independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Sat 4th Apr 2020 4:51am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > The moral dilemma in these times
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 5 12345>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 03/24/20 6:07am

TweetyV6

avatar

The moral dilemma in these times

WARNING: No back and forth personal attacks - Use orgnotes instead for throwing poo. Be civil and respectful. Follows the rules as further action will be taken - luv4u


******************





What you hear these days is that we need to limit the people dying from SARS-CoV-2 infection causing Covid-19, therfore we have to take all these precautions and are several countries in a state of total lock-down.


Is that right?


Should a government look ahead and make sure that those who survive (about 99,999% of a countries population) remain to lead their lives as much as is or should a government put everything to it to minimize the death toll of Covid-19 to <0,001% instead, taking into account that society will end up in a deep recession which could take about 15 years to recover from, where small business owners, artists (partially)loose their existance, where employers cannot employ anymore, where we will see a drastic rise in depressions, divorces and suïcides?

What now is regarded as colatteral damage could become devastating damage.

Only to find out that within 12 months, the majority of the people who's lives were saved at all costs, have died anyhow.


P.s.
Infected with SARS-CoV-2 as I'm typing.....and recovering after 4 days of flu-like symptoms without fever.


The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 03/24/20 8:31am

v10letblues

avatar

Yes good question. There was a time when humanity/communities/tribes faced that situation often.

. I don't envy the people tasked with making these decisions.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 03/24/20 9:26am

KoolEaze

avatar

What is your suggestion ? Isolating those who are at risk ? Or shall we just accept that there isn´t enough staff and equipment to take care of all the sick and just let them die? Just asking because I don´t really see a suggestion or idea in your post. I do agree with you that we will have to pay a huge price for this in the long term.

I keep getting more and more reports of doctors and medical staff, young people and children getting sick and even dying from covid19. You say that they all must´ve had pre-existing conditions but there are many examples of people who were young and healthy and still got sick or even died, which makes me question the official numbers.

PS: Wishing you a full and speedy recovery. Gute Besserung!

[Edited 3/24/20 9:28am]

" I´d rather be a stank ass hoe because I´m not stupid. Oh my goodness! I got more drugs! I´m always funny dude...I´m hilarious! Are we gonna smoke?"




http://kooleasehvac.com/
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 03/24/20 9:50am

jaawwnn

avatar

It's not an either/or question and it's always, ALWAYS, the people who can access treatment who care about the economy more than the poor.

Ireland has been the poster child of neoliberalism and austerity politics for the past decade and we just socialized the private hospitals for the duration of the pandemic lol. Sorry free-marketeers.

[Edited 3/24/20 9:53am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 03/24/20 9:55am

KoolEaze

avatar

jaawwnn said:

It's not an either/or question and it's always, ALWAYS, the people who can access treatment who care about the economy more than the poor.

Partly true and I agree but there are many poor people without access to treatment who are worried about the longterm effects on the economy, too, because a bad economy would only exacerbate their health problems and wellbeing in general, including mental health.

" I´d rather be a stank ass hoe because I´m not stupid. Oh my goodness! I got more drugs! I´m always funny dude...I´m hilarious! Are we gonna smoke?"




http://kooleasehvac.com/
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 03/24/20 10:02am

jaawwnn

avatar

KoolEaze said:

jaawwnn said:

It's not an either/or question and it's always, ALWAYS, the people who can access treatment who care about the economy more than the poor.

Partly true and I agree but there are many poor people without access to treatment who are worried about the longterm effects on the economy, too, because a bad economy would only exacerbate their health problems and wellbeing in general, including mental health.

Nobody cares about their long term mental health when they are in a life and death situation and can't get ventilated when they need it.

A good or bad economy is a much vaguer term, a fully socialised economy can be considered good and have many healthy minds in it, as can a completely free market capitalist economy.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 03/24/20 10:37am

v10letblues

avatar

I don't think the economy and public safety are mutually exclusive.

We can try move to provide all the equipment, supplies and capacit and quarantine those most at risk AND try and keep the lights on and rent paid. it's not an either or.

Thankfully this situation does not meet that criteria, At least not at the moment.
We have to work at being proactive and take preventive measure, but still balance and formulate a way out and then afterwards.

.
As of this moment I do not think the president has ordered/mandated the emergency manufacturing of the medical equipment along with the funds to make it happen. So this late in the game, that seems to be a fail in that department. Especially as we is hung ho about getting the economy back to normal.

.

Reports from Italy are especially sad it they describe medidical providers not having enough basic supplies and are using trash bags as protection. The dead are not being able to be removed and properly cared for for the same reasons.

In this day and age such simple goods not being available to them is simply unacceptable. This is not a moral question, but that these simple goods are not available is one of basic ineptitude.

[Edited 3/24/20 10:56am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 03/24/20 11:03am

TweetyV6

avatar

KoolEaze said:

What is your suggestion ? Isolating those who are at risk ? Or shall we just accept that there isn´t enough staff and equipment to take care of all the sick and just let them die? Just asking because I don´t really see a suggestion or idea in your post.


Oh, the suggestion is there. Let them die.
There will be a triage, just like in war times; 3 choices when they arrive at the hospital
1) Worth saving
2) Not worth saving
3) should not be here at all

That's the dilemma. Let them die, deal with that aftermath or spend a crapload of money and destabilise the whole economy & society as we know it and try to save them, just to see the majority (no, not everyone but a very big part of the saved population) die anyhow within the next 12 months.

I do agree with you that we will have to pay a huge price for this in the long term.


Governments are promising billions of Euro's/Dollars/Yen/Pound/etc. to aid those who will get into difficulties because they're not alowed to work/loose their job/have no income

That won't be infinite and has to come from somwhere... since it usually is tax money... guess what.


But there is more then just the financial impact it will have.
Already more and more people get anxieties regarding this drama.
Safe houses for abused women in the Netherlands already are ringing the alarm bells. After 2,5 weeks of people being at home together 24hrs/day the domestic violence figures are rising and almost double as much women seek shelter then usual.

More people will get depressed, especially when they find out that their rather stable life prior to corona has been severely disrupted.

I keep getting more and more reports of doctors and medical staff, young people and children getting sick and even dying from covid19. You say that they all must´ve had pre-existing conditions but there are many examples of people who were young and healthy and still got sick or even died, which makes me question the official numbers.


Of course, these incidents are news worthy.
The 24 people who died in the hospital coop where I live all were treated for cancer, more then half of them already were informed that they would die soon. That's not newsworthy.
But a 16 year old kid, who got Covid-19, was on the IC for 2 weeks. That were headlines. especially to 'scare' the young people who are/were quite nonchalant regarding SARS-CoV-2 infections.

The official numbers are crap.
An educated guess by experts is that the infectionrate is 4-5 times as high as the official figures indicate. Some even say 11 times. That makes the mortality rate drop to normal for a strong flu epedemic. At the same time, the number people dying due to Covid-19 is very inaccurate.
In Italy everybody who dies and has a SARS-CoV-19 infection (which does not mean they have developed the disease, Covid-19) is registered with Covid-19 as cause of death.

So both, the denominator and the divisor figures for calculating the mortality rate are highly questionable. Only time will tell if we see a spike in the 'overdeath' figure for the winter 2019/2020.

I highly doubt that, but it requires 3-4 months more of data to be sure.


PS: Wishing you a full and speedy recovery. Gute Besserung!


Appreciate it. Thanks!


.

[Edited 3/24/20 11:07am]

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 03/24/20 11:12am

TweetyV6

avatar

jaawwnn said:

It's not an either/or question and it's always, ALWAYS, the people who can access treatment who care about the economy more than the poor.


In some countries it doesn't matter how rich you are to get treatment. And it shouldn't.
And poor people might not care about macro-economical issues, but the sure as hell care about their own existance and financial position as much, or maybe even more, then everybody else.



Ireland has been the poster child of neoliberalism and austerity politics for the past decade and we just socialized the private hospitals for the duration of the pandemic lol. Sorry free-marketeers.

[Edited 3/24/20 9:53am]

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 03/24/20 11:19am

jaawwnn

avatar

Safe houses for abused women in the Netherlands already are ringing the alarm bells. After 2,5 weeks of people being at home together 24hrs/day the domestic violence figures are rising and almost double as much women seek shelter then usual.

The freemarket and libertarian right, who will go out of their way to defund these safehouses in other times, suddenly start pretending to care about these thing when it's in their interests. The utter dishonesty of it would be shocking if it wasn't so predictable.


You have two choices, A) save your family b) Rich people will be a little less rich. It's not hard. I'll bow out of the thread now since i'll just be repeating myself from here on in.



 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 03/24/20 1:21pm

KoolEaze

avatar

TweetyV6 said:


Oh, the suggestion is there. Let them die.
There will be a triage, just like in war times; 3 choices when they arrive at the hospital
1) Worth saving
2) Not worth saving
3) should not be here at all

That's the dilemma. Let them die, deal with that aftermath or spend a crapload of money and destabilise the whole economy & society as we know it and try to save them, just to see the majority (no, not everyone but a very big part of the saved population) die anyhow within the next 12 months.


Of course, these incidents are news worthy.
The 24 people who died in the hospital coop where I live all were treated for cancer, more then half of them already were informed that they would die soon. That's not newsworthy.
But a 16 year old kid, who got Covid-19, was on the IC for 2 weeks. That were headlines. especially to 'scare' the young people who are/were quite nonchalant regarding SARS-CoV-2 infections.

The official numbers are crap.
An educated guess by experts is that the infectionrate is 4-5 times as high as the official figures indicate. Some even say 11 times. That makes the mortality rate drop to normal for a strong flu epedemic. At the same time, the number people dying due to Covid-19 is very inaccurate.
In Italy everybody who dies and has a SARS-CoV-19 infection (which does not mean they have developed the disease, Covid-19) is registered with Covid-19 as cause of death.

So both, the denominator and the divisor figures for calculating the mortality rate are highly questionable. Only time will tell if we see a spike in the 'overdeath' figure for the winter 2019/2020.

I highly doubt that, but it requires 3-4 months more of data to be sure.



.

[Edited 3/24/20 11:07am]

Sounds like socialdarwinism to me. neutral

My doctor warned told me not to believe that it only affects young people and to take this very seriously.

And three doctors in France died, too. Plus many cases of young people in the US and elsewhere who´ve died....all of them without pre-existing conditions or health problems. But I have to look up the numbers.

I doubt that so many governments all over the world would take this so seriously if it wasn´t so dangerous, especially China and other countries who are comparatively cruel against their own citizens. I mean basically every single country is taking this very, very seriously but you make it sound as if it´s a rather harmless and non-lethal kind of sickness.

" I´d rather be a stank ass hoe because I´m not stupid. Oh my goodness! I got more drugs! I´m always funny dude...I´m hilarious! Are we gonna smoke?"




http://kooleasehvac.com/
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 03/24/20 2:20pm

maplenpg

avatar

Why stop there? Why bother saving those that have a heart attack if they are aged or vulnerable, what about those who get cancer later in life? Why bother treating them if we can help the economy by condemning them to their death. I mean we all have to go sometime, right?

Be kind. If you can't be kind - say nothing.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 03/24/20 2:24pm

TweetyV6

avatar

KoolEaze said:

TweetyV6 said:


.

[Edited 3/24/20 11:07am]

Sounds like socialdarwinism to me. neutral

My doctor warned told me not to believe that it only affects young people and to take this very seriously.

And three doctors in France died, too. Plus many cases of young people in the US and elsewhere who´ve died....all of them without pre-existing conditions or health problems. But I have to look up the numbers.

I doubt that so many governments all over the world would take this so seriously if it wasn´t so dangerous, especially China and other countries who are comparatively cruel against their own citizens. I mean basically every single country is taking this very, very seriously but you make it sound as if it´s a rather harmless and non-lethal kind of sickness.



It's lethal. No doubt. But apparently only to a very small portion of the population.
Data will show it in a couple of months and here in the Netherlands we have a good comparison as there was a major flu epedemic 2 winters ago when the 'overdeath' was 9500 people; 9500 more people then expected (predicted by historical figures & models) died. SOURCE in Dutch.

The reason why governments are doing this was triggered by 2 declarations from the WHO.
1. On March 3rd the Director General of the WHO presented a major fuck up of figures

Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected.



That is misinformation in optima forma.
The 3.4% comes from deviding all known deaths by corona with all registered infected persons (Globally)
The 'fewer than 1%' comes from deaths by influenza divided by the ESTIMATE infected.

That's comparing apples to oranges. Would you compare apples to apples, the deaths by flu should be divided by the confirmed influenza infected, hospitalized people.

For the USA the influenza mortality rate for 2018/2019 would then be 34,157 / 490,561 = 6.96% SOURCE - CDC

Unfortunately, all media outlets adopted the WHO figures and before you know it, these are carved in stone. And in the minds of people.


2. The situation escalated further when the WHO declared it a pandemic on 11 March. SOURCE - WHO

We have therefore made the assessment that COVID-19 can be characterized as a pandemic.


The 'shadowy' side about this is, that the WHO apparently has changed the definition for a pandemic in 2009.
(which they, more or less, deny by saying they changed the description, but not the definition rolleyes)

WHO changed its definition of pandemic influenza to enable it to declare a pandemic without having to demonstrate the intensity of the disease



Against which the Council of Europe voiced serious concerns SOURCE - WHO

For which reason it has been changed, you can go visit all kinds of conspiracy theory sites, I won't go that far.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 03/24/20 2:27pm

TweetyV6

avatar

maplenpg said:

Why stop there? Why bother saving those that have a heart attack if they are aged or vulnerable, what about those who get cancer later in life? Why bother treating them if we can help the economy by condemning them to their death. I mean we all have to go sometime, right?


Exactly rolleyes

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 03/24/20 3:24pm

Pokeno4Money

avatar

I think some of y'all should stop assuming that the measures being taken by the gov are for years, they are not.

It's only been what, a couple weeks in the states?

It's no different than when the US sent a surge of troups to the Middle East.

The goal is to attack it hard right away, rather than give it time to strengthen or drag on.

And easing your foot on the pedal too soon will often cause what you're fighting to come right back at you. Like a brush fire, you have to make sure every hot ember is out cold.

A month or two will NOT kill the economy like some of you are saying. Knowing how fast this thing has been multiplying, it would be insane to let our guard down now.

"Never let nasty stalkers disrespect you. They start shit, you finish it. Go down to their level, that's the only way they'll understand. You have to handle things yourself."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 03/24/20 3:41pm

KoolEaze

avatar

Oh come on, you know that THAT is the most interesting part.

Come on, spill the beans.......why has it been changed?

I really have no idea.

And why would practically ALL governments agree on this and have the same procedure if there´s more to it?

You got me really curious now. So....what do you think is going on?

TweetyV6 said:

For which reason it has been changed, you can go visit all kinds of conspiracy theory sites, I won't go that far.

" I´d rather be a stank ass hoe because I´m not stupid. Oh my goodness! I got more drugs! I´m always funny dude...I´m hilarious! Are we gonna smoke?"




http://kooleasehvac.com/
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 03/24/20 3:44pm

KoolEaze

avatar

Pokeno4Money said:

I think some of y'all should stop assuming that the measures being taken by the gov are for years, they are not.

It's only been what, a couple weeks in the states?

It's no different than when the US sent a surge of troups to the Middle East.

The goal is to attack it hard right away, rather than give it time to strengthen or drag on.

And easing your foot on the pedal too soon will often cause what you're fighting to come right back at you. Like a brush fire, you have to make sure every hot ember is out cold.

A month or two will NOT kill the economy like some of you are saying. Knowing how fast this thing has been multiplying, it would be insane to let our guard down now.

I think if we all avoid spreading the virus it won´t last that long. Maybe a couple of months.

Your Middle East example is a bit off though...I mean, the whole Iraq war and Afghanistan invasion lasted much, much longer than expected, didn´t it ?

" I´d rather be a stank ass hoe because I´m not stupid. Oh my goodness! I got more drugs! I´m always funny dude...I´m hilarious! Are we gonna smoke?"




http://kooleasehvac.com/
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 03/24/20 6:49pm

slyjackson

Well we must let nature takes its course.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 03/24/20 8:11pm

IanRG

slyjackson said:

Well we must let nature takes its course.

.

Just like we always do by not focusing on medical science, or food breeding programs, or broad acre farming of hybridised grains, etc, etc ... Oh wait.

.

What was the life expectancy of a pre-civilisation human?

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 03/24/20 8:26pm

Pokeno4Money

avatar

KoolEaze said:

Pokeno4Money said:

I think some of y'all should stop assuming that the measures being taken by the gov are for years, they are not.

It's only been what, a couple weeks in the states?

It's no different than when the US sent a surge of troups to the Middle East.

The goal is to attack it hard right away, rather than give it time to strengthen or drag on.

And easing your foot on the pedal too soon will often cause what you're fighting to come right back at you. Like a brush fire, you have to make sure every hot ember is out cold.

A month or two will NOT kill the economy like some of you are saying. Knowing how fast this thing has been multiplying, it would be insane to let our guard down now.

I think if we all avoid spreading the virus it won´t last that long. Maybe a couple of months.

Your Middle East example is a bit off though...I mean, the whole Iraq war and Afghanistan invasion lasted much, much longer than expected, didn´t it ?


China got it under control in less than 2 months.

Italy is going in the right direction the past couple days.

If I had to predict, I'd say we should be through the woods by May.


. "Iraqi surge exceeded expectations, Obama says". NBC News. Obama said the surge of U.S. troops has 'succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.'


"Hillary Clinton and the Inconvenient Facts About the Rise of the Islamic State". Foreign Policy. [T]he Obama team itself, including Clinton, have repeatedly confirmed that they understand that the surge was successful. Clinton even conceded to former Defense Secretary Robert Gates: 'The surge worked.'

"Never let nasty stalkers disrespect you. They start shit, you finish it. Go down to their level, that's the only way they'll understand. You have to handle things yourself."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 03/24/20 8:35pm

v10letblues

avatar

Is a callous call to "let them die" while mentioning moral dilemmas a sociopaths way of asking for permission or encouragement.

lol

[Edited 3/24/20 20:48pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 03/24/20 8:38pm

benni

avatar

It's interesting to me. People are saying "let people die" so the economy can thrive. They are saying that if we don't, we won't survive with an economy this bad. It will take years to come back from.

And?

We survived the Great Depression. People were without work sometimes for more than a year. We rationed. We traveled to find any job that we could find. We did what we had to do. But I doubt very seriously if our great grandparents ever considered letting a whole generation of people risk dying just so they could get the economy back on track.

The problem with people today is that they fear hard times. Everything has come so easy to this young generation. They've never really truly known bad times in America. There are those that have known difficult times. They've been passed over for jobs, not because of the economy, but because of race. They understand hard times and know that when those times come, you buckle down for the ride and you survive.

Problem is, people don't want to survive today. They don't want to have to struggle.

I can remember being a young pregnant woman, with my first child, when I had to take maternity leave for health reasons, and my son's dad deciding that if I didn't have to work, he didn't have to work. I can remember eating a can of peas for dinner, because that was all we had.

If the economy turns bad, people may actually have to find ways to survive. And the young people today don't know how to do that, because they've never had to do that.

But to suggest that we let an entire generation of people sacrifice themselves, risk their lives, because the younger generations have gotten used to Starbucks every morning and they should be able to continue to enjoy their Starbucks, while the ones who have the experience and the wisdom of life, who have known hard times and know how to survive hard times, should just be willing to die, to sacrifice themselves for the younger people to continue to enjoy their Starbucks, just boggles my mind that anyone can think that way.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 03/24/20 8:40pm

Pokeno4Money

avatar

v10letblues said:

Is "let them die" a sociopaths "moral dilemma"

lol


It's Logan's Run, a famous movie where everyone must agree to be killed when they turn 30.


"Never let nasty stalkers disrespect you. They start shit, you finish it. Go down to their level, that's the only way they'll understand. You have to handle things yourself."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 03/24/20 9:20pm

IanRG

Pokeno4Money said:

v10letblues said:

Is "let them die" a sociopaths "moral dilemma"

lol


It's Logan's Run, a famous movie where everyone must agree to be killed when they turn 30.


.

Based on the book where the maximum age was originally 21.

.

It was a reaction to the rise of youth culture and youth exercising political power in the 1960s with the sit-ins etc. This was coupled with concerns about population growth and resource scarcity.

.

So, yes, it was a Sci-Fi story about sociopathics response to moral dilemmas.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 03/25/20 12:04am

TweetyV6

avatar

KoolEaze said:

Oh come on, you know that THAT is the most interesting part.

Come on, spill the beans.......why has it been changed?

I really have no idea.

And why would practically ALL governments agree on this and have the same procedure if there´s more to it?


Because, as you more or less say yourself, it's a procedure. It's a standard practice how to handle this.
That and social & peer pressure has made it that allmost all countries do the same.

You got me really curious now. So....what do you think is going on?


Sorry, but I can't satisfy your curiosity. Make sure your curiosity doesn't kill the cat lol
All I think is that governments are doing the wrong thing, because I think the aftermath of the current situation will be far worse then if we would have let nature do it's thing.

P.s. I find it quite dissapointing that all you came back with were these few lines.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 03/25/20 12:22am

TweetyV6

avatar

Pokeno4Money said:

I think some of y'all should stop assuming that the measures being taken by the gov are for years, they are not.

It's only been what, a couple weeks in the states?

It's no different than when the US sent a surge of troups to the Middle East.

The goal is to attack it hard right away, rather than give it time to strengthen or drag on.


Draging this thing on is what we're doing now. Governments deliberately slowing down the infection propagation to avoid an overflow of Covid-19 patients at hospitals.



See how the blue curve lasts more then 2x the red one?


And easing your foot on the pedal too soon will often cause what you're fighting to come right back at you. Like a brush fire, you have to make sure every hot ember is out cold.

A month or two will NOT kill the economy like some of you are saying.

It will cost many people their existance and make them depending on welfare/governmental support
Many small companies will not survive.
I saw a video of a German baker. He was in tears because he had to close down his 15 shops and his bakery which he built up in the past 20 years. He was in tears because he could not provide enough work for his 150 employees and he was clear that if the situation would take longer then 2 months he would see his life work destroyed.

So only this example will leave more people in misery then people have died from Covid-19 in Germany.

Knowing how fast this thing has been multiplying, it would be insane to let our guard down now.


Why?

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 03/25/20 1:20am

TweetyV6

avatar

benni said:

It's interesting to me. People are saying "let people die" so the economy can thrive. They are saying that if we don't, we won't survive with an economy this bad. It will take years to come back from.

And?

We survived the Great Depression. People were without work sometimes for more than a year. We rationed. We traveled to find any job that we could find. We did what we had to do. But I doubt very seriously if our great grandparents ever considered letting a whole generation of people risk dying just so they could get the economy back on track.

The problem with people today is that they fear hard times. Everything has come so easy to this young generation. They've never really truly known bad times in America. There are those that have known difficult times. They've been passed over for jobs, not because of the economy, but because of race. They understand hard times and know that when those times come, you buckle down for the ride and you survive.

Problem is, people don't want to survive today. They don't want to have to struggle.

I can remember being a young pregnant woman, with my first child, when I had to take maternity leave for health reasons, and my son's dad deciding that if I didn't have to work, he didn't have to work. I can remember eating a can of peas for dinner, because that was all we had.

If the economy turns bad, people may actually have to find ways to survive. And the young people today don't know how to do that, because they've never had to do that.

But to suggest that we let an entire generation of people sacrifice themselves, risk their lives, because the younger generations have gotten used to Starbucks every morning and they should be able to continue to enjoy their Starbucks, while the ones who have the experience and the wisdom of life, who have known hard times and know how to survive hard times, should just be willing to die, to sacrifice themselves for the younger people to continue to enjoy their Starbucks, just boggles my mind that anyone can think that way.



Let a whole generation die?
That's a big fat over-exaggeration.

PUT THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE!!

Let's take Europe's worst performer as an example again: Italy
Italy has a population of, give or take a few, 60 million
About 7% are 80+ (2017 SOURCE) that makes roughly 4,2 million people

Let's say that 80% of Covid-19 deaths in Italy were over 80
The death toll in Italy currently is 6.820 people.

In the over 80 group the death rate would then be 5.456/4.200.000 = 0,13%

So even if the Covid-19 mortality rate would be 10 times as high, 98,7% of the over eighty population would SURVIVE

People like you, judging on gut feeling and emotions, make this virus worse then it actually is.

And in regard to you eating a can of peas as breakfast: Seriously, I'd rather kill myself than struggle to survive on a daily basis. That's not the life I want.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 03/25/20 1:58am

benni

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

benni said:

It's interesting to me. People are saying "let people die" so the economy can thrive. They are saying that if we don't, we won't survive with an economy this bad. It will take years to come back from.

And?

We survived the Great Depression. People were without work sometimes for more than a year. We rationed. We traveled to find any job that we could find. We did what we had to do. But I doubt very seriously if our great grandparents ever considered letting a whole generation of people risk dying just so they could get the economy back on track.

The problem with people today is that they fear hard times. Everything has come so easy to this young generation. They've never really truly known bad times in America. There are those that have known difficult times. They've been passed over for jobs, not because of the economy, but because of race. They understand hard times and know that when those times come, you buckle down for the ride and you survive.

Problem is, people don't want to survive today. They don't want to have to struggle.

I can remember being a young pregnant woman, with my first child, when I had to take maternity leave for health reasons, and my son's dad deciding that if I didn't have to work, he didn't have to work. I can remember eating a can of peas for dinner, because that was all we had.

If the economy turns bad, people may actually have to find ways to survive. And the young people today don't know how to do that, because they've never had to do that.

But to suggest that we let an entire generation of people sacrifice themselves, risk their lives, because the younger generations have gotten used to Starbucks every morning and they should be able to continue to enjoy their Starbucks, while the ones who have the experience and the wisdom of life, who have known hard times and know how to survive hard times, should just be willing to die, to sacrifice themselves for the younger people to continue to enjoy their Starbucks, just boggles my mind that anyone can think that way.



Let a whole generation die?
That's a big fat over-exaggeration.

PUT THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE!!

Let's take Europe's worst performer as an example again: Italy
Italy has a population of, give or take a few, 60 million
About 7% are 80+ (2017 SOURCE) that makes roughly 4,2 million people

Let's say that 80% of Covid-19 deaths in Italy were over 80
The death toll in Italy currently is 6.820 people.

In the over 80 group the death rate would then be 5.456/4.200.000 = 0,13%

So even if the Covid-19 mortality rate would be 10 times as high, 98,7% of the over eighty population would SURVIVE

People like you, judging on gut feeling and emotions, make this virus worse then it actually is.

And in regard to you eating a can of peas as breakfast: Seriously, I'd rather kill myself than struggle to survive on a daily basis. That's not the life I want.


Italy is on total quarantine. By doing so, they've skewed your numbers. You can't compare their mortality rate to a country who does nothing.

PS. Please stop with the "people like you". That's what causes people to get defensive and want to fight back, because you making it personal.

So let's go back to your original post in which you state:


Should a government look ahead and make sure that those who survive (about 99,999% of a countries population) remain to lead their lives as much as is or should a government put everything to it to minimize the death toll of Covid-19 to <0,001% instead, taking into account that society will end up in a deep recession which could take about 15 years to recover from, where small business owners, artists (partially)loose their existance, where employers cannot employ anymore, where we will see a drastic rise in depressions, divorces and suïcides?

What now is regarded as colatteral damage could become devastating damage.

Only to find out that within 12 months, the majority of the people who's lives were saved at all costs, have died anyhow.

You are basing your claim that the majority of the lives saved by quarantining people in place within a country will die anyhow within 12 months.

You accuse me of judging on "gut feeling and emotions", and yet, you are basing your whole premise on the idea that the majority of older people with health problems that we are protecting by practicing social distancing will be dead within 12 months anyhow. You are using that premise to justify just letting them die now.

The majority of elderly people with health problems, who are at extreme risk for Covid-19, will not die within 12 months, if they are given the opportunity afforded to them by their country, to remain safe now.

I have had patients on hospice, who were told they could go any time, end up being on hospice for 3 + years, getting recertified as meeting the requirements for hospice (meaning their death was considered imminent), only to be taken off of hospice at the end of the 3 + years because their health and longterm outlook for their health condition had improved.

I am one of those at risk. I was told at 17 that I could die at any time. Numerous hospital stays for 2 to 3 weeks at a time. ICU visits. I scare doctors. I mean, literally, they are scared of me because my health condition is so uncertain. At 17, a doctor wanted me to apply for disability, said he would sign whatever forms were necessary, because my health was so precarious. My current medical doctor, when I saw him a week ago, I joked about him being scared of me. He said, "Hell yes, I am scared of you. With a cancer patient, I can say you have 6 months, you have weeks. With you, it can be any minute. And if you think that doesn't scare any doctor you meet, think again." It doesn't scare me. I've lived 37 years with this condition. If I get coronavirus, it may very well cost me my life. However, if people would do what they are supposed to do, stay in, decrease the risk to other people, hell, I could live another 20 years, if not more.

Your argument will be that you said the "majority will be dead in 12 months". Again, that's just not true. People can live for years with heart conditions, kidney diseases, diabetes, high blood pressure, etc and so forth. You are using a small case sample of individuals that were already diagnosed with a fatal condition and were told they had a certain amount of time left to live. The majority of those that are at risk, are not at end stages of their conditions. They have many more years ahead of them. If "people like you" would stop trying to kill them off because money matters tonight.

[Edited 3/25/20 1:59am]

[Edited 3/25/20 2:25am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 03/25/20 2:19am

BombSquad

avatar

some [Snip - luv4u] obviously still do not understand the situation
that is unreal

do nothing then sooner or later the system is simply overloaded. like Italy or Spain. people are dying alone in their rooms or on hosiptal floors
and soon the UK an the US will go down in flames, that will make Italy look like peanuts.

people are not getting treatment, and many are dying because of lacking CAPACITY and not because of the virus, you [Snip - luv4u]

that will include cases unrelated to the virus, like people with car accidents or heart attacks unable to get treatment cause alle beds are already taken... and no, not everyone would have died within another year anyway, fool

doing nothing clearly means that also in teh long run the death numbers will be way higher than they need to be. end of story.

now how hard to understand is that???

even the most reatarded fucktwat should have understood that by now

yet the pathetic uneducated science denial industry is in full swing again

plain full idiots




to sum it up, it is clear what to do


SO NO MORAL DILEMMA!

ONLY FOR FUCKING ASSHOLES




[Edited 3/25/20 2:52am]

Ideally speaking, the President of the United States and the dumbest person in the country would be two different people. Oh well.... money can't fix stupid
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 03/25/20 2:40am

benni

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

Pokeno4Money said:

I think some of y'all should stop assuming that the measures being taken by the gov are for years, they are not.

It's only been what, a couple weeks in the states?

It's no different than when the US sent a surge of troups to the Middle East.

The goal is to attack it hard right away, rather than give it time to strengthen or drag on.


Draging this thing on is what we're doing now. Governments deliberately slowing down the infection propagation to avoid an overflow of Covid-19 patients at hospitals.



11SCI-VIRUS-TRACKER1-jumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp

See how the blue curve lasts more then 2x the red one?


It will cost many people their existance and make them depending on welfare/governmental support
Many small companies will not survive.
I saw a video of a German baker. He was in tears because he had to close down his 15 shops and his bakery which he built up in the past 20 years. He was in tears because he could not provide enough work for his 150 employees and he was clear that if the situation would take longer then 2 months he would see his life work destroyed.

So only this example will leave more people in misery then people have died from Covid-19 in Germany.

Knowing how fast this thing has been multiplying, it would be insane to let our guard down now.


Why?


You realize that decreasing the curve, it prevents hospitals from being overrun, from being depleted of resources, so that when people who are driving too fast and get into a car accident, can go to the hospital and be safely treated because the hospital has the resources, the equipment, to provide care for them safely.

The chart you are posting above is showing the hospitals abilities to provide care for ALL patients that need hospitalization. It is showing the threshhold at which a hospital can operate safely, within their given resource availability. To do nothing, will cause the hospital to go above that threshhold, to not have resources with which they can safely provide services to ALL people that need services, and they will run out of those resources VERY quickly, thus the short red curve.

That curve has nothing to do with Covid-19 cases and the amount of time the virus will last. That curve shows the hospitals functioning threshhold. Once it is in the red, above that threshhold, that means all available resources for the hospital has been depleted and they are above capacity, and can no longer treat any patients, because their resources are gone (the backside of the red curve). Whereas the blue curve shows how, if we limit the number of cases, the hospital resources are able to be spread out, safely utilized for a much longer period, which also allows them time to be able to replenish those resources, and treat all of their patients because they have the resources to do it.

Edited to add:

By flattening the curve, Twitty, you have less cases having to be treated at one time, and you prevent the hospital from having less resources to treat all of their patients. By slowing the spread of the disease, you save not only the lives of those with the virus since the hospitals will be better equipped to deal with them, but you save the lives of those without the virus that need hospital care for other situations, because the hospitals will be better equipped to deal with them.


The chart also points to what public health experts have warned could be the biggest risk posed by the coronavirus — that a serious outbreak could overwhelm an already-stretched health care system. The U.S. is dealing with a significant flu season, meaning the breaking line on the chart — the finite capacity of the health care system — is lower than people may think.

"A lot of hospitals already function at capacity, and a high number of flu cases are still being diagnosed in our hospitals, so flattening the curve gives hospitals and public health experts time to plan and prepare," Dionne-Odom said.

[Edited 3/25/20 4:13am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 5 12345>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > The moral dilemma in these times