SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   City Discussions (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   How Is Covid-19 Impacting Life in Your City? (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=242036)

mrnyc Mar 18, 2020 7:49 AM

the problem is that nutcase cheeto in charge gutted the cdc and obstructed testing, so we dont know who has it, much less how sick they can get or not.

when better and ramped up testing is rolling, i’ll feel more confident about understanding the stats on the disease. right now all we have is very limited and select data.

Ifactwo Mar 18, 2020 11:05 AM

No more toilet papers to be sold everywhere you go, all are stuck in their home and me and my family was having a family bond together. Guess this Covid-19 virus does have some perk with it. Keep safe everyone.

Crawford Mar 18, 2020 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AviationGuy (Post 8865576)
Consider the catastrophe in Italy right now. That's us in a couple of weeks if we don't take all these strict measures.

The U.S. is generating a different sort of catastrophe, by destroying our economy because a few people might die. To me, it's crazy.

Why are we shutting down our economy to prevent deaths? Makes no sense. The CA gov. says no school till September. I mean, if 7 million kids are gonna be permanently harmed (they will never make that learning up), what is the point of any of this? Why even reopen in September, as there will still be virus transmission? Just shut down schools forever, so no virus is transmitted on school grounds, ever.

Wuhan schools are open, BTW.

fern Mar 18, 2020 11:48 AM

v
Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8865632)

by destroying our economy because a few people might die. To me, it's crazy.
.

What if you or a loved one dies ? would that be worth saving the economy?

Crawford Mar 18, 2020 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fern (Post 8865634)
What if you or a loved one dies ? would that be worth saving the economy?

Yes, absolutely.

I have a family member who died in a car crash. That family member would likely be alive if there were no cars. But I don't think cars should be outlawed, even if millions of lives would be saved.

And I would much rather die of coronavirus, than live in a society where there is no economy, or socialization, or community. I don't see the point of living if all the good things about life are removed.

Handro Mar 18, 2020 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8865632)
The U.S. is generating a different sort of catastrophe, by destroying our economy because a few people might die. To me, it's crazy.

Why are we shutting down our economy to prevent deaths? Makes no sense. The CA gov. says no school till September. I mean, if 7 million kids are gonna be permanently harmed (they will never make that learning up), what is the point of any of this? Why even reopen in September, as there will still be virus transmission? Just shut down schools forever, so no virus is transmitted on school grounds, ever.

Wuhan schools are open, BTW.

Ha, comparing the “permanent harm” to children by missing the final 3 months of the school year to the millions of deaths if nothing is done to curb the spread of this virus. That’s pretty good.

Clearly some people still aren’t paying close enough attention to what’s happening and the real dangers of this disease spreading unabated. It would not be “a few” people dying, it would be millions.

Crawford Mar 18, 2020 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Handro (Post 8865642)
Ha, comparing the “permanent harm” to children by missing the final 3 months of the school year to the millions of deaths if nothing is done to curb the spread of this virus. That’s pretty good.

The harm to the children is greater. 7 million children in CA will lose 6 months of critical schooling. I would happily sacrifice myself if it meant my son would not have his life permanently affected.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Handro (Post 8865642)
Clearly some people still aren’t paying close enough attention to what’s happening and the real dangers of this disease spreading unabated. It would not be “a few” people dying, it would be millions.

So what? Why is is better to destroy billions of peoples lives?

If it could be proven that 100 million people will die of Coronavirus, it still wouldn't be worth it. Even at 1 billion, probably not worth it. The other 6 billion people shouldn't have their lives sacrificed.

hauntedheadnc Mar 18, 2020 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001 (Post 8865460)
So, like, can you hire a drag queen to do a show in your living room? Seems to go against the tenets of social distancing, but this could be a once in a lifetime opportunity.

At this point, depending on the size of your living room, you probably could -- and some of the mansions in Biltmore Forest or up on Town Mountain have honest-to-God ballrooms. However, they were more just asking for tips to live on now, with a promise to put on a hell of a show when things calm down.

In other news, my favorite coffee shop switched to curbside service only. You check the Facebook page or the Instagram account and see what's on the menu, text it in and tell them what car you'll be in, and they come out with a tablet with one of those little white credit card things attached. You swipe, they give, you go. It went pretty smoothly. I was pleased to see several people showing up to show the owner their support. I've also been ordering my dinner from DoorDash this week, and I've been trying to call all my favorite restaurants and tell them about the Asheville Strong site, where people can go on and buy gift cards to various area businesses, or go to those businesses' websites and order from them.

fern Mar 18, 2020 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8865647)
The harm to the children is greater. 7 million children in CA will lose 6 months of critical schooling. I would happily sacrifice myself if it meant my son would not have his life permanently affected.


So what? Why is is better to destroy billions of peoples lives?

If it could be proven that 100 million people will die of Coronavirus, it still wouldn't be worth it. Even at 1 billion, probably not worth it. The other 6 billion people shouldn't have their lives sacrificed.

I sincerely hope you don't mean that
I am a humble self employed house painter at home this afternoon as all my work has either been cancelled or delayed .
If this situation continues for months I am looking at losing my house but would consider it worth the sacrifice if it only saved one life.
All the best to you and your family

giallo Mar 18, 2020 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8865632)
The U.S. is generating a different sort of catastrophe, by destroying our economy because a few people might die. To me, it's crazy.

Why are we shutting down our economy to prevent deaths? Makes no sense. The CA gov. says no school till September. I mean, if 7 million kids are gonna be permanently harmed (they will never make that learning up), what is the point of any of this? Why even reopen in September, as there will still be virus transmission? Just shut down schools forever, so no virus is transmitted on school grounds, ever.

Wuhan schools are open, BTW.


The shut down is to reduce the infection levels, and give hospitals a fighting chance. It's not just about old people dying, it's about you getting in to a car crash or having a heart attack, and having a functional hospital to keep you alive.

All you needed to do is look at was what happened in Wuhan and Northern Italy before they took drastic measures. The medical system was falling apart at the seams due to the sheer amount of patients coming in.

Metro-One Mar 18, 2020 1:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by giallo (Post 8865673)
The shut down is to reduce the infection levels, and give hospitals a fighting chance. It's not just about old people dying, it's about you getting in to a car crash or having a heart attack, and having a functional hospital to keep you alive.

All you needed to do is look at was what happened in Wuhan and Northern Italy before they took drastic measures. The medical system was falling apart at the seams due to the sheer amount of patients coming in.

If people haven’t caught on to the consequences of not taking this disease seriously by now, then there is no real reason in even trying to convince them now.

Amazing how a disease that is no worse than the flu has been able to paralyze the entire health care system in Northern Italy and required the construction of temporary hospitals in Wuhan. I guess China closing down the entire area had no effect on reducing the catastrophe that was in motion at the time... I’m sorry, I meant to say their little round of the flu...

For fuck sakes, some people really are dense / heartless.

It is good to see that so many places and people in charge are taking this seriously based on the information being supplied by experts that spend their entire lives studying and analyzing diseases, instead of a bunch of armchair experts on Internet forums.

Crawford Mar 18, 2020 1:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by giallo (Post 8865673)
The shut down is to reduce the infection levels, and give hospitals a fighting chance. It's not just about old people dying, it's about you getting in to a car crash or having a heart attack, and having a functional hospital to keep you alive.

First, the premise of "shutting schools saves lives" is unclear. At school the social circle can be stable, and compliance with hygene taught and monitored. Much could be done to keep kids separated by class or grade, shy of a full closure.

Closing the schools throws routines into flux, potentially creating new person to person connections (either kids or caregivers).

Second, I find the first harm (mass economic devastation) to be a a far greater threat to the planet than the second harm (mass overwhelmed hospitals). The first threatens every human being, the second threatens a small minority.

The idea that we need to destroy the global economy to avoid the potential for overwhelmed hospitals is like burning down your house to avoid a cockroach infestation. It's groupthink madness.

montréaliste Mar 18, 2020 1:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8865647)
The harm to the children is greater. 7 million children in CA will lose 6 months of critical schooling. I would happily sacrifice myself if it meant my son would not have his life permanently affected.


So what? Why is is better to destroy billions of peoples lives?

If it could be proven that 100 million people will die of Coronavirus, it still wouldn't be worth it. Even at 1 billion, probably not worth it. The other 6 billion people shouldn't have their lives sacrificed.



If that is your level of critical thought, then yes, your child might be better off without you as a dad.

Crawford Mar 18, 2020 1:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One (Post 8865676)
It is good to see that so many places and people in charge are taking this seriously based on the information being supplied by experts that spend their entire lives studying and analyzing diseases, instead of a bunch of armchair experts on Internet forums.

In "Impact of School Closure for CV-19 on the US Healthcare Workforce and the Net Mortality Effects" pub. 3/13, Bayham & Fenichel est. mortality rates after school closures must reduce 15% to compensate absence of healthcare workers who stay home to care children <13.

The idea that there's a epidemiological consensus that schools must be closed and society needs to be shut down, is nonsense. Politics are driving these decisions.

montréaliste Mar 18, 2020 1:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fern (Post 8865660)
I sincerely hope you don't mean that
I am a humble self employed house painter at home this afternoon as all my work has either been cancelled or delayed .
If this situation continues for months I am looking at losing my house but would consider it worth the sacrifice if it only saved one life.
All the best to you and your family



It's hard to imagine a knuckle head that can balance a billion lives on one end of the scale and 3 months of schooling on the other but let's face it, there's a lot of fucked up people out there.

Crawford Mar 18, 2020 1:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by montréaliste (Post 8865679)
If that is your level of critical thought, then yes, your child might be better off without you as a dad.

Wow, that's really nice of you. What an utterly pleasant person.

Yet another reason why populist groupthink is idiotic. You aren't even understanding the conversation based on the nonsense you're writing. It has nothing to do with missing school vs. dead people; it's about mass economic and social devastation vs. more dead people.

10023 Mar 18, 2020 1:20 PM

I’m with Crawford. The medicine is worse than the illness in this case.

Even if a million or more die in the US, most these wouldn’t be “extra deaths”, but rather people who would have just died of something else soon anyway.

There was a 45-year old who died of it the other day in the UK. Made headlines but then it turns out that he had motor neuron disease, and was given 2 years to live by doctors in June 2018. So this killed him a few months early, I suppose, if the prognosis was correct to begin with.

10023 Mar 18, 2020 1:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 8865347)
With business as usual, 20 million.

Cases or deaths?

20 million cases, with likely less than 1% being fatal and highly skewed towards people with very low remaining life expectancy, would not be worth destroying the economy.

Crawford Mar 18, 2020 1:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 8865690)
Even if a million or more die in the US, most these wouldn’t be “extra deaths”, but rather people who would have just died of something else soon anyway.

Exactly. And if the premise is "we must stop any activity if it potentially results in deaths" then why open schools in September? Clearly there will be some virus transmission whenever schools open, whether it's next month or next year. So schools should never open again?

That doesn't mean we don't take severe precautions, but we have to weigh the consequences. A global economic depression will kill far more people.

Metro-One Mar 18, 2020 1:32 PM

Most interesting thing about this crisis is it has really let people show what their true colors are.

A lot of dense individuals out there who are underplaying the severity of this situation, but while they are bad, the real sickies are the ones who seem to be aware of the danger but want to throw up a middle finger to those it affects anyways.

Some real nasty people here.

Northern Light Mar 18, 2020 1:32 PM

Canada-U.S. border to close to non-essential travel, imminently.

Goods will still flow; and people may move subject to certain reasons (I expect employment will be one, at least for essential service workers).

But tourism, or what remains of it and casual travel will be prohibited.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...ential-travel/

photoLith Mar 18, 2020 1:34 PM

^
Huge amounts of people are going to be unemployed soon, I would have to tend to agree that mass economic disparity will cause much much much more suffering and deaths in the long run. This is going to make the Great Depression look like child’s play considering most governments are seriously talking about shutting most stuff down for half a year now or more.

montréaliste Mar 18, 2020 1:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8865685)
Wow, that's really nice of you. What an utterly pleasant person.

Yet another reason why populist groupthink is idiotic. You aren't even understanding the conversation based on the nonsense you're writing. It has nothing to do with missing school vs. dead people; it's about mass economic and social devastation vs. more dead people.


It didn't mean to be pleasant, you don't seem to even be aware of that.

Yes, why am I not surprised, that you would put me in a groupthink category.

I am not surprised because it's the kind of garbage lingo that is totally meaningless that leads people like you to believe the economy is a superstructure that must at all cost dominate ecology.

Metro-One Mar 18, 2020 1:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoLith (Post 8865705)
^
Huge amounts of people are going to be unemployed soon, I would have to tend to agree that mass economic disparity will cause much much much more suffering and deaths in the long run. This is going to make the Great Depression look like child’s play considering most governments are seriously talking about shutting most stuff down for half a year now or more.

This is where societal safety nets, community, and strong government assistance programs come into play. We are all going to have to suffer a little for the greater good in the end.

Only in a shitty full on dog eat dog society will the fallout from this be worse than the disease.

Good luck to you guys down south!

Time for those at the top to pull their weight.

Crawford Mar 18, 2020 1:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by montréaliste (Post 8865707)
It didn't mean to be pleasant, you don't seem to even be aware of that.

Your premise is that I should be dead because I don't want the entire planet to be in a global catastrophe, and because I think that 10x deaths due to economic collapse are worse than x deaths absent economic collapse. I'm well aware of your intentions. And, yeah, it's groupthink.

photoLith Mar 18, 2020 1:44 PM

^^
This US government is going to do much for normal people like me and the most of us. They’re talking about giving everyone 1000 bucks, whoopdi doo. That will do a lot of good when we’re all unemployed for a year.

Northern Light Mar 18, 2020 1:44 PM

A photo from Mike Crawley of CBC.

This is Toronto's University Avenue at 9:30am this morning.

For those unfamiliar with Toronto this is an 8-lane (4 lane each way) road with a subway under it that forms the western edge of Toronto's downtown core.

It would, needless to say, normally, look a hell of a lot busier.

https://twitter.com/CBCQueensPark/st...642883/photo/1

10023 Mar 18, 2020 1:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One (Post 8865702)
Most interesting thing about this crisis is it has really let people show what their true colors are.

A lot of dense individuals out there who are underplaying the severity of this situation, but while they are bad, the real sickies are the ones who seem to be aware of the danger but want to throw up a middle finger to those it affects anyways.

Some real nasty people here.

Or people with the capacity for rational analysis and enough competence on the economic implications that they understand which is worse.

A rhetorical question - what is a life worth?

Different people will have different answers, but 3 things are clearly true:

1. It is not infinite and has a limit.
2. A life with many years left to run is worth more than one nearing its natural end.
3. A “life” doesn’t just mean continuing to breathe, but quality of life as well. Doing lasting harm to the quality of life of millions can be worse than ending the lives of thousands.

Are you capable of understanding that?

There is going to be a death toll at the end of this thing. It will be an overstatement, if anything, because Covid-19 will replace other causes of death among the very old for half a year or more. And I doubt it will be a number that justifies the damage being done by the attempts to curtail it. I also hope it isn’t, for what it’s worth.

Crawford Mar 18, 2020 1:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoLith (Post 8865714)
This US government is going to do much for normal people like me and the most of us. They’re talking about giving everyone 1000 bucks, whoopdi doo. That will do a lot of good when we’re all unemployed for a year.

There will be mass increases in suicides, accidents, and people drinking and drugging themselves to death. There will be millions of kids at risk of abuse. But as long as they didn't die of Coronavirus, no biggie.

10023 Mar 18, 2020 1:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoLith (Post 8865714)
^^
This US government is going to do much for normal people like me and the most of us. They’re talking about giving everyone 1000 bucks, whoopdi doo. That will do a lot of good when we’re all unemployed for a year.

Unemployed for a year with permanently impaired career prospects. Or small business owners who are bankrupted and lose businesses they have spent their adult lives building. Chefs and restaurateurs, especially, many of whom will never get back on their feet again. For what, to buy some unhealthy person in their 70s or 80s another couple of years?

montréaliste Mar 18, 2020 1:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8865713)
Your premise is that I should be dead because I don't want the entire planet to be in a global catastrophe, and because I think that 10x deaths due to economic collapse are worse than x deaths absent economic collapse. I'm well aware of your intentions. And, yeah, it's groupthink.



You brought it up, kiddo. You said you would rather forfeit your life so that your child could go do his math. Did you consider home schooling? Don't you know in this age of tech, that people don't need to be in the same room to talk?


What is so important about planes flying day in day out carrying millions of people and doodads?

What is this mad race to have drones dropping toilet paper on your doorstep?

Metro-One Mar 18, 2020 1:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 8865716)
Or people with the capacity for rational analysis and enough competence on the economic implications that they understand which is worse.

A rhetorical question - what is a life worth?

Different people will have different answers, but 3 things are clearly true:

1. It is not infinite and has a limit.
2. A life with many years left to run is worth more than one nearing its natural end.
3. A “life” doesn’t just mean continuing to breathe, but quality of life as well. Doing lasting harm to the quality of life of millions can be worse than ending the lives of thousands.

Are you capable of understanding that?

There is going to be a death toll at the end of this thing. It will be an overstatement, if anything, because Covid-19 will replace other causes of death among the very old for half a year or more. And I doubt it will be a number that justifies the damage being done by the attempts to curtail it. I also hope it isn’t, for what it’s worth.

Yep, got it, and you come off as one cold son of a ... well, you can finish the rest.

No point in reposting all the stats about how it’s not “only” killing people already on their death bed, and the basic point that if left unchecked it will flood and overwhelm healthcare systems around the world leading to a worse societal / economic collapse anyways with far more casualties.

Crawford Mar 18, 2020 1:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by montréaliste (Post 8865725)
You brought it up, kiddo. You said you would rather forfeit your life so that your child could go do his math.

No, I wrote that I would forfeit my life so that my child would have a good life. If my child is to be permanently harmed by this madness, yes, I would forfeit my life.
Quote:

Originally Posted by montréaliste (Post 8865725)
Did you consider home schooling? Don't you know in this age of tech, that people don't need to be in the same room to talk?

Putting aside the fact that young children cannot be taught remotely, and putting aside the fact that schooling is socialization more than teaching, the issue isn't specifically schooling. It's that the entire economy/society are on hold, on the premise that it might help a few folks.

Crawford Mar 18, 2020 1:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One (Post 8865728)
Yep, got it, and you come off as one cold son of a ... well, you can finish the rest.

Why is it cold to think that an 80-yo life should end instead of the lives of countless others?

badrunner Mar 18, 2020 1:59 PM

I don't know about the total death toll of global economic collapse vs the death toll of letting the pandemic run its course but I do think that people are only counting one side of the ledger due to groupthink and peer pressure. This has never happened in history, and there will be unintended consequences. There will be very real human costs to this level of economic displacement, a lot of young lives derailed, and a total political and ideological realignment as millions of people become completely dependent on government for basic survival. It's possible things never get back to the way it was.

montréaliste Mar 18, 2020 2:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8865730)
No, I wrote that I would forfeit my life so that my child would have a good life. If my child is to be permanently harmed by this madness, yes, I would forfeit my life.

Putting aside the fact that young children cannot be taught remotely, and putting aside the fact that schooling is socialization more than teaching, the issue isn't specifically schooling. It's that the entire economy/society are on hold, on the premise that it might help a few folks.



Yes well, I wouldn't want someone like you as a trench mate.

giallo Mar 18, 2020 2:01 PM

Just so I get this straight, you'd rather have everything proceed as business as usual, and when the hospitals fill to the brim with your parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, those with compromised immune systems ranging from heart disease, respiratory issues, diabetes, etc, and bring the medical infrastructure to its knees, you'd want what? How do you move forward as a society when your medical apparatus is completely compromised?

Northern Light Mar 18, 2020 2:01 PM

The manner and details of Crawford's thesis, as expressed are a problem.

But there is a basis for an intelligent discussion/debating point in there.

What Crawford has never gotten is the need to express himself in a way that comes off as respectful or even remotely likeable, such that people are willing to consider the substance of what he has to say.

He doesn't, and people don't.

****

There is a balance to be struck between economics and health; that can be said without being callous, or uncaring about real loss of life and without diminishing the need to 'flatten the curve'.

The question is where the right balance lies.

The honest answer is that the evidence on that isn't entirely clear.

Part of that is coming to terms w/who and how many people are at risk, and how that compares to more 'normal' times.

Part of that is assessing the degree to which mitigation/suppression measures are effective, and how long they need to be employed, and the extent of resulting damage, including loss of life.

A real challenge here is that decision have to be made both without a fulsome fact set; and by people who (pols) who answer to a public that is less informed than one might hope, even of that information that is already widely available.

montréaliste Mar 18, 2020 2:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 8865716)
Or people with the capacity for rational analysis and enough competence on the economic implications that they understand which is worse.

A rhetorical question - what is a life worth?

Different people will have different answers, but 3 things are clearly true:

1. It is not infinite and has a limit.
2. A life with many years left to run is worth more than one nearing its natural end.
3. A “life” doesn’t just mean continuing to breathe, but quality of life as well. Doing lasting harm to the quality of life of millions can be worse than ending the lives of thousands.

Are you capable of understanding that?

There is going to be a death toll at the end of this thing. It will be an overstatement, if anything, because Covid-19 will replace other causes of death among the very old for half a year or more. And I doubt it will be a number that justifies the damage being done by the attempts to curtail it. I also hope it isn’t, for what it’s worth.


Spoken like a true banker.

How much damage was created in the past decades over bad loans and speculation engineered to profit only those at the top, creating havoc, in other words; man-made stuff.

It puts bankers like you to shame, really.

But if you had an ounce of creativity, you would know, that things get repaired and that the sacrosanct system will be revived through government measures, not least of which were pulled to do the same in the recent past, time and again.

Centropolis Mar 18, 2020 2:06 PM

next stop: financial crisis.

Metro-One Mar 18, 2020 2:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8865733)
Why is it cold to think that an 80-yo life should end instead of the lives of countless others?

Shove that line up your ass, you know it’s more than that.

Over 50 the death rate starts to become statistically significant for disease.

Next time quote my entire post for context too.

You do understand your bullshit approach of ignoring it is what lead Italy to its current healthcare crisis and skyrocketing death rate over the last two weeks, right?

Why do I feel that those crying over the economy are simply doing so because they are only worried about their own bank accounts?

If this troubles you so much than start donating money or your time to your local community organizations and businesses to help avoid the economic apocalypse you are so fearful of.

Crawford Mar 18, 2020 2:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by giallo (Post 8865741)
Just so I get this straight, you'd rather have everything proceed as business as usual,

No one is making such an absurd suggestion.

The issue is that you have to weigh the costs with any actions, and make some determination of least harm. I don't believe that's being done right now.

badrunner Mar 18, 2020 2:07 PM

I predicted day 3 is when people will start going stir crazy from being stuck at home with their kids.

Northern Light Mar 18, 2020 2:12 PM

I am not endorsing the following point of view; which looks a bit like Crawford's expressed with more compassion and nuance.

But I am putting out there for everyone to read and consider.

The author is an infectious disease specialist, doctor and microbiologist.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/why...-uncontainable

Metro-One Mar 18, 2020 2:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northern Light (Post 8865742)
The manner and details of Crawford's thesis, as expressed are a problem.

But there is a basis for an intelligent discussion/debating point in there.

What Crawford has never gotten is the need to express himself in a way that comes off as respectful or even remotely likeable, such that people are willing to consider the substance of what he has to say.

He doesn't, and people don't.

****

There is a balance to be struck between economics and health; that can be said without being callous, or uncaring about real loss of life and without diminishing the need to 'flatten the curve'.

The question is where the right balance lies.

The honest answer is that the evidence on that isn't entirely clear.

Part of that is coming to terms w/who and how many people are at risk, and how that compares to more 'normal' times.

Part of that is assessing the degree to which mitigation/suppression measures are effective, and how long they need to be employed, and the extent of resulting damage, including loss of life.

A real challenge here is that decision have to be made both without a fulsome fact set; and by people who (pols) who answer to a public that is less informed than one might hope, even of that information that is already widely available.

Refreshing to have a civilized approach to such a question.

But, so far over the last few pages you have people saying that millions or even a billion deaths would not be worth pausing the economy over...

At that point there is no argument left to be had.

I will argue at this point it is better to be safe now than sorry later regarding this disease, especially since Italy has proven to be a helpful canary for what happens when this disease gets out of control.

montréaliste Mar 18, 2020 2:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badrunner (Post 8865752)
I predicted day 3 is when people will start going stir crazy from being stuck at home with their kids.

That's it. Crawford stuck at home with preschooler or very young child.

The end of the world. Laffta.

Crawford Mar 18, 2020 2:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by montréaliste (Post 8865764)
That's it. Crawford stuck at home with preschooler or very young child.

Actually, my child is in daycare, right now. Many are still open.

montréaliste Mar 18, 2020 2:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8865772)
Actually, my child is in daycare, right now. Many are still open.


Mine are 22 and 24, live with us, both have jobs and one quit, the other will quit on the weekend. My wife left her job, and I work from a home studio.

My wife is particularly vulnerable, she had early stage breast cancer a couple of years ago that was well taken care of, no chemo, or radio. ten years ago she had a sudden lung collapse; a pneumothorax, so we are not taking any chances. She is not even close to eighty, but even if she were, it wouldn't make a difference. If the system were swamped, doctors would in fact discriminate between patients according to age and condition. We all have to accept circumstances. The point is we don't want the system to become overloaded.
What can help us avoid health system capacity is to have fewer people milling about in the "Economy".

My point is the economy,a lot of it, is shit anyway. Too much bullshit, too many unimportant services, and a lot of it harmful.

After the second world war, people didn't grieve for the loss of an Economy.

suburbanite Mar 18, 2020 2:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by montréaliste (Post 8865794)

My point is the economy,a lot of it, is shit anyway. Too much bullshit, too many unimportant services, and a lot of it harmful.

After the second world war, people didn't grieve for the loss of an Economy.

?? The Second World War kickstarted the modern economy we know today

Acajack Mar 18, 2020 2:49 PM

Is it possible to simultaneously feel that Crawford's views are abhorrent, but at the same time recognize that in 3-6 months' time, there is damn good chance that much of the world (including perhaps our own countries) will slowly begin moving in that direction?


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.