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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

next stop: financial crisis.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

The end of the world. Laffta.

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.

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

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?