Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Texas Govonor says elderly should be sacrificed for economy

Page 4 of 7 [ 108 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

06 Apr 2020, 7:14 am

EzraS wrote:
magz wrote:
EzraS wrote:
magz wrote:
EzraS wrote:
I'm not elderly, but I am just as at risk due to lifelong respiratory issues. And I am all for everyone getting back to work ASAP. April 15th would be fine with me. Even April 1st would have been alright. I believe many elderly and other at risk people feel the same way. People need to be financially able too properly provide for their children.

Are you ready to die for it?

Yep. I will not ask millions to give up so much for me.

Good. And I am willing to go back to poverty and shortages to save lives.

But most of all, I am willing to adapt because I believe it's not the last pandemic in this half-century.


So why not hault everything that costs lives? You do know that there are many preventable things that cost lives right? Why single out this one thing when it is down the list from so many other things that cost more lives?


I suspect they are <whisper> "progressives".
Reason will only confuse them and potentially cause them to become emotionalistic and violent.
Avoid eye contact and back away very slowly. 8O :mrgreen:

<serious mode on>
I haven't come across a convincing rationale as to why some considerations are ignored, while others are highlighted.
It will be interesting to hear what eventuates.
I suspect nothing will be resolved, however.
I hope I am pleasantly surprised. :wink:



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

06 Apr 2020, 7:19 am

EzraS wrote:
firemonkey wrote:
Those who place the economy above dealing properly with the virus, are, to put it bluntly, members of the 'idiot squad' .


The economy is millions of poor people, working class, minorities etc having the means for food and shelter.

When the economy collapses those are the people who are going to get clobbered to a devastating degree.


I would think this is self-evident.
Over here in Oz, a lot of those preaching total adherence to the health considerations are financially secure.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

06 Apr 2020, 7:22 am

It amazes me some that most people are so shortsighted, so easily panicked, and so willingly capitulate to a scenario.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

06 Apr 2020, 7:29 am

magz wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Oh please. It's not the black plague. It's not going to kill everyone. Millions of people die in car crashes in the US each year. Millions more lose limbs and or become paralyzed. So why not keep most people from driving?

There are lots of driving-related restrictions to minimize these numbers. Seat belts. Technical requirements to legalize vehicles. Child seats (something absent curing my childhood but mandatory now). Speed limits and all the complex rules of public road usage.

Likewise - halting all the economy for the corona is... it's even impossible. Introducing new restrictions because of a new danger can be adaptive. On the global level, even on the level of my small country, the economy can afford slowing down without anyone starving. Not stopping. Slowing down and readapting to new situation.


Some people aren't interested in "mitigation".
Some want an unrealistic solution.
And some extreme individuals want to service a hidden agenda.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

06 Apr 2020, 7:44 am

During the Great Depression, mortality actually decreased. People lived longer as treatments for TB improved.

There was an increase in suicides. In 1928 there were 14 suicides per 100,000 people. In they peaked at about 18. I am reading those numbers off a digital graph so they may be slightly out.

Let us say that:

- The Great Depression caused 4 suicides per 100,000 people, every year. This is a high-end estimate.
- The US population was 130m throughout the Depression (this is the estimated population in 1938, so high).
- The Depression lasted 10 years.

That equates to 52,000 deaths.

Now let’s say that this virus causes a two-year depression. The US population is 330m. The impact on suicides over the two years is the same.

That’s 26,400 people killed by the recession.

Now let’s say that without any restrictions, and with people forced to live their normal lives (realistically most people would choose to isolate anyway), 80% of the US would get sick, and 0.5% of those who get sick would die. That is a low-end estimate for the mortality rate. In that situation, 1.32 million people would die.

It isn’t even close.

Conclusion: the people who are easily panicked and being short-sighted are those who think an economic downturn is worse than 1,320,000 Americans dying.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

06 Apr 2020, 7:48 am

magz wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
I'm not elderly, but I am just as at risk due to lifelong respiratory issues. And I am all for everyone getting back to work ASAP. April 15th would be fine with me. Even April 1st would have been alright. I believe many elderly and other at risk people feel the same way. People need to be financially able too properly provide for their children.

Can't do that if you're dead.

Oh please. It's not the black plague. It's not going to kill everyone. Millions of people die in car crashes in the US each year. Millions more lose limbs and or become paralyzed. So why not keep most people from driving?

There are lots of driving-related restrictions to minimize these numbers. Seat belts. Technical requirements to legalize vehicles. Child seats (something absent curing my childhood but mandatory now). Speed limits and all the complex rules of public road usage.

Likewise - halting all the economy for the corona is... it's even impossible. Introducing new restrictions because of a new danger can be adaptive. On the global level, even on the level of my small country, the economy can afford slowing down without anyone starving. Not stopping. Slowing down and readapting to new situation.


I think you know that my point is that going to extremes will save millions of lives in all sorts of areas of life. The question why don't we. The answer is because it is too impractical and most do not want to live that way.

How are you yourself plan on getting by with no job?

Or are you hoping for socialism to come back to Poland even though it was awful the first time around.



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

06 Apr 2020, 8:26 am

EzraS wrote:
I think you know that my point is that going to extremes will save millions of lives in all sorts of areas of life. The question why don't we. The answer is because it is too impractical and most do not want to live that way.

How are you yourself plan on getting by with no job?

Or are you hoping for socialism to come back to Poland even though it was awful the first time around.

Neither. Software development is one of the jobs you can do remotely with no much problem. Same with my academic career. I'm not afraid for my or my husband's job. Same with my brother. As long as there is food in our local store, we have all means to survive - and the brother of our local store owner is a farmer.

My sisters are professional musicians. They lost most of their income sources with the lockdowns. I can support them for several months, a year, even more if they need it. Already offered it - as for now they do manage but the option is open.
My father is likely to bankrupt. Again. Fifth or sixth bankrupcy in his career, I've lost count. If things go really bad, I can support him, too, but knowing him, he'll just start over again. We've gone through it so many times when I was growing up.

I know how to be poor and still keep my place in this world. That's probably my advantage here.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

06 Apr 2020, 8:51 am

The_Walrus wrote:
During the Great Depression, mortality actually decreased. People lived longer as treatments for TB improved.

There was an increase in suicides. In 1928 there were 14 suicides per 100,000 people. In they peaked at about 18. I am reading those numbers off a digital graph so they may be slightly out.

Let us say that:

- The Great Depression caused 4 suicides per 100,000 people, every year. This is a high-end estimate.
- The US population was 130m throughout the Depression (this is the estimated population in 1938, so high).
- The Depression lasted 10 years.

That equates to 52,000 deaths.

Now let’s say that this virus causes a two-year depression. The US population is 330m. The impact on suicides over the two years is the same.

That’s 26,400 people killed by the recession.

Now let’s say that without any restrictions, and with people forced to live their normal lives (realistically most people would choose to isolate anyway), 80% of the US would get sick, and 0.5% of those who get sick would die. That is a low-end estimate for the mortality rate. In that situation, 1.32 million people would die.

It isn’t even close.

Conclusion: the people who are easily panicked and being short-sighted are those who think an economic downturn is worse than 1,320,000 Americans dying.


Exactly.

My mother isn't in great health. I'm not willing to put her at risk just so some people can "own the libs" by spreading a pandemic.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


beady
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Sep 2013
Age: 65
Gender: Female
Posts: 898

06 Apr 2020, 8:55 am

A consideration worth mentioning is that this virus is not the last of its kind. This is only a glimpse of the new world order. The wealthy want the workers to get back to providing the means to sustain their wealth and sustenance - while clapping from behind fortress doors as the lives of the disposable workers are lost.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

06 Apr 2020, 8:56 am

magz wrote:
EzraS wrote:
I think you know that my point is that going to extremes will save millions of lives in all sorts of areas of life. The question why don't we. The answer is because it is too impractical and most do not want to live that way.

How are you yourself plan on getting by with no job?

Or are you hoping for socialism to come back to Poland even though it was awful the first time around.

Neither. Software development is one of the jobs you can do remotely with no much problem. Same with my academic career. I'm not afraid for my or my husband's job. Same with my brother. As long as there is food in our local store, we have all means to survive - and the brother of our local store owner is a farmer.

My sisters are professional musicians. They lost most of their income sources with the lockdowns. I can support them for several months, a year, even more if they need it. Already offered it - as for now they do manage but the option is open.
My father is likely to bankrupt. Again. Fifth or sixth bankrupcy in his career, I've lost count. If things go really bad, I can support him, too, but knowing him, he'll just start over again. We've gone through it so many times when I was growing up.

I know how to be poor and still keep my place in this world. That's probably my advantage here.


I figured you will not experience much if any personal hardship from it and plan on getting by alright. I figure that is the case with most who don't really care about a severe depression. Unfortunately there are millions who do not have that luxury. Not that what you or I as individuals think and want will make any difference in the great scheme of things.



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

06 Apr 2020, 9:36 am

EzraS wrote:
magz wrote:
EzraS wrote:
I think you know that my point is that going to extremes will save millions of lives in all sorts of areas of life. The question why don't we. The answer is because it is too impractical and most do not want to live that way.

How are you yourself plan on getting by with no job?

Or are you hoping for socialism to come back to Poland even though it was awful the first time around.

Neither. Software development is one of the jobs you can do remotely with no much problem. Same with my academic career. I'm not afraid for my or my husband's job. Same with my brother. As long as there is food in our local store, we have all means to survive - and the brother of our local store owner is a farmer.

My sisters are professional musicians. They lost most of their income sources with the lockdowns. I can support them for several months, a year, even more if they need it. Already offered it - as for now they do manage but the option is open.
My father is likely to bankrupt. Again. Fifth or sixth bankrupcy in his career, I've lost count. If things go really bad, I can support him, too, but knowing him, he'll just start over again. We've gone through it so many times when I was growing up.

I know how to be poor and still keep my place in this world. That's probably my advantage here.


I figured you will not experience much if any personal hardship from it and plan on getting by alright. I figure that is the case with most who don't really care about a severe depression. Unfortunately there are millions who do not have that luxury. Not that what you or I as individuals think and want will make any difference in the great scheme of things.

Did I mention my sisters lost their income and my father is likely to bankrupt? I am their safety net to take the impact. That's something I can definitely do so in this aspect, what I think does make a difference.
Another thing I can definitely do is stay at home, teach my children with our remote schooling project, wear gloves and a mask and do whatever I can to slow down the infection spreading.
Another thing I can do is making sure my husband can work despite being locked in our 2 bedroom apartament with two kids. And I work on keeping us all sane.
So no, I'm not unimpacted. I need to do a lot more work, compared to what I do normally. All while fighting depression, burnout and some throat infection that would normally put me in bed.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

06 Apr 2020, 9:44 am

You are doing much for your family, Magz. I’m proud of you for that.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

06 Apr 2020, 10:07 am

The_Walrus wrote:
During the Great Depression, mortality actually decreased. People lived longer as treatments for TB improved.

There was an increase in suicides. In 1928 there were 14 suicides per 100,000 people. In they peaked at about 18. I am reading those numbers off a digital graph so they may be slightly out.

Let us say that:

- The Great Depression caused 4 suicides per 100,000 people, every year. This is a high-end estimate.
- The US population was 130m throughout the Depression (this is the estimated population in 1938, so high).
- The Depression lasted 10 years.

That equates to 52,000 deaths.

Now let’s say that this virus causes a two-year depression. The US population is 330m. The impact on suicides over the two years is the same.

That’s 26,400 people killed by the recession.

Now let’s say that without any restrictions, and with people forced to live their normal lives (realistically most people would choose to isolate anyway), 80% of the US would get sick, and 0.5% of those who get sick would die. That is a low-end estimate for the mortality rate. In that situation, 1.32 million people would die.

It isn’t even close.

Conclusion: the people who are easily panicked and being short-sighted are those who think an economic downturn is worse than 1,320,000 Americans dying.


0.1% of the US population has contracted the virus. Don't you think going from 0.1% to 80% is a rather unrealistic leap? We had 45 million cases of the flu in 2018. Why not predict that it might be 225 million next time around?



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

06 Apr 2020, 10:14 am

XFilesGeek wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
During the Great Depression, mortality actually decreased. People lived longer as treatments for TB improved.

There was an increase in suicides. In 1928 there were 14 suicides per 100,000 people. In they peaked at about 18. I am reading those numbers off a digital graph so they may be slightly out.

Let us say that:

- The Great Depression caused 4 suicides per 100,000 people, every year. This is a high-end estimate.
- The US population was 130m throughout the Depression (this is the estimated population in 1938, so high).
- The Depression lasted 10 years.

That equates to 52,000 deaths.

Now let’s say that this virus causes a two-year depression. The US population is 330m. The impact on suicides over the two years is the same.

That’s 26,400 people killed by the recession.

Now let’s say that without any restrictions, and with people forced to live their normal lives (realistically most people would choose to isolate anyway), 80% of the US would get sick, and 0.5% of those who get sick would die. That is a low-end estimate for the mortality rate. In that situation, 1.32 million people would die.

It isn’t even close.

Conclusion: the people who are easily panicked and being short-sighted are those who think an economic downturn is worse than 1,320,000 Americans dying.


Exactly.

My mother isn't in great health. I'm not willing to put her at risk just so some people can "own the libs" by spreading a pandemic.


Why would she be out in the public when she is at risk? The way I look at is, if everyone is in lockdown for 6 months, I will still be in isolation. If everyone goes back to work next week, I will still be in isolation. It won't make any difference to me personally because in either case, I will be in isolation. I am just as safe either way.

Just so some people can own the libs? Seriously?



Last edited by EzraS on 06 Apr 2020, 10:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

06 Apr 2020, 10:15 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
You are doing much for your family, Magz. I’m proud of you for that.

Thanks, you're lovely :heart: I hope you're staying safe :heart:
We are "primitive" people here, experiences with stupid or even hostile governments and unstable economies make us retreat to family as the main safety net. In crises, it becomes much more visible.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

06 Apr 2020, 10:17 am

magz wrote:
EzraS wrote:
magz wrote:
EzraS wrote:
I think you know that my point is that going to extremes will save millions of lives in all sorts of areas of life. The question why don't we. The answer is because it is too impractical and most do not want to live that way.

How are you yourself plan on getting by with no job?

Or are you hoping for socialism to come back to Poland even though it was awful the first time around.

Neither. Software development is one of the jobs you can do remotely with no much problem. Same with my academic career. I'm not afraid for my or my husband's job. Same with my brother. As long as there is food in our local store, we have all means to survive - and the brother of our local store owner is a farmer.

My sisters are professional musicians. They lost most of their income sources with the lockdowns. I can support them for several months, a year, even more if they need it. Already offered it - as for now they do manage but the option is open.
My father is likely to bankrupt. Again. Fifth or sixth bankrupcy in his career, I've lost count. If things go really bad, I can support him, too, but knowing him, he'll just start over again. We've gone through it so many times when I was growing up.

I know how to be poor and still keep my place in this world. That's probably my advantage here.


I figured you will not experience much if any personal hardship from it and plan on getting by alright. I figure that is the case with most who don't really care about a severe depression. Unfortunately there are millions who do not have that luxury. Not that what you or I as individuals think and want will make any difference in the great scheme of things.

Did I mention my sisters lost their income and my father is likely to bankrupt? I am their safety net to take the impact. That's something I can definitely do so in this aspect, what I think does make a difference.
Another thing I can definitely do is stay at home, teach my children with our remote schooling project, wear gloves and a mask and do whatever I can to slow down the infection spreading.
Another thing I can do is making sure my husband can work despite being locked in our 2 bedroom apartament with two kids. And I work on keeping us all sane.
So no, I'm not unimpacted. I need to do a lot more work, compared to what I do normally. All while fighting depression, burnout and some throat infection that would normally put me in bed.


Yeah you mentioned it and it didn't seem like it was any big deal to you. Like meh we'll get by alright. Bring it in.