@shavixmir saidYou can't possibly believe that. You can't possibly posit that 100,000 people should live in grinding poverty for 20 years to save one life.
0 Europeans.
Human life can be valued in the same units that money can be valued, though writing the equation is tricky, of course.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is fooling themselves.
@earl-of-trumps saidThe total cost of calculating the effects is complex, indeed.
The total economic harm from COVID is too hard to calculate but just looking
at the suicide total. there can be a fashioned misery index, too. Not deaths,
but a lot of misery.
You want to stop 50,000 deaths per year? Ban autos/trucks and otherwise, driving.
There have been several models out there to attempt a reasonable estimate.
One statistic I have heard is out there is countries have a total average deaths per year statistic over last few years and compare those to the trend so far in 2020.
While I don’t have exact figures in hand, many countries have reported a significant bump in 2020.
Those with more successful pandemic responses probably have smaller bumps.
That being said, talk of suicides caused by economic shutdowns, etc is pointless.
Such narratives can be easily countered by statistics showing increased deaths in other diseases (cancer, heart disease, etc) due to a strain on health care systems created by poor COVID-19 responses.
As to your suggestion banning driving because of road deaths.
Even as a tongue in cheek remark, it is a dumb remark.
Consider the immense $$$$ invested in improving automobiles over the years.
And road deaths did not threaten to engulf entire societies like this pandemic did.
Of course there will be those who consider speed limit signs on the highways an impingement of freedoms.
Of course, there will always be situations where something new and not understood
will lead to an “All stop !!“ scenario.
Grounding the 737 MAX is one of them.
Significantly curtailing human activity due to COVID-19 is another.
10 Sep 20
@mghrn55 - As to your suggestion banning driving because of road deaths.
Even as a tongue in cheek remark, it is a dumb remark.
Consider the immense $$$$ invested in improving automobiles over the years.
I didn't mean it as "tongue in cheek". Truly.
The point is, what is a human life worth? what is 50,000 lives worth. And that is
50,000 lives every year, not just 2020.
So I propose that the economic catastrophe by banning the automobile is not
worth saving 50,000 lives every year, and I bet a lot of folks agree with me.
And what about this "lockdown" we talk about. Is it really a lockdown? No.
We allow people to go shopping. We allow certain people to go to work.
You will slow the virus down that way but never stop it. My friend, this is what
is fueling the corona infections in America and everywhere. Let's do REAL lockdown. No?
And once again, are the lives saved due to real lockdowns worth the economic depravity? (and death)
Ask the Swedes. They are content at how Sweden handled it with no lockdowns.
@mghrn55 saidGrounding the MAX may have a high cost to Boeing, but its cost to society is tiny.
The total cost of calculating the effects is complex, indeed.
There have been several models out there to attempt a reasonable estimate.
One statistic I have heard is out there is countries have a total average deaths per year statistic over last few years and compare those to the trend so far in 2020.
While I don’t have exact figures in hand, many countries have reporte ...[text shortened]... ing the 737 MAX is one of them.
Significantly curtailing human activity due to COVID-19 is another.
Grinding schools and most businesses to a halt and taking away people's social interaction has an enormous and devastating cost to society.
10 Sep 20
@mghrn55 said===And road deaths did not threaten to engulf entire societies like this pandemic did.===
The total cost of calculating the effects is complex, indeed.
There have been several models out there to attempt a reasonable estimate.
One statistic I have heard is out there is countries have a total average deaths per year statistic over last few years and compare those to the trend so far in 2020.
While I don’t have exact figures in hand, many countries have reporte ...[text shortened]... ing the 737 MAX is one of them.
Significantly curtailing human activity due to COVID-19 is another.
COVID-19 cannot "engulf entire societies," only the panic from COVID-19 can.
COVID-19 kills fewer than 1 in 100 infected and you can cut deaths in half just by locking down long term care facilities.
Yes, it's bad, but as historical pandemics go, it's a very mediocre one. If COVID-19 happened a couple of hundred years ago, probably nobody would have noticed.
11 Sep 20
@sh76 saidThat would belong to a different discussion.
===And road deaths did not threaten to engulf entire societies like this pandemic did.===
COVID-19 cannot "engulf entire societies," only the panic from COVID-19 can.
COVID-19 kills fewer than 1 in 100 infected and you can cut deaths in half just by locking down long term care facilities.
Yes, it's bad, but as historical pandemics go, it's a very mediocre one. If COVID-19 happened a couple of hundred years ago, probably nobody would have noticed.
@earl-of-trumps saidWhen you ignore the low numbers of people outside America that have committed
When you ignore the numbers of people in America that have committed suicide,
lost their jobs and homes, turned to drugs and alcohol because of lockdown,
naturally, you're left with a biased view.
suicide, lost their jobs and homes, turned to drugs and alcohol because of lockdown,
... naturally, you're left with a biased view.
11 Sep 20
So we had some noteworthy posts. And I will try to set up two theses:
* On a personal level some pople will invest very large sums of own (and public) money to save the life of a sepcific person (Think about accidents in mountains with a lot of peoploe in search parties the use of helicopters and such). And of course billionaires can spend much more than ordinary people.
* On a societial level the cost is often not so clear. We has very unhealthy conditions for miners, sailors and whatever in the past and society as a whole accepted that men were lost t get to the riches. Today we invest in safety (which certainly saves a lot of lives) , and as societies lose a far lower part of wroking people to accidents. But this safety comes witha pice, and we still accept the death of people from the consequence of our ecoomy (As somone put it we can't have 100000 people live in hardship just to save one life.
I think DeepThought has put in a very decent attempt to come to a numnber.
11 Sep 20
@ponderable saidOf course, some loss of life is inevitable; we cannot prevent every accident, no matter how much we try or invest in improved infrastructure.
So we had some noteworthy posts. And I will try to set up two theses:
* On a personal level some pople will invest very large sums of own (and public) money to save the life of a sepcific person (Think about accidents in mountains with a lot of peoploe in search parties the use of helicopters and such). And of course billionaires can spend much more than ordinary people ...[text shortened]... ust to save one life.
I think DeepThought has put in a very decent attempt to come to a numnber.
Nonetheless, deliberately under-reporting infection statistics ("slow down the testing" ), deliberately trivialising the danger ("This will just disappear" ), dismissing evidence-based policy as quack science while in the next breath claiming that 'science' will invent a miracle vaccine by the end of the year, is unacceptable national policy. Not to put a price in 190,000 lives, but Trump's policies have not moved America anywhere near the economic miracle which would have 'justified' that death toll even in his own machiavellian calculus.
Imagine a president deliberately under-reporting road death stats, cancelling funding for roads maintenance, dismissing evidence that potholes and lack of proper guardrails and lack of street lighting contribute to crashes, dismissing evidence that crashes cause very many deaths yet in the next breath claiming that the auto industry is on the verge of a 'miracle' safety feature -- any such president would be derided as unfit for public service. There you have Trump in a nutshell; an abject failure of a president.
11 Sep 20
@earl-of-trumps saidMany countries outside America have functioning social safety nets which cushion the blows of fate, leading to much less personal hardship in a crisis such as a protracted lockdown. In most EU countries, for example, people don't lose their jobs on two weeks notice and their homes one month later if they can't pay the rent. So they are less likely to get suicidal in a lockdown.
When you ignore the numbers of people in America that have committed suicide,
lost their jobs and homes, turned to drugs and alcohol because of lockdown,
naturally, you're left with a biased view.
Of course, when a president deliberately downplays the dangers ahead and flouts evidence-based advice, it is hard for people respond appropriately and to stay resilient.
@wolfgang59 saidThat's because I thought that this was about the COVID in America, which is quite
When you ignore the low numbers of people outside America that have committed
suicide, lost their jobs and homes, turned to drugs and alcohol because of lockdown,
... naturally, you're left with a biased view.
different than other countries.
No one has an explanation as to why Sweden had a lower deaths/million than the
US, UK, Italy, and others, despite having NO lockdowns.
No on can explain why most of Africa has a very easy go with the SARS-Cov2.
So anyway, anyone can chime in with their opinion as to what a life is worth and
what we must do to preserve life.
11 Sep 20
@ponderable saidVery good, Pondy.
So we had some noteworthy posts. And I will try to set up two theses:
* On a personal level some pople will invest very large sums of own (and public) money to save the life of a sepcific person (Think about accidents in mountains with a lot of peoploe in search parties the use of helicopters and such). And of course billionaires can spend much more than ordinary people ...[text shortened]... ust to save one life.
I think DeepThought has put in a very decent attempt to come to a numnber.
I don't think people argue with "higher cost$" for greater safety, which saves lives.
But we do have a problem with people losing jobs, homes, suffering great hardship,
enough to commit suicide. How does one put a value on all this? Judgement, is all I can say
@earl-of-trumps saidIt is not simply a matter of having or not having lockdowns. Other world leaders levelled with their people, told them the truth about COVID, and allowed their people to take sensible precautions in advance of a deadly virus. No one in Sweden, Spain, or Italy panicked when told there was a deadly virus coming. Why did Trump think the American people would panic if told the truth? I see two obvious reasons: 1. Trump has no respect for his own people, so he propagated a false hope, a sugar-coated lie. Or 2. the more likely one in my opinion: Trump simply did not want to "look bad." So he lied and hoped no one would notice. Either way, it's coming back to haunt him.
That's because I thought that this was about the COVID in America, which is quite
different than other countries.
No one has an explanation as to why Sweden had a lower deaths/million than the
US, UK, Italy, and others, despite having NO lockdowns.
No on can explain why most of Africa has a very easy go with the SARS-Cov2.
So anyway, anyone can chime in with their opinion as to what a life is worth and
what we must do to preserve life.
As to why Africa has had fewer infections, there are several hypotheses:
1. Possibly due to fewer infected people travelling to Africa (after all, the disease does not erupt spontaneously). Nothing to do with lockdowns after infections have already gotten a foothold in a country.
2. As the article below mentions, public health institutions, especially in sub-Saharan Africa are in such a desolate condition that they are not capable of systematically identifying and tracking COVID cases, so the true number of infections is probably significantly under-reported. Africa may get only a shortly delayed reprieve from this pandemic.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/africa-covid-19-time-bomb-defuse/
3. Many more sub-Saharan Africans live outdoors than do Europeans and North Americans, and this hinders the spread of COVID:
https://www.dw.com/en/africa-has-been-spared-so-far-from-coronavirus-why/a-52382666
Again, nothing to do with lockdowns after the infection has taken hold on a population.
What is a life worth? It is certainly worth telling the truth for, and not worth one man's ambition to get himself re-elected at any cost.
@moonbus
If you look at what I wrote, moonbus, it had nothing at all to do with Trump and
everything to do with COVID in other nations.
*somehow*, like many a poster before you, you just had to engineer a way to twist
it into a "Orange bad" response so you can then lecture me on why Trump sucks.
been there, done that.
16 Sep 20
@wolfe63 saidI am well and truly in the humanists corner, that is why I am so so so against this lockdown approach in favor of the likes of Sweden.
If I'm to force logical diligence toward humanity at-large: I'm still to be found in the humanists' corner. There is no price. There are only impossible thought-exercises which reduce me to shame.
Humanity you say, Hmmm, does that mean that you leave logic out of things.
Some of my logic/
1/ In Australia the covid response announced at the federal level only was to spend $440,000,000,000. ok even today there are people crowdfunding for life saving operations, young people. lets say we make an assumption that $1,000,000 would be enough to save 1 life that means we have now spent ( at least budgeted ) enough to save 440,000 lives, of all ages, little kids, babies etc. The worst case model presented was a loss of 150,000 lives, predominantly old lives.Do your sums, I am a humanitarian 1st. If Australia had the same death rate of Sweden we would have had 15,000 deaths "with" covid not "of" covid. Sorry but that is a small number with any degree of logic applied.
2/ The same old died with covid or of covid argument. Heard yesterday that only 10% of reported deaths were "of" covid.
3/ the lockdown has destroyed many lives and the repercussions will continue to do so for a long time to come, 100% guaranteed.
I am a humanitarian 1st but at the end of the day this was going to kill people one way or another, lockdown has destroyed our humanity under the guise of saving it, what a load of crock.