And the most relevant vulnerable group is those who have chosen not to get vaccinated. If they’re not going to even do that little, then they’re certainly not going to comply with any guidelines about masking, contact tracing, or social distancing.
One example of why we need to consider economics: The only reason we managed to get people to lock down the first time was because we paid out a buttload of printed money to do it. And one of the results of the shutdowns was the broken supply chains we are still dealing with.
The inflation we are going through now is largely the result of those decisions. If we tried to do anything like it again, inflation would spike higher and some of our already fractured supply chains could break completely.
One result of what’s happened is that we may already be facing a global food and energy shortage this winter. If we continue to lose the ability to provide energy and food around the world, the death toll will make Covid look like a small warmup.
I think the Russians can take the credit for most of the fuel and food shortages and price increases. If the last 6 months had had no warfare, the world would be a very different place on a very different trajectory.
I’m sure the war has had some effect on recent inflation, but inflation started rising in 2021, a year before Putin invaded. By October 2021 inflation was already at 6.2% and rising rapidly. From October 2021, four months before the invasion:
By January 2022 inflation was at 7.5%. By February it was 7.9.%. All before the war.
The real impact of the war in Ukraine is going to be felt this winter and onwards.
Euro energy inflation is starting to get rough, and will be extremely rough this winter.
And I fully expect Putin to hold Europe hostage over the last 20% of gas they are getting from him now. He’ll probably wait until the people in Europe are screaming at their governments over food inflation and energy so he has maximal leverage, then he’ll threaten to pull the plug completely unless sanctions are dropped or other concessions made.
But the general global inflation we are seeing now is largely the result of choices made long before the war in Ukraine was on anyone’s radar.
1: If we hadn’t had that ““lock down”” how many more people would have died from Covid and the disruptions all those sick and dying people would have caused?
2: What would the effect of all those sick and dead people have on those supply chains?
One Two examples of why we need to consider the effect of illness and death when we consider economics.
It seems like you two are in agreement over the effect of the war on food and energy, but I can’t really tell.
The difference is about when it happens. LSL guy is saying that Putin is responsible for the inflation we currently have. I’m saying the inflation and energy shortages are the result of choices made by governments in the past, and the effects of the war in Ukraine are going to be felt much more in the near future, although they do have a small impact on inflation and supply chains already.
The fact that inflation was already at 8% before the war started and was still rising sets a cap,on how much the current 8.5% inflation is caused by Putin’s actions.
Keep in mind, COVID is more or less like smoking as regards deaths.
Meaning, that the VAST majority of people still dying from COVID are people who have deliberately chosen not to be vaccinated. And the number of deaths is in the same ballpark as smoking as well.
We’re good with smoking, so why would COVID be any different, especially since it’s something that these people are choosing for themselves?
Personally, I’m tired of all the COVID stuff. I’m vaccinated, boosted, and have had COVID in the past month. It’s incredibly liberating to just go act like I did in say… January of 2019, without masks, etc…
If some other asshole decides that he doesn’t want to get vaccinated, then that’s his problem. I don’t feel much concern or sympathy for him, and I certainly don’t think the general public should be compelled to modify their behavior on behalf of the unvaccinated.
And as much as it pains me, the relatively tiny number of still vulnerable people who can’t be vaccinated, or are still vulnerable in spite of vaccination, aren’t enough to base public policy on. They’d still be equally vulnerable from all the other endemic diseases like influenza, etc… COVID is just one more.
The restrictions do work, it’s just that between vaccinations/boosters and actual COVID infections, the population has a very high level of immunity now, and they’re mostly not necessary, especially considering that the vast majority of the people who stand to die from COVID now are people who make the choice not to be vaccinated.
Profit should have no place in health care.
So all the drugs and devices and clinics and research should be done… how? Who is going to invest money? Or do you think it should all be done by the government?
And hey, who should draw a salary providing health care? Why should they get to make money off of other people’s illnesses, amirite? Or is it only the people who take the risks and invest their momey in health care who should not receive returns from it?
Perhaps some of this discussion hinges on who should get to make the decisions about allocating funds. We know that in Canada, there is significant support for diverting tax dollars and even raising taxes to put more money into health care, but “the people” don’t make these decisions. One of the things unequal wealth does is give those with more of it more access to the political system. If democracy means, among other things, “one person, one vote,” the “market” means something like “one dollar, one vote,” and it is not surprising that those with more money tend to get their way. That way is not always good for everyone else, and health care spending reflects that.
I didn’t interpret @Mr.Duality to mean that no one involved in health care should get paid for their work, but rather that hospitals, clinics, pharmaceutical manufacturers, research labs, etc. should not be run on a for-profit basis.
Compare education (whether elementary or higher education). Public, and most private, schools in this country are run on a non-profit basis, which hasn’t prevented at least the best of them from doing a pretty good job (while for-profit schools tend to be, in general, far less successful, effective, and respected).
That said, I would ask @Mr.Duality whether he intended his statement to be an axiom or a conclusion.
If it’s an axiom, I disagree. My axiom would be that good-quality health care should be available, affordable, and accessible to everyone who needs it. If involving a profit motive somewhere in the process would help to achieve this, I’m fine with that.
If, on the other hand, it’s a conclusion, I would like him to show his work: what is the reasoning/evidence that profit in health care is always a bad thing? I’m sure it is sometimes, and it may even be so always, but that’s not at all self-evident to me.
Instead of what kind of “real” money? Bitcoins? Sovereigns? Louis d’or?
Instead of money borrowed from others, such that the money supply doesn’t grow like crazy.
To say that no one should be paid for health care is obtuse. It’s beyond silly.
Why can’t it be an axiom and a conclusion? The government should run it. Government should pay for research and salaries. Other industrialized nations have the right idea. I’m not sure if profit occurs anywhere in those systems. They get better results for all but the very wealthy. The infant death rate and life expectancy are but two measures which prove it. Look in the CIA World Factbook for the numbers; I don’t have time to get a link now. See “international comparison infant death rate” and “… life expectancy.”
Here are some links and data.
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/infant-mortality-rate/country-comparison
The infant mortality rate of the US is 174th of 227, between Bosnia and the UAE.
The US is 48th in life expectancy.
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/life-expectancy-at-birth/country-comparison
Medicare for all, I say! People in the US pay 2 to 3 times what the rest of the industrialized world pays for health care.
I think that in some cases, profit motives are VERY powerful drivers of innovation, especially in the pharmaceutical and medical equipment sectors. But I also think that profit motives distort things- the fact that many drugs have a sole source means that they can be priced to what the market will bear, which is a lot when someone needs them to stay alive, or to have a reasonable quality of life.
And I tend to think that service providers might not be best incentivized by profit, as that means that they prioritize paying customers, and further prioritize higher paying customers.
I think profit motives are good in the right places, and in the right ways, and they drive innovation very strongly. But that should be coupled with intelligent regulation of things like critical drug prices.
Except that we do it every day.
In terms of health decisions, should hugely expensive treatments that minimally prolong disease-free existence (but not overall survival) be funded instead of much less costly care?
Do we put speed bumps on every municipal street because, y’know, you can’t put a price on a child’s life?
Economic and political considerations unavoidably influence public health decisions. In the case of Covid-19, many lives were saved and much suffering avoided because we didn’t take the advice of Brave Mavericks who insisted that the way through was to get as many as people possible infected while (somehow) protecting the most vulnerable.
Sorry are you saying that this was due to the quantitative easing specifically? And not the stimulus to individuals/small businesses?