Printable View
People keep saying the flu kills xx,xxx people every year and use it to show the current reaction is overblown. Flu deaths are year round numbers and we do not deal with the huge number of hospitalized patients and patients needing vents all at one time with influenza. It’s not just how many are sick, but how many are sick concurrently along with issues like no immunity has been built by people for the new virus, and there being no vaccine available for the virus.
Because it is a comparable disease, except, as you stated, there is no built up immunity. At some point, there is a trade off between economic damage and loss of life. Nobody is willing to say that but it is the truth, otherwise we'd shut it down every year for the flu. So some will make the argument that this is all too much of a cost for the lives saved. I am not in that group, but I don't think that POV is as unreasonable as others do. If we did nothing as a country other than encouragement of good hygiene and social distancing, what is an acceptable loss of life? Nobody wants to say a number, but ultimately that is the ethical choice. Keep in mind that business will fail, fortunes will be lost, suicides will go up, etc.
What Cuomo said at on point, that "this is worth it if it saves one life", is a moronic statement.
"At some point" it can hit home to any one of us, and paint your post in a terrible light imo..yet, I just do not believe you have really thought it through.Quote:
Originally Posted by Basket Case
If "this" is you or I sacrificing economically and socially for an undetermined period of time it most certainly is. Our doctors and nurses, firemen and police, etc..sacrifice their entire livelihood to do the same even when there is no crisis.
Similar to telling a soldier there comes a point he should not defend another American with his life, as he himself is too valuable.
Posts like this are not currently a help. And honestly appear heartless as well as critical of the actions being taken.
Under no circumstance can we allow the medical system to become over run and ineffective and put our medical personnel in even more grave danger.
That would certainly destroy our economic system and much more.
I do understand the basis for what you are saying. But I just completely disagree.
Look at what we are about to spend to combat this to understand the gravity of the situation.
There's nothing heartless about sober policy analysis. it's the naive and unworkable "one life is worth any cost" stuff that makes this a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
As he said, do we shut down the entire economy for one person ever? No. Haven't ever.
This is the same logic Doc and I discussed a time ago. People die bunjee jumping. Do we ban it? It's totally useless.
As a society we do in fact calculate how much we spend and how many rights we give up in balance of saving X lives. That's just the truth.
He never said we go back to work and collapse the medical system. Clearly the economic sacrifice is well worth it for such a price.
is it worth it to save 1,000 lives? Well if it is why don't we do it for flu season? that's a valid question.
Life has risks. We accept some balance of those risks to function. Every time we touch anything or go anywhere we take chances.
Clearly right now we have to sacrifice or we will pay far too high a price in lives, but it's just honest to say there will come a point where, like any disease, we decide some risk to some lives is worth it for us to function.
Otherwise we would ban fast food, optional car travel, etc. But we like Big Macs so we live with more heart disease. We like going to see grandma and letting 16 year olds have their own transportation so we live with car deaths.
It's not heartless to point out the truth of these things. It's naive to act like we don't do it every day with every policy.
Right now we are doing the right thing. We'll probably have to do it until there's a vaccine or treatment that improves our risks, but at some point the risks will be seen as acceptable even though that risk is still non-zero.
Got your back bro. Keep sticking to logic and honesty about policy. It's not easy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Basket Case
At some point that choice will come, and as you said we make that choice implicitly every year with the flu and with everything else we do.
Apparently the loss of flu life isn't even high enough to by law require everyone get vaccinated. We're willing to leave freedom of choice in place for that decision at the cost of between 25K-50K seasonal deaths and far more hospitalized.
It's harsh, but clearly that is our implicit decision.
Neither of us is saying we should live with massive deaths from this virus, but it would be a lie to say we won't reach a point where we live with a certain loss of life, just as we clearly do with everything else.
Otherwise we'd have mandatory flu vaccines and make it a crime to shake hands. We don't, so what does that say?
Oh and PS, I think people who don't get vaccinated are morons and even as a Libertarian I"m 100% FOR mandatory vaccinations esp. for serious diseases. The net gain to society far outweighs the risks. I'm for it for the flu too given the death toll.
But we can't get it passed, and has almost no support in Congress, so that tells you where society as a whole is valuing those lives. Harsh? yes. But true.
It is a reference point. People know what the flu does. We see it every year. And it is compariable in mode of transmission, prevention and duration of illness.
Yes, but when was the last time a flu had this number of concurrent hospitalizations in concentrated areas?Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
What do you disagree with?Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
My parents are very high risk, and I would probably fall into the high risk category myself, 50+ on immunosuppressant meds.
Did you want to shut down the economy in 2009 for H1N1? There were almost 300,000 hospitalizations and 12,500 deaths. How about the annual flu? We could probably stop that just by halting international travel and it kills tens of thousands every year. There have been 144 deaths in children alone this flu season. You call me heartless, but you certainly see there has to be some cutoff, right?
I stated that I think the shut down is the right thing to do. It has to be somewhat short term, however. IMO, this talk of a 9 month shut down is dangerous. It's causing companies and individuals to act in ways that may have long term ramifications on the economy. How are you going to pay for all of this medical care if the economy is in turmoil? Just have the Fed print 2 trillion every month?
Right on. It drives me crazy that people cannot look at this logically rather than let their emotions take over as if there is no trade off. There is no price for any individual life, however, cost of life/economic benefit decisions are made all of the time whether its setting the speed limit, choosing to work a dangerous occupation, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
Obviously it's got major differences or we wouldn't be going through this, but what other baseline would you suggest for people to draw comparison?Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithKSR
The basic flu is a good baseline, even though clearly this is a far greater threat. It's more contagious, the fact that many don't have symptoms from it makes it easy to spread, and it's more deadly.
But I do think as the death toll goes up that we remember numerically what is statistically significant. The regular flu kills between 25K and 50K each cycle. So far we're way below those numbers.
So if we keep the US deaths from this in that range we're actually doing great. I do think that gives us some perspective on this thing. that's a lot of people, but we seem to shrug that off every year without a second thought. Only when it is such an intent focus is that apparently a large number.
exactly. From a point of reference (the flu), this is far worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithKSR
There is an issue with people thinking it is "just the flu", which it is not. But people need some kind of point of comparison in life so they can get their head around the numbers. That's as good as any I suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
We could go with others but the flu/pneumonia is more related than say heart disease, and it's still the #8 killer depending on how you categorize.
We could use suicides. 47K or so of those last year. Or vehicle related deaths, 35K or so.
It simply is not the time for this discussion is what I am saying, no matter how it’s spun.
The whole nation wants normalcy...there is none currently. And a big segment refuse to take social distancing and other actions seriously. We mustn’t supply them ammunition for a ‘life should go on as usual” attitude.
This is not like the flu. At least no more similar than WW2 to Grenada.
We do what has to be done so that there can be normalcy once again. When that time gets close, we will pretty much all know it and celebrate.
Part of the problem society faces is that we don’t have a light at the end of the tunnel, not yet anyway. Everyone is uneasy, not knowing if this is going to last a month, three months, or 18 months. It fuels the feelings of depression and desperation.
If people can go to shows and shops during the Blitz in London, they can find some normalcy now.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
That's not to not take it seriously, but a strength of humans is their ability to find ways to adapt to the worst of situations and still move forward.
People need to get some perspective. In the trenches of WWI men found ways to make Christmas ornaments from shell casings. In the middle of wars and occupations people still love and hate, and have a life.
This is just a nasty inconvenience in real human terms historically. We need to take distancing VERY seriously, but it's naive and dishonest to not be blunt about the decisions we are making.
If you aren't looking soberly at the decision you are making you may make the wrong one. Cuomo is wrong, trillions in economic damage are not worth a single life. It's just not true. that's tough, but it's a fact of life and we make that choice every day.
Is it worth hundreds of thousands or millions of lives? Very different question. But heart disease in this country kills 650,000 annually and we still have exceptions to the ban on trans fats, so there again we are clearly balancing money and lives. We do it every day.
Let's just be honest about it. Right now the shutdown is needed, and distancing needs to continue for a long while IMO, but it doesn't help to act like it's worth any amount of money to save a single life. That leads to hyperbole and poor choices.
People are doing it because the President of the United States keeps doing it. And the day after he did it the first time a month and a half ago, it was parroted on Hannity, Ingraham, etc for days. And then that was parroted all over Facebook, Twitter and this very board for weeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithKSR
Full stop, that is the reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basket Case
People aren't talking about a 9 month shut down. If they are, it's based on guesses.
People do talk about living life differently than we were accustomed to for an extended period of time. I think that is a must until people are vaccinated and we are a long ways from that, but there will be treatment options that must be tested that can eventually help people that contract the virus over time. Like Dr Fauci says, the virus should dictate the timeline.
People also need to settle down about the economy. Our nation is in the process of passing an unprecedented (in amount and speed) bill to keep the economy afloat. The economy will take a hit, but there's no written rules for what causes the economy to reverse. The lesson learned about the economy is that it wasn't as strong as what most people believed and we now will see what two unique plans have differing economic impacts. There will be additional lessons learned too, and the economy will rebound.
For those that equate the stock market with the economy, the reality is we are pretty much where we were to start 2019. People want to talk about how far the market fell without taking into account how overbought it was to begin with. We are probably at more realistic levels pre-Covid. There will be some additional downside as the economy starts to settle out. The market will be just fine.
The longest term ramifications of the economy will be how people participate in the economy, and that isn't a bad thing.
Any "opening up", "back to normal", must be measured and strategic, because if that is screwed up, you will start looking at 9 month type shut downs. Realistically, we may see some waves where we ramp up and slow down based off conditions. Large gatherings will probably be over for a while.
Oh, and to respond to the why of this thread, it's pretty simple that people do not want to inform themselves with the facts and it's a simple parallel to make to justify not taking things seriously.
New York's governor just warned that the coronavirus' spread could last as long as 9 months, with up to 80% of the population getting the virusQuote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
Gov. Andrew Cuomo says New Yorkers should be prepared for widespread business closings and stay-at-home orders to last months to combat the surge in coronavirus cases.
"This is not a short-term situation," he said in a Sunday briefing with reporters. "This is not a long weekend. This is not a week."
"It is going to be four months, six months, nine months," he continued.
As far as the unprecedented bill that was passed, that was a check Uncle Sam wrote that you and I are going to pay. We already run at a $1 Trillion deficit with our $4 Trillion in spending. We just added $2 Trillion in spending and in all likelihood tax revenues are going to much lower this year. We are looking at a $4 Trillion deficit (on $3 Trillion in tax revenue last year) and a weakened economy. If the shutdown lasts longer than 30-60 days, countless small businesses will go under causing all sorts of issues with the economy. The stock market loss isn't the issue, the message that the market is telling us- that this could be a huge long term problem - that is the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
Just what is the advice then? What exactly do you propose, so we can comparably view the mistakes currently being made. After all, we have people on this very site with loved ones directly in harms way.
Is that advice that at some point, we must forget about them and get on with life as it was a few weeks ago? Damn the result.
Not just my 82 year old mom, nor 64 year old me, a heart attack victim,, or the others on this site who are among the most vulnerable.
But all of us with children, and other family members on the front line in the health care industry and other occupations facing the scourge face to face.
Given they are already over run, over worked, and under equipped, what is the advice for those people? Somehow I do not believe they would remotely agree with some of my friends here. Logic? Suicides? Weakened economy?
"The message that the market is telling us- that this could be a huge long term problem - that is the issue"
No sir, the ongoing problem and over riding issue is that some do not believe that last part to be true, but logic and scientific evidence says it is very possible this could last for several months..if not very likely. Managing that with minimum loss of life is supremely critical. And this nation must come together in agreement with that. That is our civic duty.
Again, no one has disagreed with any of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
But here's Governor Cuomo saying the same thing being said here, and said by Trump this week:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/cuomo-clo...ealth-strategy
If we burn all the crops, we might kills the rats but that leads to other hardships.
So we move forward the best we can. Distancing, flatten the curve, try to not overwhelm the medical system, but every mind we can to work on technological solutions, and muddle through.
But there are no absolutes in life, in anything. I believe in God but I don't believe Man has a corner on what he wants from us nor do I think he's given us a lot to go on, so we do the best we can.
Suggesting we make policy the way we've always made policy, trying to balance between life, liberty and happiness, isn't to dismiss those in hospitals trying to keep us alive.
In fact just the opposite. All of this is being done to make sure they can save us, and not a single soul on here has yet to object do doing it.
But discussing where we draw those lines (do we start chaining people's doors like the Chinese?) does nothing to undermine our current efforts or to disregard those who are doing so much.
The whole premise is a false equivalency.
And I would like to remind everyone, I am not angry with anyone when I post.
This is the toughest of situations for our country, and the world. Coming together for a cause involves understanding how far apart we truly are.
Gov. Cuomo is under immense strain, b/c he's also trying to balance that with an obvious huge concern his state government is going to go bankrupt. He's alluded to the lack of federal money, railed against the bailout for not raising taxes, and then today talks about getting back to work and that 'stay at home' may not be best either medical or economic answer:Quote:
Originally Posted by Basket Case
https://www.foxnews.com/us/cuomo-clo...ealth-strategy
I'm not going to blast the guy. I'm glad that's not my job b/c he's in a vise trying to save lives, so I pray for him, but it does show how for everyone this is clearly a lot of competing priorities and we're all trying to figure them out as best we can as we go.
It doesn't mean we loosen up so we can have restaurants again just to blast the medical system with the sick. No one is saying that.
But Cuomo in the long run is far more right today than he was earlier saying this was all worth it for one life.
Good policy comes from sober honesty. Today he seems a lot more sober and honest about the needs of his people, that they have more than one and we'll do the best we can.
This is NY, not the nation, and again, as I said, this is a guess and it is based upon not following the messages. There is a bit of sensationalism to enforce the point of today to stay at home now. To not take this likely. NY has its own curve that so far, other areas has not replicated. This can absolutely be a 9 month or longer situation is people follow the guidelines that the President wants to put out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Basket Case
Again, my point, there is nobody that is putting a realistic time frame on 'stay at home' for 9 months at this time. I'll stress again, the virus dictates the timeline. Stay at home until otherwise instructed by the experts.
We will worry about the deficit at another time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Basket Case
I will say, though, wouldn't it be nice to have that $2T tax cut back that most of that money was spent on stock buybacks? This stimulus bill will actually be put to work in the economy and restricts dead money. While not a perfect bill, it will absolutely be stimulative. The question will be, will it be enough.
If you look at the levels the market is currently trading, the levels that it is testing, the message from the markets is pretty clear. The tax cuts did not work (to the point of 3, 4, 5 % growth) and it is willing to take a second look at this stimulus to see the effects on the economy. It likes what it sees so far, but once it takes a breath, it will start to reevaluate the impact of the virus and resume volatility.
Or not worry about it another time, as the case may be. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
When things were going swimmingly we were running trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. Neither party has any stomach for fiscal responsibility. Deficit concern in the 21st century is reserved for a small subset of weirdos and malcontents.
Sincerely,
A weirdo and malcontent
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by KSRBEvans
It's things like this that were the reason us fiscal conservatives have been so upset about spending all these years.
Times like these are when you want your debts paid up so you can borrow as needed in times of crisis.
By this logic, you can compare it only to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not much elseQuote:
Originally Posted by KeithKSR