Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, that's the essence of it... "do no harm" is "do no harm physiologically". If killing Little Johnny saves a good chunk of coin, well, that's contrary to the Hippocratic Oath, right? The priority will be on saving Little Johnny, costs be damned.
So, a decision might be rational, straightforward and ethically self-evident from a medical viewpoint, but not from, ahem, other viewpoints. Well, one can espouse such an "alternative" viewpoint out of ignorance of the science - where ignorance includes willful refusal to treat known science seriously. Or, one can understand the science well-enough, and nevertheless make different choices. Our friends over in the hard-right largely fall into the former category. I fall into the latter.
There was a huge amount of unknowns about the virus and pandemic earlier in the year.
If the virus killed just kids, IMO the reaction by the Right would have been more in line with the medical.
Same if the virus was Ebola.
But as it is/was, it is somewhere in the middle. As it was/is, the virus tended to hit liberal people and areas.
So politics has taken hold more than it should, in my medical opinion.
Medicine will always tend to err on the side of caution. 'First do no harm' is no casual slogan. Unless backs are against the wall and it is a do or die situation.
But they're only thinking of harm in a very narrow fashion. As Robert Kennedy Jr. pointed out (definitely not a Republican or Trump supporter):
Everybody's saying "listen to the scientists" but there's a flaw there, which is the scientists can tell you, maybe can model, they can model how many people are going to die from coronavirus using different scenarios.....and they can do that probably pretty well.
But there's something that isn't being modeled here, which is something that those scientists have no expertise on, which is, how many people are being killed by the quarantine? There's really good data...from dozens and dozens of studies that show that number one, isolation kills lots of people. It kills people from depression. It kills people from mistakes. It kills people from not getting routine medical care. It kills people in a lot of different ways...
...Also, unemployment kills people. There's a really good 1982 book that's considered authoritative...and that book did all the modeling on...historical unemployment rates...What they found is that for every point [increase] in unemployment 37,000 people die. 9000 die from heart attacks, 900 die from suicides--all these different reasons that they die. And then 3300 go to prison for every one point and an extra 4000 people end up in mental institutions.
He pointed out that since our population is larger than it was in 1982, the deaths would be likely much higher than 37,000 for every percentage point increase in unemployment.
There's a tremendous amount of impacts that have not been modeled. And if we want to have good public policy in this country, you need to actually do a risk assessment and say, what are the full risks? Let's not just look at coronavirus deaths. Let's look at the deaths from the alternative to coronavirus which is quarantine.
But they're only thinking of harm in a very narrow fashion. As Robert Kennedy Jr. pointed out (definitely not a Republican or Trump supporter):
Everybody's saying "listen to the scientists" but there's a flaw there, which is the scientists can tell you, maybe can model, they can model how many people are going to die from coronavirus using different scenarios.....and they can do that probably pretty well.
But there's something that isn't being modeled here, which is something that those scientists have no expertise on, which is, how many people are being killed by the quarantine? There's really good data...from dozens and dozens of studies that show that number one, isolation kills lots of people. It kills people from depression. It kills people from mistakes. It kills people from not getting routine medical care. It kills people in a lot of different ways...Also, unemployment kills people. There's a really good 1982 book that's considered authoritative...and that book did all the modeling on...historical unemployment rates...What they found is that for every point [increase] in unemployment 37,000 people die. 9000 die from heart attacks, 900 die from suicides--all these different reasons that they die. And then 3300 go to prison for every one point and an extra 4000 people end up in mental institutions.
He pointed out that since our population is larger than it was in 1982, the deaths would be likely much higher than 37,000 for every percentage point increase in unemployment.
There's a tremendous amount of impacts that have not been modeled. And if we want to have good public policy in this country, you need to actually do a risk assessment and say, what are the full risks? Let's not just look at coronavirus deaths. Let's look at the deaths from the alternative to coronavirus which is quarantine.
In medicine it is well known that any treatment can have all sorts and even unknown side effects. i.e. risks vs benefits.
But excess deaths so far are primarily Covid 19 related. There is naturally some lag in these numbers. But that most likely undercounts Covid 19 deaths. That being said more work and time are needed to fully analyze and then appreciate all the causes of Pandemic related excess deaths.
But they're only thinking of harm in a very narrow fashion. As Robert Kennedy Jr. pointed out (definitely not a Republican or Trump supporter):
Everybody's saying "listen to the scientists" but there's a flaw there, which is the scientists can tell you, maybe can model, they can model how many people are going to die from coronavirus using different scenarios.....and they can do that probably pretty well.
But there's something that isn't being modeled here, which is something that those scientists have no expertise on, which is, how many people are being killed by the quarantine? There's really good data...from dozens and dozens of studies that show that number one, isolation kills lots of people. It kills people from depression. It kills people from mistakes. It kills people from not getting routine medical care. It kills people in a lot of different ways...
...Also, unemployment kills people. There's a really good 1982 book that's considered authoritative...and that book did all the modeling on...historical unemployment rates...What they found is that for every point [increase] in unemployment 37,000 people die. 9000 die from heart attacks, 900 die from suicides--all these different reasons that they die. And then 3300 go to prison for every one point and an extra 4000 people end up in mental institutions.
He pointed out that since our population is larger than it was in 1982, the deaths would be likely much higher than 37,000 for every percentage point increase in unemployment.
There's a tremendous amount of impacts that have not been modeled. And if we want to have good public policy in this country, you need to actually do a risk assessment and say, what are the full risks? Let's not just look at coronavirus deaths. Let's look at the deaths from the alternative to coronavirus which is quarantine.
Quarantine ended months ago, and was never all that strict.
The economy would improve if people wore masks, socially distanced, and got the virus under control.
Plenty of people like me are largely out of the economy, and that’s devastating, but there’s no way to get everyone back to being a good consumer without making it safe to do so.
Our economy depends on mindless spending, and while I’ve always been mindful of what I buy, that’s doubly true now where even my entertainment and dining out budget is going unused.
There was a huge amount of unknowns about the virus and pandemic earlier in the year.
Of course. And I fully concede, that hindsight-driven criticisms are specious. The real question, especially in economic-terms, is what ought to be done now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose
If the virus killed just kids, IMO the reaction by the Right would have been more in line with the medical.
But then there arguably would have been a stronger economic argument in favor of a more vigorous response to the virus. Simply put, harm to the next generation, is far more economically-devastating than harm to the generation that's retired.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDrenter223
Quarantine ended months ago, and was never all that strict.
We remain in de facto quarantine, to the extent that educational institutions - daycare, schools and universities - remain in an at-home/Zoom model. Until millions of young people have their posteriors planted in chairs, centrally gathered in large buildings designed for said purpose, we remain as a society in quarantine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDrenter223
The economy would improve if people wore masks, socially distanced, and got the virus under control.
It's a tautology, that the economy would improve if the virus were to be thoroughly "under control".
But social distancing means that the aforementioned schoolchildren can't sit shoulder to shoulder at their desks, for example. How do office-workers commute on the subway? How do diners eat indoors in a restaurant? And so forth. Even with 100% mask-compliance, a socially-distant society is only a half-functioning society. To fully function and to fully reopen the economy, we have to have large crowds of people in close proximity.
I own in upper Manhattan and the units that are for sale in my building right now are listed at higher prices than before the pandemic. For the most part, apartments up here are larger and prices are cheaper than midtown or downtown. We're only a 20 min subway ride from midtown, so it's a good compromise location for people who don't want to move out to the 'burbs but want more space than they can get in the typically trendier areas. I would imagine there are plenty of areas in Queens and Brooklyn that are the same. We have a bunch of great parks up here, too, and that's been a draw for people who want to get outdoors. Very few of my neighbors left the city, so walking around the vibe doesn't actually feel all that different - except people are wearing masks now. The outdoor sidewalk seating that's opened at local restaurants has been very popular and tables are usually full when we walk by in the evenings. We see lots of people picking up take-out and plenty of delivery guys on their bikes delivering food. Museums will open up next week at quarter capacity, which will be nice. A comedy club started offering stand-up on a rooftop with spaced out seating in Brooklyn. When I read the doom and gloom stories online, it doesn't match the reality of what I see daily in my slice of NYC.
Agreed, what I am seeing with my own eyes every day isn't matching up with what people are saying online or in social media.
Of course. And I fully concede, that hindsight-driven criticisms are specious. The real question, especially in economic-terms, is what ought to be done now?
But then there arguably would have been a stronger economic argument in favor of a more vigorous response to the virus. Simply put, harm to the next generation, is far more economically-devastating than harm to the generation that's retired.
We remain in de facto quarantine, to the extent that educational institutions - daycare, schools and universities - remain in an at-home/Zoom model. Until millions of young people have their posteriors planted in chairs, centrally gathered in large buildings designed for said purpose, we remain as a society in quarantine.
It's a tautology, that the economy would improve if the virus were to be thoroughly "under control".
But social distancing means that the aforementioned schoolchildren can't sit shoulder to shoulder at their desks, for example. How do office-workers commute on the subway? How do diners eat indoors in a restaurant? And so forth. Even with 100% mask-compliance, a socially-distant society is only a half-functioning society. To fully function and to fully reopen the economy, we have to have large crowds of people in close proximity.
You get the virus under control using masks, and then you go back to normal once cases are down.
You get the virus under control using masks, and then you go back to normal once cases are down.
It’s not hard.
What does "under control mean"? We've had masked mandated in my area for ~2 months now and in our state for a month now and while cases have been flat, they definitely haven't gone down.
In reality most of the spread isn't happening when you go to the grocery store or the hardware store un-masked. It's happening when you go hang out with your friends at their house, go to a BBQ, go out to eat or get drinks with friends/colleagues, have family in from out of town, do a kids play-date, etc. All of those are instances where basically no one is wearing a mask and is unlikely ever to. Even the most liberal of liberal friends I have that do nothing but preach about masks on social media have pictures of themselves hanging out un-masked with friends and family and at the end of the day that's where most of the spread is coming from. Masks in public might alleviate the exponential threat slightly, but they won't stop the spread.
But there's something that isn't being modeled here, which is something that those scientists have no expertise on, which is, how many people are being killed by the quarantine? There's really good data...from dozens and dozens of studies that show that number one, isolation kills lots of people. It kills people from depression. It kills people from mistakes. It kills people from not getting routine medical care. It kills people in a lot of different ways...
If it were not for the science deniers, the pandemic could have been over in the US three months ago. The last 100,000 deaths and half a million disabled are all on them. Most of the wreckage to the economy is on them. I have friends in other countries, where they followed the direction of their medical community. The pandemic is over there, or reduced to a few dozen cases a day in a whole country.
The anti-mask, "open it up" crew have reduced the US to an object of derision and pity. If you want to know who to blame, it's the bald faced sociopaths not practicing contagion control. They are the ones killing people.
If it were not for the science deniers, the pandemic could have been over in the US three months ago. The last 100,000 deaths and half a million disabled are all on them. Most of the wreckage to the economy is on them. I have friends in other countries, where they followed the direction of their medical community. The pandemic is over there, or reduced to a few dozen cases a day in a whole country.
Not over, but stretched out with fewer serious cases per day. It probably won't be completely over, ever. But we certainly can get to a point where the illness is less lethal and then less common with new treatments and vaccines. Similar to Influenza.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
