3/20
comment by Cinciwolf----JA606 NFL Fantasy Champion 2019----No Emotional Attachments....five long years (U11551)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Ole's joy Manticore (U2958)
posted 3 hours, 15 minutes ago
These thought process are all well and good until a member of your family gets ill, or a member of a friend's family... Then it is no longer interesting and becomes very, very real.
I think too many people are looking at stats and trying to manage this rather than thinking about the consequences of being part of a society that knowingly killed off parts of a generation. This is much easier to do when those numbers are just on a screen, not someone you know.
The more we try and juggle the virus and the economy, the more likely those numbers start involving people you know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We knowingly kill millions as a society every year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We have allowed genocides when it doesn't involve oil
posted on 30/3/20
comment by Kunta Kante (U1641)
posted 3 hours, 42 minutes ago
‘Sweden cannot take draconian measures that have a limited impact on the epidemic but knock out the functions of society," stated its public health secretary Johan Carlson last week, saying out loud what so many are thinking: That the horse has already bolted, a vaccine is probably 18 months away, the coming weeks and months will inevitably overwhelm national health systems, but that far more lives and livelihoods will be destroyed as a result of shutting entire industries than lives lost to this virus.
This a disease, now all-but over in the country it hit first, that has killed 25,237 people worldwide over three months. Every year, mosquitoes kill 130,000 people over that same time-frame. Recessions kill too, albeit in a longer, more drawn-out ordeal - and that’s exactly what Sweden is so wary of.
Sweden has currently recorded 3,046 cases of coronavirus; compared to 3,687 in next door Norway. Since Norway entered lockdown two weeks ago, their unemployment rate has quadrupled. In Sweden, bars and restaurants have stayed open - table service only, to limit crowding - only gatherings of more than 50 have been banned, and schools remain in tact for under the 16s. Life there remains relatively normal.’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/27/swedens-resistance-lockdown-raises-questions-tough-approach/#comments
Interesting
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They’re playing Russian roulette.
Page 5 of 5