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.
How do you think Korea got rich enough to have universal quality health care? Because of us! The U.S. propped them up, gave them foreign aid and protected them for 50 years. Now China is actually their largest export market and the U.S. is second, but still the U.S. is a vital component of their economy. Without us, they couldn't afford some of their nice social services. Ditto the Europeans with their smug social welfare states.
100000% spot on.
Smug Europeans can KMA....without us they'd also be speaking German.
Our healthcare "system" gave us the highest rate of infections in the world, so no, I bet Europeans are not envious of us at all.
What a shock that in the most developed nation in the world it's spreading faster.
Private insurance, unlike socialized medicine, doesn't stop paying just because you're 70 and too expensive to keep alive and deemed expendable in situations like this.
As I said in my post, I am not going to debate the question of this thread. However, I do want to answer the above.
Perhaps I am taking your use of the word "logical" the wrong way, as I took it to mean that you think the question is ridiculous because the answer is obvious, but my question IS a valid one, as shown by the fact that people are taking opposite viewpoints. I think that very few questions are ridiculous because the answer is obvious and non-debatable, and I had to think for a couple of minutes before coming up with even one, which was "Is eating nothing but Tootise Rolls for an entire month a healthy diet?" (Although maybe someone will debate even that!)
In any case, for my husband and myself (and we are both in our mid-60's, btw), the selfish answer would be that the extreme measures HAVE been worth it because my husband was going to retire early and give his notice about March 27th (just this past Friday) because of the virus, but because he was laid off on March 16th, he is now able to collect Unemployment. So instead of getting just one more month of regular pay, he will now receive 39 weeks of Unemployment plus four months of the extra $600 per week from the federal stimulus bill. For us, that will mean about $23,000 more in our savings account than if he had just quit a month later, as we had planned. And so the extreme measures have been very good for us, and the only downside about the virus for usso far, besides worrying about it, is that we are voluntarily self-quarantining (no shopping and no socializing with others) until at least mid-May, and that we will almost certainly run out of fresh dairy and fresh produce, but these are measures that we have inflicted on ourselves. So because we have no relatives we are worried about, if we were to look at it from only a very selfish viewpoint, the extreme measures have been a very good thing for us. (Btw, we are now in the process of deciding about which local charity or food bank to send a very generous donation.)
OTOH, however, taking the unselfish view, we are very worried about those who are not as financially fortunate as we are, younger people who cannot self-isolate without incurring severe financial hardship, those heroic medical personnel who are risking their lives, and all the other concerns I raised in Post #1 of this thread. I also want to point out that although people can do without hair and nail appointments, this will create a very bad hardship for the beauticians and owners of these shops -- and if a Depression results (continues) from this, they might not recover financially.
But, again, the question of this debate is whether or not all the extreme measures that have been taken will have been worth it if the death count turns out to be much lower than was first predicted by some experts. At this point, I think it might be too soon to say; that as others have said, that it IS a balancing act with no obvious answers; and I think that the question that is the subject of this thread will be debated for many, many years to come.
P.S. Thanks again to EVERYONE who has posted in this thread.
OP, my intent wasn't to say that your question is "ridiculous", but to point out some fallacies that are underpinning it. One of the easier ones to explain is your point about the medical staff that already have succumbed to the disease, RIP. That would have happened no matter what the test-positive count turns out to be. In fact, the losses would have been greater if businesses had stayed open, allowing more opportunity for virus circulation and more people getting ill.
I do share your concern about people put out of work (temporarily) and businesses having to shut down. In fact, I spent a couple of weeks leading up to the shutdowns questioning small business owners about their ability to survive the shutdowns. But your question implies, that, depending on what the final count turns out to be, businesses should have been allowed to stay open; the price the country has had to pay in creating conditions for a recession, is too high.
But you see, there's faulty reasoning involved there, too. If the numbers end up lower than expected, it will be because of the measures taken to limit spread of the disease. If the measures hadn't been taken, of course the ultimate count will have been much higher, meeting your "worth it" benchmark. Those same business owners and their employees could well have come down with the disease, some of them to a serious enough degree to end up hospitalized, fighting for their life, if they'd stayed open. The reason the count doesn't meet your "worth it" threshold is because of the success of the strategy used. But you're using that very success in limiting the virus cases, to judge the measures negatively.
Of course this is a terrible dilemma to face: unemployment vs. risk of death or potentially some form of pulmonary disability, or with a lucky roll of the dice--merely milder flu symptoms. But keeping businesses open would mean each worker plays Russian roulette by showing up to work everyday, while the virus would have an increased opportunity to circulate and affect the nation more severely.
The fact that the measures worked, saving lives, is the very reason the count wasn't higher and didn't meet your "worth it" standard. So what you're arguing, is that a higher death toll would have justified the isolation measures/business closures. But the fact is, that, for the higher death toll to have happened, businesses would have had to stay open, so there would have been no closure/isolation measures to justify. This is where the logic breaks down.
Furthermore, if we'd kept commerce going as usual, more people would have become ill, pushing the total over your threshold, which in turn would have had economic repercussions, anyway. An economic slowdown due to workers home ill for weeks and others dying, hospitals overwhelmed and more hospital staff dying isn't included in your "worth it/not worth it" balance sheet. You'd need to include that, in order to have a fair evaluation.
It's a Catch-22 situation. And a terrible bargain to have to consider: life/health and economic recession vs. unfettered economic activity but increased suffering from disease.
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 03-30-2020 at 11:16 AM..
Would it have been worth it to have saved your life?
No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by twinkletwinkle22
If my 401k lost 30% then it wasn't worth it.
Indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by twinkletwinkle22
How do you prove our country didn't become a 3rd worth apocalyptic horror because we contained this virus?
That's the eternal question! It can also be asked, regarding what would have happened, had there been no bailout in the 2008 financial crisis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt-lover L.A.M.
It's not worth it. The effects on the economy are already severe, and the virus isn't that serious and cannot be completely stopped.
I happen to agree with this, but I'm a narrowly selfish, narcissistic and materialistic person, who has no living relatives and who often views humanity itself in narrowly transactional terms. But as the above-quoted poster noted, we have no way of reckoning, as to whether the crisis has been overblown, and the "do nothing" approach would have been more benign, than is broadly reported. That is a counterfactual experiment that would perhaps be too awful to run.
But as you and others have noted, we need not be doctrinaire about one or another extreme. We can have a blended approach, of some precautionary or emergency measures, but not all of them. The most foolish thing of all, would be to fanatically cling to one packet of ideas, because those just happen to be our ideas, or the ideas of a public-figure whom we follow.
If I lost my job due to shutdown then it wasn't worth it.
If my 401k lost 30% then it wasn't worth it.
If I couldn't get my chemotherapy and died it wasn't worth it.
If my kid couldn't get scouted and get a sports offer from Big U. it wasn't worth it.
How do you prove that you or a family member didn't get really ill or died if it didn't happen?
How do you prove our country didn't become a 3rd worth apocalyptic horror because we contained this virus?
Some workers (we can't foresee how many) will get their jobs back. Many employers want them back.It's expensive and time-consuming to have to advertise, interview and hire new staff. It delays the re-start of business activity. Some will be able to walk right back into their old jobs as if they'd been on leave, if they want their jobs back.
You have no way of knowing today whether your 401k will bounce back after the business shutdown is over. You're assuming it won't
But the guy who got ICU time in your place, to recover from the virus, would see it differently.
The scouting will resume, along with other activities, universities re-opening, etc., eventually. The scouting is only postponed. The Big U your kid hopes to get into is shut down for now, anyway, so your kid isn't missing anything.
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 03-30-2020 at 12:18 PM..
This is going to be an unpopular answer, but no, I don't think it's worth it. If the lock down goes past April 30, the economy will suffer and people will go insane. We have to let people go back to work and continue on with their lives. The world shouldn't stop because of this virus.
Largely due to the extreme measures taken, Dr. Fauci now estimates that U.S. deaths from COVID-19 will now total between 100,000 and 200,000 instead of the previous estimate of up to about ten times that number that some other experts had predicted. https://abcnews.go.com/US/coronaviru...ry?id=69859267
So IF the final U.S. death toll from COVID-19 turns out to be about 150,000 (or less), if you figure in the despair of those who lost their jobs or businesses and might not recover, the possible violence due to shortages, the increased domestic abuse resulting from people being forced to stay home to some extent, medical personnel losing their lives because of caring for the sick, the stress and worry about loved ones, and the trillions of dollars that taxpayers will end up paying -- and also knowing that the usual number of deaths annually in the U.S. is about 3,000,000 -- do you think the extreme measures taken to prevent possibly hundreds of thousands more deaths will have been worth it?
P.S. As I personally have not formed an opinion on this question yet, I will not be debating anyone who responds, but I will most definitely be reading any responses that this post receives, so thanks in advance.
As I said in my post, I am not going to debate the question of this thread. However, I do want to answer the above.
Perhaps I am taking your use of the word "logical" the wrong way, as I took it to mean that you think the question is ridiculous because the answer is obvious, but my question IS a valid one, as shown by the fact that people are taking opposite viewpoints. I think that very few questions are ridiculous because the answer is obvious and non-debatable, and I had to think for a couple of minutes before coming up with even one, which was "Is eating nothing but Tootise Rolls for an entire month a healthy diet?" (Although maybe someone will debate even that!)
In any case, for my husband and myself (and we are both in our mid-60's, btw), the selfish answer would be that the extreme measures HAVE been worth it because my husband was going to retire early and give his notice about March 27th (just this past Friday) because of the virus, but because he was laid off on March 16th, he is now able to collect Unemployment. So instead of getting just one more month of regular pay, he will now receive 39 weeks of Unemployment plus four months of the extra $600 per week from the federal stimulus bill. For us, that will mean about $23,000 more in our savings account than if he had just quit a month later, as we had planned. And so the extreme measures have been very good for us, and the only downside about the virus for usso far, besides worrying about it, is that we are voluntarily self-quarantining (no shopping and no socializing with others) until at least mid-May, and that we will almost certainly run out of fresh dairy and fresh produce, but these are measures that we have inflicted on ourselves. So because we have no relatives we are worried about, if we were to look at it from only a very selfish viewpoint, the extreme measures have been a very good thing for us. (Btw, we are now in the process of deciding about which local charity or food bank to send a very generous donation.)
OTOH, however, taking the unselfish view, we are very worried about those who are not as financially fortunate as we are, younger people who cannot self-isolate without incurring severe financial hardship, those heroic medical personnel who are risking their lives, and all the other concerns I raised in Post #1 of this thread. I also want to point out that although people can do without hair and nail appointments, this will create a very bad hardship for the beauticians and owners of these shops -- and if a Depression results (continues) from this, they might not recover financially.
But, again, the question of this debate is whether or not all the extreme measures that have been taken will have been worth it if the death count turns out to be much lower than was first predicted by some experts. At this point, I think it might be too soon to say; that as others have said, that it IS a balancing act with no obvious answers; and I think that the question that is the subject of this thread will be debated for many, many years to come.
P.S. Thanks again to EVERYONE who has posted in this thread.
Seriously?
I have several friends who consider themselves "conservative" - they go on an on about gov't spending and entitlements handed out to the undeserving. Yet when push comes to shove, their hands are the first ones out whether or not they need the money. I get the stimulus - that amount is likely direct deposited, but actually actively filing for unemployment when you were all set to retire anyway?
The very same people who voted to "drain the swamp!" are themselves the swamp. Looking to how the Federal Government can line their pockets in a way that might be technically legal but is highly unethical. This country cannot afford this attitude and behavior - whether it is coming from white collar boomers who share online about building their dream retirement home, lining their savings accounts with money intended to put food on the tables of those who cannot afford it, or whether it's from "welfare queens". Take a hard look in the mirror.
SMDH - completely unethical and yes, SELFISH.
Last edited by maciesmom; 03-30-2020 at 12:44 PM..
This. It is infuriating how little Americans care for the elderly. "Nana only has 6 years left in the tank, so let's just pull the plug. The economy matters more." That is exactly what Dan Patrick was saying, but he made it worse by making himself sound brave and noble, a sacrificial lamb on the glorified altar of euthanasia. As if he, a multimillionaire politician, would ever have to make that choice for himself in the first place.
Actually, the response I seem to see a lot lately is "Your nana only has 6 years left, so why tank the economy?"
SO yeah, a lot of people would rather save the economy over the prospect of losing a stranger's life
Status:
"Smartened up and walked away!"
(set 26 days ago)
11,782 posts, read 5,795,007 times
Reputation: 14207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scooby Snacks
And what healthcare would that be? My wife works at a hospital and yesterday she went by her job and they gave her one mask that doesn't fit her tiny face. She is supposed to wear it for her shift all day Tuesday and put it in a ziploc bag in between patients so she doesn't drop it because they don't have enough for her to change them out in between. And your speculation about Europeans comes from where? Pure guessing. Our healthcare "system" gave us the highest rate of infections in the world, so no, I bet Europeans are not envious of us at all.
There are plenty of people making masks that donate them to the hospital in my area. I just purchased a box of masks on Amazon for $20. If my job couldn't provide it - then I'd buy my own to protect myself.
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.
