Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
But yeah, if someone's pitting a modest drop in standard of living(oh noes, poor middle class people won't be able to take a foreign holiday every single year sometimes twice? i weep ) against hundreds of thousands of lives, I consider them to be a sociopath.
We're not talking about a modest drop in living standards. We're talking hundreds of millions of people losing their jobs and being unable to afford basic needs. Needs which the government could never afford because nobody can pay any taxes, plus collapse of agriculture leading to worldwide food shortages. A situation which could lead to not just hundreds of thousands of lives lost, but hundreds of millions of lives lost. Which would be a combination of economic collapse, famine, and violence stemming from those 2 previous causes.
It is infinitely better to take a known risk(maybe a few hundred thousand dead worldwide) vs the possibility of worldwide collapse that would lead the millions of dead.
Maybe you'd save your grandfather from dying to COVID, but its not worth it if it means millions of people starving to death fighting for scraps and recovery that could last over a century.
Are you really saying we sacrifice a few people right now to avoid a possible future?
RiTides wrote: I think easing of some restrictions doesn't have to mean a complete re-opening of things, and even things that do open, should obviously still be practicing social distancing and the like as much as possible. There's middle ground to be had here... sometimes it's hard to find that in a format like this, though
Eventually we might have cycles of lock down, partial opening, full opening and then rising cases will go for lock down again.
Problem for bars, movie theaters, airlines and the tourism industry is that no one is going to really feel like mingling with a lot of people in the middle of a pandemic. So relieving lock downs will not help much unfortunately for certain sectors. The cruise industry is probably going to be flat lined until a vaccine after all those stories.
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
JWBS wrote: Yodhrin, you really seem like the most hubristic person I've ever encountered, and I mean that sincerely. Between your proclamation that dissent from your own personal opinions is a signifier of sociopathy in the other thread, to your absolute certainty on the science of an unprecedented pandemic (from what is almost certainly the position of a layperson, correct me if I'm wrong), I'm honestly a bit impressed.
Honestly I'm kind of baffled how anyone could consider "I might have to deal with a slight reduction in my standard of living, we should just let half a million people die" to be anything other than sociopathic? That's not "dissenting from my person opinion", it's being willing to sacrifice countless lives for the sake of your hobby budget.
And yes, I am a layperson. That's why I base my views on the sources(and many, many others) I listed, as well as the tangible, observable, factual reality on the ground: Countries that locked down early have low casualties. Countries that adopted a rigorous test & trace response have low casualties. Countries that didn't take this seriously completely fethed themselves. There is no credible, supportable argument for lifting the lockdown in the absence of either a vaccine, or a comprehensive test & trace programme.
But yeah, if someone's pitting a modest drop in standard of living(oh noes, poor middle class people won't be able to take a foreign holiday every single year sometimes twice? i weep ) against hundreds of thousands of lives, I consider them to be a sociopath.
We're not talking about a modest drop in living standards. We're talking hundreds of millions of people losing their jobs and being unable to afford basic needs. Needs which the government could never afford because nobody can pay any taxes, plus collapse of agriculture leading to worldwide food shortages. A situation which could lead to not just hundreds of thousands of lives lost, but hundreds of millions of lives lost. Which would be a combination of economic collapse, famine, and violence stemming from those 2 previous causes.
It is infinitely better to take a known risk(maybe a few hundred thousand dead worldwide) vs the possibility of worldwide collapse that would lead the millions of dead.
Maybe you'd save your grandfather from dying to COVID, but its not worth it if it means millions of people starving to death fighting for scraps and recovery that could last over a century.
Are you really saying we sacrifice a few people right now to avoid a possible future?
They really are, staggering isn't it. Almost as staggering as the fact they're evidently too oblivious to grasp the fact that the scenario they're advocating doesn't actually prevent all the economic damage they're so concerned about, and the countries which are going to come out of this the best economically are the ones like New Zealand and South Korea who're doing exactly what the people they're arguing against suggest we should do.
RiTides wrote: I think easing of some restrictions doesn't have to mean a complete re-opening of things, and even things that do open, should obviously still be practicing social distancing and the like as much as possible. There's middle ground to be had here... sometimes it's hard to find that in a format like this, though
But this is what's lunacy - what I'm arguing for is the "middle ground". Presenting it as "total lockdown forever vs let 'er rip" is a false choice, there is a middle ground, but it requires we put comprehensive test & trace in place first.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/04/23 19:03:51
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
But yeah, if someone's pitting a modest drop in standard of living(oh noes, poor middle class people won't be able to take a foreign holiday every single year sometimes twice? i weep ) against hundreds of thousands of lives, I consider them to be a sociopath.
We're not talking about a modest drop in living standards. We're talking hundreds of millions of people losing their jobs and being unable to afford basic needs. Needs which the government could never afford because nobody can pay any taxes, plus collapse of agriculture leading to worldwide food shortages. A situation which could lead to not just hundreds of thousands of lives lost, but hundreds of millions of lives lost. Which would be a combination of economic collapse, famine, and violence stemming from those 2 previous causes.
It is infinitely better to take a known risk(maybe a few hundred thousand dead worldwide) vs the possibility of worldwide collapse that would lead the millions of dead.
Maybe you'd save your grandfather from dying to COVID, but its not worth it if it means millions of people starving to death fighting for scraps and recovery that could last over a century.
Are you really saying we sacrifice a few people right now to avoid a possible future?
This argument is simplistic. It's akin to "Roads should be illegal because one life lost is one life too many". A total lack of nuance intended to create a false ethical binary doesn't lend any credence at all to this line of argument imo.
But yeah, if someone's pitting a modest drop in standard of living(oh noes, poor middle class people won't be able to take a foreign holiday every single year sometimes twice? i weep ) against hundreds of thousands of lives, I consider them to be a sociopath.
We're not talking about a modest drop in living standards. We're talking hundreds of millions of people losing their jobs and being unable to afford basic needs. Needs which the government could never afford because nobody can pay any taxes, plus collapse of agriculture leading to worldwide food shortages. A situation which could lead to not just hundreds of thousands of lives lost, but hundreds of millions of lives lost. Which would be a combination of economic collapse, famine, and violence stemming from those 2 previous causes.
It is infinitely better to take a known risk(maybe a few hundred thousand dead worldwide) vs the possibility of worldwide collapse that would lead the millions of dead.
Maybe you'd save your grandfather from dying to COVID, but its not worth it if it means millions of people starving to death fighting for scraps and recovery that could last over a century.
Are you really saying we sacrifice a few people right now to avoid a possible future?
I'm confused, even if we're taking about a 0.5% mortality rate and a 50% infection rate in one year as was being estimated, we're talking about dozens of millions of deaths worldwide, not hundreds of thousands.
Based on calculations in the NL on how many people might have already been infected (3% and 5000 deaths), we might have had 150.000 deaths if lock down measures had not kicked in and even worse if the system would have gotten overwhelmed. To indicate, that is about a 0.9% casualty rate on the infection calculations if the entire country of the NL gets infected.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/23 19:02:34
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Yodhrin wrote: This is a response to comments made by queen_annes_revenge in the News & Rumours thread, which discussion has been banished here by the mods:
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Well, I guess if you ignore the predicted deaths from an economic collapse such as that we're facing, aswell as the decreases standards of living, decreased wages, increased taxes etc, then you could probably straw man away anyone who dares to raise concerns about such issues as a 'sociopath' but then that isn't really conducive to rational and reasonable debate.
My grandad is 92 and has asbestosis, if this gets even slightly near him he's done for, I'm not even remotely interested in people trying to mumble about "reasonable debate fnar fnar". Also, if you were actually interested in "reasonable debate", you'd have gone to the trouble of actually reading the bit of my post where I explicitly addressed the nonsense idea that lifting the lockdown will somehow avoid "economic collapse" - it won't, because if you lift the lockdown now - again, even partially - in the absence of either a vaccine OR a thorough, population-wide test, trace, isolate programme, then we will be right back to where we were and be forced to lockdown again potentially for even longer, and further it's not as if half a million people dying and the NHS being unable to treat anyone for anything else for a period of potentially months is a scenario that would have no economic impact now is it
But yeah, if someone's pitting a modest drop in standard of living(oh noes, poor middle class people won't be able to take a foreign holiday every single year sometimes twice? i weep ) against hundreds of thousands of lives, I consider them to be a sociopath.
The NHS is not overwhelmed.
London says hi. Also you really do need to double check what tense people are using. Will be. Is predicted to. In the future. If the outbreak isn't suppressed - not "flattened", not "managed", utterly suppressed - by either a lockdown, a vaccine, or test & trace, the modeling is absolutely clear that it will be completely incapable of coping.
There are how ever many thousand icu places still free, even before you consider the new nightingale hospitals popping up all over the place. No one has had to be turned down. The London nightingale has had 41 patients last I saw.
You're literally like those people who were defending Cheltenham etc going ahead with their "only like, ten people have died, pfff, chill bruh" shtick. Those "nightingale hospitals" have been built exactly because of the scenario I've been outlining, and they will won't be sufficient according to the models.
There's no reason the overly draconian measures can't be relaxed somewhat, and have businesses that are able to do so operate with customer control measures like curbside or over counter services, and still maintain physical social distancing. (The thing that is actually helping.)
Overly draconian
I'm going to try and illustrate this in the starkest way that I can for you: Even Piers Morgan thinks the position you're advocating is irrational and immoral.
I sincerely beg you, go and read what the WHO are saying. What the professors behind the Imperial studies are saying. What Devi Sridhar(chair of public health at Edinburgh uni) and her colleagues are saying. Understand just how utterly isolated the point of view espoused by the leaders of the SAGE is, and how entirely out of step with the science your position is. Lifting the lockdown - once more, even partially - without either a vaccine or a functioning national test & trace system is the worst of all worlds. It will cost hundreds of thousands of lives, and worse, won't even achieve its supposed benefit of preventing economic problems.
OK, well first, nice appeal to pity, but, I imagine pretty much everyone here has someone in the at risk group they dont want to die, so next.
have you looked the death graphs? yeah the area representing the number of dead doesnt change, it just covers a longer period of time.
The modelling may be clear, but the modelling isnt objective infallible truth, its a prediction.
So.. is that based on your extensive knowledge of economics? or just class based snobbery?
Nice projection there. no I'm not. I wont say any more on that.
The measures are draconian. A policeman searching my shopping will not prevent the spread of virus. prove me wrong.
Piers morgan? really? yeah his views and his frothing outrages on TV during this have been laughably stupid, and I usually agree with him.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/23 19:05:38
RiTides wrote: I think easing of some restrictions doesn't have to mean a complete re-opening of things, and even things that do open, should obviously still be practicing social distancing and the like as much as possible. There's middle ground to be had here... sometimes it's hard to find that in a format like this, though
But this is what's lunacy - what I'm arguing for is the "middle ground". Presenting it as "total lockdown forever vs let 'er rip" is a false choice, there is a middle ground, but it requires we put comprehensive test & trace in place first.
I mentioned this elsewhere, but I think that's part of what has people so fired up about this - yes, there are people who are just out of left field, but the vast majority are not advocating for one end of the spectrum or the other. You're arguing for a "middle ground", but someone else making the "Let's start to open things back up" argument might also be thinking of a middle ground, not a full re-opening.
I had to make a run to Walmart yesterday, and despite being open, most people were wearing masks, everyone was keeping really far apart, etc. It's possible to have things open, and still practice intense social distancing. Sometimes I think people arguing with each other here are actually in agreement and just don't know it
There will always be crazies... but I don't think 90%+ of people want a full re-opening, but a phased, responsible one.
But yeah, if someone's pitting a modest drop in standard of living(oh noes, poor middle class people won't be able to take a foreign holiday every single year sometimes twice? i weep ) against hundreds of thousands of lives, I consider them to be a sociopath.
We're not talking about a modest drop in living standards. We're talking hundreds of millions of people losing their jobs and being unable to afford basic needs. Needs which the government could never afford because nobody can pay any taxes, plus collapse of agriculture leading to worldwide food shortages. A situation which could lead to not just hundreds of thousands of lives lost, but hundreds of millions of lives lost. Which would be a combination of economic collapse, famine, and violence stemming from those 2 previous causes.
It is infinitely better to take a known risk(maybe a few hundred thousand dead worldwide) vs the possibility of worldwide collapse that would lead the millions of dead.
Maybe you'd save your grandfather from dying to COVID, but its not worth it if it means millions of people starving to death fighting for scraps and recovery that could last over a century.
Are you really saying we sacrifice a few people right now to avoid a possible future?
I'm not saying that I agree with Grey T...
But, that sort of calculus happens all the time. Perfect example are automotive seatbelt laws, or regulations to purchase firearms.
JWBS wrote: Yodhrin, you really seem like the most hubristic person I've ever encountered, and I mean that sincerely. Between your proclamation that dissent from your own personal opinions is a signifier of sociopathy in the other thread, to your absolute certainty on the science of an unprecedented pandemic (from what is almost certainly the position of a layperson, correct me if I'm wrong), I'm honestly a bit impressed.
Honestly I'm kind of baffled how anyone could consider "I might have to deal with a slight reduction in my standard of living, we should just let half a million people die" to be anything other than sociopathic? That's not "dissenting from my person opinion", it's being willing to sacrifice countless lives for the sake of your hobby budget.
And yes, I am a layperson. That's why I base my views on the sources(and many, many others) I listed, as well as the tangible, observable, factual reality on the ground: Countries that locked down early have low casualties. Countries that adopted a rigorous test & trace response have low casualties. Countries that didn't take this seriously completely fethed themselves. There is no credible, supportable argument for lifting the lockdown in the absence of either a vaccine, or a comprehensive test & trace programme.
Since when was absolute financial ruin the same as dealing with a slight reduction in living standards? Who do you think you are fooling with this very obviously false equivalence? And as far as the scientific consensus goes, there definitely isn't one. I've lately seen claims of "A bad flu during a cold Winter" all the way up to those numbers from Neil Ferguson a few months ago. All from serious, credible people. None of them can be pointed to as absolutely correct, this is unprecedented, and erring on the side of pessimism has been proven to be the defacto safest position (In debate I mean, not in public health policy).
But yeah, if someone's pitting a modest drop in standard of living(oh noes, poor middle class people won't be able to take a foreign holiday every single year sometimes twice? i weep ) against hundreds of thousands of lives, I consider them to be a sociopath.
We're not talking about a modest drop in living standards. We're talking hundreds of millions of people losing their jobs and being unable to afford basic needs. Needs which the government could never afford because nobody can pay any taxes, plus collapse of agriculture leading to worldwide food shortages. A situation which could lead to not just hundreds of thousands of lives lost, but hundreds of millions of lives lost. Which would be a combination of economic collapse, famine, and violence stemming from those 2 previous causes.
It is infinitely better to take a known risk(maybe a few hundred thousand dead worldwide) vs the possibility of worldwide collapse that would lead the millions of dead.
Maybe you'd save your grandfather from dying to COVID, but its not worth it if it means millions of people starving to death fighting for scraps and recovery that could last over a century.
Are you really saying we sacrifice a few people right now to avoid a possible future?
This argument is simplistic. It's akin to "Roads should be illegal because one life lost is one life too many". A total lack of nuance intended to create a false ethical binary doesn't lend any credence at all to this line of argument imo.
You might be barking up the wrong tree trying to get that across here.
I think the problem is, im not sure people are convinced we are past the worst part yet.
Im certainly not convinced that this will subside anytime soon.
Im honestly scared to death of this. My mom will die if she gets it, i work with immunocompromised individuals who can die from the FLU.
I get that some things can open up, maybe some smaller retail stores with time limits you can be in there, encourage a shopping list to know what you want.
But people advocating that things like HAircuts, Nail salons, golf and such baffle me.
But yeah, if someone's pitting a modest drop in standard of living(oh noes, poor middle class people won't be able to take a foreign holiday every single year sometimes twice? i weep ) against hundreds of thousands of lives, I consider them to be a sociopath.
We're not talking about a modest drop in living standards. We're talking hundreds of millions of people losing their jobs and being unable to afford basic needs. Needs which the government could never afford because nobody can pay any taxes, plus collapse of agriculture leading to worldwide food shortages. A situation which could lead to not just hundreds of thousands of lives lost, but hundreds of millions of lives lost. Which would be a combination of economic collapse, famine, and violence stemming from those 2 previous causes.
It is infinitely better to take a known risk(maybe a few hundred thousand dead worldwide) vs the possibility of worldwide collapse that would lead the millions of dead.
Maybe you'd save your grandfather from dying to COVID, but its not worth it if it means millions of people starving to death fighting for scraps and recovery that could last over a century.
Are you really saying we sacrifice a few people right now to avoid a possible future?
I'm not saying that I agree with Grey T...
But, that sort of calculus happens all the time. Perfect example are automotive seatbelt laws, or regulations to purchase firearms.
But why are we thinking of people as numbers? Sure, in the grand scheme of things, those people dont matter, none of us really do, a 1%(im pulling a number out of my ass here, im not sure of the rate of death vs survival, just using it for effect) death rate is nothing.....but those are still people, who matter to other people.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/23 19:16:10
Just from an infection risk standpoint, golf seems pretty easy to handle (not yet imo, but when the time is right). Close the clubhouse, mandate that groups not come into contact, and they're basically spread out in a large outdoor space. Probably one of the best outdoor sports for minimizing contact, really...
Edit: Unless you meant professional golf with crowds! In which case, the solution would end up being to not have crowds, imo... it seems many sports leagues, when they do start up eventually, will be played without spectators (but should see record TV numbers - people are watching remote HORSE games right now, for goodness sake ).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/23 19:18:16
All these "think about the economy" arguments also ignore the fact that most countries have economic advisors and the government is weighing what the important thing to do is. We already see lifting restrictions in Europe, so this amount of people saved versus acceptable loss calculus is already being made.
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Right - which is why I think a lot of people disagreeing are actually saying similar things. There is obviously a balance to be had, where the absolute safest thing is no one to ever leave their house, but there are a lot of things that can be phased in with only a small increase in risk, and with a lot of benefit to society / economy / etc.
RiTides wrote: Just from an infection risk standpoint, golf seems pretty easy to handle (not yet imo, but when the time is right). Close the clubhouse, mandate that groups not come into contact, and they're basically spread out in a large outdoor space. Probably one of the best outdoor sports for minimizing contact, really...
Edit: Unless you meant professional golf with crowds! In which case, the solution would end up being to not have crowds, imo... it seems many sports leagues, when they do start up eventually, will be played without spectators (but should see record TV numbers - people are watching remote HORSE games right now, for goodness sake ).
If they close the clubhouse, i can maybe get behind it down the line.
My point being though that anything that increases risk, even minimally, should be avoided. I doupt golf courses are the one in danger of collapsing. Small retail businesses are though.
Balance the need of the activity, vs the possibility of infection vs the possibility of a business going under along with how it can be done safely
For example, Dog grooming vs Nail Solon.
Both are probably in danger of going under, but nails are not essential for everything. But dog groomers perform tasks that can be dangerous for people to do untrained(Clipping dogs nails and anal gland extraction) while nails can be done at home. Dog grooming can be done contactless. at mine i put the card on my dog, tied him up outside, left a bit away, they cam and picked him up, and done. Nails you cant do contactless.
im rambling though and avoid work soooooo.
In about three weeks we won't have to speculate as TN, SC, GA, TX and FL are all states in the US lifting their lockdowns. We can see what happens to them and the surrounding states as a test bed for these theories.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Yeah, people seem to not understand that no matter what government did, we will have both deaths and economic loss due to Covid. You don't need a shut down order to see restaurants take a hit. Major sports shut down well ahead of orders. OTOH, factories and farms are still working.
This is also why shutdown orders were incremental, because the goal is minimize the economic impact while maximizing the lifesaving aspects.
RiTides wrote: Right - which is why I think a lot of people disagreeing are actually saying similar things. There is obviously a balance to be had, where the absolute safest thing is no one to ever leave their house, but there are a lot of things that can be phased in with only a small increase in risk, and with a lot of benefit to society / economy / etc.
I think the main disagreement falls along the lines of how much damage you think is inflicted by lock downs versus just the pandemic.
Balance is hard to achieve indeed. If governments really didn't care about the economy or rights they could just go the China way and lock everyone in their house for 3-4 weeks. That pretty much wipes out the virus, but that would require the whole world to do it. As China shows its just importing cases and going into regional lock downs again. Having seen how close my country came to IC beds capacity even with a significant lock down, I can only wonder what would have happened without. But we need to keep this up for 18 months or more and I can see people can't keep up this lock down after 6+ weeks. A balance would hopefully keep the public agreeable to periodic lock downs.
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
I'm confused, even if we're taking about a 0.5% mortality rate and a 50% infection rate in one year as was being estimated, we're talking about dozens of millions of deaths worldwide, not hundreds of thousands.
It would be worse than that. The issue of a collapsed health system means that all other preventeable deaths because modern medicine become potentially lethal.
So we would have dozens of millions of deaths because COVID-19, and many millions more because collapsed health systems.
That's why flattening the curve is so important.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/23 19:38:09
This is a really good article on how and why famine and starvation are likely to appear. It's sobering and horrifying. I'd thought of the economic consequences limited to lowering everyone's lifestyle, or at worst pausing most people's progress for a year or two. But internationally, and undoubtedly just in areas I'm less familiar with domestically, it's far more dire.
Klawz-Ramming is a subset of citrus fruit?
Gwar- "And everyone wants a bigger Spleen!"
Mercurial wrote:
I admire your aplomb and instate you as Baron of the Seas and Lord Marshall of Privateers.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Star Trek also said we'd have X-Wings by now. We all see how that prediction turned out.
Orkeosaurus, on homophobia, the nature of homosexuality, and the greatness of George Takei.
English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleyways and mugs them for loose grammar.
Polonius wrote: Yeah, people seem to not understand that no matter what government did, we will have both deaths and economic loss due to Covid. You don't need a shut down order to see restaurants take a hit. Major sports shut down well ahead of orders. OTOH, factories and farms are still working.
This is also why shutdown orders were incremental, because the goal is minimize the economic impact while maximizing the lifesaving aspects.
I would expand on that a bit.
Yes, overall that's the goal, but the primary reason why the shutdowns were instituted was so that we do NOT overwhelm the healthcare resources. That is because we simply didn't have (and we still don't!) a full understanding of this novel virus. This is why your hear the terminologies of "flattening" the curve...
By that objective, we've (meaning the US) succeeded that. We've shown that for the most part, we'll observe social distancing rules and can remain vigilant on personnel hygiene.
Because of that, I think it's prudent to explore incrementally opening up the economy. That includes services like nail salon, restarunts and tattoo parlors... so, long as those businesses observe proper PPE and social distancing.
FWIW... part of my job is that I've spent that last few weeks supporting my institution to develop/manage popup MASH units (ie, mobile/tented ICU & PUI units) to anticipate a surge... which we haven't seen and now, we're planning to decommission them. We're on the downward trend in my region, so it makes sense to start reopening the economy.
This is a really good article on how and why famine and starvation are likely to appear. It's sobering and horrifying. I'd thought of the economic consequences limited to lowering everyone's lifestyle, or at worst pausing most people's progress for a year or two. But internationally, and undoubtedly just in areas I'm less familiar with domestically, it's far more dire.
Most afraid i am of india.
Because the country has a mobile enough population with a dire enough sanitary situation.
On top of civil unrest in some provinces.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
I'm confused, even if we're taking about a 0.5% mortality rate and a 50% infection rate in one year as was being estimated, we're talking about dozens of millions of deaths worldwide, not hundreds of thousands.
It would be worse than that. The issue of a collapsed health system means that all other preventeable deaths because modern medicine become potentially lethal.
So we would have dozens of millions of deaths because COVID-19, and many millions more because collapsed health systems.
That's why flattening the curve is so important.
Exactly, so the numbers game is disingenuous because based on some of the best scenarios you would already see a staggering death toll and that alone would drive the economy into the ground. So saying lock down kills more is a very loaded statement to make, because there are no calculations that we have that say so, lock downs are estimated to save millions in those scenarios and it probably ends up a net positive if you want to game with an absolute number of deaths with lock downs versus economy.
Polonius wrote: Yeah, people seem to not understand that no matter what government did, we will have both deaths and economic loss due to Covid. You don't need a shut down order to see restaurants take a hit. Major sports shut down well ahead of orders. OTOH, factories and farms are still working.
This is also why shutdown orders were incremental, because the goal is minimize the economic impact while maximizing the lifesaving aspects.
I would expand on that a bit.
Yes, overall that's the goal, but the primary reason why the shutdowns were instituted was so that we do NOT overwhelm the healthcare resources. That is because we simply didn't have (and we still don't!) a full understanding of this novel virus. This is why your hear the terminologies of "flattening" the curve...
By that objective, we've (meaning the US) succeeded that. We've shown that for the most part, we'll observe social distancing rules and can remain vigilant on personnel hygiene.
Because of that, I think it's prudent to explore incrementally opening up the economy. That includes services like nail salon, restarunts and tattoo parlors... so, long as those businesses observe proper PPE and social distancing.
FWIW... part of my job is that I've spent that last few weeks supporting my institution to develop/manage popup MASH units (ie, mobile/tented ICU & PUI units) to anticipate a surge... which we haven't seen and now, we're planning to decommission them. We're on the downward trend in my region, so it makes sense to start reopening the economy.
But the problem is that nobody is arguing that lock down needs to last until a vaccine, not even health officials. That is a false argument brought to the table by the anti-lock down crowd. The epidemiologists want to approach this in a rational manner.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/04/23 19:55:33
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Easy E wrote: In about three weeks we won't have to speculate as TN, SC, GA, TX and FL are all states in the US lifting their lockdowns. We can see what happens to them and the surrounding states as a test bed for these theories.
Sweden's path will also be very interesting. They are a state that's often put on a pedestal by many people that aren't Swedish, and their choices during this crisis have been quite unusual. I've not seen them criticised anywhere near as much as other countries have been (probably due to the aforementioned pedestal). I wonder what their stats will look like this time next month.
But the problem is that nobody is arguing that lock down needs to last until a vaccine, not even health officials. That is a false argument brought to the table by the anti-lock down crowd. The epidemiologists want to approach this in a rational manner.
Of course. I support the incremental approach and also ramping plans for the next fall/winter as we'll be address both the normal flu and corona virus at the same time.
But why are we thinking of people as numbers? Sure, in the grand scheme of things, those people dont matter, none of us really do, a 1%(im pulling a number out of my ass here, im not sure of the rate of death vs survival, just using it for effect) death rate is nothing.....but those are still people, who matter to other people.
For some people out there, unless the sick and/or dying is someone they personally know and actually care about, then people are just numbers: they're someone else and someone else's problem. That's why people are out there with posters plastered with empty slogans about "the economy" or "freedom", but not so many with posters saying "my dad" or "my best friend".
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/04/23 20:32:30
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
But why are we thinking of people as numbers? Sure, in the grand scheme of things, those people dont matter, none of us really do, a 1%(im pulling a number out of my ass here, im not sure of the rate of death vs survival, just using it for effect) death rate is nothing.....but those are still people, who matter to other people.
For some people out there, unless the sick and/or dying is someone they personally know and actually care about, then people are just numbers: they're someone else and someone else's problem. That's why people are out there with posters plastered with empty slogans about "the economy" or "freedom", but not so many with posters saying "my dad" or "my best friend".
It's almost like you don't understand the concept of abstraction.
Edit: nevermind. I'm just overly pissed right now because I just came from another forum where I saw people I thought were decent people basically lacking even the tiniest shred of empathy for any human life other than their own.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/04/23 20:44:59
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Sweden, and for example, Finland, as I understand it though, as societies already basically practice social distancing as normal - they like their personal space a LOT.
OTOH are places like Angola, which have barely been hit at all (yet), but despite existing poverty have been in lockdown since mid-march now, and it has just been extended until may 10th at which point gvt will re-evaluate. And people are managing. So honestly, if even countries dirt-poor like in West Africa can manage to stay put for at least two months, the only reason anyone in rich places like Europe and the US can't or won't is pure selfishness.
) against hundreds of thousands of lives, I consider them to be a sociopath.
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Heresy World Eaters/Emperors Children 
