Economic implications of a SARS/Coronavirus outbreak

[Sdajii]

Cop out !

Do you really think that a 32% reduction in GDP was caused by BLM ?

What planet are you on ?

You ignored the response to all the other vile, despicable, deeply shameful things you said, but what percentage do attribute to the virus itself? What do you attribute to the shutdowns? Very clearly, the virus itself is a very small percentage of the figure, the shutdown is probably the majority, and then there are the political and social issues they are experiencing at the moment. Very clearly the USA has been in an extreme set of circumstances since before the virus and its situation is not applicable to other countries, which not surprisingly can be seen by looking at the fact that their figures are not the same as other countries, which makes it absurd to cherry pick them as an example.

 

[SirRumpole]

F---k me, everything can be calculated, what is your life worth, I know but you might not accept, should I have to pay for you to live forever, no.

Again, you make stupid comments. Ie anyone retired has a value of zero, stupid, my beloved parents are retired, their lives are worth something, I talk to them everyday because I value them, but does that mean society should pay for them to live forever, so I never have to grieve over their deaths, NO, stop being so stupid.

You are the one who said lives have a money value , so you give us a formula for calculating it, don't expect me to do you homework. Earning capacity was one method I pulled out of the air, there are many others, I never said it was valid , and you never gave an alternative.

My question to you is that as you think lives have a money value, what is your calculation method ? What dollar value do you put on your own life ? Petty insults will not be accepted.

 

[Sdajii]

You are the one who said lives have a money value , so you give us a formula for calculating it, don't expect me to do you homework. Earning capacity was one method I pulled out of the air, there are many others, I never said it was valid , and you never gave an alternative.

My question to you is that as you think lives have a money value, what is your calculation method ? What dollar value do you put on your own life ? Petty insults will not be accepted.

I think this is getting a bit off topic, but since you're dwelling on the question and seem to need it addressed, let's look at it.

Obviously we can't easily calculate a figure like $200k or $5million or whatever, but if we're going to be honest and realistic, human lives do have a dollar value. That's not to say I like the reality or advocate it or want it to be the reality, it just is.

Maybe it would help you to see the reality if we look at extreme examples to demonstrate the principle. At one extreme, we could ask if you would pay a few dollars or few hours to save a 20 year old's life if they were needing some help. Sure, you probably would. Most of us would. On the other hand, would you spend all the money you had and/or all of your time for the rest of your life to save that person? Honestly, you probably wouldn't. Very few people would. We don't have an exactly figure on the price/value, but we can see that one does exist, blurry as it is.

Now, would you sell your home to pay for cancer treatment or surgery or a rescue effort to save your own 20 year old child? Very likely, many people would, probably most people. Would you do the same for your 95 year old grandfather? Let's not kid ourselves, you wouldn't, and almost no one would.

Again, we don't have an exact price, but one clearly does exist.

What about public funds? If we could save 2 people for a cost of $1,000 per person, would we do it? Sure, the public would demand it, the government wouldn't hesitate, no one would question the decision. What if it was $1,000,000 per person? There would be some debate, but it would depend on various things (circumstances of them needing the help, their age, etc). It would probably happen with a small amount of controversy. What about $10,000,000 per person? It's difficult to say, it would hang in the balance. What about a billion dollars per person? Nope, sorry, we don't know exactly what the figure is, but we sure as heck will not spend $2 billion saving two random people. Maybe, maybe, maybe if it was the prime minister or something, but for you or me, nope, it would be sorry, bye bye, he had a good life (or, we assume so *awkward avoidance of eye contact*).

If it was a foreigner we'd spend less than an Australian. If it was a pretty woman we'd spend less than if it was a fat ugly one (again, I'm not advocating it or saying it's right, it's just the reality which I know does exist). If it was a criminal we'd spend less than if it was a well-known philanthropist. 20 years ago if they were white we'd have spent more than if they were black. Today we'd spend more if they were black than if they were white.

There are different metrics you can use to calculate the value (economic value, sentimental value, community evaluation, personal evaluation, or simply the own person's ability to pay for themselves eg I have $xxx in money and assets at my disposal so that's what I'm worth, which is actually a common way to refer to a person's value). We could also use the metric of 'we have XXX resources to allocate, we will try to utilise it to give maximum benefit to as many people as possible, or alternatively, use it to benefit people as evenly as possible, and thus, we can say that we have $X to allocate to 'saving lives' and obviously if we spent half of that on one person which means we don't have those funds to save many others and they will now die, a person's life is worth less than half of $X. This last metric is something along the lines of what I'd personally use.

To say that we can not put a dollar value on human life is completely naive, and following this attitude we will immediately squander all of $X on the first case or cases which need it, leaving nothing left for the vast, vast majority of people who could have been helped so much more if a more realistic approach had been used.

But, you should not be using this as a distraction to your utterly abhorrent and inhuman comments earlier.

 

[satanoperca]

I think this is getting a bit off topic, but since you're dwelling on the question and seem to need it addressed, let's look at it.

Obviously we can't easily calculate a figure like $200k or $5million or whatever, but if we're going to be honest and realistic, human lives do have a dollar value. That's not to say I like the reality or advocate it or want it to be the reality, it just is.

Maybe it would help you to see the reality if we look at extreme examples to demonstrate the principle. At one extreme, we could ask if you would pay a few dollars or few hours to save a 20 year old's life if they were needing some help. Sure, you probably would. Most of us would. On the other hand, would you spend all the money you had and/or all of your time for the rest of your life to save that person? Honestly, you probably wouldn't. Very few people would. We don't have an exactly figure on the price/value, but we can see that one does exist, blurry as it is.

Now, would you sell your home to pay for cancer treatment or surgery or a rescue effort to save your own 20 year old child? Very likely, many people would, probably most people. Would you do the same for your 95 year old grandfather? Let's not kid ourselves, you wouldn't, and almost no one would.

Again, we don't have an exact price, but one clearly does exist.

What about public funds? If we could save 2 people for a cost of $1,000 per person, would we do it? Sure, the public would demand it, the government wouldn't hesitate, no one would question the decision. What if it was $1,000,000 per person? There would be some debate, but it would depend on various things (circumstances of them needing the help, their age, etc). It would probably happen with a small amount of controversy. What about $10,000,000 per person? It's difficult to say, it would hang in the balance. What about a billion dollars per person? Nope, sorry, we don't know exactly what the figure is, but we sure as heck will not spend $2 billion saving two random people. Maybe, maybe, maybe if it was the prime minister or something, but for you or me, nope, it would be sorry, bye bye, he had a good life (or, we assume so *awkward avoidance of eye contact*).

If it was a foreigner we'd spend less than an Australian. If it was a pretty woman we'd spend less than if it was a fat ugly one (again, I'm not advocating it or saying it's right, it's just the reality which I know does exist). If it was a criminal we'd spend less than if it was a well-known philanthropist. 20 years ago if they were white we'd have spent more than if they were black. Today we'd spend more if they were black than if they were white.

There are different metrics you can use to calculate the value (economic value, sentimental value, community evaluation, personal evaluation, or simply the own person's ability to pay for themselves eg I have $xxx in money and assets at my disposal so that's what I'm worth, which is actually a common way to refer to a person's value). We could also use the metric of 'we have XXX resources to allocate, we will try to utilise it to give maximum benefit to as many people as possible, or alternatively, use it to benefit people as evenly as possible, and thus, we can say that we have $X to allocate to 'saving lives' and obviously if we spent half of that on one person which means we don't have those funds to save many others and they will now die, a person's life is worth less than half of $X. This last metric is something along the lines of what I'd personally use.

To say that we can not put a dollar value on human life is completely naive, and following this attitude we will immediately squander all of $X on the first case or cases which need it, leaving nothing left for the vast, vast majority of people who could have been helped so much more if a more realistic approach had been used.

But, you should not be using this as a distraction to your utterly abhorrent and inhuman comments earlier.

@SirRumpole , the above post gives much more insight into understanding/elevation of the value of a human life, so please respond.

As for me, I have given up discussing relevant issues about human life and the values that they add to society with you.

I much rather talk to a brick wall.

 

[Smurf1976]

It's very concerning to see people have the attitude of 'if someone has never had depression before they'll be fine'.

There’s a difference between someone who has never had an acknowledged issue versus someone who has no issues as such.

If the cracks are already there then the current situation may well force them open indeed it’s a given that will occur to some extent.

What I don’t see any evidence for is the idea that it’ll cause issues where there are no existing cracks.

Much the same with relationships. Put the pressure on and you find out who never really was a true friend anyway but the real ones stick around. It exposes rather brutally what was always there.

 

[Sdajii]

There’s a difference between someone who has never had an acknowledged issue versus someone who has no issues as such.

If the cracks are already there then the current situation may well force them open.

What I don’t see any evidence for is the idea that it’ll cause issues where there are no existing cracks.

Much the same with relationships. Put the pressure on and you find out who never really was a true friend anyway but the real ones stick around. It exposes rather brutally what was always there.

This is a disturbing and incorrect assessment. If you have a mirror with a small crack, you will perhaps be able to break it or easily crack it further with minimal force. The greater the existing cracks, the easier it will be to break the glass. But if you start throwing rocks and hammers around, you can break any mirror.

Every human being has a breaking point. We hope that most will never get there. Some will. No human being is invulnerable. With enough stress, anyone can be broken. The more stress and harm we inflict, the more people we will break. It is insane and naive to suggest that inflicting an extreme dose of the worst types of triggers for depression (lack of vocation, lack of income, lack of agency, social isolation, lack of freedom) will not cause a massive increase in the number of people who are broken.

 

[Smurf1976]

If you have a mirror with a small crack, you will perhaps be able to break it or easily crack it further with minimal force. The greater the existing cracks, the easier it will be to break the glass. But if you start throwing rocks and hammers around, you can break any mirror.

That is true but I’m not seeing anything to prove that the current situation is bad to the point of breaking anything not already cracked.

We’re talking about people sitting at home being paid rather a lot of welfare and with unlimited ability to communicate electronically.

We’re not talking about people being left starving on the street etc or sent off to a bush hut with no contact with the outside world.

It’s not good but I’ll observe that among those I know and from what I observe more broadly, those struggling are the predictable ones.

Anyone will break at some point just as any structure fails at some point if you keep adding more onto it but nothing I’ve seen yet, either personally or via the media, is to the effect of things having reached that point.

It is however opening up a lot of existing cracks no argument there.

 

[SirRumpole]

To say that we can not put a dollar value on human life is completely naive, and following this attitude we will immediately squander all of $X on the first case or cases which need it, leaving nothing left for the vast, vast majority of people who could have been helped so much more if a more realistic approach had been used.

So what if a 70 year old comes down with corona virus. This person has worked for 50 years, paid the Medicare levy plus private health insurance on which he has never claimed. Looking at it that way , he may have a credit balance of say $250k in health related payments. Are you saying that he should in effect be robbed of this money when he needs it most and given to a 20 year old unemployed person who is a drain on the system ?

The point is, valuation of life is essentially a value judgement, you can use your criteria and I can use mine, but no one can say that one method is better than another. The only reasonable way to allocate health resources is on the basis of need and to ensure that our hospitals have the capacity to deal with the number of cases that arrive. That's not easy in a pandemic but that's the reason why governments are trying to reduce the spread.

As to your other comments about my comments, well I concede that it's worse for some people than others but it comes down to the fact that we all are arguing from the viewpoint of own personal circumstances, not necessarily for the good of the whole community.

 

[macca]

There’s a difference between someone who has never had an acknowledged issue versus someone who has no issues as such.

If the cracks are already there then the current situation may well force them open indeed it’s a given that will occur to some extent.

What I don’t see any evidence for is the idea that it’ll cause issues where there are no existing cracks.

Much the same with relationships. Put the pressure on and you find out who never really was a true friend anyway but the real ones stick around. It exposes rather brutally what was always there.

Another point which needs to be made is that many Doctors are only doing phone consults.

If a person with mental health issues needs a caring face to talk to and they are not available, it is quite likely that greater problems will develop

 

[basilio]

F---k me, everything can be calculated, what is your life worth, I know but you might not accept, should I have to pay for you to live forever, no.

Again, you make stupid comments. Ie anyone retired has a value of zero, stupid, my beloved parents are retired, their lives are worth something, I talk to them everyday because I value them, but does that mean society should pay for them to live forever, so I never have to grieve over their deaths, NO, stop being so stupid.

I don't think Rumpoles statements are "stupid". But more importantly I don 't believe we are getting anywhere with unnecessary abuse. Just doesn't make this a pleasant place to be in.

Perhaps the discussion on the value of human life could be taken to a thread on that topic ? I can see it getting uglier by the minute.

 

[satanoperca]

I don't think Rumpoles statements are "stupid". But more importantly I don 't believe we are getting anywhere with unnecessary abuse. Just doesn't make this a pleasant place to be in.

Perhaps the discussion on the value of human life could be taken to a thread on that topic ? I can see it getting uglier by the minute.

What is pleasant, people losing their jobs, their businesses, their lives.

The discussion is what a human life is worth, is relevant to the thread, it is going to get ugly!

 

[SirRumpole]

I don't think Rumpoles statements are "stupid". But more importantly I don 't believe we are getting anywhere with unnecessary abuse. Just doesn't make this a pleasant place to be in.

Perhaps the discussion on the value of human life could be taken to a thread on that topic ? I can see it getting uglier by the minute.

Not any more, I've said what I want to say, I don't think there is any point dragging it out.

 

[Sdajii]

That is true but I’m not seeing anything to prove that the current situation is bad to the point of breaking anything not already cracked.

We’re talking about people sitting at home being paid rather a lot of welfare and with unlimited ability to communicate electronically.

What does it matter whether or not you consider them to have been 'already cracked'? As I said, and as any psychologist will tell you, and as anyone who cares to think about it can say, anyone can reach their breaking point if pushed hard enough and the more we inflict upon people, the greater the number of people who will break, and we are indeed seeing more people breaking, and this is from the effect of what we are doing, and surely, surely this is a thing which we don't want happening? I mean... what point are you trying to make with your nonsensical 'already cracked' stuff? Are you saying some people are flawless, others have cracks, and if you're already cracked it doesn't matter if you break? Depression is a distinct condition of the brain. It's not just a mood or a feeling or something, it's a distinct, measurable change in the way the brain functions. It is a change of state of the brain. It is well researched and known. We are causing a massive increase in the number of people who are having this change happen to their brain. Once it happens it usually becomes a chronic problem and is often permanent. If it doesn't happen it is not a problem. Some people are obviously more susceptible than others. Your line of reason is like saying it's not a problem if we force everyone to smoke because only people who are susceptible to lung cancer will get it, and many people will never get it, and so hey, it's only those people who had a predisposition to it will get sick... yeah...

What is your point? It is not a good thing to inflict things on people so that they develop a severe mental condition which they otherwise would not have had!

We’re not talking about people being left starving on the street etc or sent off to a bush hut with no contact with the outside world.

So, the fact that it's bad enough to give people severe mental illness is not a problem because you can imagine a worse scenario? That's like saying even if everyone was getting smallpox and there was a 20% death rate and 80% rate of permanent complications, it's not so bad because it's not a 40% death rate and some people recover completely? The problem is what it is and comparisons to hypotheticals you simply come up with out of the air are irrelevant. The only relevant comparison is the cure vs. the disease, or the cure vs. what else could have been done with those resources. However you measure it, this cure is the wrong decision.

It’s not good but I’ll observe that among those I know and from what I observe more broadly, those struggling are the predictable ones.

What point are you making? If I can predict who will die of the virus does that mean it doesn't matter if they die? What line of thinking makes you say "Well, since I could have predicted that this hardship would cause problems in those people, it doesn't matter that we inflicted them on those people and caused these problems"? The fact remains that we did inflict these problems and the problems did happen. I don't believe that all cases are predictable and I've seen plenty of people struggling who I've never seen in anything but calm, well-balanced moods before. On the weekend I had a chat to a couple of police (it's amazing how desperate you get for a face to face chat with someone when you are literally banned by law from seeing friends face to face!) and they said the number of domestic violence callouts is utterly through the roof and they are seeing countless people who usually would not have any problems having all sorts of problems. They were primarily talking about domestic violence, but also psychological dysfunction in general. We know that doing horrible things to people will cause some of them to suffer horribly. What difference does it make whether or not we can predict which ones will suffer the most? Does that somehow reduce the importance of their suffering???

Anyone will break at some point just as any structure fails at some point if you keep adding more onto it but nothing I’ve seen yet, either personally or via the media, is to the effect of things having reached that point.

You may or may not have noticed this, but the media is controlled by the government and is very much biased, especially towards making the government look good. Do you honestly think that in the current political climate, the Australian media is going to run stories which undermine the virus efforts of the government??? I have no doubt that you're not in Melbourne if you haven't seen these things because here it is overwhelmingly obvious as soon as you go to the shops or talk to anyone. I talk to people in QLD and NSW most days, and spent a couple of hours on the phone to my sister in SA yesterday, I ask everyone about this topic and what they're seeing and definitely the sentiments are different in smaller towns outside Victoria, but even so, I am hearing some bad things from interstate people. I still don't know anyone in Australia who has had the virus, but I know people in QLD, NSW and of course countless in Victoria who have had severe issues, and one or two people in SA who have been significantly affected (not in depression or particularly severe, but they're significantly negatively affected psychologically and socially).

Importantly, the problems are still getting worse, and especially in terms of depression, alcoholism, etc etc, the problems will be chronic.

 

[SirRumpole]

You may or may not have noticed this, but the media is controlled by the government

I think it's the reverse actually.

 

[SirRumpole]

especially towards making the government look good.

Have you seen any of Daniel Andrew's press conferences ? The media have been giving him a roasting. Are you telling us that Andrews is a poster boy for the Murdoch media ?, what a laugh.

 

[Sdajii]

So what if a 70 year old comes down with corona virus. This person has worked for 50 years, paid the Medicare levy plus private health insurance on which he has never claimed. Looking at it that way , he may have a credit balance of say $250k in health related payments. Are you saying that he should in effect be robbed of this money when he needs it most and given to a 20 year old unemployed person who is a drain on the system ?

What a bizarre case of attempting to put words into someone else's mouth.

The point is, valuation of life is essentially a value judgement, you can use your criteria and I can use mine, but no one can say that one method is better than another. The only reasonable way to allocate health resources is on the basis of need and to ensure that our hospitals have the capacity to deal with the number of cases that arrive. That's not easy in a pandemic but that's the reason why governments are trying to reduce the spread.

The point is, we are clearly, demonstrably causing more death and suffering than we are preventing, and if you genuinely care about lives, regardless of how much value you put on lives or if you refuse to acknowledge that even you would do so when push came to shove, whatever your method of valuation is, there are far better ways to save them. We are largely ignoring things which cause more deaths than the virus has any chance of taking (I used obesity as an obvious example) and inflicting death and suffering on a huge number of people (which wouldn't be the case in addressing obesity) for the sake of possibly saving a few. If you put any value at all on human lives, surely you would want to save lives?

As to your other comments about my comments, well I concede that it's worse for some people than others but it comes down to the fact that we all are arguing from the viewpoint of own personal circumstances, not necessarily for the good of the whole community.

No, we are not! I have pointed out that I'm personally doing much better than many others! I'm talking about people who are suffering far more than I am, and dying. People with problems I don't have and with any luck never will. It's disgusting that you would not only argue from that selfish viewpoint but assume that I am just as egocentric as yourself despite the fact that I'm clearly demonstrating otherwise.

 

[Sdajii]

Have you seen any of Daniel Andrew's press conferences ? The media have been giving him a roasting. Are you telling us that Andrews is a poster boy for the Murdoch media ?, what a laugh.

It's disturbing to imagine the lens through which you see the world.

Andrews is there answering questions for himself.

Are we seeing the media talk about the massive increase in depression, domestic violence, etc etc, at least in any more detail than a token amount?

We're not CCP or North Korea level "Everything is perfect and the government is perfect and anyone who says otherwise goes to prison or gets killed in front of their family or at least denied the ability to have a bank account" but if you can't see a media bias, I suppose it makes a lot of your other attitudes easier to understand, sickening as they may be.

 

[SirRumpole]

We are largely ignoring things which cause more deaths than the virus has any chance of taking (I used obesity as an obvious example) and inflicting death and suffering on a huge number of people (which wouldn't be the case in addressing obesity) for the sake of possibly saving a few. If you put any value at all on human lives, surely you would want to save lives?

Obesity should be tackled , but it isn't contagious.

 

[SirRumpole]

Are we seeing the media talk about the massive increase in depression, domestic violence, etc etc, at least in any more detail than a token amount?

Where is your evidence ? Give us some numbers from a verified source.

 

[satanoperca]

While I love a debate, this is just stupid.

Sdajii< i have appreciated your input into the discussion of the thread.

SIR Rumple, I hope you learn to understand one day.