5 ms·

In a month or so, once the daily deaths subside, people will risk it with the coronavirus rather than having a recession turn into a depression. This will be th

In a month or so, once the daily deaths subside, people will risk it with the coronavirus rather than having a recession turn into a depression. This will be the correct choice.

downrightmike 7y ago
ennnnnnnnt. That's the buzzer, signaling that this is some bullshit. No one wants to die period. full stop. Greedy to the very end.
- drstewart 7y ago
  Guess what? Everyone dies. And every day is a choice between things that increase that risk. Saying "no one wants to die, stop being greedy!" as if you can eliminate all deaths through a simple action is a nice low effort slogan that doesn't make any sense in the real world.
  - 6510 7y ago
    I don't know, an all out war on death could potentially work? We won't know until we try? It would have to involve a lot more than "just" living longer. We already have a lot of that effect. So much that migrants have to produce our food. shrug
  - jodrellblank 7y ago
    > Guess what? Everyone dies The unpleasant part is not solely people dying, it's the volunteering of other people dying by people who assume they won't die from it, and not for their own survival but to keep a level of personal comfort and luxury. Assume you are in the group who would die, but economic sacrifice keeps you alive. Now, hands up if you are willing to trade that - to definitely die in April 2020, or suicide today, to prop the world GDP up for a few minutes. What, nobody? Now assume instead that you're definitely in the group who will be unemployed and bankrupted by the economic costs, but you get to survive COVID-19 and do whatever you can to survive after. Hands up if you would prefer this to the guaranteed death situation? What is that, basically everybody with their hands up? If you don't believe in the importance of GDP enough to die for it, only enough to support others dying for it, perhaps you really have different motives to the ones you're saying.
    - s1artibartfast 7y ago
      Economic conditions have real and immediate health consequences too. For example, in 2010 US unemployment briefly grew about 6% to a total of 10% in the US and there were 40,000 additional deaths from cancer alone[1]. When you consider heart disease, other illness, drug abuse, and suicide, the numbers are much greater. The often cited number of 40k for each percent unemployment may not be far off if these factors are taken together. We may have already volunteered hundreds of thousands of Americans to die from the economic fallout. If food scarcity becomes and issue, we may have already volunteered millions in the 3rd world to starve to death... I'm not saying that I know what the correct choice is here, but it isn't as simple as saving lives vs GDP. [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)00577-8/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... This trend also holds true in the OECD where social programs are more common because there are still budgetary constraints on centralized healthcare. Here is a Meta-analysis showing that the risk of death was 63% higher among those who experienced unemployment in the US AND Europe https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070776/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070776/
      - jodrellblank 7y ago
        Put "COVID-19 deaths" in "can't revive the dead" category, and put "helping people not feel suicidal" in "maybe possible to change" category. Your first link about cancer deaths and unemployment states "Access to health care could underlie these associations", that can go in "maybe possible to affect". "Budgetary constraints on centralized healthcare" - the UK NHS has just had 750,000 volunteers sign up to help out in one week which wasn't part of the budget, so that can go in "maybe possible to affect". The UK government spends £130Bn/year on the NHS and £120Bn/year on education. Half a year of no education for half a year of doubled NHS spending .. that isn't a trivial thing to do, but it's still more plausible than raising the dead, so put it towards the "could maybe affect that" side of things. Does it have to be "GDP falls and nothing can change to respond to that"? The UDSA says[1] the United States wastes 30-40% of its food each year - $100+Billion. This ought to mean the food supply could contract 30% and it would be conceivable for nobody to eat less at all, not even go hungry and save money not buying food to throw it in the trash. Most people are overweight, it ought to be possible that the food supply could contract a lot more than 30% for a short period, and not only could it still be enough food to keep everyone alive, many people would get healthier from it happening. Currently the poor would starve and the rich would thrive, but surely that isn't the only way things could be? It's imaginable that a skilled orator could convince people to not spend $100Bn on food to throw in the trash, but to donate it to disease response instead - that's the entire UK NHS budget for many months. That won't apply in developing countries, but plants don't have COVID-19, nor do most humans, and most humans who do, recover. Food scarcity issues are still going to be about resource distribution and logistics, not about actual scarcity of food; not trivial problems which can change with the snap of the fingers, but easier than raising the dead, aren't they? And even, even, if you don't like being alive in a poorer world, and wish you had died of COVID-19 instead, you can still suicide then, it isn't either-or. But you can't go the other way, regret dying of COVID-19 and then choose to try the alternative problems instead. [1] https://www.usda.gov/foodwaste/faqs https://www.usda.gov/foodwaste/faqs
  - downrightmike 7y ago
    No, you don't allow or push people to die just for a few extra greenbacks.
- nine_k 7y ago
  More people die daily from car accidents than from the pandemic. People don't abandon cars just yet. The danger of the pandemic is that it can grow much bigger if we fail to throttle it. But when the number of daily deaths from the pandemic will stabilize at some low enough level, or, better yet, will be falling with time, people will again consider the risk acceptable, and will go on with their lives and further pursuit of happiness, not mere survival.
  - coolspot 7y ago
    In average around 100-150 people die in car accidents each day in the US. Yesterday 520 people have died because of bat-flu.
qqssccfftt 7y ago
Human civilisation has reached the point where keeping our fake paper moving is more important than staying alive. How exciting!
- avianlyric 7y ago
  Unfortunately life expectancy and quality of life is very strongly correlated to GDP. I’m not saying we can’t live without money, or anything like that. But modern society strongly relies on complex economies for even basic functions like food supply. The health of that economy can be roughly measured using GDP, a significant drop in GDP (such as a depression) strongly suggest that economy isn’t healthy, and then the basics (like food) stop working. Unfortunately plenty of people already rely on food banks to avoid starvation. You can’t feed an entire country like that. The short version of the above is at the extreme you can either risk it with coronavirus (~1%-10% death rate depending on the health of your heathcare system), or in the long term risk it with starvation (guaranteed to kill you). So yes, at certain point risking widespread infection becomes preferable to economic collapse.
  - 6510 7y ago
    In biology the health of a species is in its fertility. High GDP is associated with low birth rate. Life expectancy drives it down even further. > But modern society strongly relies on complex economies for even basic functions like food supply. This is as true as it is stupid. > The health of that economy can be roughly measured using GDP I would argue that if you have to depend on others you are not fit enough. You do want efficiency but not to the point where it dramatically eats into your resilience. > Unfortunately plenty of people already rely on food banks to avoid starvation. You can’t feed an entire country like that. It wouldn't be pretty but agriculture employs amazingly few people, we makes a lot of luxury products we don't need and we feed a lot to our cows, pigs and chickens. If it is impossible or not will depend on administrative tasks/logistics/bean counting. I could see us screw that up tho.
  - MiroF 7y ago
    The evidence is not nearly as clearcut as you suggest and periods of economic decline are actually associated with lowered mortality rates.

In a month or so, once the daily deaths subside, people will risk it with the coronavirus rather than having a recession turn into a depression. This will be the correct choice.

downrightmike 7y ago

ennnnnnnnt. That's the buzzer, signaling that this is some bullshit. No one wants to die period. full stop. Greedy to the very end.

drstewart 7y ago
Guess what? Everyone dies. And every day is a choice between things that increase that risk. Saying "no one wants to die, stop being greedy!" as if you can eliminate all deaths through a simple action is a nice low effort slogan that doesn't make any sense in the real world.
- 6510 7y ago
  I don't know, an all out war on death could potentially work? We won't know until we try? It would have to involve a lot more than "just" living longer. We already have a lot of that effect. So much that migrants have to produce our food. shrug
- jodrellblank 7y ago
  > Guess what? Everyone dies The unpleasant part is not solely people dying, it's the volunteering of other people dying by people who assume they won't die from it, and not for their own survival but to keep a level of personal comfort and luxury. Assume you are in the group who would die, but economic sacrifice keeps you alive. Now, hands up if you are willing to trade that - to definitely die in April 2020, or suicide today, to prop the world GDP up for a few minutes. What, nobody? Now assume instead that you're definitely in the group who will be unemployed and bankrupted by the economic costs, but you get to survive COVID-19 and do whatever you can to survive after. Hands up if you would prefer this to the guaranteed death situation? What is that, basically everybody with their hands up? If you don't believe in the importance of GDP enough to die for it, only enough to support others dying for it, perhaps you really have different motives to the ones you're saying.
  - s1artibartfast 7y ago
    Economic conditions have real and immediate health consequences too. For example, in 2010 US unemployment briefly grew about 6% to a total of 10% in the US and there were 40,000 additional deaths from cancer alone[1]. When you consider heart disease, other illness, drug abuse, and suicide, the numbers are much greater. The often cited number of 40k for each percent unemployment may not be far off if these factors are taken together. We may have already volunteered hundreds of thousands of Americans to die from the economic fallout. If food scarcity becomes and issue, we may have already volunteered millions in the 3rd world to starve to death... I'm not saying that I know what the correct choice is here, but it isn't as simple as saving lives vs GDP. [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)00577-8/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... This trend also holds true in the OECD where social programs are more common because there are still budgetary constraints on centralized healthcare. Here is a Meta-analysis showing that the risk of death was 63% higher among those who experienced unemployment in the US AND Europe https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070776/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070776/
    - jodrellblank 7y ago
      Put "COVID-19 deaths" in "can't revive the dead" category, and put "helping people not feel suicidal" in "maybe possible to change" category. Your first link about cancer deaths and unemployment states "Access to health care could underlie these associations", that can go in "maybe possible to affect". "Budgetary constraints on centralized healthcare" - the UK NHS has just had 750,000 volunteers sign up to help out in one week which wasn't part of the budget, so that can go in "maybe possible to affect". The UK government spends £130Bn/year on the NHS and £120Bn/year on education. Half a year of no education for half a year of doubled NHS spending .. that isn't a trivial thing to do, but it's still more plausible than raising the dead, so put it towards the "could maybe affect that" side of things. Does it have to be "GDP falls and nothing can change to respond to that"? The UDSA says[1] the United States wastes 30-40% of its food each year - $100+Billion. This ought to mean the food supply could contract 30% and it would be conceivable for nobody to eat less at all, not even go hungry and save money not buying food to throw it in the trash. Most people are overweight, it ought to be possible that the food supply could contract a lot more than 30% for a short period, and not only could it still be enough food to keep everyone alive, many people would get healthier from it happening. Currently the poor would starve and the rich would thrive, but surely that isn't the only way things could be? It's imaginable that a skilled orator could convince people to not spend $100Bn on food to throw in the trash, but to donate it to disease response instead - that's the entire UK NHS budget for many months. That won't apply in developing countries, but plants don't have COVID-19, nor do most humans, and most humans who do, recover. Food scarcity issues are still going to be about resource distribution and logistics, not about actual scarcity of food; not trivial problems which can change with the snap of the fingers, but easier than raising the dead, aren't they? And even, even, if you don't like being alive in a poorer world, and wish you had died of COVID-19 instead, you can still suicide then, it isn't either-or. But you can't go the other way, regret dying of COVID-19 and then choose to try the alternative problems instead. [1] https://www.usda.gov/foodwaste/faqs https://www.usda.gov/foodwaste/faqs
- downrightmike 7y ago
  No, you don't allow or push people to die just for a few extra greenbacks.
nine_k 7y ago
More people die daily from car accidents than from the pandemic. People don't abandon cars just yet. The danger of the pandemic is that it can grow much bigger if we fail to throttle it. But when the number of daily deaths from the pandemic will stabilize at some low enough level, or, better yet, will be falling with time, people will again consider the risk acceptable, and will go on with their lives and further pursuit of happiness, not mere survival.
- coolspot 7y ago
  In average around 100-150 people die in car accidents each day in the US. Yesterday 520 people have died because of bat-flu.

qqssccfftt 7y ago

Human civilisation has reached the point where keeping our fake paper moving is more important than staying alive. How exciting!

avianlyric 7y ago
Unfortunately life expectancy and quality of life is very strongly correlated to GDP. I’m not saying we can’t live without money, or anything like that. But modern society strongly relies on complex economies for even basic functions like food supply. The health of that economy can be roughly measured using GDP, a significant drop in GDP (such as a depression) strongly suggest that economy isn’t healthy, and then the basics (like food) stop working. Unfortunately plenty of people already rely on food banks to avoid starvation. You can’t feed an entire country like that. The short version of the above is at the extreme you can either risk it with coronavirus (~1%-10% death rate depending on the health of your heathcare system), or in the long term risk it with starvation (guaranteed to kill you). So yes, at certain point risking widespread infection becomes preferable to economic collapse.
- 6510 7y ago
  In biology the health of a species is in its fertility. High GDP is associated with low birth rate. Life expectancy drives it down even further. > But modern society strongly relies on complex economies for even basic functions like food supply. This is as true as it is stupid. > The health of that economy can be roughly measured using GDP I would argue that if you have to depend on others you are not fit enough. You do want efficiency but not to the point where it dramatically eats into your resilience. > Unfortunately plenty of people already rely on food banks to avoid starvation. You can’t feed an entire country like that. It wouldn't be pretty but agriculture employs amazingly few people, we makes a lot of luxury products we don't need and we feed a lot to our cows, pigs and chickens. If it is impossible or not will depend on administrative tasks/logistics/bean counting. I could see us screw that up tho.
- MiroF 7y ago
  The evidence is not nearly as clearcut as you suggest and periods of economic decline are actually associated with lowered mortality rates.