 | | | 
02.04.2020, 15:30
|  | Forum Veteran | | Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: BL
Posts: 995
Groaned at 158 Times in 106 Posts
Thanked 2,620 Times in 970 Posts
| | Re: Coronavirus | Quote: | |  | | | | | | | | I don't. Having halve of the 7.5 BILLION people under lockdown because of less than 50k deaths for 5 months is like shooting a mosquito with the full arsenal of the Pentagon.
Yes, they will grow, sure. But I will start worrying if I see that the death rate starts to "climb down" in any meaningful numbers among HEALTHY people. The fact that the absolutely vast majority of fatalities are among old, sick people should be telling you something. And yes, I've read the anecdotal cases of a few young, healthy victims that represent a negligible minority. I am seriously way more worried about the over 3 trillion of cash distributed by governments that we will have to pay back via increased taxes amidst higher unemployment.
But then again, I post here every 5-6 pages, sorry for disturbing the normal flow of the conversation, Edwin, feel free to groan as usual  | This user would like to thank gaburko for this useful post: | | 
02.04.2020, 15:32
|  | modified, reprogrammed and doctored² | | Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: La Cote
Posts: 15,917
Groaned at 339 Times in 234 Posts
Thanked 18,395 Times in 9,560 Posts
| | Re: Coronavirus
I saw Gates's reaction to the situation - apparently the US has to synchronize the restrictions (close off beaches everywhere, not just some, efc.), intensify testing and find a vaccine. Duh. Gawd..I feel shortchanged. He did donate huge chunk of cash, didn't he, it was on Euronews last night.
| 
02.04.2020, 15:32
|  | Forum Legend | | Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: CH
Posts: 4,361
Groaned at 128 Times in 102 Posts
Thanked 7,258 Times in 2,761 Posts
| | Re: Coronavirus | Quote: |  | | | What is wrong with considering there here and now as well as future impact? I think that's what most governments are trying to do.
Yes, there is proof that social distancing/isolation works. It's why models of successful behaviour are being replicated where possible.
Clearly we have different views but there is no need to take the tone of "if you don't think about the future you're doomed..." Everyone thinks about the future I'm sure but if you're telling me folk shouldn't be focused on keeping their loved ones safe and healthy now, I just don't understand the "argument". | | | | | I've never even implied we shouldn't look at the now and keep people as safe as possible. That's your interpretation. I'm saying we should ALSO set the now in perspective and, more importantly, look at the "then". If you choose to only look at the "now", that's ok and your choice and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. But to dismiss everyone who tries to look at both the now and the then, that to me is wrong. Granted, we can simply accept we don't see eye to eye here and that's ok. | Quote: | |  | | | I don't. Having halve of the 7.5 BILLION people under lockdown because of less than 50k deaths for 5 months is like shooting a mosquito with the full arsenal of the Pentagon. | | | | | Taken from some article: "It’s like an elephant being attacked by a house cat. Frustrated and trying to avoid the cat, the elephant accidentally jumps off a cliff and dies."
| The following 2 users would like to thank Samaire13 for this useful post: | | 
02.04.2020, 15:36
| Forum Veteran | | Join Date: Oct 2017 Location: ZH
Posts: 1,084
Groaned at 14 Times in 14 Posts
Thanked 1,929 Times in 800 Posts
| | Re: Coronavirus | Quote: |  | | | "...might...""We don't know..."
Indeed, we are all working on assumptions, but surely it is better to be prepared for worst case and not need all the resources/implemented processes etc than the opposite? How is what is being done now not good?
Again, we are not looking at this from then. We are living now.
What is the other side of the argument. Please state it clearly and loudly for those of us clearly in the cheap seats at the back.
Whose arguments am I countering? I'm merely saying it as I see it. | | | | | Which worse case? X number dead now or Y later?
Do you know? For sure?
Argument 1 - Prevent as many deaths from the Coronavirus as possible preventing overloaded hospitals and untimely deaths.
Argument 2 - Prevent the maximum number of people falling into poverty and prolonged hardship and untimely deaths.
Variables are all over the place,
These are not binary options.
Yes we are living now, I'm hoping there are people in positions of power or their advisors who are looking for the long term good of the people and not the short term saving of the few.
| This user would like to thank Ato for this useful post: | | 
02.04.2020, 15:36
|  | Forum Legend | | Join Date: May 2008 Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 9,747
Groaned at 430 Times in 371 Posts
Thanked 17,814 Times in 9,512 Posts
| | Re: Coronavirus | Quote: | |  | | | He's showing the topic from the other side with other motives.
Same as some experts are looking at short term effects, others are looking further down the line. Neither are wrong and different people will fall to one side or the other. Some will cite moral superiority and others will cite scientific rational.
I'd like to continue hearing both sides. | | | | | Luckily today the moral and scientific arguments coincide.
Morally the correct thing to do is to minimise deaths today, "Human life is intrinsically valuable and sacrosanct".
Scientifically the approach is to minimise deaths until a solution is found.
| The following 6 users would like to thank marton for this useful post: | | 
02.04.2020, 15:38
| | Re: Coronavirus | Quote: | |  | | | I've never even implied we shouldn't look at the now and keep people as safe as possible. That's your interpretation. I'm saying we should ALSO set the now in perspective and, more importantly, look at the "then". If you choose to only look at the "now", that's ok and your choice and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. But to dismiss everyone who tries to look at both the now and the then, that to me is wrong. Granted, we can simply accept we don't see eye to eye here and that's ok.
Taken from some article: "Its like an elephant being attacked by a house cat. Frustrated and trying to avoid the cat, the elephant accidentally jumps off a cliff and dies." | | | | | I'm not dismissing the then, that is your interpretation of my posts, I just don't think it's as important, at this present time, as the now. Everyone is fire fighting because when your house is burning, that's the thing to do. When the social distancing etc has had a (hopefully) positive effect, then there is time to take stock with clearer heads and figure out how to move forward with as little socio-economic impact as possible.
| The following 3 users would like to thank for this useful post: | | 
02.04.2020, 15:42
| | Re: Coronavirus | Quote: | |  | | | Which worse case? X number dead now or Y later?
Do you know? For sure?
Argument 1 - Prevent as many deaths from the Coronavirus as possible preventing overloaded hospitals and untimely deaths.
Argument 2 - Prevent the maximum number of people falling into poverty and prolonged hardship and untimely deaths.
Variables are all over the place,
These are not binary options.
Yes we are living now, I'm hoping there are people in positions of power or their advisors who are looking for the long term good of the people and not the short term saving of the few. | | | | |
Of course I don't know and neither do you. I just find the view that because it's a (relatively) small number when the world's population as a whole is taken into account incredibly callous. Very much an "I'm all right, Jack" attitude.
I hope everyone is safe and well. This thread is pretty grim reading, so I'll leave you to it.
| The following 3 users would like to thank for this useful post: | | 
02.04.2020, 15:42
|  | Forum Legend | | Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Rheintal
Posts: 4,214
Groaned at 160 Times in 139 Posts
Thanked 7,336 Times in 3,356 Posts
| | Re: Coronavirus | Quote: | |  | | | ...But I will start worrying if I see that the death rate starts to "climb down" in any meaningful numbers among HEALTHY people. | | | | | Maybe have a look at what is happening in the US? 40% of hospitalised patients under 55. Yes, they're tending to survive (or at least are less likely to die than older people). But they need that hospital treatment to do so. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...icans-covid-19 | This user would like to thank baboon for this useful post: | | 
02.04.2020, 15:42
| Forum Veteran | | Join Date: Oct 2017 Location: ZH
Posts: 1,084
Groaned at 14 Times in 14 Posts
Thanked 1,929 Times in 800 Posts
| | Re: Coronavirus | Quote: | |  | | | Luckily today the moral and scientific arguments coincide.
Morally the correct thing to do is to minimise deaths today, "Human life is intrinsically valuable and sacrosanct".
Scientifically the approach is to minimise deaths until a solution is found. | | | | | Scientifically their solution makes sense for the given conditions of time. As you say, until a solution is found, what if the solution is there is no solution?
Surely somebody has done the maths to show when the extent of the lockdown positives outweigh the negatives.
| This user would like to thank Ato for this useful post: | | 
02.04.2020, 15:43
|  | Forum Veteran | | Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: BL
Posts: 995
Groaned at 158 Times in 106 Posts
Thanked 2,620 Times in 970 Posts
| | Re: Coronavirus | Quote: | |  | | | Luckily today the moral and scientific arguments coincide.
Morally the correct thing to do is to minimise deaths today, "Human life is intrinsically valuable and sacrosanct".
Scientifically the approach is to minimise deaths until a solution is found. | | | | | Again, OPINION!
Tell the above moral argument that to the 6.6m unemployed only in the US that they have no means of feeding their families TODAY because someone is extrapolating in excel a FUTURE highly improbable implosion. https://www.ft.com/content/a5847177-...0-747e6109cb7d | This user would like to thank gaburko for this useful post: | | 
02.04.2020, 15:43
| Forum Legend | | Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: CH
Posts: 9,771
Groaned at 330 Times in 270 Posts
Thanked 14,144 Times in 7,289 Posts
| | Re: Coronavirus | Quote: | |  | | | Luckily today the moral and scientific arguments coincide.
Morally the correct thing to do is to minimise deaths today, "Human life is intrinsically valuable and sacrosanct".
Scientifically the approach is to minimise deaths until a solution is found. | | | | | Luckily....well said.
It's rather comforting to see they coincide because I don't trust the morals of today. I can see all sorts of eugenists and fascists popping up out of nowhere. Survival of the fittest and all that...
| The following 2 users would like to thank greenmount for this useful post: | | 
02.04.2020, 15:45
| Forum Veteran | | Join Date: Oct 2017 Location: ZH
Posts: 1,084
Groaned at 14 Times in 14 Posts
Thanked 1,929 Times in 800 Posts
| | Re: Coronavirus | Quote: |  | | | Of course I don't know and neither are you. I just find the view that because it's a (relatively) small number when the world's population as a wholeis taken into account incredibly callous.
I hope everyone is safe and well. This thread is pretty grim reading, so I'll leave you to it. | | | | | I never said I know, from the posts I made today I hope I was making that clear.
Those are the 2 arguments I'm seeing, and I like to see them discussed from both sides.
Grim it may be, morally questionable also. But so be it.
| This user would like to thank Ato for this useful post: | | 
02.04.2020, 15:58
|  | Forum Legend | | Join Date: May 2008 Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 9,747
Groaned at 430 Times in 371 Posts
Thanked 17,814 Times in 9,512 Posts
| | Re: Coronavirus | Quote: | |  | | | I don't. Having halve of the 7.5 BILLION people under lockdown because of less than 50k deaths for 5 months is like shooting a mosquito with the full arsenal of the Pentagon.
Yes, they will grow, sure. But I will start worrying if I see that the death rate starts to "climb down" in any meaningful numbers among HEALTHY people. The fact that the absolutely vast majority of fatalities are among old, sick people should be telling you something. And yes, I've read the anecdotal cases of a few young, healthy victims that represent a negligible minority. I am seriously way more worried about the over 3 trillion of cash distributed by governments that we will have to pay back via increased taxes amidst higher unemployment.
But then again, I post here every 5-6 pages, sorry for disturbing the normal flow of the conversation, Edwin, feel free to groan as usual  | | | | | I did not post anything about the number of deaths; I posted "You do not find the death rate worrying?"
If you look at the graph I posted, it is of deaths over 2 months and one week; I do not know how you invented 5 months?
The meaning of rate is how the number of deaths per day changes over time, in January ca. 20 per day, February finished with 200 per day, March finished at circa 5,000 per day.
At this growth rate if lockdowns do not work then we will see hundreds of thousands of deaths in the near future.
__________________
It is naive to assume my posts are my own work | 
02.04.2020, 15:58
| Forum Legend | | Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Zurich
Posts: 7,970
Groaned at 288 Times in 217 Posts
Thanked 17,914 Times in 6,288 Posts
| | Re: Coronavirus
Switzerland: +1128 infected, +54 died
Netherlands: +1083 infected, +166 died
Assuming that both populations are equally healthy, would Swiss testing accuracy be much better?
| 
02.04.2020, 16:01
| | Re: Coronavirus | Quote: | |  | | | Switzerland: +1128 infected, +54 died
Netherlands: +1083 infected, +166 died
Assuming that both populations are equally healthy, would Swiss testing accuracy be much better? | | | | | We tested much more thus we did not only test those that are already in need of medical care., (links and calculations have been provided in the topic several times),Netherlands has a serious problem with having a very low amount of tests they can perform. The Netherlands having much more deaths just indicates that they have much more infections than we do, they just are unable to test and confirm them.
| The following 3 users would like to thank for this useful post: | | 
02.04.2020, 16:04
|  | Forum Veteran | | Join Date: Oct 2019 Location: Suhr, Aargau
Posts: 1,741
Groaned at 21 Times in 21 Posts
Thanked 2,265 Times in 1,070 Posts
| | Re: Coronavirus
As side note, I just drove to the nearby farm to buy some stuff. The farmer put some kirsch based hand disinfectant. The aroma is quite strong, as if your drank more than a few.
On the way back home I was wondering what the hell I could to the police if I were stopped for a check. Sir, it's just hand disinfectant....
PS, don't take V__ too seriously. He jokes we need a continuous feed of bad news to be happy. I joke he desperately searches for good news to avoid depression. Also, don't take me too seriously.
| This user would like to thank Axa for this useful post: | | 
02.04.2020, 16:05
|  | Forum Legend | | Join Date: May 2008 Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 9,747
Groaned at 430 Times in 371 Posts
Thanked 17,814 Times in 9,512 Posts
| | Re: Coronavirus | Quote: | |  | | | Again, OPINION!
Tell the above moral argument that to the 6.6m unemployed only in the US that they have no means of feeding their families TODAY because someone is extrapolating in excel a FUTURE highly improbable implosion. https://www.ft.com/content/a5847177-...0-747e6109cb7d | | | | | As you already posted the US Government has taken on the job of caring for the unemployed with its $Tn rescue package.
Of course, there will be extra taxes but better to be alive and paying taxes?
Edit; 6.6M unemployed was the number who filed initial unemployment claims in the last week of March, with 3M the week before that is almost 10M | 
02.04.2020, 16:10
| Forum Veteran | | Join Date: Oct 2017 Location: ZH
Posts: 1,084
Groaned at 14 Times in 14 Posts
Thanked 1,929 Times in 800 Posts
| | Re: Coronavirus | Quote: | |  | | | As side note, I just drove to the nearby farm to buy some stuff. The farmer put some kirsch based hand disinfectant. The aroma is quite strong, as if your drank more than a few.
On the way back home I was wondering what the hell I could to the police if I were stopped for a check. Sir, it's just hand disinfectant....
. | | | | | I was thinking that in the office a few weeks ago. Perfect time to have a few drinks at your desk, the whole place stank of drink.
| 
02.04.2020, 16:14
| | Re: Coronavirus | Quote: | |  | | | Again, OPINION!
Tell the above moral argument that to the 6.6m unemployed only in the US that they have no means of feeding their families TODAY because someone is extrapolating in excel a FUTURE highly improbable implosion. https://www.ft.com/content/a5847177-...0-747e6109cb7d | | | | | And you call what you post a fact?
6.6M is the number of people who applied for unemployment money, applying for unemployment money does not equal not having the means to feed the family.
Nice try tho....
| This user would like to thank for this useful post: | | 
02.04.2020, 16:21
| Forum Legend | | Join Date: Aug 2015 Location: Zurich
Posts: 4,840
Groaned at 246 Times in 148 Posts
Thanked 5,444 Times in 2,478 Posts
| | Re: Coronavirus | Quote: |  | | | I'm not dismissing the then, that is your interpretation of my posts, I just don't think it's as important, at this present time, as the now. Everyone is fire fighting because when your house is burning, that's the thing to do. When the social distancing etc has had a (hopefully) positive effect, then there is time to take stock with clearer heads and figure out how to move forward with as little socio-economic impact as possible. | | | | | Actually, Switzerland is not fire fighting currently. It is ahead of the game because of measures in hospitals etc. taken already back in January this year. But I agree that many countries are fire fighting.
| Thread Tools | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT +2. The time now is 14:51. | |