This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Economic implications of a SARS/Coronavirus outbreak

Jump to new
Klogg said:
1) Your choice to be near me. You don't need to go out in public
2) My friends dont have to visit me

People have choices. Or they SHOULD have them - but governments the world over think they're doing everyone a favour.
Click to expand...

So you expect others to be responsible while you are not ?!
 
SirRumpole said:
Well that's a pretty emotive response in itself.
Click to expand...

I literally pointed out that the only reason I was posing it in that way was because you repeatedly post like it and I was putting it that way for you!

People take precautions in dangerous situations, like we now find ourselves in.
Click to expand...

Sometimes we go too far, sometimes we don't go far enough, sometimes we get it about right. This is an obvious case of taking it waaaay too far. The fact that we have terms like 'a cure worse than the disease' shows that we do sometimes get it wrong.

Social isolation is a precaution in an infectious disease situations, but your solution is to do nothing, I don't think that is credible.
Click to expand...

My solution is not to do nothing and I've never said that. Look at Sweden for one of the few examples of countries doing something in line with what I think is best. The only economic trouble Sweden will have will be caused by the rest of the world doing absurd things. If all countries acted like Sweden, there wouldn't be a problem. In terms of the virus itself, Sweden will do well.

Your solution is worse than a cure worse than the disease scenario. Yours is a delay strategy worse than the disease, before the disease then hits us anyway.
 
SirRumpole said:
So you expect others to be responsible while you are not ?!
Click to expand...

No. I expect others to make their own choices

I also don't accept your definition of responsible. So long as I'm not breaking the law (outside this 'state of emergency'), I'm being responsible. If you have a different standard, you can live by that.

Like I said, don't force me to live the way you want to.
 

You have just stated the obvious, the law is the law restricting rights due to a State of Emergency. So if you have a party exceeding the law for the number of people then you have broken the law, like it or not.
 
The use of quarantine to prevent the spread of disease is the oldest most effective method of prevention.
Self sacrifice to save other communities has also happened.
Coronavirus: What can the 'plague village' of Eyam teach us?
With coronavirus putting households around the world in lockdown, can the English "plague village" of Eyam, which quarantined itself for more than a year, offer us lessons on how to fight back?
As a nightmare tale from history, Eyam's ordeal takes some surpassing.
When plague arrived in September 1665, rather than flee this wild corner of Derbyshire - and risk spreading the infection - villagers locked themselves away to suffer in isolation. And suffer they did.

www.bbc.com › uk-england-derbyshire-51904810
Apr 22, 2020 - And perhaps most importantly, did the quarantine save others? ... in Eyam, the former 'plague village' in Derbyshire, dealing with coronavirus.

www.bbc.com › news › uk-england-35064071
Nov 5, 2016 - The village of Eyam lost 260 people to plague in the 1660s - but thousands more in neighbouring settlements were saved by the villagers' remarkable ... to so many of the dying, contracting the plague while helping others.
 
SirRumpole said:
You have just stated the obvious, the law is the law restricting rights due to a State of Emergency. So if you have a party exceeding the law for the number of people then you have broken the law, like it or not.
Click to expand...

My point is the current over-reach for control is not acceptable. It doesn't justify the 'emergency' label.

The damage caused out of unjustified fear is not acceptable. We're not at war.
At the end of this, even the state of Florida will be in a better position that we will.
 

You're comparing COVID-19 to the plague... wow.

The plague had a death rate of 50% (if untreated). You can't possibly think this is the same.
 
Klogg said:
You're comparing COVID-19 to the plague... wow.

The plague had a death rate of 50% (if untreated). You can't possibly think this is the same.
Click to expand...

Not in severity of course. The reference is to the use of quarantine to stop the spread of the disease. It was also a very noble act for the village lead by its hitherto unpopular minister to voluntarily quarantine itself to save the surrounding countryside.
 
Should we take the same actions for influenza? 650,000 deaths in a typical year, even with a vaccine available.

If not, why not?
 
they will because the worst is over for them ...no one gives a damn about being tested positive numbers, what is important is extra death aka people who would have been alive in 2 years but will die earlier , we are delaying and make no mistakes we will have thousands of deaths by the virus here..
mostly if nearly only in the above 70 range :
maybe in the next months, next year or if we turn North Korea even more, in a couple of years but it will happen let's just do not blame it on Victorians please. we will be in enough drama once people realise how duped they have been, even you @SirRumpole, will be interesting to have your view in 3y
In the meantime our economy will go down the drain week by week paltry lockdown attempt after attempt
 
One thing we can all agree it is VERY VERY contagious..that happens.and this is the underlying issue as well of the futility of our approach once covid is worldwire and established.
 

I said 'they will be' better off.

More people will have died. But they will on average be deaths brought forward by a few years.
Meanwhile, their economy will not have been destroyed as badly by rolling lockdowns.



In other news, dictator dan is now threatening stage 4 lockdowns. In other words, he wants to kill any form of economic activity to save a few 85 year olds.
What a joke.
 

Where do we draw the line? If this was a disease with a 50% fatality rate (or even 2% if you got that figure while ignoring people who were on or near their death beds anyway - excluding those already near death, this virus has an extremely low fatality rate) I'd say fair enough, call it an emergency, lock people down, etc. But this is literally comparable to the flu, and if you want to scoff at that, consider the fact that you literally just compared it to the plague! It is far, far, far closer in severity to the common cold than plague.

Most people don't even show symptoms/are immune, and for the majority of other people it is a mild, temporary respiratory bug.

While it's noble for a *small number of people* to endure some suffering for the *good of many others*, it makes no sense to *force* *most people* to suffer for the good of a *few*, especially when most of that few will end up catching it anyway!

This isn't a lockdown of a small community to protect many others, it is the destruction of the global system!
 
Love historical stories like this.
 

There is a human consequence that is rapidly happening in Florida and Texas (as well as many other places) .

Imagine you go to a big wedding, family funeral, slam party , football match or disco. In the group there are a few infected people. By the end of the evening there is every chance another 80-100 people will have picked up the disease.

On current figures one of these people will die. A few others will be hospitalised and seriously affected. A few more will be sick as dogs for potentially weeks on end. The others who are infected will just go to the next party/funeral/football match and spread the infection further.

Would anyone go to such an event when there is a high probability at least one person will sicken and die and the second and third prizes are an extended stay in ICU?

And what effect will this sort of consequence have for big public events where people mingle closely ?
Check out the COVID party story..
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/13/30-year-old-dies-covid-party-texas
 
Klogg said:
In other news, dictator dan is now threatening stage 4 lockdowns. In other words, he wants to kill any form of economic activity to save a few 85 year olds.
What a joke.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The risk factors seem to be anyone over 50 with "co-morbidity" which could include treatable conditions like asthma.

Plenty of life left in those folks if they don't get covid.
 

Yes. Want evidence? There's literally a real world where people are literally doing it. You're ignoring the fact that your statistic is based on that one person being towards the end of their life anyway. Not everyone is irrationally paranoid. If this virus was going to magically disappear on the 17th of November this year, sure, it would make sense for people, especially the vulnerable, to lock themselves away and for everyone to be far more cautious. Here in reality land, that's not happening.

Again... again... again... if you're going to inevitably get exposed to it, why live in fear until you do? I would love to be given a dose today and be done with it. I'm already in lockdown for 6 weeks in perfect health, I'd happily use this time to either have the disease and be done with it or demonstrate clearly that I'm immune and thus be allowed to freely travel. Actually, given that I had multiple flights into, out of and within Asia early this year and late last year, often in international crowds before anyone was familiar with 'social distancing', I likely already have been exposed and was either innately immune or I'm in the majority of cases which are asymptomatic.

And what effect will this sort of consequence have for big public events where people mingle closely ?
Check out the COVID party story..
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/13/30-year-old-dies-covid-party-texas
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, the old 'the exception to ignore the rule' or 'cherry-picked outlier' method of false argument. It's a big world, you had to go to Texas to get the cherry you wanted!

If you want to cherry pick like that, it's equally valid to say we should ban cars because of car accidents, showers because people fall over and break their necks, pets because dogs and even cats kill people, swimming, gardening (a surprising number of people die from gardening, it's actually quite interesting), etc etc.

We shouldn't be allowed to own knives. All food should be chopped up before the general public can purchase it.

Where do you draw the line? We are not avoiding the risk, we are merely delaying it slightly, and it is not simply a choice of delay it or not delay it, the delay comes at a greater cost than the disease itself (which we are not avoiding anyway, merely delaying!).
 

The latest medical evidence is pointing towards showing that antibodies developed in the body to fight COVID, only remain for around 3 weeks. Meaning after 3 weeks of having it, you can get it again (and there is no guarantee it will hit you easier/harder than before), you’re not “immune” to it. Early days and not enough data to categorically prove it, but evidence is suggesting so. It’s not like the flu where once you’ve been exposed to a specific strain (which they vaccinate against the most common strain every year) the pathogens hang around for months, by which point we’re into summer and cases have dropped significantly. This is one of the primary reasons why doctors are so concerned about COVID versus the flu, and why they are urging governments to contain the spread, because COVID now is a strain on our medical system, but the long-term strain could be worse.

There’s also possible evidence towards longer term neurological and respiratory effects, which given the virus has only been widespread for a few months, we may not see the actual effects for a long time yet. Potential for chronic lung disease, cognitive and psychological impairments. And these affect you, whether you were asymptomatic or in ICU (obviously the degree to which you are affected changes, but affected nonetheless).

I understand your points about how difficult lockdowns are, and that governments need to think more about who should be locked down - but keep in mind governments work to give a solution that works for the entire country. It’s not perfect, and it will undoubtedly be hard on some people; but it is better than the alternative which is great for some people, and literally kills others. They have a duty to keep all of their citizens safe, not just some of them. If you do have friends who are having mental health issues, and you are concerned about suicidal tendencies, you should be urging them to seek professional help, and if they refuse to do so because they are “fine”, you should be highlighting them to the appropriate people so that they can act before it is too late. People think psychiatry isn’t for them and that it doesn’t work, but it can absolutely change somebody’s life and their perspective of it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
WEF corrupts countries
Replies
6
Views
372
SirRumpole
Trump Era 2025-2029 : Stock and Economic Comment
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
5K
Smurf1976
US Election 2024 : Stock and Economic Comment
7 8 9
Replies
171
Views
10K
divs4ever
M
Cooling Australian Property Market Signals Economic Trends
Replies
1
Views
1K
Joe Blow
Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
582
Smurf1976
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...