The strategy of favouring the old and the vulnerable will prove disastrous long term.

CtevenSrowder

Nermal wrote: »

Research from Bristol University: if we cause a fall of more than 6.4% in GDP, more years of life will be lost to recession than to the virus...

http://www.jvalue.co.uk/papers/J-value-assessment-of-combating-Covid-19-Thomas-23.3.2020.pdf

Down with this "right-wing" research.

Nermal

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Down with this "right-wing" research.

It's such a misreading of history. Utilitarianism was not an idea that originated on the right.

LillySV

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-briton-21-with-no-existing-health-conditions-dies-after-contracting-covid-19-11963451

Not old and no condition ... not that it should make any difference as a life is a life

CtevenSrowder

LillySV wrote: »

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-briton-21-with-no-existing-health-conditions-dies-after-contracting-covid-19-11963451

Not old and no condition ... not that it should make any difference as a life is a life

We're all aware of the dangers of the virus. You need to read the thread if you havn't to see the point being made.

growleaves

A recent interview with Professor Dr Sucharit Bhakdi, an infectious medicine specialist. The Professor is one of the most highly cited medical research scientists in Germany. He was head of the Institute for Medical Microbiology at the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz.

This professor says that the 'solution' of closing down the entire economy is disproportionate and will lead to a greater loss of lives than the virus itself, including among the elderly.

TheCitizen

Nermal wrote: »

Research from Bristol University: if we cause a fall of more than 6.4% in GDP, more years of life will be lost to recession than to the virus...

http://www.jvalue.co.uk/papers/J-value-assessment-of-combating-Covid-19-Thomas-23.3.2020.pdf

So what? Nobody is saying we shut down society indefinitely. We shut it down as much as needed until we get to grips with the pandemic.

TheCitizen

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Down with this "right-wing" research.

A glib comment

TheCitizen

Nermal wrote: »

It's such a misreading of history. Utilitarianism was not an idea that originated on the right.

Who said it did?

CtevenSrowder

TheCitizen wrote: »

So what? Nobody is saying we shut down society indefinitely. We shut it down as much as needed until we get to grips with the pandemic.

We are shutting down society indefinitely. This is literally what we are doing. This is the point!!!!

We are aware why society has been more or less shut down, the question is at what time does this reasonable decision begin to begin to become unreasonable.

CtevenSrowder

TheCitizen wrote: »

A glib comment

It was exactly what you were arguing yesterday. Exactly.

TheCitizen

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

We are shutting down society indefinitely. This is literally what we are doing. This is the point!!!!

We are aware why society has been more or less shut down, the question is at what time does this reasonable decision begin to begin to become unreasonable.

It's like talking to a child. They haven't put a definite timeline on it because they can't. In China they went into full lockdown for 2 months and are now emerging from it, but we'll be different and as yet we haven't even gone into a full lockdown and may not need to.

TheCitizen

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

It was exactly what you were arguing yesterday. Exactly.

What because I mentioned Trump and Johnson being a pair of arseholes. They are a pair of arseholes.

listermint

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

We are shutting down society indefinitely. This is literally what we are doing. This is the point!!!!

We are aware why society has been more or less shut down, the question is at what time does this reasonable decision begin to begin to become unreasonable.

It's not though and we aren't though.

Talk about reality versus fantasy.

shesty

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

We are shutting down society indefinitely. This is literally what we are doing. This is the point!!!!

We are aware why society has been more or less shut down, the question is at what time does this reasonable decision begin to begin to become unreasonable.

It is a balance.
I know this seems like forever but realistically it is a couple of months.I notice Italy is s-l-o-w-l-y dropping off the main headlines...their cases are beginning to drop slowly and that's just not a headline anymore.They have "only" been in lockdown since March 10th....15 days.Their major restrictions came in March 22nd....3 days ago (even as I type that I am thinking is that all??) Beware the 24 hour news cycle amplifying things and making them seem like forever.It is not.

Edited:In fact as I look at those dates, they were 12 days in and they shut all down bar essentials.We are 12 days in and our numbers absolutely nowhere near theirs (and yes, I realise there is a 2 week lag between us and Italy), and we have shut down as much as we can.It is probably not a completely mad assumption to make that we would fare better than they did as a result.

CtevenSrowder

TheCitizen wrote: »

It's like talking to a child. They haven't put a definite timeline on it because they can't. In China they went into full lockdown for 2 months and are now emerging from it, but we'll be different and as yet we haven't even gone into a full lockdown and may not need to.

A child? It just seems to be that you don't understand the meaning of the words you use.

Indefinite: "for an unlimited or unspecified period of time". I've even bolded the important part for you. As such, if "they haven't put a definite timeline on it because they can't", then things have been shutdown for an indefinite period of time. QED.

Did you read the part were I said:

We are aware why society has been more or less shut down, the question is at what time does this reasonable decision begin to begin to become unreasonable.

I'm aware why we are (more or less) shutdown. I support it at the moment. The question is for how long is it really sustainable.

CtevenSrowder

TheCitizen wrote: »

What because I mentioned Trump and Johnson being a pair of arseholes. They are a pair of arseholes.

No, you were claiming that those thinking of the economy were right wing, and doing such a thing was a "rightist approach". And that thinking of the economy was putting it above the people. A strong economy goes a long way to helping people, or at least being in a position to.

You were also (wrongly) claiming that those countries that were slow to react did so because of their right wing ideology, a claim that is patently false as I pointed out to you.

CtevenSrowder

shesty wrote: »

It is a balance.
I know this seems like forever but realistically it is a couple of months.I notice Italy is s-l-o-w-l-y dropping off the main headlines...their cases are beginning to drop slowly and that's just not a headline anymore.They have "only" been in lockdown since March 10th....15 days.Their major restrictions came in March 22nd....3 days ago (even as I type that I am thinking is that all??) Beware the 24 hour news cycle amplifying things and making them seem like forever.It is not.

Edited:In fact as I look at those dates, they were 12 days in and they shut all down bar essentials.We are 12 days in and our numbers absolutely nowhere near theirs (and yes, I realise there is a 2 week lag between us and Italy), and we have shut down as much as we can.It is probably not a completely mad assumption to make that we would fare better than they did as a result.

It is a balance. But there were posters on this and other threads proclaiming that they'd be happy to have the current measures in place for months and months and potentially years if it was deemed required. I and others were pointing out that such an approach is highly illogical, because as you say, there is a balance that must be met. We were then labelled "selfish", "self-absorbed", "economic-fetishists", "conservative" and happy to "sacrifice" people for even daring to mention the potential economic effects of such a policy and the problems this would cause for society as a whole.

I personally see this being (more or less) over come middle of May. Here's hoping!

KyussB

The people calling for prioritizing the economy over potential coronavirus victims, are the same people who prioritize mass long-term-unemployment through austerity, and associated death from that and public service cuts, when recessions occur.

On the other side of the fence, are those who prioritize potential coronavirus victims over the economy, and who in recessions, prioritize using public spending to boost the economy and ensure people have adequate supports and services.

The former want more to die and suffer harm both due to coronavirus AND due to lack of support in recession - the latter want less to die from coronavirus and due to proper support in recession.

CtevenSrowder

KyussB wrote: »

The people calling for prioritizing the economy over potential coronavirus victims, are the same people who prioritize mass long-term-unemployment through austerity, and associated death from that and public service cuts, when recessions occur.

On the other side of the fence, are those who prioritize potential coronavirus victims over the economy, and who in recessions, prioritize using public spending to boost the economy and ensure people have adequate supports and services.

The former want more to die and suffer harm both due to coronavirus AND due to lack of support in recession - the latter want less to die from coronavirus and due to proper support in recession.

Ffs. Around in circles we go. Yes you left wingers are so morally superior to those in the center and the right. We get it.

pjohnson

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Ffs. Around in circles we go. Yes you left wingers are so morally superior to those in the center and the right. We get it.

Thats extreme I'm sure there are some centre and right leaning people who dont want to sacrifice their own parents for profit.

CtevenSrowder

pjohnson wrote: »

Thats extreme I'm sure there are some centre and right leaning people who dont want to sacrifice their own parents for profit.

Have a read of the thread there, noone is being "sacrificed".

ITman88

KyussB wrote: »

The people calling for prioritizing the economy over potential coronavirus victims, are the same people who prioritize mass long-term-unemployment through austerity, and associated death from that and public service cuts, when recessions occur.

On the other side of the fence, are those who prioritize potential coronavirus victims over the economy, and who in recessions, prioritize using public spending to boost the economy and ensure people have adequate supports and services.

The former want more to die and suffer harm both due to coronavirus AND due to lack of support in recession - the latter want less to die from coronavirus and due to proper support in recession.

Most ridiculous post I’ve seen on this thread so far and you have a lot of competition.

You have managed to argue a point that has not been made. That takes some doing!!

KyussB

As long as you lot are pretending that an economic recession necessitates lives lost - through austerity and public funding cuts - then my point stands, as you are making clear what you advocate the government doing in response to the recession (austerity/cuts).

Absolutely no need to cut supports for people, or leave them without work or prospects, in a recession. That some people choose the threat of austerity in response to recession, is no reason to avert shutting down in response to the coronavirus, to save lives - we shut down to save lives, and then fight the political fight that's coming anyway, with the recession - fighting to uphold public spending and supports for people.

CtevenSrowder

KyussB wrote: »

As long as you lot are pretending that an economic recession necessitates lives lost - through austerity and public funding cuts - then my point stands, as you are making clear what you advocate the government doing in response to the recession (austerity/cuts).

Absolutely no need to cut supports for people, or leave them without work or prospects, in a recession. That some people choose the threat of austerity in response to recession, is no reason to avert shutting down in response to the coronavirus, to save lives - we shut down to save lives, and then fight the political fight that's coming anyway, with the recession - fighting to uphold public spending and supports for people.

You say it as if its that simple. Oh we'll just spend loads and it will all work out grand.

You've also got to be seriously up your own arse to proclaim that one side "want people to die". ****ing moronic analysis.

And I don't advocate for it. History dictates that there it will most likely happen though. Granted, it may be different this time, as we've just come of the back of virtually 10 years of austerity, and there's not a lot of stomach for more.

The longer the shutdown lasts, the worse the recession will be. At some stage the benefit of our current course of action will be less than the benefit of another.

Good luck with your fight, maybe you'll win (though I doubt it). But what if you don't?

KyussB

If you're trying to shut down the concept of anything different to the last time happening, in reponse to recession - then what you want is a repeat of the last time.

The previous response to recession was an unprecedented massive upwards redistribution of wealth, a hugely exeptional event, which you pretend is the norm - that is nonsense.

The threat of deliberate mismanagement of the economy, in response to recession - is no reason to avert an economic slowdown which saves lives from the coronavirus.

That would effectively be allowing a small class of people to hold the country to ransom - when we have control over who gets in power and what they do...

CtevenSrowder

KyussB wrote: »

If you're trying to shut down the concept of anything different to the last time happening, in reponse to recession - then what you want is a repeat of the last time.

I'm not trying to shut it down. What I'm saying is, history dictates that anything different is unlikely to happen. So basing current decisions on the basis that it will is poor decision making.

However, the more I think about it, the more I think we will get what you are suggesting. I can't see how any government would be able to sell yet more austerity. I doubt even the most ardent economic conservative has the stomach for it. But we'll see.

KyussB wrote: »

The previous response to recession was an unprecedented massive upwards redistribution of wealth, a hugely exeptional event, which you pretend is the norm - that is nonsense.

Broadly speaking, the aim of austerity is to bring state spending under control. As such, tough decisions have to be made. I agree that austerity had to happen after 2008, whilst I may not agree with every cut made, some were required.

One of the reasoning's behind austerity is to not kick the can down the road as such and saddle future generations with our debt. Can you imagine the situation we'd potentially be in now if we tried to spend our way out of the last recession. We'd have what? Probably borrowed double what we did. That would we mean what we are borrowing now would cost us even more than it already is. And it would mean that the option of spending our way of this crisis would be a non-runner.

KyussB wrote: »

The threat of deliberate mismanagement of the economy, in response to recession - is no reason to avert an economic slowdown which saves lives from the coronavirus.

That would effectively be allowing a small class of people to hold the country to ransom - when we have control over who gets in power and what they do...

The mismanagement comes before a recession. Not after.

And regardless, it is, if that mismanagement will lead to more loss of life than having a near shutdown for an extended period of time (which I suggest is longer than 3 months).

pjohnson

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Have a read of the thread there, noone is being "sacrificed".

Thankfully. But thats because of the current policy here. It just happens that *some* dont like this policy and would prefer a different policy that would cause more deaths.

CtevenSrowder

pjohnson wrote: »

Thankfully. But thats because of the current policy here. It just happens that *some* dont like this policy and would prefer a different policy that would cause more deaths.

How many times does it have to be said? As far as I can see on this thread, and amongst the public in general, the current policy is very popular. I support it. However, there will come a point were the positives of the current policy will be outweighed by it's negatives. I hazard that point will come around May time, due to the economic implications of keeping a large portion of the economy shutdown.

How long do you think the current policy is sustainable?

KyussB

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I'm not trying to shut it down. What I'm saying is, history dictates that anything different is unlikely to happen. So basing current decisions on the basis that it will is poor decision making.

However, the more I think about it, the more I think we will get what you are suggesting. I can't see how any government would be able to sell yet more austerity. I doubt even the most ardent economic conservative has the stomach for it. But we'll see.


Broadly speaking, the aim of austerity is to bring state spending under control. As such, tough decisions have to be made. I agree that austerity had to happen after 2008, whilst I may not agree with every cut made, some were required.

One of the reasoning's behind austerity is to not kick the can down the road as such and saddle future generations with our debt. Can you imagine the situation we'd potentially be in now if we tried to spend our way out of the last recession. We'd have what? Probably borrowed double what we did. That would we mean what we are borrowing now would cost us even more than it already is. And it would mean that the option of spending our way of this crisis would be a non-runner.



The mismanagement comes before a recession. Not after.

And regardless, it is, if that mismanagement will lead to more loss of life than having a near shutdown for an extended period of time (which I suggest is longer than 3 months).

The term "history dictates" doesn't have any meaning. History does not just repeat itself.

The public are not foolish enough to believe your framing of austerity - they were fed those lies for a decade, and have had it.

People know austerity is only aboout redistributing wealth and power upwards - and that it only makes government finances less sustainable, not more sustainable.

People have now come back around to the need for strong fiscal stimulus to prop up the economy, at times of recession - not cratering the economy through austerity.

LillySV

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

We're all aware of the dangers of the virus. You need to read the thread if you havn't to see the point being made.

I have read the title and made the point earlier that this virus is killing and destroying everyone, including the young .... even a good lot of the young who survive have reduced lung function.... why someone would even question or suggest that the world should be prioritizing wealth and materialism over the health of other humans shocks Me... glad it’s only a small number that think likethat... cause world would be on a downward spiral and absolutely fuct if most in society valued money over other people’s health