Texas Govonor says elderly should be sacrificed for economy

Post Reply New Topic

I don't know XFG's situation but I know quite a lot of people living together with their parents in tiny apartaments where you physically can't isolate them from their outside-working children.

No it's not the last. It is the umpteenth of what has already transpired. It is just being treated differently because we have become reliant upon prediction models. And the wealthy provide a means to sustain the workers. But maybe you have dreams of global socialism, believing this time around that socialism will manage be beneficial to the common people, even though it has always failed to be so.

Because we'll be allright. My parents and grandparents went through worse crises. We have each other to help.

What happens when they can't pay the rent for months and the landlord can't afford to keep the apartment building any longer? That's what my relative who lives in an apartment building is afraid of. That his building will shut down eventually because of that. And not just his apartment building, but most of them. Then what is he supposed to do?

What about those who will not be alright? Those who don't have that kind of network support system? See I am not worried about me. I am worried about those who well be devastated.

If lockdowns go on long enough, this is not something that millions will be able to weather.

Last edited by EzraS on 06 Apr 2020, 10:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Economy vs coronavirus choice
The destroy the economy vs destroy lives argument is too simplistic.

Suicide is not the only cause of Depression related deaths. Constant stress and anxiety causes physical issues which shorten life. Another cause of physical issues during economic bad times is poor diet. A lot of state and local governments and school districts go bankrupt causing a drop in services which cause more stress, people to be less educated, causing poor choices leading to poor physical health. Bad economic times often leads to more crime, murders etc. This depression will massively add to a Federal Deficit already massively out of control. Massive stimulus programs and bailouts plus sharply less tax money coming in will do that. While the Federal government can “print money” sustaining massive deficits for a long period of time this can’t go on forever.

Pandemic caused deaths are massive and immediate, depression caused deaths tend to be longer term, indirect and harder to count. A pandemic allowed to take its course will cause less economic problems then a full mandated shutdown especially in the short term but they will be significant. Pandemics allowed to run their cause will cause long term, hard to count economic problems. A lot of people who would have been productive are now dead or disabled.

The above is why basing this choice on computer modeling of costs is fraught.

Choosing a little bit of this and a little bit of that is probably better than choosing one extreme or another but one also runs the danger of the worst of both worlds. There are no good choices only less bad ones. This type of complicated choice we are less prepared for now then in the past due to our expectations of instant solutions, the google effect.

Why was the coronavirus choice different from most other choices?
The answer as to why we chose full economic shutdown for this threat has been mentioned. A perfect storm of the unknown. COVID-19 is new so the threat it poses was unknown, it is unseen which is always scary, “Diseased people” have always been feared and stigmatized, who wants to be one of “those”. Gasping for air on a ventilator (or without if none are available) is a horrific way to be whether it kills you or leaves you temporarily or permanently disabled. The harm caused by driving and seasonal flu are also horrific but “baked in”.

Add to the above the immediacy of social media, one can immerse oneself in a 24/7 coronavirus bubble, this was not possible before. And as I mentioned somewhere else recently in our post 9/11, mass shootings era lockdowns, shelter in place etc is already baked in.

Little of the above is logical, it is human nature for most.

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 06 Apr 2020, 11:10 am, edited 5 times in total.

And I am worried for those who die. It's even more devastating.

That's because you believe an unrealistic number of people are going to die from this virus. You know what will kill many more Italians in 2020 than the virus? Heart disease. Which is preventable. So why not be on a bigger crusade over something that will kill so many more people there and in many other countries? Because you haven't been told to panic over that?

I don't panic. I'm doing what I can not to make things worse.
I actually do care for my parents' hearts. And my MIL's diabetes. And my daughter's tooth decay. And my close friend's severe psoriasis.
I have no power to do anything about heart diseases in Italy. Just like I have no power to do anything about obesity in the US. Or, I don't know, poaching in Africa.
I can do something about the CV. My tiny bricks on epidemological, social and economical levels. And I'm trying to do my best with this something.

If I have to go back to work, I might get exposed to it and would bring it home to her.

And the amount of idiots (at least the ones in my friends list) who are complaining that this is a "liberal conspiracy" is nuts.

Good post and I largely agree.

It is difficult to ascertain the number of people killed by an economic downturn. It will be more than the suicides - they’re just the easiest ones to detect. In the long run, theoretically the number of people killed by an economic downturn will go up as long as humans continue to die.

Realistically, two things are apparent:

1) the number of lives saved by these lockdowns is far, far higher than the number of lives they cost. Suspect that these lockdowns have led to huge reductions in traffic deaths, pollution-related deaths, and gang violence as well as saving millions of lives from the virus. It’s very hard to justify anything different.

2) the economic cost of letting people get sick and die is far smaller than the economic cost of shutting down the economy. Estimates are that about 12% of the economic damage is directly due to mortality and morbidity. (Read that a few weeks ago - think it was here: https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/pu ... ronavirus/ )

Why do most people support lockdowns now but not to e.g. prevent air pollution that leads to lung disease? I think the major factor is immediacy. Millions of people would have died from CoVID-19 in 2020 without proper government responses. But for most things, death is deferred and detached from its cause.

I think we are again polarising into extremes: complete shutdown or "back to normal" ignoring the emidemics.
I find neither healthy.

The country that so far does best work with containing the virus is South Korea. They didn't get into total shutdown but they are very actively responding to the threat.
Let's learn from them.

Apples and oranges. People can choose to drive or not to drive, and thereby take precautions. The virus can hit anyone out of the blue, but is finite in the time that it'll be active.

Let's clarify something before I rip your argument apart.
Err, did I say that aloud?

Is your position:
-There should be a total lockdown?
-There should be heavy lockdowns?

Nice to see a non-binary person in action.

Over my DEAD body!!

I'll will not let them lay a finger on my grandfather, who's like the only person like a father to me!