Allegra Escorts Collective
Asian Sexy Babe
Toronto Escorts

COVID-19 fight vs. financial crisis: which one is more important?

Previous Thread Next Thread
F

fall

Well-known member
Dec 9, 2010
2,742
680
113
Am I the only one who starts thinking that we pay too much of an economic price to fight COVID-19? The isolation measures will need to stay in effect for several months (at best) or, ore realistically, for up to a year, so, the effect on the economy will be catastrophic. Given extremely low mortality rates (one needs to multiply the number of confirmed infection cases by at least 10 to find the true number of cases, so, mortality rate is much lower than is reported), would it be just better to simply let it be, accept the human life costs, and continue with our life instead of driving more than half of people into poverty?

I know, many will say that even single life is important, but every day people in poor countries die of hunger, contaminated water, easily treatable diseases, yet, we are not sending all of our money there to fight for their life (no matter how much you give to charity, you still have money to buy a phone, go to restaurant, take a vacation, etc.). Is it because now we are talking about our own parents and grandparents? But if it is the case, why simply not let people who are able to care for their own parents to do it (e.g., I can isolate my parents in their own home and wait for 2-3 month for everybody else, including myself, to go over it or die). Surely, not everybody have means to do it, but, again, each of us who can do it will do it, and hell with everybody: just give a little money to an "isolate my parents" charity fund (i.e., same approach as our constant approach to fighting hunger in Africa)?

Note, that I am not talking about "hell with everybody, let's enjoy life" I am talking about "accept the human life losses, save the economy"
 
luvyeah

luvyeah

🤡🌎
Oct 24, 2018
2,552
1,207
113
"Accept the human life losses" only works if those human lives are not loved ones or people you know or are familiar with.
Then yes, your interpretation of it is just a statistic like all the deaths around the world that hardly anyone is aware or cares about.
But even then, ignorance is not a good attitude to have.

It's a slippery slope to think the economy is more important than human life.

Just remember greed is one of the seven deadly sins.
 
F

fall

Well-known member
Dec 9, 2010
2,742
680
113
luvyeah said:
"Accept the human life losses" only works if those human lives are not loved ones or people you know or are familiar with.
Then yes, your interpretation of it is just a statistic like all the deaths around the world that hardly anyone is aware or cares about.
But even then, ignorance is not a good attitude to have.

It's a slippery slope to think the economy is more important than human life.

Just remember greed is one of the seven deadly sins.
Click to expand...
But the sate of economy highly positively correlated with human lives. In poor countries the life expectancy is lower, mortality rate due to curable diseases is higher, violent crime rate (and associated life-threatening injuries) is higher. So, reducing mortality rate among old generation now at the expense of economy is just trading it for our children's lives. Yes, we cannot directly observe it now and it will happen in the future, but it will happen. And it is not about greed, it is about economic conditions for the current low-mid class - they are the ones who will get hit the hardest.
 
B

benstt

Well-known member
Jan 20, 2004
1,527
399
83
fall said:
Am I the only one who starts thinking that we pay too much of an economic price to fight COVID-19? The isolation measures will need to stay in effect for several months (at best) or, ore realistically, for up to a year, so, the effect on the economy will be catastrophic. Given extremely low mortality rates (one needs to multiply the number of confirmed infection cases by at least 10 to find the true number of cases, so, mortality rate is much lower than is reported), would it be just better to simply let it be, accept the human life costs, and continue with our life instead of driving more than half of people into poverty?

I know, many will say that even single life is important, but every day people in poor countries die of hunger, contaminated water, easily treatable diseases, yet, we are not sending all of our money there to fight for their life (no matter how much you give to charity, you still have money to buy a phone, go to restaurant, take a vacation, etc.). Is it because now we are talking about our own parents and grandparents? But if it is the case, why simply not let people who are able to care for their own parents to do it (e.g., I can isolate my parents in their own home and wait for 2-3 month for everybody else, including myself, to go over it or die). Surely, not everybody have means to do it, but, again, each of us who can do it will do it, and hell with everybody: just give a little money to an "isolate my parents" charity fund (i.e., same approach as our constant approach to fighting hunger in Africa)?

Note, that I am not talking about "hell with everybody, let's enjoy life" I am talking about "accept the human life losses, save the economy"
Click to expand...
I suspect that the political upheaval and the resulting economic chaos of letting some percentage of the population die will dwarf the economic impacts of the actions we are taking.
 
A

apoptygma

Well-known member
Dec 31, 2017
3,043
100
48
benstt said:
I suspect that the political upheaval and the resulting economic chaos of letting some percentage of the population die will dwarf the economic impacts of the actions we are taking.
Click to expand...
Money > lives... not the best approach when it comes to species survival.
But that seems to be the path that Homo spiens are on. As a species, we will get what we deserve... The Earth is stronger than a single species.
 
S

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,703
21
38
Ultimately the economic crisis will be more important. I don't say this to downplay the personal tragedies. I don't see lockdowns lasting any more than a few months because the economic toll will become too great.

covid sucks but it's not an existential threat to our species.

Preparedness for future viruses will become a focus of governments everywhere going forward.
 
I

icarus69

Member
May 7, 2019
75
19
8
At this moment, COVID crisis is more important because the existence of COVID uncontained, there's no economy.
 
A

apoptygma

Well-known member
Dec 31, 2017
3,043
100
48
Smallcock said:
Ultimately the economic crisis will be more important. I don't say this to downplay the personal tragedies. I don't see lockdowns lasting any more than a few months because the economic toll will become too great.

covid sucks but it's not an existential threat to our species.

Preparedness for future viruses will become a focus of governments everywhere going forward.
Click to expand...
Do you realize that when there is an unchecked contagion on the run, the economy cannot move forward?
How can the economy function when people are dropping dead?
 
B

Born2Star

Active member
Dec 2, 2004
749
56
28
So let say we don’t do anything. Or we do less, much less that what we doing today. Do you think the pandemic is just gonna go away while we keep our economy intact? Sure we can bet that way. But with all the science and data we got plus what we saw happened in China and Italy. We as a society decided to do it the way we do now.

As for lives and casualty, OP pls come back here when you start seeing someone you know got infected, learning someone you know died. I don’t wish it happens to you or anyone but trust me... it’s closer to us than we think.
 
S

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,703
21
38
apoptygma said:
Do you realize that when there is an unchecked contagion on the run, the economy cannot move forward?
How can the economy function when people are dropping dead?
Click to expand...
Within months the unchecked contagion will have reached practically everyone (assuming no vaccine is created). It will be a disaster. But yes the economy will have to move forward sooner or later. It might not look the same as it did pre-virus but the machinery will get moving again. The government can carry things for only so long.

Containment is not even a realistic option for an enemy we can't see, don't understand, don't have sufficient testing for, and spreads as easily as wildfire.
 
A

apoptygma

Well-known member
Dec 31, 2017
3,043
100
48
Smallcock said:
Within months the unchecked contagion will have reached practically everyone (assuming no vaccine is created). It will be a disaster. But yes the economy will have to move forward sooner or later. It might not look the same as it did pre-virus but the machinery will get moving again. The government can carry things for only so long.

Containment is not even a realistic option for an enemy we can't see, don't understand, don't have sufficient testing for, and spreads as easily as wildfire.
Click to expand...
So your answer is to ignore it for the sake of saving the economy?
 
canada-man

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,152
2,605
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
fall said:
Am I the only one who starts thinking that we pay too much of an economic price to fight COVID-19? The isolation measures will need to stay in effect for several months (at best) or, ore realistically, for up to a year, so, the effect on the economy will be catastrophic. Given extremely low mortality rates (one needs to multiply the number of confirmed infection cases by at least 10 to find the true number of cases, so, mortality rate is much lower than is reported), would it be just better to simply let it be, accept the human life costs, and continue with our life instead of driving more than half of people into poverty?

I know, many will say that even single life is important, but every day people in poor countries die of hunger, contaminated water, easily treatable diseases, yet, we are not sending all of our money there to fight for their life (no matter how much you give to charity, you still have money to buy a phone, go to restaurant, take a vacation, etc.). Is it because now we are talking about our own parents and grandparents? But if it is the case, why simply not let people who are able to care for their own parents to do it (e.g., I can isolate my parents in their own home and wait for 2-3 month for everybody else, including myself, to go over it or die). Surely, not everybody have means to do it, but, again, each of us who can do it will do it, and hell with everybody: just give a little money to an "isolate my parents" charity fund (i.e., same approach as our constant approach to fighting hunger in Africa)?

Note, that I am not talking about "hell with everybody, let's enjoy life" I am talking about "accept the human life losses, save the economy"
Click to expand...
where was this urgency during past seasonal flu epidemics that killed more people? this covid-19 is an excuse to to create police states
 
A

apoptygma

Well-known member
Dec 31, 2017
3,043
100
48
canada-man said:
where was this urgency during past flu pandemics that killed more people? this covid-19 is an excuse to to create police states
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily disagree with you.
I am not sure thought if it is a planned exercise, or if it will be an unintended consequence of a naturally occurring situation.
But we would be remiss to ignore the potential... rights and liberties being taken away, slowly, one at a time.
 
canada-man

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,152
2,605
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
S

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,703
21
38
apoptygma said:
So your answer is to ignore it for the sake of saving the economy?
Click to expand...
We're taking measures to slow down the spread. That's admirable and we should continue to do so. But it's not a solution because it will not stop the spread.

There's a life and a world after the virus, and to ignore that could cost even more lives.

I'm not going to jump into a fire to voluntarily commit suicide but I'm also not rattled by the possibility that I might die from this virus. Are you?
 
P

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
The Washington Post shares a drone video of Downtown Los Angeles as the local economy grinds to a halt.

What's happening in Los Angeles is coming to a major metro area near you... Vancouver then Toronto, etc …
 
A

apoptygma

Well-known member
Dec 31, 2017
3,043
100
48
Smallcock said:
We're taking measures to slow down the spread. That's admirable and we should continue to do so. But it's not a solution because it will not stop the spread.

There's a life and a world after the virus, and to ignore that could cost even more lives.

I'm not going to jump into a fire to voluntarily commit suicide but I'm also not rattled by the possibility that I might die from this virus. Are you?
Click to expand...
Do you know math?
Intentional social distancing WILL stop the spread.
If I die, I die... but I am also doing my best to not only NOT DIE, but try to ensure that my neighbours NOT DIE... like every other socially responsible person should be doing.
Are you socially responsible, or socially irresponsible?
 
S

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,703
21
38
A vaccine will stop the spread. Social distancing will only slow it down.

I couldn't be irresponsible if I tried. Nobody wants to come within 10 feet of me, and that was before the virus.

By the way, I appreciate your passion. You ought to approach the issue of abortion (the killing of the young) with just as much zeal.
 
S

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,703
21
38
apoptygma said:
Do you know of a vaccine that the rest of us do not know about?
Click to expand...
No, hence the virus will keep spreading despite your efforts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Ashley Madison
Previous Thread Next Thread
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom