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.

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: "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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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....

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.

What's the alternative?

And their gov will have to open up their pockets and public funds to compensate those who are unemployed.

C'mon, even in our....ahem second world countries they started doing that.