3 ms·

Korea will have to remain on alert, forever, as their population has no established immunity. A vaciine may never come - there is no influenza vaccine (it mutat

Korea will have to remain on alert, forever, as their population has no established immunity. A vaciine may never come - there is no influenza vaccine (it mutates every season). Plus, there are grim, yet economic, benefits if the sickest and most elderly die from Coronavirus, in the form of long-term savings on pensions and healthcare. This should be taken into account in strategic national planning. The UK approach seems the most sensible - keep the economy and society functioning, and recommend that the most vulnerable practice self-isolation. Better to isolate those who are not participating in the productive economy (ie. the sick and elderly) than the entirety of the population.

mcnamaratw 7y ago
I think touting the benefits of widespread deaths is off topic here.
fkistner 7y ago
German here. Cannot disagree more strongly with your point! No, the economic benefit of “having the sickest and most elderly die” should most definitely not be taken into account in strategic national planning. Every life is precious. This line of thought is exactly what lead the Nazis to murder hundreds of thousands they considered an economic burden. Never forget.
- DrNuke 7y ago
  Yes, that’s explicitly considering to kill 500k old and vulnerable persons, as for the official doc leaked to The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/15/uk-covid-19-strategy-questions-unanswered-coronavirus-outbreak https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/15/uk-cov...
thombat 7y ago
If you consider a simplistic economic model then there should be no public pensions or healthcare at all. The moment that somebody's direct economic output falls below a defined threshold, be it due to retirement, illness, lack of retraining in a changing job market, then they represent a liability to be efficiently removed. Fortunately more sophisticated approaches are generally followed, since in practice humans aren't simply worker ants or feedstock for Solyent Green.

mcnamaratw 7y ago

I think touting the benefits of widespread deaths is off topic here.

fkistner 7y ago

German here. Cannot disagree more strongly with your point! No, the economic benefit of “having the sickest and most elderly die” should most definitely not be taken into account in strategic national planning. Every life is precious. This line of thought is exactly what lead the Nazis to murder hundreds of thousands they considered an economic burden. Never forget.

DrNuke 7y ago
Yes, that’s explicitly considering to kill 500k old and vulnerable persons, as for the official doc leaked to The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/15/uk-covid-19-strategy-questions-unanswered-coronavirus-outbreak https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/15/uk-cov...

thombat 7y ago

If you consider a simplistic economic model then there should be no public pensions or healthcare at all. The moment that somebody's direct economic output falls below a defined threshold, be it due to retirement, illness, lack of retraining in a changing job market, then they represent a liability to be efficiently removed. Fortunately more sophisticated approaches are generally followed, since in practice humans aren't simply worker ants or feedstock for Solyent Green.