Current Events > If our economy stayed like this with all the closures...

(+) Yeah! (+)

And I mean permanently. Then we could prevent thousands of deaths from the common flu every single year.

So here's the question...are those lives worth sacrificing our economy for? Or is the economy only worth tanking when there could be more deaths added from an additional strain such as the Coronavirus?

I'm just trying to figure out what exactly is the amount of lives saved that makes it worth all the economic and financial impacts.

This is only a big deal because we dont understand it, dont have an immunity to it, and so it has the capacity to overwhelm our healthcare system and get a lot more people killed than otherwise. Utilitarianism is a sophomoric moral philosophy, my guy.

---

EnragedSlith posted...

This is only a big deal because we dont understand it, dont have an immunity to it, and so it has the capacity to overwhelm our healthcare system and get a lot more people killed than otherwise. Utilitarianism is a sophomoric moral philosophy, my guy.

I'm not preaching utilitarianism. I'm trying to define what exactly will give society the most utility. Until we know that, there is no argument to be made for utilitarianism.

The reality is, both sides are right to a certain point about how we are dealing with the virus situation. I think we all need to be more understanding of each other.

You cant have an economy if everyone is dead

---

If the healthcare system had enough beds and resources to house everybody that got sick, there would be no need for all this closure. But in most times that would be more than overkill.

---

TheBiggerWiggle posted...

You cant have an economy if everyone is dead

Good thing only a small percentage will be dead
---

The big lesson here is that's there's really not much actual need for office workers or students to actually go to the office or school, nor is there any real need to go to a grocer, retailer, liquor store, or restaurant when delivery is possible

Of course, we are going to quickly forget all of the above as soon as the "all clear" is given for the pandemic. Nobody is going to care that telecommuting worked out fairly well for several weeks - you gotta come in to the office to sit in pointless meetings and screw around on facebook all day, dammit!

i think the argument would be well this is 10x more deadly than the flu at least

which leads to an interesting question

if 1-2.5% is worth shutting the economy down, how about 0.9%? What about 0.8%? When do we figure its okay?

of course this will likely be taken as I am for stopping the whole social distancing thing right now and opening everything up, which is not the case. I'm just curious as to what our tolerance level is...there's gotta be a number. 0.1% isn't it, since that's the flu and we do not halt our economy for that.

There is also the argument of medical capacity. The quicker the cases spike up and a burden is put on the hospital, the higher the death rate will go.

Then there is also the question of why, despite knowing tons of resp. diseases continue to come out of China, did we not stockpile ventilators and masks just for this?

Fun questions...there are also dark questions. Like "What will be the impact on Social security and medicare if we did let 2% of the population over 60 die"? Don't answer that one.

The closures are because there isn't enough hospital space

---

Romes187 posted...

i think the argument would be well this is 10x more deadly than the flu at least

which leads to an interesting question

if 1-2.5% is worth shutting the economy down, how about 0.9%? What about 0.8%? When do we figure its okay?

of course this will likely be taken as I am for stopping the whole social distancing thing right now and opening everything up, which is not the case. I'm just curious as to what our tolerance level is...there's gotta be a number. 0.1% isn't it, since that's the flu and we do not halt our economy for that.

There is also the argument of medical capacity. The quicker the cases spike up and a burden is put on the hospital, the higher the death rate will go.

Then there is also the question of why, despite knowing tons of resp. diseases continue to come out of China, did we not stockpile ventilators and masks just for this?

Fun questions...there are also dark questions. Like "What will be the impact on Social security and medicare if we did let 2% of the population over 60 die"? Don't answer that one.

This is exactly my approach. We all have a tipping point to a varying extent. As the economy continues to suffer, more and more people will start to feel that it's not worth sacrificing any more.

I have a good job and I work in a sect deemed critical by the federal government. So I'm not investing too much of my feelings on the situation. I'm just observing and complying with the policies and requests of me.

CM_Ponch posted...

The closures are because there isn't enough hospital space

I feel like we probably could have built a shitload of hospital space with all the lost time and resources so far.

Keep in mind it won't just be COVID sufferers that will be dying at higher rates, but everybody that needs to be in a hospital. Especially since they will probably catch it from their physicians and nurses.

YellowMustard69 posted...

I feel like we probably could have built a shitload of hospital space with all the lost time and resources so far.

Maybe. But would we have the staff to work that extra space? There is only so much healthcare workers can do, particularly if they are catching the virus themselves.

---

It's the *potential* for worse consequences than the flu that causes this reaction.

We can estimate the annual loss of life from recurring illnesses and stuff like alcoholism, suicide, and traffic accidents.

But we can't do that with something entirely new like this.
And it's not even just the potential final mortality rate that should raise concern, since there are reports that it can cause permanent lung damage, too.

People downplayed the Flu of 1918 and look what happened there. So this should be a great exercise in *not* repeating history and *not* putting a higher priority on artificial numbers on a screen.

---

Hexenherz posted...

It's the *potential* for worse consequences than the flu that causes this reaction.

We can estimate the annual loss of life from recurring illnesses and stuff like alcoholism, suicide, and traffic accidents.

But we can't do that with something entirely new like this.
And it's not even just the potential final mortality rate that should raise concern, since there are reports that it can cause permanent lung damage, too.

People downplayed the Flu of 1918 and look what happened there. So this should be a great exercise in *not* repeating history and *not* putting a higher priority on artificial numbers on a screen.

Unfortunately most people don't understand that and some just don't care.

---

Hexenherz posted...

It's the *potential* for worse consequences than the flu that causes this reaction.

We can estimate the annual loss of life from recurring illnesses and stuff like alcoholism, suicide, and traffic accidents.

But we can't do that with something entirely new like this.
And it's not even just the potential final mortality rate that should raise concern, since there are reports that it can cause permanent lung damage, too.

People downplayed the Flu of 1918 and look what happened there. So this should be a great exercise in *not* repeating history and *not* putting a higher priority on artificial numbers on a screen.

its definitely the point that is being made everywhere and its a good one

but you're also assuming the economic damage will not be worse. Probably right...but maybe not...let's not act like this is so black and white. These are tough decisions. The way the curve looks now, we definitely should not be going back to work.

Also, there seems to be a false dichotomy between "go back to normal and let people die" vs "ruin the economy and let people live"

We could implement a bunch of stuff in between those two

Jabodie posted...

Keep in mind it won't just be COVID sufferers that will be dying at higher rates, but everybody that needs to be in a hospital. Especially since they will probably catch it from their physicians and nurses.

Maybe. But would we have the staff to work that extra space? There is only so much healthcare workers can do, particularly if they are catching the virus themselves.

If the situation warrants, then make it so that hospitals can hire extra staff. Having actual RNs and doctors is obviously ideal, but there is always a way to bridge these gaps by specializing training and being smart about what tasks they are delegating to the new hires.

But I'm no expert with this kind of shit.

TheBiggerWiggle posted...

You cant have an economy if everyone is dead

I question your faith, brother. Long live the economy!

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

The big lesson here is that's there's really not much actual need for office workers or students to actually go to the office or school, nor is there any real need to go to a grocer, retailer, liquor store, or restaurant when delivery is possible

Of course, we are going to quickly forget all of the above as soon as the "all clear" is given for the pandemic. Nobody is going to care that telecommuting worked out fairly well for several weeks - you gotta come in to the office to sit in pointless meetings and screw around on facebook all day, dammit!

How about mental sanity? I never thought I would actually miss my colleagues, but here I am going insane with cabin fever

---

YellowMustard69 posted...

If the situation warrants, then make it so that hospitals can hire extra staff. Having actual RNs and doctors is obviously ideal, but there is always a way to bridge these gaps by specializing training and being smart about what tasks they are delegating to the new hires.

But I'm no expert with this kind of shit.

That may probably be reasonable tbh. But it may be difficult to find volunteers during a pandemic.

---

The flu kills more Americans than natural disasters. Guess we can't close businesses during them if we don't close them for the common flu.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

The flu kills more Americans than natural disasters. Guess we can't close businesses during them if we don't close them for the common flu.

Hey if I'm gonna die in a hurricane you best believe I'm gonna do it while eating a McChicken

---

Romes187 posted...

its definitely the point that is being made everywhere and its a good one

but you're also assuming the economic damage will not be worse. Probably right...but maybe not...let's not act like this is so black and white. These are tough decisions. The way the curve looks now, we definitely should not be going back to work.

Also, there seems to be a false dichotomy between "go back to normal and let people die" vs "ruin the economy and let people live"

We could implement a bunch of stuff in between those two

What does "ruining the economy" ultimately entail, though? What is your ultimate fear there?

And if we had stronger social support nets in place it probably wouldn't even be a big concern. When people start out with a whopping 5 days of paid time off at an employer for the first ten years they're at a company, of course the economy's going to collapse when something like this happens.

---

BathroomWater posted...

Hey if I'm gonna die in a hurricane you best believe I'm gonna do it while eating a McChicken

Bard's will sing songs of your bravery.

---

Hexenherz posted...

What does "ruining the economy" ultimately entail, though? What is your ultimate fear there?

And if we had stronger social support nets in place it probably wouldn't even be a big concern. When people start out with a whopping 5 days of paid time off at an employer for the first ten years they're at a company, of course the economy's going to collapse when something like this happens.

There are all sorts of problems with the way our system was setup including the fact that no one ever saved anything, both businesses and consumers alike.

Ruining the economy to me means 25%+ unemployment. The literature is quite clear on what happens when levels get too high. War usually. Riots...life expectancy goes down with GDP. Death rate goes up with lower GDP.

My fear is for my two daughters. But again...I am NOT advocating we start things up like normal. I am presenting the other option in as objective a way as possible. People always seem to assume I have to agree with something to post it....never understood that.

hockeybub89 posted...

The flu kills more Americans than natural disasters. Guess we can't close businesses during them if we don't close them for the common flu.

The thing about natural disasters though is that you don't really need to force businesses to close. People are motivated enough by the threat.

Strider102 posted...

Bard's will sing songs of your bravery.

xD

---

I think there's a chance people start becoming more cognizant of ways to limit the spread of sickness in general, which would reach over to things like the flu.

But I think like someone said, this is just new. And that brings with it some additional fear and conservatism
---

Romes187 posted...

its definitely the point that is being made everywhere and its a good one

but you're also assuming the economic damage will not be worse. Probably right...but maybe not...let's not act like this is so black and white. These are tough decisions. The way the curve looks now, we definitely should not be going back to work.

Also, there seems to be a false dichotomy between "go back to normal and let people die" vs "ruin the economy and let people live"

We could implement a bunch of stuff in between those two

Agreed.

---