28 years ago DesertWife was diagnosed with ALS; nine months later she was dead. It affected her diaphragm early and she could not breathe properly, making her lungs fill with fluid.
Her first crisis she went to ER and was intubated, her lungs cleared and duly moved to ICU. Gradually they reduced the settings on the ventilator to see if she could be taken off of it and two days later they removed the intubation.
She began to fail within the hour and it was apparent she would have to spend the rest of her life on a vent. After a discussion with her two daughters and me she elected not to do that, and was moved from ICU to the hospice wing of the hospital.
We held her hands and over a period of seven hours watched her slowly die. She went peacefully. Her breaths were shallower and shallower until we could hear the rales without a stethoscope. Then she took a last rattling breath, exhaled, and the next breath never came.
She died surrounded by her loved ones, not alone because they might get it too, not gasping her life out like a fish out of water on the goddam floor because they’ve run out of beds.
I would not wish a death like that on anyone. Not Glen Beck, not the Republican elders, not even Trump. Anyone who’s okay with condemning hundreds of thousands, if not millions is looking at the idea in the abstract, not imagining what it would be like at all.
I, for one, would love this question (worded much better, though) and recorded on the 2020 Census form so we can make a nice, easily accessed list of people to treat/not treat if they do get ill.
Why does anybody think that if we have uncontrolled disease all over the country the economy will do just fine?
The people who die won’t all be decrepit and about to go anyway; some of them will be in the prime of their lives, and some will be people who are older and/or with other health conditions but who were still productive workers – in some cases with the best knowledge of how to do their jobs.
And the people who don’t die won’t all be happily doing their jobs (even except from time off for funerals) with nothing worse than the sniffles. Some will only have the sniffles, or no symptoms at all, yes. But a lot of even those who will recover without medical care will have something like a very bad flu. They’ll be unable to work at all effectively for days or weeks, and unable to work at peak productivity for longer than that. (Even aside from the fact that many people can’t work effectively while Grandma, or Dad, or their marriage partner, is dying on the floor or in the back bedroom due to a lack of hospital beds.)
If we let everybody get it more or less at once, then this is going to happen all at once. There are going to be a whole lot of jobs not getting done, or getting done badly – and doing them badly will cause additional injury, both physical and economic.
This is like those questions I sometimes see trying to pit the economy against environmental protections. If we don’t protect the environment, sooner or later the environmental damage will damage the economy. If we want a healthy economy, we have to have a healthy environment. And if we want a healthy economy, we also have to have a healthy workforce. A small percentage sick at any one time is bound to happen, and is built into how things work; a small increase in the number of people sick at any one time isn’t that hard to deal with. A large percentage of people all sick at once? That’s an economic disaster on its own.
We don’t have a choice between saving the economy and saving the people. We have a choice between saving the people while damaging the economy, or killing a lot more people than necessary while damaging the economy. In the short term, the economy’s screwed either way.
The more people who come through this a) in reasonable shape and b) feeling reasonably well about how they were treated in the process, the better chance we have of pulling the economy back up again in not too long a time.
What interests are served by a pandemic-obliterated US economy? Who gains by convincing Americans it’s no big thing, a partisan hoax, over-reaction, or whatever?
The guy who wants all these problems to go away by November. And who has zero understanding of the science, and probably no respect for the people who do.
I’m not sure anyone is willing to die for the economy, but I’m guessing many are willing to take the risk.
As a matter of fact, this article is almost a case for trying to keep the economy going. We don’t know if this kid was laid off from a job that was providing health insurance which was then lost because the business had to close. How will you feel if that is the case? Will you decide it is better to try to keep everyone employed and on health insurance, or do the 3 million people who lost their health insurance not matter? Not to mention the dependents of those who lost their jobs.
I’d love it if the president said, “OK, folks. I’ve heard you. I’ll open up Medicare for everyone right now so that no one has to worry about insurance ever again.”
If he does this one little thing, I might go along with a plan to lift shelter-in-place orders.
But if by “back to normal”, you really mean “back to normal”? No. I’m not a fan of going back to “normal” when that means people, unemployed or no, Coronavirus or no, dying just because they lack health insurace.
I’m really hoping this does mean a complete overhaul of our health care system within a year, so I’m right there with you. That would mean at least 1 good thing came of all this.
Even if we could get medicare for all right now, I still wouldn’t support going back to work. Not yet. All the insurance in the world isn’t going to help an overrun healthcare system.
That’s not my point. My point is, that everybody who’s insisting we should reopen everything in order to help the economy, are ignoring the fact that opening everything will ALSO damage the economy, because if a whole lot of people get sick all at once THAT WILL ALSO RUIN THE ECONOMY.
How about we do what every other civilized nation has done (and even some not-so-civilized) and institute universal health coverage instead of this jacked up piece of shit we currently have? Wouldn’t have guaranteed the kid would have survived but at least he would have had SOME chance instead of being shoved out the door to die.
No, but between dying of pneumonia and dying of starvation because you spend months without work, without any welfare either, but the bills keep coming just the same, i figure that many would probably prefer risking the former.
How about we make sure the bills don’t keep coming just the same, and/or provide money to pay them with?
In many areas, utility cutoffs are currently forbidden, evictions are on hold, and serious efforts are underway to get food to people in need of it. Some financial aid, in the USA, is in process of being provided. Instead of also bringing the economy down by having everybody get sick at once, plus giving people the pleasant choice of deciding whether to risk dying of pneumonia with no medical assistance available or to die of starvation, we need to do more of that sort of thing.
Yet again, what do you think will happen to the economy if almost everyone does get sick at once? How many restaurants, or bars, or card shops, or clothing stores, or airlines, will stay open and able to pay wages if their customers start dying of having gone out to use them? (And how many of the ones who tried will close down when they get hit with the survivors’ lawsuits?)
Not personally but I read their popularity is growing. Murder is superfluous. Yes, organize a national tontine with original capital subscribed from our personal bailout checks. As more subscribers croak, survivors receive increasing annuities. Can we start a tontine via a #GoFundMe campaign?
I don’t think Trump wants all these problems to go away by November. He does want his designated signature achievements (the stock market and low unemployment) restored or on a recovery track by November. There’s a decent chance the stock market tells a story of early recovery by then, but I can’t imagine how unemployment bounces back that soon.
The rest of it… the chaos, the social disruption, the suffering… he welcomes it, because it provides the necessary air cover to justify voter suppression, facilitate election manipulation, shift the blame to other parties, and help conceal massive self-dealing between Trump and the US government.
Maybe you’ve heard that the US Constitution is not a suicide note. Just as [generic “you”] your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, so does your right to be contagious have limits. You don’t get to endanger others. You may be prosecuted as a public nuisance or hazard, or for violating laws, regulations, and legal orders. Society get to protect itself.
When MrsRico and I drive around the Americas, we can choose to live on the “tourist economy” with all the usual chains, or on the “local economy” which usually costs much less. The US national economy is sure going through changes, as are all its component trade areas, the state and local economies. None are worth my death.
Croaked, I can no longer produce, distribute, trade, or consume goods and services. I’ll be cremated and so won’t even feed worms, won’t be a component of the biosphere economy. Thus I’m worth more alive than dead unless I’m rendered down for valuable chemicals. But with zillions of other stiffs around, supply will outstrip demand so I’m still worth nothing dead. Might as well stay alive bit longer. But you are all doomed; send me your money and other valuables.