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.
Those who argue that virus-mitigation measures are being curtailed in favor of raw economic calculation, are really saying, that lives are being mispriced: they should be priced at higher level. Those who argue the contrary, that too many young people are needlessly being made to suffer, in effort to minimize loss-of-life among the elderly, are really saying, that those elderly-lives are being mispriced: they should be priced at lower level.
I think you are right here, my belief is that this whole conversation and our response to the virus would be radically different if the loss of life was concentrated in the 'economically valuable' demographic of young, working-age adults. As it is, those who are primarily succumbing to the virus are generally those which society has written off as being less useful anyway (those with pre-existing conditions, who are disabled, elderly, etc). This only skews the calculation as you mentioned towards pricing the loss of life as less urgent as it might otherwise be.
I agree with the caveat that I don't believe any political party is really "pro-life" (whatever that means, really). What they are is eager to curry favor with a certain population of voters in order to secure votes, even if the majority of the policies they hold are antithetical to life on many levels. We are seeing this play out now where certain state politicians have already admitted they are willing to sacrifice a percentage of the vulnerable population to COVID in exchange for economic stability.
Then again, we are the only country that can say we've nuked an opponent (twice!) in wartime ostensibly for the greater good, so we're no strangers to this type of utilitarian thinking.
The thing is, there IS NO economic stability with covid19. There will only be stability when covid is in the rear-view, meaning we have a vaccine that stops it, or treatment that mitigates it significantly.
That's what I don't get.... people seem to think that if only we didn't shut things down, business would be fine. It wouldn't. Volume is wrecked, even for businesses that are open. They're barely surviving on skeleton crews.
The stock market is only doing well because FAANMGs are doing well... and they are so efficient that really doesn't mean much - they are able to provide service for hundreds of millions while only employing a few hundred thousand people. It's profitable but in a job-destruction way.
I think you are right here, my belief is that this whole conversation and our response to the virus would be radically different if the loss of life was concentrated in the 'economically valuable' demographic of young, working-age adults. As it is, those who are primarily succumbing to the virus are generally those which society has written off as being less useful anyway (those with pre-existing conditions, who are disabled, elderly, etc). This only skews the calculation as you mentioned towards pricing the loss of life as less urgent as it might otherwise be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57
The thing is, there IS NO economic stability with covid19. There will only be stability when covid is in the rear-view, meaning we have a vaccine that stops it, or treatment that mitigates it significantly.
That's what I don't get.... people seem to think that if only we didn't shut things down, business would be fine. It wouldn't. Volume is wrecked, even for businesses that are open. They're barely surviving on skeleton crews.
The stock market is only doing well because FAANMGs are doing well... and they are so efficient that really doesn't mean much - they are able to provide service for hundreds of millions while only employing a few hundred thousand people. It's profitable but in a job-destruction way.
If we have a "national shutdown" who will fund essential consumption? And this concept of quarantining the healthy to protect the unhealthy is quite bizarre. I was going to use the word "novel" but I didn't want to make a pun.
There is indeed a virus going around, with a very low death-rate.
So yeah, the "hoax" part is just people seeing it for what it is.........total overkill to get Donny out of office.
Are there crisis-actors involved to pump-up the "pandemic", I don't doubt it.
I knew all this since March. I can almost guarantee that right after the election, "they" will say that the 'Rona is in remission and not expected to return. How? If Trump wins, "they" will shamefully retreat and drop the 'Rona charade. If Trump loses, they'll declare victory and the 'Rona charade will become unnecessary. Fauci, the ringleader of the whole charade, will be made a patsy and fired, regardless.
I knew all this since March. I can almost guarantee that right after the election, "they" will say that the 'Rona is in remission and not expected to return. How? If Trump wins, "they" will shamefully retreat and drop the 'Rona charade. If Trump loses, they'll declare victory and the 'Rona charade will become unnecessary. Fauci, the ringleader of the whole charade, will be made a patsy and fired, regardless.
I think you must be joking. And btw, Trump can't fire Fauci, this isn't The Apprentice.
When topics start to deteriorate into conspiracy theories and partisan politics, they've run their course in Great Debates and can now head over to the Politics and Other Controversies forum.
Thread closed.
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.