Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 03-25-2020, 07:21 AM
polar bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,169
The economy does not mean money per se, it is about producing goods and services and trading these.

If there are companies going under at a large scale...there will be no jobs to get back to and no goods or services being produced to buy with money you do have.

I'm not saying this is what Trump is actually worried about. But the lack of willingness here on the dope to see the point that is being made, and the fact it might be something to consider, is astounding. Also, very much driven by a dislike of the people saying it.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn moto g(6) met Tapatalk
  #52  
Old 03-25-2020, 07:35 AM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by polar bear View Post
The economy does not mean money per se, it is about producing goods and services and trading these.

If there are companies going under at a large scale...there will be no jobs to get back to and no goods or services being produced to buy with money you do have.

I'm not saying this is what Trump is actually worried about. But the lack of willingness here on the dope to see the point that is being made, and the fact it might be something to consider, is astounding. Also, very much driven by a dislike of the people saying it.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn moto g(6) met Tapatalk
Is the only way to save the economy to ignore the coronavirus, let it do it’s thing, and if some of us die that may have otherwise lived, tough cookies? That’s basically the argument Dan Patrick and Glenn Beck are making.

ETA. If the shoe were on the other foot, my guess is those on the left would still hold the same position. A President Clinton making the Dam Patrick argument would lose so badly this fall that even Walter Mondale could point at her loss and laugh about how well he did in comparison.

Last edited by FlikTheBlue; 03-25-2020 at 07:38 AM.
  #53  
Old 03-25-2020, 07:42 AM
msmith537 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 28,005
Rephrase the question - Are you willing to go to work (along with everyone else) with the understanding that there would be a much higher chance of catching the virus and not being able to get life-saving treatment if you need it?
  #54  
Old 03-25-2020, 07:55 AM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
Rephrase the question - Are you willing to go to work (along with everyone else) with the understanding that there would be a much higher chance of catching the virus and not being able to get life-saving treatment if you need it?
In my case I'll be going to work either way since I am a nursing home doctor. The nurses, aides, and other staff that are essential will of course be at work as well. Our job of keeping the residents alive and in the best health possible will become a lot more difficult (and dangerous, possibly life threatening) if we start seeing a flood of elderly patients with Covid-19 who caught the virus because they went about there normal everyday business in an attempt to "save the economy." It would not help us one bit.
  #55  
Old 03-25-2020, 08:57 AM
Oredigger77 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Back at 5,280
Posts: 5,420
I had this conversation with my 70 year old father with an auto immune disease and I'm ok with him dying to not mortgage my daughters future. I don't have to go out to the greater public any more than I am currently so its hard for me to say I'd risk myself. In general my wife and I would be ok going back to living our normal life knowing there was a 20% chance of dying in exchange not having a 10+ trillion dollar debt that will impact my daughters their whole lives.

I think the answer is I'd be ok with dying for the economy but that feels wrong.
  #56  
Old 03-25-2020, 09:00 AM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oredigger77 View Post
I had this conversation with my 70 year old father with an auto immune disease and I'm ok with him dying to not mortgage my daughters future. I don't have to go out to the greater public any more than I am currently so its hard for me to say I'd risk myself. In general my wife and I would be ok going back to living our normal life knowing there was a 20% chance of dying in exchange not having a 10+ trillion dollar debt that will impact my daughters their whole lives.

I think the answer is I'd be ok with dying for the economy but that feels wrong.
Would you be ok with isolating yourself should you catch Covid-19, and not seeking treatment even in the event that your case was a serious one? No snark intended. This is a genuine question.
  #57  
Old 03-25-2020, 09:21 AM
The wind of my soul is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 2,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by DinoR View Post
In general, yes.

Recessions and depressions kill people. Those deaths are less direct and harder to count than deaths from the disease but they are no less real. The lockdown orders that harm the economy also increase social isolation. That social isolation kills people. The question is really about my willingness to risk my own death to save others. That is clearly a yes. I am thankful that there are people right now treating the sick and stocking shelves at the grocery stores with answers similar to mine.

That does not mean that I want to maximize the risks or walk into a wood chipper to merely save people from discomfort. We should be smart and mitigate risks as a society to try and minimize deaths overall. Minimizing deaths overall is not the same as minimizing deaths directly from the disease. We should not delude ourselves that it is.
Thank you, because I've been struggling to figure out how to express my thoughts on this and I think you've done a pretty good job here. I think the idea of damaging the economy to save lives is implicitly expressed as "the coronavirus kills people; a temporary reduction of income is simply an inconvenience -- a serious inconvenience, sure, but it doesn't kill people."

But from what I've read, this isn't true. Coronavirus directly kills people, but poverty indirectly does. The fact that the poor have less access to quality healthcare is so generally accepted that I don't think it even needs a cite, but I will also add that the stresses present in the lives of people living in poverty also contribute to poor health. As Bruce D. Perry writes in his book Born for Love, "It turns out that the impact of stress on health -- and the way it is affected by hierarchies -- is most related to the amount of control you have over your circumstances and work. What's most stressful is not being in charge and taking responsibility for big decisions -- but instead, being held accountable for outcomes over which you have little or no control." And "The risks for heart disease, stroke, depression, diabetes, asthma, and even many cancers are all affected by trauma-related changes in the stress response system."

So I think the question posed in the OP is worded in such a way to get people to respond along the lines of "No, of course I don't want to offer up my life just so someone else can still take their annual vacation to Europe." But I think a more accurate representation of the current situation would be to ask, "At what point is our desire to stop the current disease threat from spreading going to cause long-term damages to Americans health that is equivalent to the damage the virus is causing?" Shutting businesses down for a week or two probably won't cause an irreversible downward spiral to the economy, and likely will help American hospital systems to maintain the resources needed to help individuals who do get sick. But if businesses are shut down all summer, it may do so much damage to the economy that the lives it saves from the Coronavirus aren't worse the lives it sacrifices to the long-term damaging effects of poverty.

I don't know what the critical threshold is, for the point at which shutting businesses down causes more damage than it alleviates. But I do think we should acknowledge that the threshold is there.
  #58  
Old 03-25-2020, 09:38 AM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oredigger77 View Post
I had this conversation with my 70 year old father with an auto immune disease and I'm ok with him dying to not mortgage my daughters future.
How does he feel about it?

Quote:
I don't have to go out to the greater public any more than I am currently so its hard for me to say I'd risk myself.
I don't get what you are saying here. Do you never go out? You never go to the store? You never run errands? You never go to the movies? You never go out to eat? Your spouse never does these things? You never have visitors who do these things? It may be hard for you to say you'd risk yourself, but you most certainly will if things go back to normal.

Quote:
In general my wife and I would be ok going back to living our normal life knowing there was a 20% chance of dying in exchange not having a 10+ trillion dollar debt that will impact my daughters their whole lives.
I don't get this either. Let's say we were embroiled in another world war and it was estimated to cost $10 trillion to defend the homeland. Would you be willing to let our country be occupied by a foreign power just to spare your daughter from having to take on debt? If there was a 20% chance that you could be killed by bombs dropping on you if we didn't go to war, would you take that chance just so your daughter wouldn't have to pay more in taxes?

It is easy to say you'd rather die than burden your daughter. But let's say you don't die from COVID-19. You just become crippled from it. So crippled that you cannot take of yourself and it falls on your daughter to take care of you (or at least worry about you). Is that a better deal for your daughter than her having a healthy father in exchange for paying more in taxes?

Quote:
I think the answer is I'd be ok with dying for the economy but that feels wrong.
Perhaps it is because you know it is wrong.

I could imagine my father having your viewpoint, playing the "I'm thinking about my daughter's future!" card. But as the daughter, I think that's some bullshit. If I lose my good job and end up picking cotton for a living, I will be alright as long as I have loving people in my life. But I'd be forever crushed knowing that my father died because his life was deemed worthless by greedy capitalists.
  #59  
Old 03-25-2020, 09:42 AM
ftg's Avatar
ftg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 21,694
The Glenn Beck thing and such reminds me of the phrase "chicken hawks" to describe pro-military intervention people who never served.

Time to think of an equivalent phrase for those who say they don't care about getting Covid-19 but actually take steps to avoid it. Where's that new coinages thead ... ?
  #60  
Old 03-25-2020, 09:44 AM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
Rephrase the question - Are you willing to go to work (along with everyone else) with the understanding that there would be a much higher chance of catching the virus and not being able to get life-saving treatment if you need it?
Another related question:

Are you willing to drive knowing you (and your children) will have a much higher chance of dying or becoming permanently crippled if you get into a car accident?
  #61  
Old 03-25-2020, 09:52 AM
Kovitlac is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 600
Unless something just changed, I'm pretty sure South Dakota and Nebraska are doing the same. I know the gov of SD is insisting she doesn't have the power to mandate closed businesses and stay-at-home orders, while cities are saying she does.

Honestly, I totally get the shutting down of malls and other public areas. But I'm questioning what good stay at home orders really do. There are going to be people on the road regardless - essential workers, people going to get food or gas, going to the pharmacy, vet and doctor appointments, etc. Unless you're pulling over everyone and demanding to know their excuse for being outside, you can't enforce a stay at home order. So really, telling people they really SHOULD stay at home has the same effect as demanding that they do so. Again, unless you're wasting a significant level of police resources to constantly pull people over.

Just my two cents, I guess. I want people to stay healthy, and I don't want to see people dying. I also don't want the economy to completely crash and burn. It's easy to say lives over money, and I do believe that to be true, but I also don't think it's quite that simple.
  #62  
Old 03-25-2020, 09:57 AM
cmosdes is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by The wind of my soul View Post
Thank you, because I've been struggling to figure out how to express my thoughts on this and I think you've done a pretty good job here. I think the idea of damaging the economy to save lives is implicitly expressed as "the coronavirus kills people; a temporary reduction of income is simply an inconvenience -- a serious inconvenience, sure, but it doesn't kill people."

But from what I've read, this isn't true. Coronavirus directly kills people, but poverty indirectly does. The fact that the poor have less access to quality healthcare is so generally accepted that I don't think it even needs a cite, but I will also add that the stresses present in the lives of people living in poverty also contribute to poor health. As Bruce D. Perry writes in his book Born for Love, "It turns out that the impact of stress on health -- and the way it is affected by hierarchies -- is most related to the amount of control you have over your circumstances and work. What's most stressful is not being in charge and taking responsibility for big decisions -- but instead, being held accountable for outcomes over which you have little or no control." And "The risks for heart disease, stroke, depression, diabetes, asthma, and even many cancers are all affected by trauma-related changes in the stress response system."

So I think the question posed in the OP is worded in such a way to get people to respond along the lines of "No, of course I don't want to offer up my life just so someone else can still take their annual vacation to Europe." But I think a more accurate representation of the current situation would be to ask, "At what point is our desire to stop the current disease threat from spreading going to cause long-term damages to Americans health that is equivalent to the damage the virus is causing?" Shutting businesses down for a week or two probably won't cause an irreversible downward spiral to the economy, and likely will help American hospital systems to maintain the resources needed to help individuals who do get sick. But if businesses are shut down all summer, it may do so much damage to the economy that the lives it saves from the Coronavirus aren't worse the lives it sacrifices to the long-term damaging effects of poverty.

I don't know what the critical threshold is, for the point at which shutting businesses down causes more damage than it alleviates. But I do think we should acknowledge that the threshold is there.
Yeah, I tried that argument a week ago and was derided and called unscientific and unworthy of discussion. Good luck with that on this board.
  #63  
Old 03-25-2020, 10:01 AM
RickJay is online now
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 42,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoneyBadgerDC View Post
All indicators at this point are leaning toward incredibly low percentages of people getting real sick when factoring in estimates of not diagnosed cases. The fear of this virus is far beyond the actual threat. Italy has about 30,000,000 old people I think I read somewhere.
If by "old" you mean retirement age, of course they don't.

As to the percentage of people who get real sick, you're right in that it's a low percentage of people who contract the virus. The problem with COVID-19 is that it is shockingly contagious. Even if the percentage of people who get very sick is quite low - five percent would be a very, very low guess - if one hundred million Americans get the virus in the next three months it will hopelessly overload the capacity of the health care industry to treat them. That's five million people. America has just 100,000 ICU beds, and most are occupied by patients with other problems.

The Republican / Fox News idea of "well, it's just old people that will die" keeps missing this point. It's just not true. Old people would die disproportionately, but the potential for this to kill thousands of people who aren't old is there. If a few million people are extremely sick all at once, the health care system simply could not adequately help them all. Furthermore, the health care system would be too taxed to help people with other stuff; people are still going to have cancer, heart disease, kidney disease. They're still going to get meningitis and influenza and staph infections. They're still going to get into car accidents, and have bad falls, and get hurt at work. If the hospitals are jammed to the rafters with COVID-19 patients, those people have a chance of not getting the level of care they need.

I am on the record many times as saying that when they say 50,000 people die a year of seasonal flu it's just not true; they rope in everyone who died who had flu, even if they largely died of something else, and even people who died with flu-like symptoms but who were never diagnosed with flu. To know how many people the flu REALLY killed you'd have to do a statistical study of increased mortality where you look at everyone who had flu, categorize them by comorbidities, and determine how many people died above how many people would have died anyway. You'd end up with a number more like a few thousand.

But if COVID-19 gets out of control, you are going to see the other side of that; people will die who would not have died who had some OTHER health problem. In a health care system swamped with COVID-19 patients, you will see increased mortality in patients with heart attacks, cancer, kidney disease, strokes, etc.

And of course the mortality rate from COVID-19 itself will be way higher if they're swamped. Most people with COVID-19 can be saved; there is no cure, but a person with proper medical attention will almost always pull through. But if the hallways are jammed and the equipment is insufficient and the doctors and nurses are dropping from exhaustion, not everyone will get the care they need and people will die for no good reason.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #64  
Old 03-25-2020, 10:03 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rural Western PA
Posts: 34,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
Would you be ok with isolating yourself should you catch Covid-19, and not seeking treatment even in the event that your case was a serious one? No snark intended. This is a genuine question.
There is currently some tension at home over this question. For years, I have had Advanced Directives written up that eschew most forms of life support, allowing only meds to minimize pain. I worry that my wishes would not be followed in a hospital setting.

I've decided in advance that if I "get the virus" I will not seek medical care. My gf is very unhappy with my attitude.
  #65  
Old 03-25-2020, 10:17 AM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovitlac
Honestly, I totally get the shutting down of malls and other public areas. But I'm questioning what good stay at home orders really do. There are going to be people on the road regardless - essential workers, people going to get food or gas, going to the pharmacy, vet and doctor appointments, etc.
I don't know where you live, but where I live the streets are pretty damn empty. We aren't even under a shelter-in-place order and yet people are largely staying home and not galavanting around town like everything is normal. There will always be someone driving around. That goes without saying. We are just trying to slow the infection rate. Even an imperfectly enforced shelter-in-place order will achieve this since there are always enough law-abiding citizens that will comply with it without the need for enforcement.

The question in my mind isn't whether shelter-in-place orders do anything. I think they do something. But whether they go far enough still remains to be seen. I can imagine that in some areas, it is an adequate strategy for mitigation as long as there are a critical mass of law-abiding folks. But it probably won't be enough for a city like NYC to prevent high mortality. However, does that mean NYC would be better off without a shelter-in-place order? Of course not. Not good enough is better than doing nothing.
  #66  
Old 03-25-2020, 10:21 AM
cmosdes is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
If by "old" you mean retirement age, of course they don't.

As to the percentage of people who get real sick, you're right in that it's a low percentage of people who contract the virus. The problem with COVID-19 is that it is shockingly contagious. Even if the percentage of people who get very sick is quite low - five percent would be a very, very low guess - if one hundred million Americans get the virus in the next three months it will hopelessly overload the capacity of the health care industry to treat them. That's five million people. America has just 100,000 ICU beds, and most are occupied by patients with other problems.

The Republican / Fox News idea of "well, it's just old people that will die" keeps missing this point. It's just not true. Old people would die disproportionately, but the potential for this to kill thousands of people who aren't old is there. If a few million people are extremely sick all at once, the health care system simply could not adequately help them all. Furthermore, the health care system would be too taxed to help people with other stuff; people are still going to have cancer, heart disease, kidney disease. They're still going to get meningitis and influenza and staph infections. They're still going to get into car accidents, and have bad falls, and get hurt at work. If the hospitals are jammed to the rafters with COVID-19 patients, those people have a chance of not getting the level of care they need.

I am on the record many times as saying that when they say 50,000 people die a year of seasonal flu it's just not true; they rope in everyone who died who had flu, even if they largely died of something else, and even people who died with flu-like symptoms but who were never diagnosed with flu. To know how many people the flu REALLY killed you'd have to do a statistical study of increased mortality where you look at everyone who had flu, categorize them by comorbidities, and determine how many people died above how many people would have died anyway. You'd end up with a number more like a few thousand.

But if COVID-19 gets out of control, you are going to see the other side of that; people will die who would not have died who had some OTHER health problem. In a health care system swamped with COVID-19 patients, you will see increased mortality in patients with heart attacks, cancer, kidney disease, strokes, etc.

And of course the mortality rate from COVID-19 itself will be way higher if they're swamped. Most people with COVID-19 can be saved; there is no cure, but a person with proper medical attention will almost always pull through. But if the hallways are jammed and the equipment is insufficient and the doctors and nurses are dropping from exhaustion, not everyone will get the care they need and people will die for no good reason.
According to here the US has maybe 60,000 ICU beds. The others are for neonatal, burn care, pediatric and other critical care needs. Which goes to your point that we will overwhelm the medical system.

At an extreme just to illustrate a concept, if we overwhelm our system with 100,000 patients (of all types, COVID, heart attack, etc.) in a week and then a steady stream of 50,000 patients after that, we will lose 40,000 patients in that one week. After that, we save as many as possible.

If, on the other hand, we have a steady stream of 70,000 patients for 10 weeks, we will lose 100,000 patients.

Again, I'm not trying to put real numbers to any of this, I'm illustrating a point. The smart people looked at all this and said we will overrun our medical systems regardless of what we do, but we can cut the number of deaths in half. As this progresses, I'm hoping that analysis will be continually updated to reflect the latest information. At some point, it might actually save lives to let the system get massively overwhelmed for a short period of time.
  #67  
Old 03-25-2020, 10:26 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 30,058
Quote:
Are you willing to die from Covid 19 to help the economy?
Hell, no.

I want to live.

That said, by going to work I am running some risk, but I'm doing that for my local community, for PEOPLE, not for Wall Street or oligarchs I will never meet.
  #68  
Old 03-25-2020, 11:21 AM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,482
I think the federal government should consider the following proposal.

Send out forms to every household, enough for every adult. On the form would be the following:

"For the sake of this country's economy, I, <state your name>, volunteer to forfeit my right to receive hospital care, including emergency room services, over the next 18 months for any reason."

Folks who sign, notarize, and send these forms back to the federal government will have their names entered into a national database. The database will be accessible by all hospitals in the country. If your name is in the database, you will not receive treatment...no matter how much you beg for mercy. If you somehow slip through the cracks and end up with a bed, it would be legal for the hospital to kick you out once they find out you're in the database.

I wonder how many people would sign up for this? If it's in the millions, I think it would be a proposal worth considering.

But I don't think it would be in the millions. I think if the government tried to do something like this, it would skeeve people out. Even people like Glenn Beck.
  #69  
Old 03-25-2020, 11:25 AM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
There is currently some tension at home over this question. For years, I have had Advanced Directives written up that eschew most forms of life support, allowing only meds to minimize pain. I worry that my wishes would not be followed in a hospital setting.

I've decided in advance that if I "get the virus" I will not seek medical care. My gf is very unhappy with my attitude.
My sympathies for your situation. If it makes you feel any better, I run into people in similar situations all the time in my line of work as a nursing home doctor. It’s never easy, and often times impossible, to satisfy the desires of everyone involved.
  #70  
Old 03-25-2020, 12:00 PM
VOW is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: NE AZ
Posts: 3,898
No.

Absolutely no.

I still have things to do, from the mundane to the...well, mundane. I have three grandkids to whom I need to teach all the family stories. There are boxes and boxes of pictures still unlabeled. I want to learn how to quilt.

But on behalf of the economy, I still have money I need to spend!


~VOW
__________________
Klaatu Barada Nikto
  #71  
Old 03-25-2020, 01:18 PM
cmosdes is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
I think the federal government should consider the following proposal.

Send out forms to every household, enough for every adult. On the form would be the following:

"For the sake of this country's economy, I, <state your name>, volunteer to forfeit my right to receive hospital care, including emergency room services, over the next 18 months for any reason."

Folks who sign, notarize, and send these forms back to the federal government will have their names entered into a national database. The database will be accessible by all hospitals in the country. If your name is in the database, you will not receive treatment...no matter how much you beg for mercy. If you somehow slip through the cracks and end up with a bed, it would be legal for the hospital to kick you out once they find out you're in the database.

I wonder how many people would sign up for this? If it's in the millions, I think it would be a proposal worth considering.

But I don't think it would be in the millions. I think if the government tried to do something like this, it would skeeve people out. Even people like Glenn Beck.
I'll make a counter proposal.

For the sake of this country's elderly and other people needing emergency care, I, <state your name>, volunteer 1/6th of my yearly income immediately, give up my health insurance and employer contributions to retirement, agree to pay out of pocket any immediate medical care I need, even if that totals into the 10s of thousands, and agree to add 15% of my AGI every year to my tax bill until I die as well as that of my kids until they die. I understand that for the next 3 months it is unlikely I will receive emergency medical care in exchange for all this, as the medical system is going to be overloaded regardless. Further, I also understand that in 5 months I will agree to all the conditions again for another 3 months.

If you changed your agreement to be "for the next 3 months" I'd sign it in a heartbeat.
  #72  
Old 03-25-2020, 01:43 PM
beowulff's Avatar
beowulff is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Scottsdale, more-or-less
Posts: 17,291
Glenn Beck says he’d rather die than kill the economy.
For once, I’m in complete agreement with him.
  #73  
Old 03-25-2020, 02:02 PM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
I'll make a counter proposal.

For the sake of this country's elderly and other people needing emergency care, I, <state your name>, volunteer 1/6th of my yearly income immediately, give up my health insurance and employer contributions to retirement, agree to pay out of pocket any immediate medical care I need, even if that totals into the 10s of thousands, and agree to add 15% of my AGI every year to my tax bill until I die as well as that of my kids until they die. I understand that for the next 3 months it is unlikely I will receive emergency medical care in exchange for all this, as the medical system is going to be overloaded regardless. Further, I also understand that in 5 months I will agree to all the conditions again for another 3 months.

If you changed your agreement to be "for the next 3 months" I'd sign it in a heartbeat.
If you added your conditions to the ones in my proposal, would you still sign it? Are you banking on the fantasy that our economy will be wonderful for the indefinite future after Easter Sunday?

I would sign your proposal in exchange for a realistic long-term plan for economic recovery that included universal healthcare and a stronger safety net. I would not sign it unless I got those things, though. As long as I'm paying my insurance premiums, I expect to receive healthcare when I need it at little out of pocket cost. I might not get that healthcare in a worse case scenario. But I am not going to forfeit my right to get that healthcare. Probably because my mother did not raise a fool.

The people who are saying they would be willing to forgo life-saving measures just to save the current economic system are fools, in my humble opinion. These people paid into the system their entire adult lives. They should expect that system to care about them now more than ever.
  #74  
Old 03-25-2020, 02:13 PM
cmosdes is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
If you added your conditions to the ones in my proposal, would you still sign it? Are you banking on the fantasy that our economy will be wonderful for the indefinite future after Easter Sunday?

I would sign your proposal in exchange for a realistic long-term plan for economic recovery that included universal healthcare and a stronger safety net. I would not sign it unless I got those things, though. As long as I'm paying my insurance premiums, I expect to receive healthcare when I need it at little out of pocket cost. I might not get that healthcare in a worse case scenario. But I am not going to forfeit my right to get that healthcare. Probably because my mother did not raise a fool.

The people who are saying they would be willing to forgo life-saving measures just to save the current economic system are fools, in my humble opinion. These people paid into the system their entire adult lives. They should expect that system to care about them now more than ever.
See, for millions upon millions of people in this country if you lose your job you lose your health insurance. And millions are losing their job. So no, you don't get to dictate you will get universal health care and the other stipulations. The proposal I gave you is the exact one we are realistically facing right now. If you want to do this social distancing and shutting down the economy for 2 months, those are the terms of the agreement. No promises of anything long term. Nothing, except the very real threat we will need to do this again in 5 or 6 months.

If you want to pay your own health insurance after losing your job, you are of course free to do so. So amend the agreement to say, "I understand I'm allowed to go buy my own insurance at my own full expense, but I fully realize I likely won't have any access to emergency care." Your dream of having "little out of pocket cost" is a pipe dream. I have decent insurance and in good times if I get sick I'm still paying 90% of the costs, after a few thousand deductible.

Saying you "might not get that healthcare" is also unrealistic. The chances are *extremely* high that in the next few weeks you will not get healthcare if you need it, with or without trashing the economy.

I'm not banking on a rosy economy in the future. But what I see now is millions of people losing their jobs, their incomes, their insurance because we are shutting everything down. That is a fact. It is also very real that we will have to do this again in 5 or 6 months. And then periodically after that.

Last edited by cmosdes; 03-25-2020 at 02:15 PM.
  #75  
Old 03-25-2020, 02:16 PM
Oredigger77 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Back at 5,280
Posts: 5,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
Would you be ok with isolating yourself should you catch Covid-19, and not seeking treatment even in the event that your case was a serious one? No snark intended. This is a genuine question.
In general no. My ability to earn an income for the next 14-17 years will be one of the primary things setting up my daughters to have financial success in the future. I do realize that despite being in my late 30 my BMI is over the recommended amount and so I am likely to be denied a respirator which is why I used the 20% mortality rate not the 1% that we are seeing with proper medical care. If they give me one I'll certainly do what I can to stay alive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
How does he feel about it?
Once I explained it to him in those terms he agreed as well.


Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
I don't get what you are saying here. Do you never go out? You never go to the store? You never run errands? You never go to the movies? You never go out to eat? Your spouse never does these things? You never have visitors who do these things? It may be hard for you to say you'd risk yourself, but you most certainly will if things go back to normal.
What I mean is that my normal job is 70% work from "home" and how so the biggest change in my daily life is a I cancelled a three week trip that included two conferences and 10 days on site with a client. In the previous four months I haven't left my house. It is easy for me to volunteer to go back to work since it doesn't really mean a greater exposure to me normally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
I don't get this either. Let's say we were embroiled in another world war and it was estimated to cost $10 trillion to defend the homeland. Would you be willing to let our country be occupied by a foreign power just to spare your daughter from having to take on debt? If there was a 20% chance that you could be killed by bombs dropping on you if we didn't go to war, would you take that chance just so your daughter wouldn't have to pay more in taxes?
I'd be fine with that if France was trying to take over the US. I don't care who wins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
It is easy to say you'd rather die than burden your daughter. But let's say you don't die from COVID-19. You just become crippled from it. So crippled that you cannot take of yourself and it falls on your daughter to take care of you (or at least worry about you). Is that a better deal for your daughter than her having a healthy father in exchange for paying more in taxes?
If I'm crippled I'll probably kill myself. Is it better for me to be alive than dead? Like I said above I'd rather be alive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
Perhaps it is because you know it is wrong.
No because it is overly broad. Its like saying I love my country sure, in theory, but what I really love is this little piece over here. I've never even been to most of my country. Like wise I don't have any urge to die for the economy in Texas but I'm Ok dying to preserve the parts of the economy which touch my daughter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
I could imagine my father having your viewpoint, playing the "I'm thinking about my daughter's future!" card. But as the daughter, I think that's some bullshit. If I lose my good job and end up picking cotton for a living, I will be alright as long as I have loving people in my life. But I'd be forever crushed knowing that my father died because his life was deemed worthless by greedy capitalists.
My kids are going to have a life without me eventually. I know my dad is most likely not going to live to see 2021. That sucks. It's going to crush me to be without him but it would be much worse to be without him and homeless watching my kids starve. I'm sure my kids would feel the same way.

Last edited by Oredigger77; 03-25-2020 at 02:18 PM.
  #76  
Old 03-25-2020, 02:20 PM
cmosdes is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
But I am not going to forfeit my right to get that healthcare. Probably because my mother did not raise a fool.
Sorry.. I wanted to address this specifically. By sitting on our asses for the next 2 months you have reduced the odds you'll be denied healthcare, but you are still taking a huge risk it won't be available to you because regardless of what path we take, we are going to overwhelm the healthcare system. And, you will be taking that risk for longer. And repeatedly. And without a job. And insurance you'll need to pay for yourself.
  #77  
Old 03-25-2020, 02:27 PM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,111
Add Brit Hume to those who would be willing to die for the economy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.ya...131616086.html
  #78  
Old 03-25-2020, 03:26 PM
Chessic Sense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,793
Absolutely not. I'm a millennial. I'm not supposed to die. This virus wasn't meant for me. Now if I were a boomer, though, I hope I'd do the right thing.
  #79  
Old 03-25-2020, 03:59 PM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Sorry.. I wanted to address this specifically. By sitting on our asses for the next 2 months you have reduced the odds you'll be denied healthcare, but you are still taking a huge risk it won't be available to you because regardless of what path we take, we are going to overwhelm the healthcare system. And, you will be taking that risk for longer. And repeatedly. And without a job. And insurance you'll need to pay for yourself.
And if millions of people are sick, nursing the sick, burying dead, or grieving the dead, I might still lose my job and my insurance and all that shit. Because people who are sick and burdened by the sick aren't going to be spending a lot of money. And dead people don't buy anything.

We don't have to sit on our asses for two months. We could be working 24/7 to build up our hospital bed capacity over the next two months so that only hundreds of people die each day across the country instead of thousands. If the federal government was doing that instead of wasting trillions of dollars on juicing up Wall Street, I wouldn't mind a return to "business as usual" come Easter Sunday. Too bad that ship has already sailed, right? We can't get those trillions of dollars back. Hell, the federal government could have used that money to pay for PPEs for every man, woman, and child so that it would be safe for us to carry on as usual. As Manda JO said, your economy is already a sunk cost. If that flop of a Hail Mary pass to shore up the markets didn't keep up you up at night, I fail to see why you should be panicking now.

The taxpayer has already sacrified plenty to save the economy and look where it has gotten us. It's time the government care about saving the taxpayer and let the economy sort itself out as the free market is supposed to do so well. The reason we will be losing hundreds of thousands of American over the next few months is because Trump was too busy worrying about the stock market to care about anything else.
  #80  
Old 03-25-2020, 04:32 PM
cmosdes is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
And if millions of people are sick, nursing the sick, burying dead, or grieving the dead, I might still lose my job and my insurance and all that shit. Because people who are sick and burdened by the sick aren't going to be spending a lot of money. And dead people don't buy anything.

We don't have to sit on our asses for two months. We could be working 24/7 to build up our hospital bed capacity over the next two months so that only hundreds of people die each day across the country instead of thousands. If the federal government was doing that instead of wasting trillions of dollars on juicing up Wall Street, I wouldn't mind a return to "business as usual" come Easter Sunday. Too bad that ship has already sailed, right? We can't get those trillions of dollars back. Hell, the federal government could have used that money to pay for PPEs for every man, woman, and child so that it would be safe for us to carry on as usual. As Manda JO said, your economy is already a sunk cost. If that flop of a Hail Mary pass to shore up the markets didn't keep up you up at night, I fail to see why you should be panicking now.

The taxpayer has already sacrified plenty to save the economy and look where it has gotten us. It's time the government care about saving the taxpayer and let the economy sort itself out as the free market is supposed to do so well. The reason we will be losing hundreds of thousands of American over the next few months is because Trump was too busy worrying about the stock market to care about anything else.
I still have a job, as do millions of others. So no, the economy is not an already sunk cost. Parts of it is sunk, and I'm asking if you are willing to sink the rest of it. There is another saying. Don't throw good money after bad. Cut your losses.

You asked if I'd be willing to risk my life over the next 3 months in exchange for those who wish to return to work to be allowed to return to work. I am. I said I'd sign your agreement provided you make the time without access to healthcare realistic at 3 months. That is the scenario of everyone who is low risk going back to work.

You said you are not. Awesome. That must mean you are willing to sign my agreement. You will give up your job, millions of other jobs and all that goes along with it (kids out of school for months, education at the college level severely hampered, internships cancelled, hiring frozen, millions without income or insurance). I firmly believe MORE will die or suffer if we stay on this path. If you think we can save more lives in the long run shutting everything down and are willing to give up all those things I've mentioned to save those lives, sign my agreement. For the next three months, you will change your odds of getting medical care from around 3% to around 8%. Table 2, here. At least in the UK, there are 8 beds per 100,000 people. Do nothing, and around 275 people/100,000 need those beds. Do everything you can, and 100/100,000 need those beds. So, again, you'll go from a 3% chance of getting a bed to 8%.

Do all those things you talk about, and thousands a day will still die. Just not as many thousands.
  #81  
Old 03-25-2020, 04:33 PM
not what you'd expect is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
There is currently some tension at home over this question. For years, I have had Advanced Directives written up that eschew most forms of life support, allowing only meds to minimize pain. I worry that my wishes would not be followed in a hospital setting.

I've decided in advance that if I "get the virus" I will not seek medical care. My gf is very unhappy with my attitude.
I want to be brave enough to do this, but I'm not sure I will be. I'm also scared that I'll call 911 and they will be too overwhelmed to respond, leaving me to die alone in agony.

I'd like to at least have a way to end things here at home if that happens. Jesus god, I need something for anxiety!
  #82  
Old 03-25-2020, 04:37 PM
susan's Avatar
susan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Coastal USA
Posts: 10,058
This is humorous, but relevant, in terms of a constituent of "the economy."

Twitter Mocks Big Companies Begging For Bailout Money With “Advice” Often Given To The Poor
  #83  
Old 03-25-2020, 04:49 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,984
Nope, I'm only 32, don't want to die.
  #84  
Old 03-25-2020, 04:49 PM
Tabco is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Heart of the Valley
Posts: 25
I'm only in my 30s but I live alone and have no immediate family. If I get sick and my body can't drive it off without medical intervention, then my time has come. It would probably have only been a matter of time before some other illness got me if I couldn't survive it. I'd probably find a (non-alarming) way to notify my landlord of my impending demise so that my body doesn't putrefy for some extended period of time. Current lockdown measures would prevent anyone from noticing my absence.
  #85  
Old 03-25-2020, 04:58 PM
RioRico is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 2,472
I should let myself die so multi-billionaires can prosper?

Fuck that shit.

I propose establishing Ethical Suicide Parlors at or adjacent to all GOP offices. Encourage volunteers. Hey 'Pubs, it's for the sake of all those sacred multi-billionaires. Do your part; drink the kool-ade. "Suicide is painless / It brings on many changes."

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. C'mon, be heroic. Self-discorporate and ascend to heaven escorted by topless angels and trumpeting cherubs. Your name will be hand-inscribed on the Monolith of Honor at Mar-e-Lago's 19th Hole VIP restroom. You medical bills will be voided, saving your survivors (if any) from financial doom. Shamans will chant your name around campfires for generations.

Someone should track those who publicly volunteer. See how long they last.
  #86  
Old 03-25-2020, 05:06 PM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
I still have a job, as do millions of others. So no, the economy is not an already sunk cost. Parts of it is sunk, and I'm asking if you are willing to sink the rest of it. There is another saying. Don't throw good money after bad. Cut your losses.
I'm not willing to go back to "normal" without doing anything to address the abnormal problems caused by COVID-19. Millions of people want to work, but millions of people have no paid sick leave to allow them to do so without risking unemployment. So if they get sick, they will work. And they will make everyone else sick, including vulnerable people (not all of them old). If Trump signed an executive order granting every working adult three weeks of paid sick leave during this global pandemic, I would feel like he was addressing a major problem we have. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be something.

If Trump were to commit to doubling the US's hospital bed capacity by the end of the year, prioritizing hot zones like NYC, I would feel like he was addressing another major problem caused by COVID-19. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be something.

I have a major problem endorsing a "back to normal" plan that ignores these realities. Address these realities and then we can talk about going back to normal.

I don't want to sit home for months on end either (which is why I go for lots of walks and scoot around on my scooter). But a bunch of people sitting at home is the price we pay for not preparing better for a global pandemic. I'd rather we pay it with some economic anxiety that will eventually dissipate rather than pay for it with lost lives and crippled bodies. You can't bring those things back. You can always bring back the economy. We also have enough wealth in this country to guarantee food and shelter for everyone no matter what the economy the looks like. So I'm tired of hearing all the wailing about all the lives that will be ruined to poverty. We have chosen to make American poverty into a horrible, undignified, ruinous, suicide-worthy thing. It doesn't have to be that way. We are truly a stupid people if we can't come up with a plan for keeping us resilient in the face of economic hardship. We are a shithole country if we can't do that.
  #87  
Old 03-25-2020, 05:07 PM
Jay Z is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
I still have a job, as do millions of others. So no, the economy is not an already sunk cost. Parts of it is sunk, and I'm asking if you are willing to sink the rest of it. There is another saying. Don't throw good money after bad. Cut your losses.

You asked if I'd be willing to risk my life over the next 3 months in exchange for those who wish to return to work to be allowed to return to work. I am. I said I'd sign your agreement provided you make the time without access to healthcare realistic at 3 months. That is the scenario of everyone who is low risk going back to work.

You said you are not. Awesome. That must mean you are willing to sign my agreement. You will give up your job, millions of other jobs and all that goes along with it (kids out of school for months, education at the college level severely hampered, internships cancelled, hiring frozen, millions without income or insurance). I firmly believe MORE will die or suffer if we stay on this path. If you think we can save more lives in the long run shutting everything down and are willing to give up all those things I've mentioned to save those lives, sign my agreement. For the next three months, you will change your odds of getting medical care from around 3% to around 8%. Table 2, here. At least in the UK, there are 8 beds per 100,000 people. Do nothing, and around 275 people/100,000 need those beds. Do everything you can, and 100/100,000 need those beds. So, again, you'll go from a 3% chance of getting a bed to 8%.

Do all those things you talk about, and thousands a day will still die. Just not as many thousands.
This whole thread, why anyone would argue, is just beyond stupid and morally illiterate.

If you are worried about people, JUST GIVE THEM MONEY. IT IS MONEY.

I have said this before. I am not going to play pub trivia right now. I have also said I would pay, pay tax, equal to the amount that I spend on things I can't do right now, and even take nothing in return for what I am paying. To help those who might be out of a job.

But I would rather pay that and get nothing than pay the same and sit in the bar for 2 hours and possibly get COVID-19. The personal interaction is a negative value right now. You can take my portion of the money, I am fine with that. But the whole risking my life thing, there is absolutely no reason for me to do that. It's completely disconnected from the money, and idiotic that anyone thinks that risking your life sitting in a bar for two hours adds any value whatsoever. It doesn't.

You want to risk your life, get involved in some sort of essential service that actually needs to be maintained. Otherwise, take care of the rest of the people with money, I will pay my share, and leave the completely needless risk of life out of it.
  #88  
Old 03-25-2020, 05:31 PM
cmosdes is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
I'm not willing to go back to "normal" without doing anything to address the abnormal problems caused by COVID-19. Millions of people want to work, but millions of people have no paid sick leave to allow them to do so without risking unemployment. So if they get sick, they will work. And they will make everyone else sick, including vulnerable people (not all of them old). If Trump signed an executive order granting every working adult three weeks of paid sick leave during this global pandemic, I would feel like he was addressing a major problem we have. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be something.

If Trump were to commit to doubling the US's hospital bed capacity by the end of the year, prioritizing hot zones like NYC, I would feel like he was addressing another major problem caused by COVID-19. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be something.

I have a major problem endorsing a "back to normal" plan that ignores these realities. Address these realities and then we can talk about going back to normal.

I don't want to sit home for months on end either (which is why I go for lots of walks and scoot around on my scooter). But a bunch of people sitting at home is the price we pay for not preparing better for a global pandemic. I'd rather we pay it with some economic anxiety that will eventually dissipate rather than pay for it with lost lives and crippled bodies. You can't bring those things back. You can always bring back the economy. We also have enough wealth in this country to guarantee food and shelter for everyone no matter what the economy the looks like. So I'm tired of hearing all the wailing about all the lives that will be ruined to poverty. We have chosen to make American poverty into a horrible, undignified, ruinous, suicide-worthy thing. It doesn't have to be that way. We are truly a stupid people if we can't come up with a plan for keeping us resilient in the face of economic hardship. We are a shithole country if we can't do that.
Your agreement was trying to highlight that people are unwilling to take their own personal health risks for the sake of the economy. I disagree.

Further, I'm trying to highlight the consequences of NOT going back to work for months.

I agree to your terms and accept those risks. Are you willing to accept the consequences of your choice? There are no other choices being given at this time. It would be fantastic if the orange cheeto and company would do the right things, but they won't.

More hospital beds by the end of year??? This thing will be over in a few months. Additionally, we have constraints not just in beds, but in doctors and medical staff. You won't be doubling that by the end of the year.
  #89  
Old 03-25-2020, 05:59 PM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Your agreement was trying to highlight that people are unwilling to take their own personal health risks for the sake of the economy. I disagree.

You have poor reading comprehension if that is what you take away from my post.

Of course people are more than willing to risk their own lives. The problem isn't that they are risking their own lives. They would be risking everyone's lives. Including people who don't have paid sick leave. So if those people get sick and can't work, guess what? They probably won't have a job to come back to.

Quote:
Further, I'm trying to highlight the consequences of NOT going back to work for months.
I don't need you to highlight the consequences for me because I'm not an idiot.

Quote:
I agree to your terms and accept those risks. Are you willing to accept the consequences of your choice?
What do you think my choice is? What do you think I'm advocating?

Quote:
There are no other choices being given at this time. It would be fantastic if the orange cheeto and company would do the right things, but they won't.
They won't do the right things because people like yourself are only focusing on getting back to normal instead of talking about the measures we need to put in place to help people get the economy back to normal. You are talking about the economy like it exists independent of the public and thus public health. Help the people and the economy will come together in due time. Fuck people over and the economy is doomed.

Quote:
This thing will be over in a few months.
That is to laugh.

Go read up on the Spanish flu and report back to class how long it lasted. Hint: It wasn't a few months.
  #90  
Old 03-25-2020, 06:26 PM
cmosdes is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,858
This is what I said:
Your agreement was trying to highlight that people are unwilling to take their own personal health risks for the sake of the economy. I disagree.

This was your post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro
Send out forms to every household, enough for every adult. On the form would be the following:

"For the sake of this country's economy, I, <state your name>, volunteer to forfeit my right to receive hospital care, including emergency room services, over the next 18 months for any reason."
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
You have poor reading comprehension if that is what you take away from my post.
You further said it would skeeve people out and doubted millions would sign. Where are my reading comprehension skills wrong on this? The exact statement you want people to sign is that they are willing to risk their health for the sake of the economy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro
I don't need you to highlight the consequences for me because I'm not an idiot.
No, you aren't. I understand that. I'm not either. You made a claim I disagreed with and wanted to test your claim against your own personal risk aversions, etc. It wasn't intended to insult you. I'm sorry if it came across that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro
What do you think my choice is? What do you think I'm advocating?
You seemed to be clearly advocating that people would be skeeved out if they had to sign a document that said they wouldn't get healthcare for some period of time if they agreed to go back to work. You even said if it were in the millions it would be worth considering.

Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro
They won't do the right things because people like yourself are only focusing on getting back to normal instead of talking about the measures we need to put in place to help people get the economy back to normal. You are talking about the economy like it exists independent of the public and thus public health. Help the people and the economy will come together in due time. Fuck people over and the economy is doomed.
This is a different argument than the one I questioned. We can have that one if you wish, but I questioned your assertion that millions would skeeved if they were allowed to go back to work in lieu of medical care for (realistically) 3 months. You keep dodging the reality of the choice you are making, which is to put millions out of work and that even with social distancing we are changing the odds of getting medical care from 3% to 8%.


Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro
Go read up on the Spanish flu and report back to class how long it lasted. Hint: It wasn't a few months.
Go read the paper I cited. It clearly says this will be over in 3 months if we do nothing. Doing what we are doing will will save lives as a direct result of this disease, but will result in months more of having to deal with it and doesn't address the secondary impacts of putting millions out of work.
  #91  
Old 03-25-2020, 06:36 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 47,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post

Go read up on the Spanish flu and report back to class how long it lasted. Hint: It wasn't a few months.
And it would have been over much faster if the concept of isolation was followed. Some towns isolated themselves - they were not affected.
  #92  
Old 03-25-2020, 06:36 PM
River Hippie's Avatar
River Hippie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: N.E. Indiana, USA
Posts: 5,822
Thanks psychobunny!
  #93  
Old 03-25-2020, 06:38 PM
cmosdes is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
Go read up on the Spanish flu and report back to class how long it lasted. Hint: It wasn't a few months.
There were 3 waves to the Spanish Flu, but by far the deadliest lasted 3 months. The other two were relatively mild in comparison.
  #94  
Old 03-25-2020, 06:48 PM
PhillyGuy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pennsylvania U.S.A.
Posts: 1,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oredigger77 View Post
In general my wife and I would be ok going back to living our normal life knowing there was a 20% chance of dying in exchange not having a 10+ trillion dollar debt that will impact my daughters their whole lives.
There is no such possible tradeoff.

The stores and restaurants and tourist attractions were mostly closing a day or two before governors closed things down. Commercial aircraft were commonly flying mostly empty.

Allowing a restaurant to re-open isn't going to bring back enough customers to make it profitable for the wait staff to return. Too few people are going to plan vacations, for places with most of the attractions voluntarily closed, for it to make it profitable for them to re-open. Etc. Etc.

The politicians are not running this. The virus is. And the people who are afraid of giving it to their loved ones.

Twelve percent of American workers work in health care. My daughter in law works in a big-city hospital. My son in law's mother works in a small-town hospital. My mother is 93. This is why we don't leave the house much, not some order from a politician.

Allowing a few reckless businesses to re-open is not going to prevent economic decline -- it may easily make it worse by dragging this out.

I realize I'm not addressing a buried implication of your post -- maybe there is a choice where we can choose a depression decade instead of racking up long-term debt, that will be hold back the economy for 30 years or so, to fight it. Most economists do not see that as a viable choice, but I admit to lacking the economic expertise to really argue it.

Have you read yet what it is like to die from COVID-19? As more people do, it will become even more impossible for politicians to reverse closures before the virus is radically beaten back.

Not everything is about Democrats vs. Republicans. The virus is neither.

Last edited by PhillyGuy; 03-25-2020 at 06:52 PM.
  #95  
Old 03-25-2020, 07:19 PM
Skypist's Avatar
Skypist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 609
No, even though I'm in an age range and condition that some would probably like me to throw myself on the bonfire of capitalism. I still want to live if I can.

I'm sure as hell not sacrificing myself so the stock market can keep running the way it has my whole life. It exists solely to run up the 1%'s portfolios without even actually producing anything of value for society. It wants to have as few employees as possible and pay them as little as possible and drive up the Dow with stock buy-backs that produce no value except for the 1%. Why would I purposely kill myself for that?

And hell, even if I and millions of others did, it wouldn't guarantee that the economy would improve or that trump and other Republicans wouldn't still run up the deficit even higher for younger people to have to pay off.

Trump is measuring the economy by the stock market. Nothing about the stock market going up, up, up means that there are more actual jobs or a lower budget deficit or anything that's supposed to help younger people. A bunch of 70-year-olds throwing themselves on the bonfire won't create more jobs.
  #96  
Old 03-25-2020, 07:28 PM
Aspidistra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,194
Lets put some numbers to this discussion.

Regarding recessions and depressions killing people -
Research has put the number of excess cancer deaths in the US due to the GFC at around 18,000: 9,000 per year over two years cite. Obviously that's just one cause, but this chart of death rates by cause which covers the GFC period doesn't seem to show all that much of an anything for the relevant period

Other research shows the effect of the Great Depression on death rates to be ... basically zero. That seems to be a little small to be believed, honestly, but whatever effect it did have is obviously small enough to be hard to pick up on.

Meanwhile....

Other research claims that excess deaths due to being uninsured in America - a problem that the powers that be seem to be in no hurry to fix - is around 45,000 per year.

Estimates of deaths from a 'let her rip' covid outbreak that infects nearly everyone at once range from a ridiculously low half a million or so (only a third of the country ends up with the disease, the death rate is no more than the 0.6% reported in well-managed South Korea) up to a still-plausible seven-and-a-half million (half the country gets it, all of the 5% who need intensive care don't get any, and they all die)

You see why many of us won't take the 'but economic downturns cause death too!' argument seriously.

Last edited by Aspidistra; 03-25-2020 at 07:29 PM.
  #97  
Old 03-25-2020, 07:38 PM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,482
32 prominent conservative and liberal economists argue that saving lives is saving the economy

Quote:
Public and private sector actors must work together to provide more tests, more ventilators, more personal protective equipment, and more support for hospitals and health care facilities. Only when we have made progress on these fronts will US businesses and consumers be able to resume normal economic activity without inducing a resurgent spread that leads to even more severe health and economic effects.
  #98  
Old 03-25-2020, 07:40 PM
cmosdes is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspidistra View Post
Lets put some numbers to this discussion.

Regarding recessions and depressions killing people -
Research has put the number of excess cancer deaths in the US due to the GFC at around 18,000: 9,000 per year over two years cite. Obviously that's just one cause, but this chart of death rates by cause which covers the GFC period doesn't seem to show all that much of an anything for the relevant period

Other research shows the effect of the Great Depression on death rates to be ... basically zero. That seems to be a little small to be believed, honestly, but whatever effect it did have is obviously small enough to be hard to pick up on.

Meanwhile....

Other research claims that excess deaths due to being uninsured in America - a problem that the powers that be seem to be in no hurry to fix - is around 45,000 per year.

Estimates of deaths from a 'let her rip' covid outbreak that infects nearly everyone at once range from a ridiculously low half a million or so (only a third of the country ends up with the disease, the death rate is no more than the 0.6% reported in well-managed South Korea) up to a still-plausible seven-and-a-half million (half the country gets it, all of the 5% who need intensive care don't get any, and they all die)

You see why many of us won't take the 'but economic downturns cause death too!' argument seriously.
That absolutely closes out those questions! Thanks for doing that research.
  #99  
Old 03-25-2020, 07:48 PM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,482
Just leaving this here to wake people up to the fact that we aren't simply talking about nursing home residents dying.

Brooklyn high school principal, 36, dies from coronavirus

Quote:
She “just loved being principal,” said Ms. Winkfield, a senior strategy and policy adviser at the Department of Education’s Office of Equity and Access.

“She looked at every single kid as her personal mission,” she said. “She knew every kid’s back story, their family members, what was going on with them and how to motivate them.”

Ms. Romain secured funding to create a hydroponic gardening lab at the school, and she planned on turning the program into a farmers market for local residents.

She partnered with sports companies to get athletic equipment for her students and was instrumental in helping many students get basketball scholarships to college, Ms. Winkfield said.

I don't think we can spare very many people like this.
  #100  
Old 03-25-2020, 07:51 PM
Chingon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 966
Oh for some reason I don't think Trump supporters will see this as a bad thing.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017