Jump to content
270soft Forum

As a long term approach, the response to coronavirus isn't sustainable and is almost certainly the wrong approach


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

You think it's a bad idea to reduce the risk of transmission to old people? Crazy.

We are reducing the risk of transmission to old people, with the current nationwide measures.

You think it's a good idea to force old people's caretakers to quit their jobs, with no replacements in sight.  That's crazy, and that's why people who are actually in power to make these decisions are making the correct ones, instead of following what you present here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

You think it's a good idea to force old people's caretakers to quit their jobs, with no replacements in sight.  That's crazy, and that's why people who are actually in power to make these decisions are making the correct ones, instead of following what you present here.

Do you realize how many people are going to lose their jobs because of what's happening right now? This is *very little* compared to that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Do you realize how many people are going to lose their jobs because of what's happening right now? This is *very little* compared to that.

And yet...the decision was made anyway, almost world-wide.

It's almost like the experts said it has to happen anyway, despite the huge challenges.

Economic relief will come.  You keep ignoring that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

Economic relief will come.  You keep ignoring that.

At some point, yes. My country just announced an $89B CAN spending measure, aimed at helping people who become unemployed, child care, homeless people, and so on, as well as a significant amount for businesses. We're about 1/10th the U.S.'s population.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

At some point, yes. My country just announced an $89B CAN spending measure, aimed at helping people who become unemployed, child care, homeless people, and so on, as well as a significant amount for businesses. We're about 1/10th the U.S.'s population.

What does the 1/10th of the population matter? This just means we have to spend more money, and we have more money and more resources. We always do. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, vcczar said:

What does the 1/10th of the population matter? This just means we have to spend more money, and we have more money and more resources. We always do. 

It's to put it in context for American readers. It means federal spending of about $700B U.S. equivalent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

Do you realize how many people are going to lose their jobs because of what's happening right now? This is *very little* compared to that.

But you act as if these lost jobs won't be needed to be given back after this subsides to get the economy back up and running. You talk about their loss as though they're a permanent write-off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Patine said:

But you act as if these lost jobs won't be needed to be given back after this subsides to get the economy back up and running. You talk about their loss as though they're a permanent write-off.

No. I'm talking about how long it will be before they switch back on, and whether switching to a more targeted approach earlier will help blunt the economic damage. Presumably, 'switching the jobs back on' will be helped by massive government spending and low interest rates if it continues for a significant period of time (months instead of weeks).

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

No. I'm talking about how long it will be before they switch back on, and whether switching to a more targeted approach earlier will help blunt the economic damage. Presumably, 'switching the jobs back on' will be helped by massive government spending and low interest rates if it continues for a significant period of time (months instead of weeks).

Didn't Palin call the inevitable results of that sort of thinking, "death panels." While I hate to agree with Palin, and the specific concept she was referring to at the time was a highly inaccurate, hyperbolic, vitriolic, misleading, and politicized (pre-Obamacare health insurance companies had real "death panels," with true soulless, sociopaths sitting on them, from what I've heard), but I fear your "targeted response," concept may come down to such thinking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

It's to put it in context for American readers. It means federal spending of about $700B U.S. equivalent.

 

27 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

So, equivalent getting towards $1 trillion.

 

27 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

That's only immediate federal spending.

I don't think this is a overwhelming difficulty. It's mostly something that may become more and more normal. There may need to be major monetary, currency, economic reform within 100 years. I would not find it shocking if by the time that you and I are 100 years old that our concept of money no longer exists. We seem to be in a transition towards this and have been since the 1970s and arguably before. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, vcczar said:

 

 

I don't think this is a overwhelming difficulty. It's mostly something that may become more and more normal. There may need to be major monetary, currency, economic reform within 100 years. I would not find it shocking if by the time that you and I are 100 years old that our concept of money no longer exists. We seem to be in a transition towards this and have been since the 1970s and arguably before. 

Oh, my dear Lord, who would want to live to 100 in this world?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Patine said:

Oh, my dear Lord, who would want to live to 100 in this world?

I’ll always be curious what happens next. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We had our first confirmed positive case at the hospital where I work yesterday.

He got the virus elsewhere (we know where), we immediately caught it, and he was already in medical isolation due to a unrelated medical condition, which means you can almost guarantee he didn’t spread it to our other staff and patients.

And yet a lot of our staff are seriously freaking the fuck out about it.

As the spokesman, one of my jobs is to keep people calm.

Yet one of my own employees announced yesterday that she won’t be back to work until this all passes — even though she definitely doesn’t have enough “time off” saved up to keep getting paid in the interim.

This is all from one case.

I can only imagine what it’s going to be like when we have 50 cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, CentristGuy said:

Watch the whole video as it highlights the consequences of shutting down and not shutting down. 

Yes, I'm well aware of everything he says there.

The question here isn't whether strong measures up front are a good idea (I think my country was too lax and slow in responding initially, including not taking much tougher measures to limit international travel while the epidemic was raging in parts of China and South Korea).

The question instead is how long are we willing to put drastic measures in place to slow the spread. I'm all for flattening the curve, and in particular (I think in the end this may actually be as or even more important!) buying time to better understand the disease and treatments (already it appears we have breakthroughs in treatment and best practices, including HCQ, avoiding ibuprofen, testing capabilities are ramping up, we are buying time to increase production of medical supplies, and so on).

I *support strong measures* in the short term. The question is how long we should be willing to do this. A few weeks? Yes. A few months? At that point, the cure may very well be worse than the disease, and so the debate is about how long strong measures need to be kept in place vs. the huge economic damage of holding them in place. There are big risks and potential damage on either side of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Wiw said:

Excuse me, I was only saying!!!

You weren't SAYING anything meaningful with any rational, sensible, thoughtful backing. You were spewing more doom-and-gloom fear-the-end crap with no evidenced validity!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...