Economic implications of a SARS/Coronavirus outbreak

[SirRumpole]

It's literally less than one person per day and since they hit their flatline low level of scarcely above zero (again, literally less than one person per day!) every single one of those people have been elderly.

On what planet or in what warped state of mind is the death of less than one elderly person per day in a whole country of millions of people not trivial?

The fact is that all these covid patients elderly or not clog up the hospital emergency centres and infect essential health workers who then have to take time off, depleting the services available to non covid patients.

Unless you are trying to argue that we should abolish the health system entirely and let only the healthiest survive, ie if you have cancer or diabetes too bad you are going to die anyway so why spend money on you ?

Your arguments simply don't hold water in any civilised society.

 

[Sdajii]

Tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, in ten years, or longer?
Should I be telling my 97 year old mother that her life is worthless and that she and her partner should drop dead asap so we can all get on with our lives?

At 97, your mother will almost certainly be dead in closer to next week than in 10 years. This is just the reality. Destroying the country's economy in lockdowns, removing personal freedom, destroying livelihoods, literally imposing an 8PM curfew on an entire city of people and saying they are only allowed outdoors for a maximum of 1 hour per day and husbands and wives or parents and children are forbidden to even go shopping together is not going to give your mother 10 extra years of life. The rate of deaths has not even gone down in Melbourne despite these draconian restrictions. Those 97 year olds who are guaranteed to die in the not too distant future either way, are now living in isolation from the only people in this world who love them, and since people at that age are not long for this world, whatever it is which kills them during this time, they die alone without being able to say goodbye to their loved ones. At 97 I'd rather take a small chance of getting a disease which may kill me in exchange for being able to be with my loved ones until I check out of this world. I sure as heck wouldn't want to be forced into isolated knowing that my family and my whole country were being forced into massively destructive conditions.

The problem with your idea of "soon" is that it's a guess. Put your point into a logical context, had she died of COVID-19 and was 80 years old, then that's ok because not many people live longer anyway. Yet that 17 year difference (and counting) in life expectancy is not just statistically significant, it has human value.

You have such tunnel view that you only see the value in extending the lives of a very small number of old people while ignoring all the harm being done to many many millions of others!

In a perfect world we'd all live to 150 years of age in perfect health. In the real world we don't. In a perfect world we wouldn't have millions of people forced out of work and to lose their businesses, millions of people having 8PM curfews imposed on them, being unable to go to school, being unable to sit down and enjoy the sunshine outdoors, and we wouldn't force elderly people into nursing homes to be isolated from their own loved ones!

Perhaps you need evidence for this too?

 

[Sdajii]

Unfortunately this is simply untrue.

Victoria is a good example to look at, as we have high rates of testing, and detailed data which is updated daily.

We have a total of 695 ICU beds across the entire state (which was increased earlier this year due to COVID...in 2018 we had 476 beds). Right Now, there are 41 COVID cases in ICU beds (up from just 1 or 2 cases a month ago). This means more than 10% of people in ICU in Victoria, are there due to COVID19. Keep in mind, this is happening despite Stage 3, and now Stage 4 restrictions, and this is happening whilst we have the vast majority of the population who have not been exposed to the virus, due to restrictions and physical distancing.

If we just let it rip, and treated it like it's no big deal, like the flu, what do you think would happen to our healthcare system?

Please refer to Sweden for a real world case study.

The virus cannot just be ignored, or treated like the flu. It is not the flu.

You're ignoring the massive destruction being caused by the lockdowns, and the fact that they're going to be ongoing for a long time, and the fact that if we let it run its course it'll stop being a big issue and we can get on with life. You're highlighting the problems of the virus, ignoring the fact that they're temporary if we just let it run its course, and ignoring the problems caused by the lockdowns, and ignoring that we have no end point in sight if we use the lockdown model.

 

[rederob]

...but obviously, as it stands, the economic problems can not possibly be caused by the virus

If not for the virus then the issue would not have arisen.

You keep asking for evidence and also keep saying bizarre stuff like this.

You offer nothing but your unfounded opinions.
Why aren't you and your ilk advocating the Chinese model? Far fewer deaths - 4 per million compared to 8145 in Sweden - and an economic recovery that's been humming along for months. For that matter, look at what has been achieved in the States/Territories of Australia that have acted responsibly. The continued harping on about Sweden as the way to go simply isn't reflected by the data.

 

[rederob]

At 97, your mother will almost certainly be dead in closer to next week than in 10 years. This is just the reality. Destroying the country's economy in lockdowns, removing personal freedom, destroying livelihoods, literally imposing an 8PM curfew on an entire city of people and saying they are only allowed outdoors for a maximum of 1 hour per day and husbands and wives or parents and children are forbidden to even go shopping together is not going to give your mother 10 extra years of life. The rate of deaths has not even gone down in Melbourne despite these draconian restrictions. Those 97 year olds who are guaranteed to die in the not too distant future either way, are now living in isolation from the only people in this world who love them, and since people at that age are not long for this world, whatever it is which kills them during this time, they die alone without being able to say goodbye to their loved ones. At 97 I'd rather take a small chance of getting a disease which may kill me in exchange for being able to be with my loved ones until I check out of this world. I sure as heck wouldn't want to be forced into isolated knowing that my family and my whole country were being forced into massively destructive conditions.



You have such tunnel view that you only see the value in extending the lives of a very small number of old people while ignoring all the harm being done to many many millions of others!

In a perfect world we'd all live to 150 years of age in perfect health. In the real world we don't. In a perfect world we wouldn't have millions of people forced out of work and to lose their businesses, millions of people having 8PM curfews imposed on them, being unable to go to school, being unable to sit down and enjoy the sunshine outdoors, and we wouldn't force elderly people into nursing homes to be isolated from their own loved ones!

Perhaps you need evidence for this too?

Your opinions are not worth a cracker - offer substance instead.

 

[Sdajii]

The fact is that all these covid patients elderly or not clog up the hospital emergency centres and infect essential health workers who then have to take time off, depleting the services available to non covid patients.

Unless you are trying to argue that we should abolish the health system entirely and let only the healthiest survive, ie if you have cancer or diabetes too bad you are going to die anyway so why spend money on you ?

Your arguments simply don't hold water in any civilised society.

You're ignoring the fact that what you said was completely wrong, and putting absurd words in my mouth, using a blatant strawman argument strategy, which as we all know is used when you can't debate the actual matter properly.

The model I advocate has been tested, it didn't leave anyone being told "Sorry, we're not going to help you, go away and die" and it didn't overwhelm the healthcare system.

Australia has a very capable healthcare system, it's not like Sweden is the only developed country and Australia is some backwater slum. Even in slums though, it makes no sense to force people to avoid making a living for themselves. Obviously densely-populated third world countries will do worse, that's just the reality, but even they can't cope with a population of people who stop being productive, which will harm most people and kill many, for the sake of a relatively small number of elderly people.

Throughout history, people have sacrificed themselves for the greater good, usually willingly but sometimes through conscription etc. In this case we are forcing the majority of people to suffer for the sake of a small number of people. It's utter insanity.

Even in actual pandemics which actually kill a significant number of people including young, healthy people, we haven't seen insane lockdowns like this (unless perhaps in some obscure cases). It doesn't make sense to do such harm to an entire country for the sake of so little. People keep saying "Oh, don't you care about a few old people? Don't they matter?" while they themselves ignore the millions of others suffering as though they don't matter.

To relate it back to the topic, which you haven't even tried to do, the economic impact is clearly being caused by the lockdowns etc, and we will only recover when we get rid of the lockdowns. The lockdowns are not eliminating the virus so they are not a strategy with an endpoint, just an ongoing system of economic destruction. It does indeed seem we are stuck in this paradigm for the time being, and the question we need to ask is when will this change?

 

[basilio]

It is interesting that the demarcation of alarm about covid roughly coincides with the same demarcation with Trump derangement syndrome, climate change alarm, and neo Marxist, postmodernist, identitarian ideologies

I can see the connection.

Some people recognise that Trump is a sociopathic self dealing menace. They realise that our warming climate and its primary cause is very real based on overwhelming scientific analysis as well a rapidly warming earth. They now see a new highly contagious disease that has swept the globe and clearly overwhelmed countries around the world. This is also recognised as a serious threat to the fabric of our society.

And then some people can't/won't recognise any of these realities.

At the apex of this divide stands Donald Trump. Self proclaimed stable genius who alone has the capacity to solve all the problems facing the US and the world.

Donald Trump who called global warming a Chinese hoax and has spent 4 years dismantling every US initiative to tackle the problem.

The Don who undermined the US preparations for pandemics. Who has refused to recognise the threat to public health from day one. Who has repeatedly said "this will just disappear" as the toll rises and hundreds of thousands of people sicken and die. Who refuses to acknowledge and support basic public health initiatives in pandemics like masks, social distancing, effective testing, proper follow up of infected people.

This is the same Donald Trump who sees a Christian white male cohort as the leadership of the country.

Who supports White Supremacists who take this view to heart and march in support of their Great White Hope.

A Donald Trump who supports the most extreme evangelicals who also back a rigid philosophy that has no place for non believers.

 

[satanoperca]

Your opinions are not worth a cracker - offer substance instead.

And yours are?

Sdajii is keeping it on topic, about the economy, you are addressing issues with your mother, says a lot.

 

[rederob]

The model I advocate has been tested, it didn't leave anyone being told "Sorry, we're not going to help you, go away and die" and it didn't overwhelm the healthcare system.

Completely untrue. Sweden chose to let older people die in aged care facilities rather than have them overload ICUs. You keep guessing wrong.

 

[Sdajii]

If not for the virus then the issue would not have arisen.
You offer nothing but your unfounded opinions.
Why aren't you and your ilk advocating the Chinese model? Far fewer deaths - 4 per million compared to 8145 in Sweden - and an economic recovery that's been humming along for months. For that matter, look at what has been achieved in the States/Territories of Australia that have acted responsibly. The continued harping on about Sweden as the way to go simply isn't reflected by the data.

I wish you had to spend the rest of your life living in China and dealing with their police and government after such an insane statement. If you don't know what life in China is like you'd do well to learn.

In any case, China's official figures are worth less than your posts, or less than you think mine are worth.

 

[Sdajii]

Completely untrue. Sweden chose to let older people die in aged care facilities rather than have them overload ICUs. You keep guessing wrong.

Not everyone who dies is in hospital. This is the case everywhere. Even in Australia last year or 5-10 years ago, people in old folks' homes die there of all manner of things including flu etc.

To the extent that Sweden dealt with this issue in this way, which is not particularly dissimilar to the way Australia has always dealt with the issue of flu etc in the elderly, yes, I'd deal with it in a fairly similar way.

 

[rederob]

And yours are?

Sdajii is keeping it on topic, about the economy, you are addressing issues with your mother, says a lot.

I and others suggest to @Sdajii he move his off topic comments elsewhere, but he refuses to!
Joe might need to move them across again.

 

[rederob]

Not everyone who dies is in hospital. This is the case everywhere. Even in Australia last year or 5-10 years ago, people in old folks' homes die there of all manner of things including flu etc.

To the extent that Sweden dealt with this issue in this way, which is not particularly dissimilar to the way Australia has always dealt with the issue of flu etc in the elderly, yes, I'd deal with it in a fairly similar way.

Wrong thread!

 

[Sdajii]

Wrong thread!

I literally try to keep it on topic, you literally ask off topic questions, I literally answer your off topic question, then you literally complain about it!

 

[rederob]

I literally try to keep it on topic, you literally ask off topic questions, I literally answer your off topic question, then you literally complain about it!

I have only ever responded to your false, misleading, and baseless claims in this thread.

 

[basilio]

There is some objective analysis of how the Swedish approach to COVID has worked vs Denmark and Norway their direct neighbours.

I posted this elsewhere but of course it isn't the only perspective on how they have dealt with the crisis.

Per Bengtsson/Shutterstock
Sweden eschewed lockdowns. It’s too early to be certain it was wrong
August 5, 2020 9.40am AEST

https://theconversation.com/sweden-...s-too-early-to-be-certain-it-was-wrong-143829


Johan Nilsson/AAP
No, Australia should not follow Sweden’s approach to coronavirus
July 29, 2020 6.23pm AEST
https://theconversation.com/no-australia-should-not-follow-swedens-approach-to-coronavirus-143540

 

[Knobby22]

Even though we only have a small breakout, we already have 2 men in their 30s dead.

 

[explod]

At 97, your mother will almost certainly be dead in closer to next week than in 10 years. This is just the reality. Destroying the country's economy in lockdowns, removing personal freedom, destroying livelihoods, literally imposing an 8PM curfew on an entire city of people and saying they are only allowed outdoors for a maximum of 1 hour per day and husbands and wives or parents and children are forbidden to even go shopping together is not going to give your mother 10 extra years of life. The rate of deaths has not even gone down in Melbourne despite these draconian restrictions. Those 97 year olds who are guaranteed to die in the not too distant future either way, are now living in isolation from the only people in this world who love them, and since people at that age are not long for this world, whatever it is which kills them during this time, they die alone without being able to say goodbye to their loved ones. At 97 I'd rather take a small chance of getting a disease which may kill me in exchange for being able to be with my loved ones until I check out of this world. I sure as heck wouldn't want to be forced into isolated knowing that my family and my whole country were being forced into massively destructive conditions.



You have such tunnel view that you only see the value in extending the lives of a very small number of old people while ignoring all the harm being done to many many millions of others!

In a perfect world we'd all live to 150 years of age in perfect health. In the real world we don't. In a perfect world we wouldn't have millions of people forced out of work and to lose their businesses, millions of people having 8PM curfews imposed on them, being unable to go to school, being unable to sit down and enjoy the sunshine outdoors, and we wouldn't force elderly people into nursing homes to be isolated from their own loved ones!

Perhaps you need evidence for this too?

What an absolutely mongrel thing to say.

My Mother turns 98 on the 15th of August. She raised eight of us children in very hard conditions on a Soldier Settlement farm and as a city girl one wonders how she got through that and a small tiny person at that. She was a stenographer at Victoria Barracks (Army) during WW2.

She is bright and alert, still into politics and in a good veteran's home. Her Mothers first husband was killed in France in the first war and so I had a step Uncle who'd never met his Dad.

Singling out groups/ages is shocking Champ.

You need to re-examine your life and thinking.

No one can help the virus in my view. The lockdown here in Melbourne being total will work. If not we are all stuffed kids and elderly included. For that I am sad for all.

 

[Joe Blow]

Folks, please try and be a little sensitive. Nobody likes to think of loved ones passing away. This is clearly an emotive debate, but a little sensitivity goes a long way. Thanks.

 

[sptrawler]

Regional W.A tourist towns are having the best year ever, so the State Government is going to throw bucket loads of money at them, to pork barrel oops I mean improve attractions.