Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
TripItUp

Has the cure become worse than the disease?

Has the cure become worse than the disease?  

235 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

22 million jobs lost and counting with numbers only matched by the Great Depression 

countless small businesses going under 

Local governments running out of money for services like police officers 

psychological and physical toll of shelter in place 

long term ramifications of federal govt debt 

 

At what point do we accept the risk?  The experts continue to revise their fatality number down.

Edited by TripItUp
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pick 1 or 2 people in your circle and imagine they die from this.  Then answer the question.  

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Social distancing and quarantines aren’t “the cure”, they are attempts to buy time until we can come up with a cure. 

I agree we need to reopen. No one wants to quarantine indefinitely. The question is, why does Trump continue to drag his feet on testing and other steps that will allow us to safely reopen?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Most medical experts say data is key and there isn’t enough to quantify at this point imo. This does suck for millions of Americans, but without more testing, we’re rolling into wave after wave of this virus. 

Edited by Osaurus
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only logical answer to this is "undecided" and that's primarily because we still don't have a good idea on spread given the lack of testing.  We can't even get to "the cure" without knowing the depth of the problem.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Assuming we have saved 100,000 people, that is 220 people's job per live saved.  It is also tens of millions of dollars in economic activity  The lives saved are mostly people in their 70's or above and mostly people with pre-existing conditions.  From a numbers point of view and factoring in quality of life it is hard to make a case we are not over-reacting.  

Edited by jon_mx
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

The lives saved are mostly people in their 70's and mostly people with pre-existing conditions. 

This is not a pro-life, humane position.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

This is not a pro-life, humane position.

It is an absurd price to pay.  Let's say you had tens of millions of dollars and could guarantee several hundreds of your friends and family could have jobs and make a decent living.  Would you give that all up if you were in your late 70's with cancer and only had a few years to live at best?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jon_mx said:

It is an absurd price to pay.  Let's say you had tens of millions of dollars and could guarantee several hundreds of your friends and family could have jobs and make a decent living.  Would you give that all up if you were in your late 70's with cancer and only had a few years to live at best?  

Jon, I don’t think you mean to take this path. I’m pro-life, but getting past that I don’t see some lives more valuable than others. Ask me about medical rationing the way it was debated during Obamacare debate days and I’ll say the same thing. And we just had a family friend in his 50s with Downs get through this bloody thing. Elderly people are valuable, and have equal human value in my eyes. I don’t see shedding society’s weak and vulnerable for social interest as ever a viable argument. I’m sure you don’t either.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Demographics of those that support either side 

 

pro open up:   younger, job/financial impact, Republican, lives in a non impacted state/city

anti open up:  old, pre existing condition, less financial incentive, Democrat; lives in an impacted state/city

Edited by TripItUp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Amused to Death said:

All lives matter.

Would you trade 22 million jobs for 1 life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TripItUp said:

Would you trade 22 million jobs for 1 life?

Ask me how many jobs my father, a Viet Nam vet, is worth.

Sacrifice your own father.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

This is not a pro-life, humane position.

No it isn't. It seems that the same people who are always talking about the sanctity of every human life regarding a fetus, are now willing to write off several hundred thousand American deaths as justified and the cost of doing business. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Amused to Death said:

Ask me how many jobs my father, a Viet Nam vet, is worth.

Sacrifice your own father.

So you don’t want to answer my question?

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TripItUp said:

So you don’t want to answer my question?

He's worth all of them and more. So is my wife.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, squistion said:

No it isn't. It seems that the same people who are always talking about the sanctity of every human life regarding a fetus, are now willing to write off several hundred thousand American deaths as justified and the cost of doing business. 

Is it just the “cost of doing business” or are there other major negative repercussions at play here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who think some lives are expendable should ask their own family to sign a pledge not to seek treatment should they contract the virus.

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

People who think some lives are expendable should ask their own family to sign a pledge not to seek treatment should they contract the virus.

Are you okay with 40% unemployment and all of the negatives associated with it if that’s what it takes to save lives?

 

what about 75% and the collapse of the world order?  (Hypothetically)

Edited by TripItUp
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

Would you trade 22 million jobs for 1 life?

This is a little Hunger Gamesish. No one is volunteering as tribute. It’s not the one person who dies it’s the one person who seeds. Consider all of this started with 1 person in each country who didn’t die, who may not even feel sick, but who spread contagion. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SaintsInDome2006 said:

This is a little Hunger Gamesish. No one is volunteering as tribute. It’s not the one person who dies it’s the one person who seeds. Consider all of this started with 1 person in each country who didn’t die, who may not even feel sick, but who spread contagion. 

It’s a hypothetical posed to better understand one’s opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TripItUp said:

It’s a hypothetical posed to better understand one’s opinion.

I understand, I also understand hypotheticals. They’re applied to real life to establish a rule. I’d invite you to state the rule you create if you answer your question in the negative.

Go ahead, state it, be explicit.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

Are you okay with 40% unemployment and all of the negatives associated with it if that’s what it takes to save lives?

I think the greatest country in the world should be able to figure it out, like other countries have.

We need more testing. And it's not up to 50 individual states to do it. We need a clear, national plan.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

I think the greatest country in the world should be able to figure it out, like other countries have.

We need more testing. And it's not up to 50 individual states to do it. We need a clear, national plan.

That’s the issue here. We want to open back up but we aren’t doing the basic things needed to get that process going. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This figure of 22 million is people unemployed, not jobs lost. Millions of these workers have jobs back after or soon after we start opening back up. 

15 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

Is it just the “cost of doing business” or are there other major negative repercussions at play here?

Yeah, more people die. Plus you set a precedent that "the cost is of doing business" is an okay reason to endanger lives more than it already does. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you look at the death totals in NYC, it is pretty clear that this virus is deadly. These totals have been helped by social distancing which stopped a complete overrun of the healthcare system. We are saving millions of lives by doing this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

6 minutes ago, msudaisy26 said:

This figure of 22 million is people unemployed, not jobs lost. Millions of these workers have jobs back after or soon after we start opening back up. 

Yeah, more people die. Plus you set a precedent that "the cost is of doing business" is an okay reason to endanger lives more than it already does. 

That’s now what I meant when I said “other  negative repercussions”
 

Perhaps that’s part of the problem here, people believe this is only about jobs when there are several other dire consequences with printing money and weakening the power of the United States.  Our wealth is actually used to protect lives both locally and internationally. 

Edited by TripItUp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Drunken Cowboy said:

When you look at the death totals in NYC, it is pretty clear that this virus is deadly. These totals have been helped by social distancing which stopped a complete overrun of the healthcare system. We are saving millions of lives by doing this. 

Is every city like New York? Why will some states open back up in the next few weeks? 
 

Sweden has no lockdown at all...they are choosing to accept the risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Jon, I don’t think you mean to take this path. I’m pro-life, but getting past that I don’t see some lives more valuable than others. Ask me about medical rationing the way it was debated during Obamacare debate days and I’ll say the same thing. And we just had a family friend in his 50s with Downs get through this bloody thing. Elderly people are valuable, and have equal human value in my eyes. I don’t see shedding society’s weak and vulnerable for social interest as ever a viable argument. I’m sure you don’t either.

It not that one person's life is more important, but the quality of the years which can reasonably be looked at.  If a person was healthy and in their  20's they would put a much higher value on the remaining years than if they were in their 70's with serious medical conditions.  It is really a fact which should not be ignored, but it is seems taboo to adress.  

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cure is absolutely not worse than the disease. The economy can be rebuilt. People can't be brought back. To try and focus on the economy in the middle of a pandemic where people are still dying by the thousand worldwide shows skewed priorities at best.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

Is every city like New York? Why will some states open back up in the next few weeks? 
 

Sweden has no lockdown at all...they are choosing to accept the risk.

And Sweden is getting hammered by Covid 19 as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Job loss is temporary. Death is permanent. 
 

With any good risk assessment you look at both the percentage of the risk and also the severity of the consequences. 
 

Social distancing has kept the death rate artificially low as we have slowed the spread, and allowed proper treatment for everyone. Had we removed those measures - then the death toll would have been much higher. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sinn Fein said:

Job loss is temporary. Death is permanent. 
 

With any good risk assessment you look at both the percentage of the risk and also the severity of the consequences. 
 

Social distancing has kept the death rate artificially low as we have slowed the spread, and allowed proper treatment for everyone. Had we removed those measures - then the death toll would have been much higher. 

Can you “open back up” while keeping social distancing measures in place? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kal El said:

And Sweden is getting hammered by Covid 19 as a result.

What do their employment numbers look like?  Or are you talking about something else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

What do their employment numbers look like?  Or are you talking about something else?

I'm talking about the more important topic, their rate of infection. According to worldometer, it's currently double that of Norway and 5 times that of Finland, who are 2 of Sweden's closest neighbors. I can't imagine they're thrilled about that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is astounding to me that this is presented as a binary choice. FFS, put and end to amateur hour and put massive coast to coast effort on getting the data we need to make the right decisions. This has to be step 0 of any phase in plan. Anything else is posturing and now is not the time for posers.

  • Thanks 5
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Kal El said:

The cure is absolutely not worse than the disease. The economy can be rebuilt. People can't be brought back. To try and focus on the economy in the middle of a pandemic where people are still dying by the thousand worldwide shows skewed priorities at best.

Is there a cost of lives due to  such dire economic consequences that are being overlooked? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

Can you “open back up” while keeping social distancing measures in place? 

Most likely yes, with the proper data in place. This is what most people want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Commish said:

The only logical answer to this is "undecided" and that's primarily because we still don't have a good idea on spread given the lack of testing.  We can't even get to "the cure" without knowing the depth of the problem.

this is exactly where I am at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kwille said:

Most likely yes, with the proper data in place. This is what most people want.

What data does one need to see?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many people would be out of work if we did not take drastic measures?

How many jobs lost if many in the trucking industry got sick?  Healthcare? Food industry?

How many jobs would be lost if people didn't trust the food supply?  Trust the supply chain at all?

Ill have to find the link...it was posted a little while back in the FFA thread and on my other computer...but it was the economic analysis I believe of not shutting down...or of opening up too soon.  And it was clear from experts that opening up at the wrong time is far worse than what we are currently doing when it comes to the economics.

We are at the point now where people will push saying we overreacted...enjoy the second wave if we aren't ready and not testing enough to know where we really stand.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

What data does one need to see?

I think most would be open to being more lax on the restrictions if we had widespread testing, including an antibody test.    Just last week I had a fever and shortness of breath/chest pain.  Did not qualify for a test, so just isolate myself and no work.  Fine with that.    BUT did I have it? Who knows.   An I safe to go out because I was exposed to it and recovered and have some immunity? Who knows.  

This is what people want to see, so why cant we get that in place? 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

What data does one need to see?

Massive testing, localize transmission statistics, antibody levels and their effectiveness against reinfection, critical care equipment needs, success/failure tracking, etc. and all of it needs to be centrally managed and communicated without bias to maximize its effectiveness and utility. Absent these decision support tools and we are flying blind. The conundrum is that what I just mentioned is clearly fantasy as Executive branch has checked out of any centralized management role. Getting consistent and well managed data becomes more difficult in a distributed environment but here we are.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

Is there a cost of lives due to  such dire economic consequences that are being overlooked? 

I'm fairly sure it'll be less than the cost of lives due to a pandemic. In fact, it appears that during the Great Depression, mortality only went up in the category of suicide. Everything else appears to have remained stagnant or even decreased. Now compare the Spanish Flu from the decade before. Estimates are half a billion infections with 17 million to 50 million deaths, again estimates. So it looks like while living through a Depression is pretty awful, there's apparently a much better chance at survival. Of course, this is after a cursory Google search, so I could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the thread where we complain about water damage caused by the firefighters?

  • Like 4
  • Laughing 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, moleculo said:

Is this the thread where we complain about water damage caused by the firefighters?

Hey man, I need a haircut! 

;)

Edited by KarmaPolice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, I'd like to open up tomorrow. It sucks that people are hurting. The economic consequences are devastating. But we cannot ignore reality and unfortunately there is a very real and very dangerous and very indiscriminate monster on the loose.

  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

Can you “open back up” while keeping social distancing measures in place? 

Yes.  But American's won't like it.

But, you probably can't open back up - full-throttle - until there is a vaccine in place ~6-18 months away.

Things like mandatory wearing of protective masks in public, prohibiting large crowds (like those at sporting events), mandatory paid sick leave and no-cost medical coverage for testing and treatment of Covid19, and requiring quarantines for those who test positive (which requires a massive increase in testing, and contact tracing).  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Kal El said:

I'm fairly sure it'll be less than the cost of lives due to a pandemic. In fact, it appears that during the Great Depression, mortality only went up in the category of suicide. Everything else appears to have remained stagnant or even decreased. Now compare the Spanish Flu from the decade before. Estimates are half a billion infections with 17 million to 50 million deaths, again estimates. So it looks like while living through a Depression is pretty awful, there's apparently a much better chance at survival. Of course, this is after a cursory Google search, so I could be wrong.

What about things like foreign aid that saves lives?
 

A strong defense to dissuade isis, North Korea etc.?

 

This is about much more than just immediate mortality rate.  Significantly more lives could be lost in the future as a result of the far reaching economic consequences.

 

 

Edited by TripItUp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.