7 ms·

Lives and dollars are not totally different things. How many lives will be ruined by total financial destruction? How many will commit suicide in the months and

Lives and dollars are not totally different things. How many lives will be ruined by total financial destruction? How many will commit suicide in the months and years after due to financial issues?

sb8244 7y ago
Lives and money are not the same thing. Hard stop. I understand your point, but I just disagree with the expected outcomes here. Realistically how much would it cost to bail out these businesses and provide a safety net to people? I imagine the numbers are less than we'd first think. It's a choice. It's not inevitable.
- icelancer 7y ago
  Death rate is highly correlated with unemployment. They are not NOT the same thing. https://news.yale.edu/2002/05/23/rising-unemployment-causes-higher-death-rates-new-study-yale-researcher-shows https://news.yale.edu/2002/05/23/rising-unemployment-causes-...
  - ekianjo 7y ago
    Why do you expect long term unemployment here? Unless the virus crisis lasts for a year, in a few months things will be back to normal hopefully and you can expect the economic activity to take off again.
    - icelancer 7y ago
      ... If small businesses are not economically relieved, there will be significant - and permanent - damage to those sectors.
  - sb8244 7y ago
    This is either a straw man argument, or I disagree that there should be long term unemployment here. Govt programs and laws will probably be needed to provide that safety net. I'm not saying that death rate and unemployment are unrelated (equating lives and money together). I am saying that we should prioritize lives first, and figure out the money once we stop the damage.
    - icelancer 7y ago
      >> I am saying that we should prioritize lives first, and figure out the money once we stop the damage. False dichotomy. There are plenty of economists and accountants and others who can work on the economic relief package and do so in a meaningful way while scientists and medical teams (plus politicians) handle the lifesaving operations. There is no reason they cannot run in parallel.
      - sb8244 7y ago
        Uhhhhh ok. I'm not really sure why you think I said they can't run in parallel? What I am saying is that you can't prioritize money over lives and actively do things to harm the life of others. This whole comment is about the approach to covid-19 where life goes on as normal and you don't practice social distancing at all. One argument for people that do that is that they can't take off work because their businesses are open and will fire them. I believe the businesses should be forced into social distancing and provided financial help if unable to do that. We're actively going to see this happen in the next week—it started tonight—will it be late?
- abtinf 7y ago
  Who will provide the safety net when the entire economy is shut down? Production precedes consumption, always.
  - sb8244 7y ago
    Those are the questions we need to figure out as a country or even as a world. Realistically, the govt needs to provide that safety net for its citizens. However, let's start with the decision that lives are more important than money.
    - briandear 7y ago
      Where does that safety net come from if there is no economic activity to tax?
      - sb8244 7y ago
        There is economic activity still going on. A complete economic collapse is different than what I'd expect to see. A relevant question is "how much would this cost?", to which I have no clue. If we're talking billions of dollars, that's essentially a write-off amount at the federal level.
  - fsh 7y ago
    This is a straw man argument. Nobody proposes shutting down essential parts of the economy, such as food production or basic infrastructure. I think we are going to survive just fine without new iPhones or SV startups for a few weeks.
- DickingAround 7y ago
  People work their whole lives to make the value we measure in dollars. We humans have been dying for millenia for lack of the material wealth we have now. Having materials/dollars/whatever you want to call it is clearly worth lives because people spend vast portions of their precious lives getting it. If anything, valuing 1 more year of working life at 80 over ten years over 10years of working in your 20s would be silly.
  - sb8244 7y ago
    I'm not saying that people don't need material wealth to survive in our society. I think that wealth can come from somewhere other than packing a petri dish bar with patrons who want to drink. For example, we're realistically looking at govt intervention at some point. It starts with a concerted decision that lives are more important than money. If we can't get onboard with that, then there will always be people that put their well-being over others.
ncallaway 7y ago
> How many will commit suicide in the months and years after due to financial issues? Hopefully 0 if we provide a robust social safety net for people who's livelihoods are harmed.
- Polylactic_acid 7y ago
  I predict a 1% chance of that happening in the US. The 1% is due to the possibility that so many people are affected that they overthrow the government.
nullc 7y ago
Even if we accept your premise, how many dollars in economic activity will be destroyed by the deaths of enormous numbers of working age people because the hospitals were overloaded and they couldn't get the critical care they needed?
- Polylactic_acid 7y ago
  I know this is horrible, but likely not too many. In Italy they are currently kicking people over 60 out of the hospitals to make way for the younger people who are more likely to survive with medical treatment.
  - ddingus 7y ago
    And they have roughly 5 times the beds per 1000 people too.
    - tathougies 7y ago
      No they don't. Italy has much fewer critical care beds (the kind needed for COVID) than the United States, which is #1 in the world.
      - ncallaway 7y ago
        > No they don't. Italy has much fewer critical care beds (the kind needed for COVID) than the United States, which is #1 in the world. Do you have a link to statistics that support that? Is that on an absolute basis or on a per-capita basis? On a per-capita basis, I see more hospital beds in Italy than in the US (3.18 to 2.77): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_hospital_beds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_hosp... What's your source for data on critical care beds? I'd love to take a look
        tathougies 7y ago
        Oh sorry. Meant to post the article, from Forbes. US and germany are way ahead of the world. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2020/03/12/the-countries-with-the-most-critical-care-beds-per-capita-infographic/#166e96df7f86 https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2020/03/12/the-co... Hospital beds are a different story, but not what is important for COVID, which needs ICU beds. Hospital beds are much easier to deploy anywhere (and with the emergency measures taken federally, will see a huge increase due to waived FDA requirements for inspection). An ICU is much more involved, and requires ventilators, specialty beds, special equipment, etc. Much more difficult to deploy suddenly in response to sudden upticks.
sitkack 7y ago
We will not value the lives of people with money over those that do not. Financial loss is _not_ the loss of life. Our lives are literally the only thing we have in this universe.
- Polylactic_acid 7y ago
  That's no what my comment said. The people who will be hit the hardest are those with little money and little employment protections. People working casual in these restaurants will be left with no job and no support.
sdkaufman 7y ago
Governments at all levels, companies and non-profits can (and I don't doubt will) help mitigate the financial hit in the months and years ahead. The California state government has for example promised to keep paying teachers and school staff. [1] Many tech companies for example are continuing to pay maintenance staff despite office closures. [2] NBA players have donated to arena staff affected by cancellations. [3] But there is nothing anyone can do to bring back our loved ones. [1] https://edsource.org/2020/newsom-assures-districts-theyll-be-funded-during-coronavirus-closures/625750 https://edsource.org/2020/newsom-assures-districts-theyll-be... [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/06/coronavirus-google-facebook-twitter-contractors-to-get-regular-pay.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/06/coronavirus-google-facebook-... [3] https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/13/us/nba-player-donations-coronavirus-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/13/us/nba-player-donations-coron...
throwaway936482 7y ago
If there is total financial destruction at the level of people losing their homes, not being able to eat, having their utilities cut off etc. it will be entirely due to policy choices that prioritise maintaining the current economic system and protecting the interests of the wealthy for the duration of the crisis over ensuring that everyone can survive with a basic, indeed decent, standard of life. By this I mean having their basic needs of nutrition, shelter, heat etc. met. For many (and I'm writing from the UK) this would actually be an improvement over the current situation. Globally we are the richest society in history by a profoundly long way, we have enough resources to get through this crisis. There is no reason that anyone should lose their home, or starve, or be left without power. But we have to acknowledge that, just as in situations such as WWII, normal economic life and the interests of capital / shareholders / the wealthy have to take a back seat to ensuring that, as far as possible, everyone can maintain a decent standard of life.

Lives and dollars are not totally different things. How many lives will be ruined by total financial destruction? How many will commit suicide in the months and years after due to financial issues?

sb8244 7y ago

Lives and money are not the same thing. Hard stop. I understand your point, but I just disagree with the expected outcomes here. Realistically how much would it cost to bail out these businesses and provide a safety net to people? I imagine the numbers are less than we'd first think. It's a choice. It's not inevitable.

icelancer 7y ago
Death rate is highly correlated with unemployment. They are not NOT the same thing. https://news.yale.edu/2002/05/23/rising-unemployment-causes-higher-death-rates-new-study-yale-researcher-shows https://news.yale.edu/2002/05/23/rising-unemployment-causes-...
- ekianjo 7y ago
  Why do you expect long term unemployment here? Unless the virus crisis lasts for a year, in a few months things will be back to normal hopefully and you can expect the economic activity to take off again.
  - icelancer 7y ago
    ... If small businesses are not economically relieved, there will be significant - and permanent - damage to those sectors.
- sb8244 7y ago
  This is either a straw man argument, or I disagree that there should be long term unemployment here. Govt programs and laws will probably be needed to provide that safety net. I'm not saying that death rate and unemployment are unrelated (equating lives and money together). I am saying that we should prioritize lives first, and figure out the money once we stop the damage.
  - icelancer 7y ago
    >> I am saying that we should prioritize lives first, and figure out the money once we stop the damage. False dichotomy. There are plenty of economists and accountants and others who can work on the economic relief package and do so in a meaningful way while scientists and medical teams (plus politicians) handle the lifesaving operations. There is no reason they cannot run in parallel.
    - sb8244 7y ago
      Uhhhhh ok. I'm not really sure why you think I said they can't run in parallel? What I am saying is that you can't prioritize money over lives and actively do things to harm the life of others. This whole comment is about the approach to covid-19 where life goes on as normal and you don't practice social distancing at all. One argument for people that do that is that they can't take off work because their businesses are open and will fire them. I believe the businesses should be forced into social distancing and provided financial help if unable to do that. We're actively going to see this happen in the next week—it started tonight—will it be late?
abtinf 7y ago
Who will provide the safety net when the entire economy is shut down? Production precedes consumption, always.
- sb8244 7y ago
  Those are the questions we need to figure out as a country or even as a world. Realistically, the govt needs to provide that safety net for its citizens. However, let's start with the decision that lives are more important than money.
  - briandear 7y ago
    Where does that safety net come from if there is no economic activity to tax?
    - sb8244 7y ago
      There is economic activity still going on. A complete economic collapse is different than what I'd expect to see. A relevant question is "how much would this cost?", to which I have no clue. If we're talking billions of dollars, that's essentially a write-off amount at the federal level.
- fsh 7y ago
  This is a straw man argument. Nobody proposes shutting down essential parts of the economy, such as food production or basic infrastructure. I think we are going to survive just fine without new iPhones or SV startups for a few weeks.
DickingAround 7y ago
People work their whole lives to make the value we measure in dollars. We humans have been dying for millenia for lack of the material wealth we have now. Having materials/dollars/whatever you want to call it is clearly worth lives because people spend vast portions of their precious lives getting it. If anything, valuing 1 more year of working life at 80 over ten years over 10years of working in your 20s would be silly.
- sb8244 7y ago
  I'm not saying that people don't need material wealth to survive in our society. I think that wealth can come from somewhere other than packing a petri dish bar with patrons who want to drink. For example, we're realistically looking at govt intervention at some point. It starts with a concerted decision that lives are more important than money. If we can't get onboard with that, then there will always be people that put their well-being over others.

ncallaway 7y ago

> How many will commit suicide in the months and years after due to financial issues? Hopefully 0 if we provide a robust social safety net for people who's livelihoods are harmed.

Polylactic_acid 7y ago
I predict a 1% chance of that happening in the US. The 1% is due to the possibility that so many people are affected that they overthrow the government.

nullc 7y ago

Even if we accept your premise, how many dollars in economic activity will be destroyed by the deaths of enormous numbers of working age people because the hospitals were overloaded and they couldn't get the critical care they needed?

Polylactic_acid 7y ago
I know this is horrible, but likely not too many. In Italy they are currently kicking people over 60 out of the hospitals to make way for the younger people who are more likely to survive with medical treatment.
- ddingus 7y ago
  And they have roughly 5 times the beds per 1000 people too.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    No they don't. Italy has much fewer critical care beds (the kind needed for COVID) than the United States, which is #1 in the world.
    - ncallaway 7y ago
      > No they don't. Italy has much fewer critical care beds (the kind needed for COVID) than the United States, which is #1 in the world. Do you have a link to statistics that support that? Is that on an absolute basis or on a per-capita basis? On a per-capita basis, I see more hospital beds in Italy than in the US (3.18 to 2.77): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_hospital_beds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_hosp... What's your source for data on critical care beds? I'd love to take a look
      - tathougies 7y ago
        Oh sorry. Meant to post the article, from Forbes. US and germany are way ahead of the world. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2020/03/12/the-countries-with-the-most-critical-care-beds-per-capita-infographic/#166e96df7f86 https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2020/03/12/the-co... Hospital beds are a different story, but not what is important for COVID, which needs ICU beds. Hospital beds are much easier to deploy anywhere (and with the emergency measures taken federally, will see a huge increase due to waived FDA requirements for inspection). An ICU is much more involved, and requires ventilators, specialty beds, special equipment, etc. Much more difficult to deploy suddenly in response to sudden upticks.

sitkack 7y ago

We will not value the lives of people with money over those that do not. Financial loss is _not_ the loss of life. Our lives are literally the only thing we have in this universe.

Polylactic_acid 7y ago
That's no what my comment said. The people who will be hit the hardest are those with little money and little employment protections. People working casual in these restaurants will be left with no job and no support.

sdkaufman 7y ago

Governments at all levels, companies and non-profits can (and I don't doubt will) help mitigate the financial hit in the months and years ahead. The California state government has for example promised to keep paying teachers and school staff. [1] Many tech companies for example are continuing to pay maintenance staff despite office closures. [2] NBA players have donated to arena staff affected by cancellations. [3] But there is nothing anyone can do to bring back our loved ones. [1] https://edsource.org/2020/newsom-assures-districts-theyll-be-funded-during-coronavirus-closures/625750 https://edsource.org/2020/newsom-assures-districts-theyll-be... [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/06/coronavirus-google-facebook-twitter-contractors-to-get-regular-pay.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/06/coronavirus-google-facebook-... [3] https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/13/us/nba-player-donations-coronavirus-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/13/us/nba-player-donations-coron...

throwaway936482 7y ago

If there is total financial destruction at the level of people losing their homes, not being able to eat, having their utilities cut off etc. it will be entirely due to policy choices that prioritise maintaining the current economic system and protecting the interests of the wealthy for the duration of the crisis over ensuring that everyone can survive with a basic, indeed decent, standard of life. By this I mean having their basic needs of nutrition, shelter, heat etc. met. For many (and I'm writing from the UK) this would actually be an improvement over the current situation. Globally we are the richest society in history by a profoundly long way, we have enough resources to get through this crisis. There is no reason that anyone should lose their home, or starve, or be left without power. But we have to acknowledge that, just as in situations such as WWII, normal economic life and the interests of capital / shareholders / the wealthy have to take a back seat to ensuring that, as far as possible, everyone can maintain a decent standard of life.