Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner

121 - 140 of 193 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
My opinion is that it is too far towards 'trying' to save lives (no evidence it will) and too far away from protecting our economy.
To which I'd like to add that the economy is not some abstract, right-wing concept that translates to the opulent captains of industry stealing us blind for their own good, but a monetary framework that, when in good shape, allows people to have proper jobs, with proper income and proper healthcare. All these are conditions for the well-being of people. The extravagant efforts that are now being imposed as a blanket to all of us, will inevitably mean damaging the economy to such an extent that for tens of millions of people worldwide jobs, income and healthcare will be unavailable, as a result of which many, many people will die, people who made the efforts that are now being imposed without taking into account their future suffering.
 

·
Speak, Eevee!
Joined
·
1,282 Posts
I have been crystal clear on my definition of Covid-specific deaths.

The issue is not my definition of death, it is @Cloud 's definition of 'killing people', to which I was responding and against which any semantic solecism on my behalf is relatively minor.

I am amazed that you pick up on the detail of my semantics but don't flinch at Cloud of accusing people of "killing" others by simply walking past them.
Anyone who can read, and who isn't a troll (i.e. you), can tell that's not what I said. But do carry on spreading your bullshit, it keeps it out of some of the other forums.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
25,290 Posts
Discussion Starter #123
Anyone who can read, and who isn't a troll (i.e. you), can tell that's not what I said. But do carry on spreading your bullshit, it keeps it out of some of the other forums.
What you said was crystal clear.

You said that @BurningNaturalGas would kill people if he didn't self isolate.

Go read your post again.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
25,290 Posts
Discussion Starter #124
It's impossible to prove as there is no alternative universe, but it's hard to imagine the Chinese didn't save lives with their interventions.

And the economy is just money at the end of the day.
Yes, I agree there are different points of view. Mine is that it has gone too far, and I'll provide you with a rational too.

The levels of economic hardship that are to come, the mental stress of this, perhaps having to work a few even several more years that people would have done already, if each person suffers a level of stress that ends up costing them 6 months of their lives in the distant future, that extra physical toll on everyone's bodies and minds, then we haven't let 1% vulnerable people 'die' prematurely, we've killed everyone, to the same degree, with the cure!

Our economy has to be sustained to a level where people can live as well as they would have done anyway, same levels of comforts, can afford the same quality of food and nutrition, same levels of assistance, same levels of rest and relaxation, same total years in job, etc.. Anything less will shorten their lives, just like Covid is shortening 'some people's' lives. But damaging the economy shortens everyone's life. The 'death rate' from Covid-19 might be 700,000 in the UK, where their lives may be shortened by an average of 10 months or so, but if wrecking the economy reduces everyone's life by 1 month, say, then the cure was 10 times worse than the disease (if that is true for x100 people).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
783 Posts
We can infer an answer from psychological studies on very old people and prisons.

I have been isolating for 3 weeks now, and I find it hard. Reduced exposure to sun, reduced movement, reduced social interaction - except in times of pestilence, none of these things are considered good for one's mental or physical health.

Isolation is blamed for increasing anxiety, heart disease, etc.
I am lucky that I can jump over the fence, although sunburn might be a problem soon..
garden.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,857 Posts
I am lucky that I can jump over the fence
... and break a leg, get taken to hospital, get infected ... :)

Seriously though, as I pointed out elsewhere about car travel, getting a significant hurt through taking optional risks over the next few weeks is not a good idea. Staying isolated/distanced requires you to be able to do so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
783 Posts
... and break a leg, get taken to hospital, get infected ... :)

Seriously though, as I pointed out elsewhere about car travel, getting a significant hurt through taking optional risks over the next few weeks is not a good idea. Staying isolated/distanced requires you to be able to do so.
At least I have more sense than to ride a bike, and gave up rock climbing many decades ago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
485 Posts
Yes, I agree there are different points of view. Mine is that it has gone too far, and I'll provide you with a rational too.

The levels of economic hardship that are to come, the mental stress of this, perhaps having to work a few even several more years that people would have done already, if each person suffers a level of stress that ends up costing them 6 months of their lives in the distant future, that extra physical toll on everyone's bodies and minds, then we haven't let 1% vulnerable people 'die' prematurely, we've killed everyone, to the same degree, with the cure!

Our economy has to be sustained to a level where people can live as well as they would have done anyway, same levels of comforts, can afford the same quality of food and nutrition, same levels of assistance, same levels of rest and relaxation, same total years in job, etc.. Anything less will shorten their lives, just like Covid is shortening 'some people's' lives. But damaging the economy shortens everyone's life. The 'death rate' from Covid-19 might be 700,000 in the UK, where their lives may be shortened by an average of 10 months or so, but if wrecking the economy reduces everyone's life by 1 month, say, then the cure was 10 times worse than the disease (if that is true for x100 people).
Obviously you can "prove" anything you want with numbers plucked out of the air....

This was a humanitarian and political decision by the Govt, not an economic one. Put simply, imagine you are PM and your advisors say publically "there will be 250,000 avoidable deaths if you don't do this". What you gonna do?

I think you fret too much about the economy. We run a tourism business which has effectively died, but so long as the Govt support keeps coming, our calculations indicate we should survive intact for the party which will follow.

This isn't 2008, there is no underlying economic weakness. If a business activity was viable before this, it will be viable again afterwards. We trashed our economy for 6 years during WW2, yet it bounced back into one of its golden ages in the 50s/60s.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
25,290 Posts
Discussion Starter #130
This was a humanitarian and political decision by the Govt, not an economic one.
Well, yeah, exactly, that is my concern!

Put simply, imagine you are PM and your advisors say publically "there will be 250,000 avoidable deaths if you don't do this". What you gonna do?
Do the usual "1 life = £X" calculation that politicians have to do every time they make a decision about health or defence budgets.

I think you fret too much about the economy. We run a tourism business which has effectively died, but so long as the Govt support keeps coming, our calculations indicate we should survive intact for the party which will follow.

This isn't 2008, there is no underlying economic weakness. If a business activity was viable before this, it will be viable again afterwards. We trashed our economy for 6 years during WW2, yet it bounced back into one of its golden ages in the 50s/60s.
Hey, you know, this is actually a conversation now, because you might be right about this and so it could be a persuasive argument.

Yes, the potential scope for stimulus is very wide here. A resetting of personal priorities, a re-balancing of strong versus weak businesses (not merely 'profitable'), I can see various benefits.

But also there are far more nuanced outcomes; examples of morally sad benefits (= lower pension bill), whilst also very positive deficits (more time with family, recovery, mindfulness, being more thoughtful to others = less income).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,673 Posts
My advice is don't argue with Donald. He isn't arguing with you, he has is own conversation going on in his head that you can't hear and interjecting will just make everyone even more confused.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
485 Posts
Yes, the potential scope for stimulus is very wide here. A resetting of personal priorities, a re-balancing of strong versus weak businesses (not merely 'profitable'), I can see various benefits.

But also there are far more nuanced outcomes; examples of morally sad benefits (= lower pension bill), whilst also very positive deficits (more time with family, recovery, mindfulness, being more thoughtful to others = less income).
Indeed there could any number of outcomes, many unexpected, and of course the Govts of the world have no real idea how this will unfold in terms of health, economy or society.

The outcomes will, of course, be unequal. We've already lost Flybe and there's obviously more upheaval to come in the transport sector. The decline of traditional High Street shopping could very likely be exacerbated, although there's a minority chance that it bounces back to flourish for a while longer if people decide that 100% online shopping is unfulfilling.

Who knows. I think expect the unexpected - but we're already getting used to that. Three months ago, who could have foreseen a police-controlled lockdown in the UK would achieve 93% approval in a YouGov poll??
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
25,290 Posts
Discussion Starter #133
My advice is don't argue with Donald. He isn't arguing with you, he has is own conversation going on in his head that you can't hear and interjecting will just make everyone even more confused.
Funny as it may seem, if I make a fair and impartial analysis of my own responses, I don't see anyone studying what others write as attentively as I do, and responding point by point with confirmatory or negatory debating points in response.

Really, just because you come across someone who doesn't agree with you it doesn't mean they aren't listening to you and thinking about what you have put.

I am intently and always curious to see a) what new ideas others can pose, for me to consider that might add to my ever expanding knowledge and experience of the world, and beyond, b) whether (a) holds up to scrutiny, and c) if those ideas don't hold up to scrutiny, why those others persist in believing them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
733 Posts
Our economy has to be sustained to a level where people can live as well as they would have done anyway, same levels of comforts, can afford the same quality of food and nutrition, same levels of assistance, same levels of rest and relaxation, same total years in job, etc.
Why? Sustained to a level where people can live, certainly but why 'as well as they would have done anyway'? This country (and many others) have been through plenty of recessions/depressions/wars where we were worse off than before and survived. No reason why we can't do so again.

.
Anything less will shorten their lives, just like Covid is shortening 'some people's' lives. But damaging the economy shortens everyone's life. The 'death rate' from Covid-19 might be 700,000 in the UK, where their lives may be shortened by an average of 10 months or so, but if wrecking the economy reduces everyone's life by 1 month, say, then the cure was 10 times worse than the disease (if that is true for x100 people).
Again, why? If anything, having a crippled economy would seem to extend life if the generations that went through the last war are anything to go by.

... and in other news, I see that Donald Trump now agrees with @donald (it must be a Donald thing!)
"WE CANNOT LET THE CURE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF,"
Trump on Twitter (I'm not on Twitter so can't post the link
(@donald , that, also, is flippant, I don't suppose POTUS is on SpeakEV [I certainly hope not!!])
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,181 Posts
Again, why? If anything, having a crippled economy would seem to extend life if the generations that went through the last war are anything to go by.
Another view. And there are many other people expressing similar opinions. And not just people called Donald. Having a crippled economy can kill a lot of people too. And those deaths are now certain to happen.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
485 Posts
Another view. And there are many other people expressing similar opinions. And not just people called Donald. Having a crippled economy can kill a lot of people too. And those deaths are now certain to happen.

This is a public health crisis. The economy is not crippled, there's nothing structurally wrong with the economy. It's just on pause.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
It's amazing how people on this forum can argue that there is not a correlation between economic crises and health. I am stumped as to how the obviousness of that can't be seen. See this e.g.

And if someone really thinks that basically stopping a huge chunk of economic activity for a period of 2 months world wide will not have a severe impact, then think again.

In Spain the number of small companies that are folding is staggering. Only in Catalonia 100.000 people are on the verge of losing their jobs. 2008 is going to be child's play in comparison.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
25,290 Posts
Discussion Starter #138
Why? Sustained to a level where people can live, certainly but why 'as well as they would have done anyway'?
I have explained it in my post. You might not agree, but there is no point asking 'why' if I already answered that question. Feel free to disagree, but don't ask 'why?'

"Our economy has to be sustained to a level where people can live as well as they would have done anyway, same levels of comforts, can afford the same quality of food and nutrition, same levels of assistance, same levels of rest and relaxation, same total years in job, etc.. Anything less will shorten their lives "

Are you disagreeing with this?

Are you saying that working more years does not shorten life expectancy?
Are you saying that eating crappier food does not shorten life expectancy?
Are you saying that not having community care and support does not shorten life expectancy?

etc..

What would you say shortens life, if not these things?

This country (and many others) have been through plenty of recessions/depressions/wars where we were worse off than before and survived. No reason why we can't do so again.
Survived, yes, but lived longer than they would have done had they not gone though all that?

Covid-19 is about reduced life expectancy, premature death, not 'killing' people that had decades to live.

.
Again, why? If anything, having a crippled economy would seem to extend life if the generations that went through the last war are anything to go by.
Evidence for this?

The reason for longer life was because most of the slums were bombed in inner cities and replaced with clean and well sanitised housing.

(@donald , that, also, is flippant, I don't suppose POTUS is on SpeakEV [I certainly hope not!!])
He knows what you are saying, I have reported in on the detail here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
485 Posts
It's amazing how people on this forum can argue that there is not a correlation between economic crises and health. I am stumped as to how the obviousness of that can't be seen. See this e.g.

And if someone really thinks that basically stopping a huge chunk of economic activity for a period of 2 months world wide will not have a severe impact, then think again.
I haven't seen anyone say that, but it's the lesser if two evils. What would you do?

You seen any of the news coverage from Italy, Spain and now Eastern France?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,857 Posts
I haven't seen anyone say that, but it's the lesser if two evils. What would you do?
With what we now know I think the balance of probable outcomes (of short term COVID effects vs longer term economic effects on health) is now on the side of lockdown ... IF we can get it handled along the lines of the Hammer and Dance that seems to be the target for the likely solution.

My worry is that as a country we may fail to do the Dance and end up in a Hammer, Shuffle, Hammer, Shuffle, Hammer, Shuffle, ad nauseam which could be as or more damaging to both deaths and economy than the earlier proposal of going for herd immunity.

Let's face it, 25,000 tests a day (not that we seem to be anywhere near even that yet) is pathetic. It would take more than 6 years to test everyone (60M) at that rate, and presumably most will need periodic retesting until they are positive.
I know that's not the exact plan but testing needs to be a lot more widespread and easily available if the Dance has a chance.
 
121 - 140 of 193 Posts
Top