Do we Cancel Everything? You still Travelling??

[dave2013 1,131]

28 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

I assure you that to the "16%" which includes your mother, these statistics are actually more worrisome, not less.  Maybe time to change the subject..

Sorry if you're offended, but a disease which has a high chance of killing young people as opposed to one with a high chance of killing elderly people is more of a crisis than the latter.

If we lose all the young folks then who is going to do most of the work?  Who is going to have the children?

I'm 50 by the way, and the chance of dying from Covid-19 is higher for me than it is for a 30 year old, but I accept that.  It is a consequence of age.

Dave

Edited May 4, 2020 by dave2013

[dave2013 1,131]

25 minutes ago, Alan_A said:

I do recommend you have a look back at my previous post, about the reasons the flu and covid death figures aren't comparable.

I'm not comparing.

I am simply reporting how many people died from similar things to put Covid-19 into context.

Dave

[birdguy 3,943]

We talk about the importance of lives here.  Is a 70 year old's life as important as a 40 year old's life?  The answer is no.

For the record I am 86 years old.  My productive life is over.  I have little left to contribute to society.  In fact, I am a parasite.  I produce nothing but I take a lot.  I support nobody. I'm a drain on the healthcare system.  I'm a drain on the taxpayers who support me.  I am a taker, not a giver.  If I die it might be a short term loss for my immediate family members but not much else.  Old people are expect to die of one cause or another.  Why not COVID-19?

But the 40 year old is a productive member of society.  He probably has a family to support.  He has a job and pays taxes.  He earns money to buy goods.  He is the person who makes the economy work, not me.  If he is stricken with the coronavirus he will most likely survive and return to work provided there is a job waiting for him.

It is not worth shutting down the economy, demanding the government spend money it doesn't have to support people who the government says can't go back to work.

Opening up the economy will likely mean more people will be stricken.  As a percentage of the population it will be very small.  Even if it is ten percent it will mean only a dime out of a dollar.  And who will die?  Mostly people like me who have little to nothing to contribute to either the economy or society.

Twice in my lifetime I have been willing to risk my life for my country.  I am willing to do it a third time if it means putting people back to work and making our economy strong again.  Because what have we but an economy?  An engine that that gives us opportunity and a livelihood.  Take away that and as a nation we have noting.

Now the weak sisters here can cry and moan over the lives lost and tell us that saving a few lives are more important than our economy.  Are they?  I have made my decisions and it's up to you to make yours.

These are harsh words, but somebody has to say them because the media and the politicians will play with your lives to support their agendas.  But you have to take charge of your lives for your own well being.  Going to the unemployment office and scraping living for your family is not a life.

And save me your statistics.  They are easily twisted to promote your preconceived notions and ideas and agendas.

I'm going to take flack for this post.  But that's something I have been doing all my life.  Bring it on.

Noel

 

Edited May 4, 2020 by birdguy

[HiFlyer 9,363]

42 minutes ago, birdguy said:

Because what have we but an economy?  An engine that that gives us opportunity and a livelihood.  Take away that and as a nation we have noting.

I'm gonna disagree. Take away the economy, and the human race will find some way to survive. Animals all over the world live full and rich lives without dow jones. Economies can be (and have been) brought back to life. Humans? Not so much.

If an economy disappears, the human race, being solid and tangible, continues. On the other hand, if the human race ever fails, then the imaginary social construct that is an economy has no more meaning than a random dream.

As for the social darwinism of the rest of your post, we all have personal opinions as to the value of our lives at any given time. If you truly feel that you are a parasite, then you have every right to feel that way, and I would never argue your decision.

For myself however, I'm extremely cognizant of the human historical record when lesser value is assigned to any category of human being for whatever reason. Where that eventually can and has lead is well documented, and I will follow nobody down that particularly dark path.

[birdguy 3,943]

29 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

Take away the economy, and the human race will find some way to survive

There's an order of magnitude difference between living and surviving.   I want more than mere survival for my children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Noel

Edited May 4, 2020 by birdguy

[dave2013 1,131]

30 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

As for the social darwinism of the rest of your post, we all have personal opinions as to the value of our lives at any given time. If you truly feel that you are a parasite, then you have every right to feel that way, and I would never argue your decision.

For myself however, I'm extremely cognizant of the human historical record when lesser value is assigned to any category of human being for whatever reason. Where that eventually can and has lead is well documented, and I will follow nobody down that particularly dark path.

Every life is valuable and precious.  I'm not making the argument that we do nothing because this mostly kills old people.

I'm trying to dispel some of the alarmism associated with Covid-19.  It is not unusual for an elderly person to die of many things, including Covid-19.

Do people get alarmed when a 75 year old dies of a heart attack, or a stroke, or pneumonia?  No, because it happens all the time.

Dave

 

[HiFlyer 9,363]

51 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

Do people get alarmed when a 75 year old dies of a heart attack, or a stroke, or pneumonia?  No, because it happens all the time.

We also don't get as alarmed because its an unexpected event, out of human hands.

Where such events are detected and preventable/correctable, we as a society tend to do everything we can, up to and including so-called "heroic measures", to save an endangered life, even in cases when the additional time on earth imparted by medical intervention might be negligible.

Obviously some peoples opinion on the value of certain lives, perhaps, the old today, or the poor, tomorrow, or some different reason the next day, may differ from many others, but I know where I personally stand.

1 hour ago, birdguy said:

I want more than mere survival for my children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

I would say there are many paths to life and survival. I would also point out that there are also many ancient and successful cultures far older than ours, where age is actually venerated. 

Showing respect for the lives of these potential drains on society seems to have brought no harm to such cultures ability to both live and survive, and to be honest, some of those cultures are currently handling this crisis far better than we are.

Edited May 4, 2020 by HiFlyer

[Luke 782]

1 hour ago, birdguy said:

There's an order of magnitude difference between living and surviving.   I want more than mere survival for my children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

We all do. But we cannot have more than mere survival if we do not survive.

I am puzzled by the economic focus. My parents (who are your age) grew up rich in Central Europe, lost it all in the Second World War, lost it again when they fled Eastern Europe and then made it all back and then some in the West. Money is very much "come and go" - if you have your health, your family and your love everything else can go. It will likely come back again. Those three will not.

Cheers!

[Bob Scott 7,722]

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

I'm gonna disagree. Take away the economy, and the human race will find some way to survive. Animals all over the world live full and rich lives without dow jones. Economies can be (and have been) brought back to life. Humans? Not so much.

If an economy disappears, the human race, being solid and tangible, continues. On the other hand, if the human race ever fails, then the imaginary social construct that is an economy has no more meaning than a random dream.

If the world economy disappears or suffers major disruptions and displacements, the human race may well survive, but a vast portion of the currently living generations will not.  With 7 billion people on the planet, we are absolutely dependent on the efficiencies and economies of scale provided by organized and functioning economies for our food, medicine, energy, and transportation of the same.

"Animals all over the world live full and rich lives without dow jones"  That's an interesting frame of reference if you think about it.  In particular consider that those wild animals all over the world live by killing and eating each other, ordered by physical dominance with the strong prevailing over the weak.  If the supply chains are sufficiently disrupted, we'll quickly begin seeing humans in large numbers reverting to those same base animal instincts for survival...and it ain't pretty.

[Alan_A 1,650]

4 hours ago, dave2013 said:

I'm not comparing.

I am simply reporting how many people died from similar things to put Covid-19 into context.

Isn't that a comparison?

[HiFlyer 9,363]

14 minutes ago, w6kd said:

"Animals all over the world live full and rich lives without dow jones"  That's an interesting frame of reference if you think about it.  In particular consider that those wild animals all over the world live by killing and eating each other, ordered by physical dominance with the strong prevailing over the weak.  If the supply chains are sufficiently disrupted, we'll quickly begin seeing humans in large numbers reverting to those same base animal instincts for survival...and it ain't pretty.

No, animals generally kill other animals, outside their own species. For food. We are the ones that so easily find reasons to kill each other in such huge numbers.

A good example might be that here we are, at this point only 3 or 4 months into the crisis, and already some out there seem to be eyeing the weak and the old and by necessity the poor (who are inordinately being affected) and measuring them to be the first tossed over the side of the boat.

If there's anybody out there already giving in to "base animal instincts" it's these folks; at a time when the greatest shortage so far is still toilet paper, masks, and pasta!

53 minutes ago, w6kd said:

If the world economy disappears or suffers major disruptions and displacements, the human race may well survive, but a vast portion of the currently living generations will not.  With 7 billion people on the planet, we are absolutely dependent on the efficiencies and economies of scale provided by organized and functioning economies for our food, medicine, energy, and transportation of the same.

Well, that gets to an important point of difference in perspective. I believe the world economy is in the most danger if you can't convince people they are safe out there.

Honestly, you can open all the movie theatres airlines, cruise lines, buslines, banks and what-haves-you's you want, but if I don't feel safe, me, and probably the vast majority are not going out there!

So, many of those business owners that are pushing to open up now..... will be standing in their empty stores, helping out the two or three customers a day that come in, and meanwhile, they will still be paying all the usual expenses, with no patronage to support it.

At the same time, the government might just be washing its hands, halting stimulus checks and trying to cut unemployment benefits.

Simultaneously, in some places, covid cases will likely spike because of the many people forced back to work now out freely running the streets, unwillingly mixing with those who refuse to wear masks, and...... you know full well how the news will cover the likely result.

I can't imagine, if that scenario came to pass, that it would be all that long before the public would start going "nope" to everyone in sight; leaving us with the worst of both worlds: lots and lots of hotspots, a disgusted, cynical and now completely distrustful public, spiking sickness, and an economy that's still going knowhere.

All because of impatience sabotaging our best rational approach to getting out of this mess.

Compounded when countries with more cohesive policies begin to fully recover while we are still flailing around.

To me, that's your country destroying "major disruptions and and displacements" right there.

Dependant on how soon a working vaccine, or at least a powerfully results-changing treatment arrives.

[Alan_A 1,650]

I'm not going to engage directly in the question of whether we should value or at least sort people based on their economic productivity. 

It does remind me though - in fact, a lot of this discussion reminds me - of something I learned from my mentor in the communications business.  He's a very interesting person, a former Victorian lit professor who was also a CIA analyst before he started a third career in communications.  He's now retired, so I guess he's done his part and we can send him off to die so others can make and sell potato chips and create new kinds of mortgage-backed securities and engage in other such high functions of civilization... oh, sorry, I said I wasn't going to talk about that.

He had a working theory that I've tried to adopt, which was this: issues float on a river of values, and controversies about issues are really conflicts about values.

He would say that we seem to be debating covid here but we're really not.  What we're really debating are our closely held values, and that's where the conflict lies: individual vs. community, rights vs. responsibilities, freedom from vs. freedom to, and so on.  All the facts about covid pass through those filters and we use them to argue with each other about things that really aren't about covid, at least not fundamentally.

This explains why neither side in the debate is really persuadable by the other.  Persuasion might happen, but only if we talk about the real terms of the argument.

I'm not advocating that, by the way - just suggesting that this debate, like so many others, is likely to be a tire fire - something that burns endlessly because it's got an inexhaustible supply of fuel, and no amount of factual water that we spray on it is likely to make a difference.

 

[Alan_A 1,650]

10 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

I believe the world economy is in the most danger if you can't convince people they are safe out there.

This is a point that isn't getting enough attention.  The US economy is 70 percent consumer-driven. It runs on consumer confidence.  People who don't feel confident won't spend, no matter how many workers are marched into retail stores and restaurants.  You can't stimulate your way out of a demand crisis.

[Alan_A 1,650]

One last thing for tonight - it's going to seem confrontational but I don't mean it that way, it's more of a thought experiment.  I hear several of you saying that you accept the risk of death - you've lived long lives, and you're willing to sacrifice yours if need be for the greater good, maybe not eagerly, but if that's what it takes for an economic restart. I know you mean it and I don't want to undercut it. 

But at the same time I'm wondering - is your own death the worst you can suffer?  We're all able to contemplate our own deaths and come to terms with them in various ways. 

In my thought experiment, you're not the one that dies.  The person that dies is someone close to you, someone you really care about.  Your spouse?  Your child?  Your parent?  A dear friend?  A teacher or coach?  A spiritual leader or mentor?  Name names.  Who's the person you're going to pick to sacrifice for the good of the economy or for your sense of what risks ought to be acceptable?  Remember, you're going to have to live on, without this person, and you're going to have to conclude that that daily or hourly sense of loss was worth it in terms of the other things you value. Was it?

Maybe you can do that - and if you can, it says to me that you've got real, deeply held convictions. 

I'd just like to know if this scenario changes anything for you.

[WingZ 547]

Today was the first day that New Zealand reported no new CV cases.
So it can be done.

The lockdown process produced an almost perfect bell-curve of cases vs time, I'm sure those that study the numbers and models would find this gratifying. Australia also is down to almost nothing, and the politicians are meeting this week to look at merging the bubbles of the two nations.  

It will be interesting to see what economic packages emerge: small businesses especially, are teetering on the brink.