What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Has the cure become worse than the disease? (3 Viewers)

Has the cure become worse than the disease?

  • Yes

    Votes: 55 23.3%
  • No

    Votes: 159 67.4%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 22 9.3%

  • Total voters
    236

TripItUp

Footballguy
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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?

 
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. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

 
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.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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?  

 
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.

 
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

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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?

 
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)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

 
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.

 
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. 

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. 

 
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. 

 
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. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

 
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.  

 
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.

 
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. 

 
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? 

 
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. 

 
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? 

 
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.

 
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.

 
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? 

 
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.

 
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.

 
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.

 
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).  

 
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top