Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner

141 - 160 of 193 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,790 Posts
As much as I would like to see all the at risk group people locking theirselves way so the rest of the world could carry on as usual I wouldn't want to be the politician who makes that call and watches on as 10000's die and the health service is overrun.
If that was to happen how many people would die very prematurely, does it only kill people who are already near to the end? It doesn't look like that is always the case.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
25,290 Posts
Discussion Starter #142
It's a chicken political call.

A politician who gets everyone to lock themselves away will be seen to be doing something, and people will think that's good, and even when everyone comes out and maybe it runs more rampant than it might have done anyway, they can simply say 'look how bad it is, imagine if we hadn't done this lockdown at all!!'.

A politician who does not get everyone to lock down will get criticised anyway for not doing anything, in full knowledge of a pile of dead people, even if it was fewer people than if they had done the lockdown.

That's a 'no-win' scenario to do anything other than lockdown. Of course they are going to persuade you that it's the right thing to do, whether it is or is not, politically it doesn't matter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,673 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 implies that some super rich person being a little bit less super rich is more important than the lives of the people who create that wealth. Oh, you were told that the rich people are the wealth creators? But for some reason when the poor can't work for them any more they aren't creating wealth!

Speaking of fascism...

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
485 Posts
That's a 'no-win' scenario to do anything other than lockdown. Of course they are going to persuade you that it's the right thing to do, whether it is or is not, politically it doesn't matter.
Exactly right, especially as nearly every other comparable country is doing the same. Additionally, the medical evidence from Italy became overwhelming (see evidence to Commons science committee this morning).

The challenge then is to give enough support to the economy to ensure it survives well enough to take advantage of the eventual upturn. The UK Govt seems to have made a reasonable start to this.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
25,290 Posts
Discussion Starter #147
This implies that some super rich person being a little bit less super rich is more important than the lives of the people who create that wealth.
I don't think so. This means the rich can only afford to hold 2 months caviar in the cupboard (which they mostly throw away anyway) instead of 6 months. For poor people it means eating dog food instead of food intended for human consumption.

The move to lower quality food for the poor may lead to a reduced life expectancy.

The move to less food for the rich means they'll probably live longer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,673 Posts
I don't think so. This means the rich can only afford to hold 2 months caviar in the cupboard (which they mostly throw away anyway) instead of 6 months. For poor people it means eating dog food instead of food intended for human consumption.
At the height of the panic buying even the cat food ran out...

The move to lower quality food for the poor may lead to a reduced life expectancy.

The move to less food for the rich means they'll probably live longer.
But farms and food supply are remaining open because they are critical. If anything they must be enjoying a boom as people buy fresh food only to throw it away uneaten.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
387 Posts
No, I am dead serious, this is how one's natural liberties are eroded.

If we were so serious about 'medical advice' or other shyte like that, then why not ban alcohol which kills nigh on 100,000 a year. Why don't we close pubs for that reason?

People have a right of choice, we do not deny fat people NHS care, and few would argue that a moderately overweight person overloads the NHS. For sure, drunks overload it every Saturday night.

This is a flat out destruction of democratic choice to do what one wants in public. It is an outrage. If people want to stay at home, fine, it's a free country. .... errr ...no, it isn't right now, it is not a free country, you HAVE to stay at home.
Covid-19 is killing rich people, alcohol consumption kills poor people!

You are now witnessing the end of global capitalism where 26 of the richest people on the planet have as much wealth as the poorest 50%, but possibly not for much longer!

World's 26 richest people own as much as poorest 50%, says Oxfam
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
25,290 Posts
Discussion Starter #151
But farms and food supply are remaining open because they are critical. If anything they must be enjoying a boom as people buy fresh food only to throw it away uneaten.
You're answering a different point there.

The question that this line stemmed from was that being poor didn't lead to a reduction in life expectancy, so doesn't matter if people lose money so long as they stay alive. I call BS on that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
485 Posts
The question that this line stemmed from was that being poor didn't lead to a reduction in life expectancy, so doesn't matter if people lose money so long as they stay alive. I call BS on that.
Did anyone say that? I think we all agree that basic principle.

The disagreement I think is whether most/many people will actually lose significantly in the long term if the Govt props up the economy sufficiently in the short term.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,790 Posts
It's a chicken political call.

A politician who gets everyone to lock themselves away will be seen to be doing something, and people will think that's good, and even when everyone comes out and maybe it runs more rampant than it might have done anyway, they can simply say 'look how bad it is, imagine if we hadn't done this lockdown at all!!'.

A politician who does not get everyone to lock down will get criticised anyway for not doing anything, in full knowledge of a pile of dead people, even if it was fewer people than if they had done the lockdown.

That's a 'no-win' scenario to do anything other than lockdown. Of course they are going to persuade you that it's the right thing to do, whether it is or is not, politically it doesn't matter.
You should move to Washington and hope the other Donald opens the US up to business as usual very soon. He's certainly not scared of making the call to put profit before people. If he does it would at least give us a comparision to compare and see the effects of doing that. Might be an interesting experiment for later study in preperation for the next pandemic, but I wouldn't want to be living there in case it goes the wrong way.

As much as I agree that it would be great to keep all the at risk people locked up so the rest of us could carry on life as normal I think it is too big a risk, and so do most other people buy the sound of it.
If the choice is some of my family dying now or it taking a little longer to pay off my mortgage and other expenses then I pick the latter. At the moment that is my choice and I'm not unhappy with the decisons that have made. I would rather call the mortgage company and ask for a payment holiday, borrow money that needs paying back later, work harder now and later instead of letting the virus run through the community and see many people die prematurely. If they don't die it would be great, but if they do die by the 100000's do you want the decision to let it run it's course be on your shoulders? It's fine to argue a point, and I agree in theory, but in practice the risk to life looks very high. Living in the wrong part of Italy or Spain doesn't look appealing at the moment, let alone working in the medical profession. I'll live with no income for a few months before asking anyone to subject theirselves to that risk so the rest of us can carry on as normal with our lives.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
25,290 Posts
Discussion Starter #154
Did anyone say that? I think we all agree that basic principle.

The disagreement I think is whether most/many people will actually lose significantly in the long term if the Govt props up the economy sufficiently in the short term.
Not directly say that but it stems from what @Rei said, that she wasn't bothered if the super rich are a bit less rich. Surprised she gave a like for that, because it means she doesn't understand the connectivity between the wealth of the super rich and the poor; when the rich loose money, the poor lose even more (proportionately), and when you lose more of next to nothing you end up with nothing, which equals shit food.

Not sure what's difficult to understand with that logic.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
25,290 Posts
Discussion Starter #155
You should move to Washington and hope the other Donald opens the US up to business as usual very soon. He's certainly not scared of making the call to put profit before people. If he does it would at least give us a comparision to compare and see the effects of doing that. Might be an interesting experiment for later study in preperation for the next pandemic, but I wouldn't want to be living there in case it goes the wrong way.

As much as I agree that it would be great to keep all the at risk people locked up so the rest of us could carry on life as normal I think it is too big a risk, and so do most other people buy the sound of it.
If the choice is some of my family dying now or it taking a little longer to pay off my mortgage and other expenses then I pick the latter. At the moment that is my choice and I'm not unhappy with the decisons that have made. I would rather call the mortgage company and ask for a payment holiday, borrow money that needs paying back later, work harder now and later instead of letting the virus run through the community and see many people die prematurely. If they don't die it would be great, but if they do die by the 100000's do you want the decision to let it run it's course be on your shoulders? It's fine to argue a point, and I agree in theory, but in practice the risk to life looks very high. Living in the wrong part of Italy or Spain doesn't look appealing at the moment, let alone working in the medical profession. I'll live with no income for a few months before asking anyone to subject theirselves to that risk so the rest of us can carry on as normal with our lives.
Well, the South Koreans also value keeping business going, and they haven't imposed a lock down, so the radio was just telling me, they have relied on science and good social information/controls to integrate information on all new arrivals, lots of testing (50,000 a day) and following through all the contacts of any confirmed cases. The Taiwanese too, likewise. There are still flights in and out of S Korean, the country hasn't stopped.

So lock-downs aren't the only solution in the pot, but what leader in the West is not going to do that when it'd be political suicide not to and open themselves up to criticism.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
25,290 Posts
Discussion Starter #156
If they don't die it would be great, but if they do die by the 100000's do you want the decision to let it run it's course be on your shoulders?
I'm sorry but no-one, simply no-one, has yet remotely had a stab at explaining to me why there would be any sort of run on the health care system if the healthy young population were to be free to get on with keeping the economy going?

I mean, really, show me figures of how many under 50s with no underlying health condition are hospitalised, then I might begin to understand what is wrong with my proposal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,673 Posts
The question that this line stemmed from was that being poor didn't lead to a reduction in life expectancy, so doesn't matter if people lose money so long as they stay alive. I call BS on that.
It's up to you to prove your claim that being poor reduced life expectancy.

That's why Hitchens was wrong and why I said that choosing to put the economy before health is just protecting rich people. Tory austerity was a choice. They could have protected ordinary people, kept those vital services going while properly taxing the rich and closing loopholes that companies like Amazon use to avoid it. Or they could have done what Obama did and stimulate the economy to get out of trouble, but instead they sacrificed people's lives. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh but it's the simple truth, they chose to reduce lifetimes and even push some people to suicide with their cuts, rather than put the burden elsewhere or stimulate instead.

So rather than sacrificing ordinary people's lives to keep the economy going they should be protecting ordinary people from the effect of the slow down. Then a recession would not lead to reduced life expectancy.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
25,290 Posts
Discussion Starter #158
It's up to you to prove your claim that being poor reduced life expectancy.
I said not getting nutrition reduces life expectancy, and my inference is that not having money reduces the chance of you getting the right nutrition.

Here is the proof in regards nutrition, as requested;-

129278


Here is the proof regarding poverty;-
129279



Anything else?
 

·
Leaf lover
Joined
·
3,758 Posts
The right to swing my arms in any direction ends 2 metres from where your nose begins.
That is what is the issue here and it is a temporary change to my liberty, I have lost the right to contaminate others, should I have this particular virus.
My hope is the government will reinstate my right to contaminate others as soon as our NHS is in a position to cope with whatever follows from that. Let's see what happens when the 3 weeks are up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,673 Posts
I said not getting nutrition reduces life expectancy, and my inference is that not having money reduces the chance of you getting the right nutrition.
And my point was that being poor does not automatically equal poor nutrition, it's a choice to place that burden on the poor by reducing services like free school meals or reducing benefits.

The two things are only correlated because of the Tory government. If Labour had been in power they would have helped those people.

You have failed to prove that there is a link between lack of money and life expectancy. Do you understand?
 
141 - 160 of 193 Posts
Top