17M lost their paychecks. Was the cure worse than the disease
OT- death projections 60k
- Thread starter ThroughBlue
- Start date
Been questioning it myself recently. Lucky enough to still have a job, but I'm not sure if THIS many people losing their jobs and much more because of that is worth what we're doing. Might make me a shitty person to say that, but we are talking about much more than jobs being lost right now. Millions and millions of families are being affected by our plan to fight this thing.
The sad reality is that people need to die. The population of the planet has doubled since the 1970s and it wasn't made to sustain 8 billion people. The more we cure, the more the population explodes. Nature has a way of correcting things like that.
I think the question is worth considering but so are the measures that put us in a position to even ask it. Without those measures we don't know what the death toll would be nor if the ramifications of this thing running rampant across the country would have done economically. So yes, we have to consider what the ramifications would have been of doing nothing, or also of starting earlier as well, or going nationwide with it from the start, or a number of things we could have done differently both ways. Crappy situation no matter how we play it out probably.
Hey....can't ever let a serious crisis go to waste.
Watch our personal freedoms get abolished rapidly due to a slightly more serious flu bug.
Watch our personal freedoms get abolished rapidly due to a slightly more serious flu bug.
This was always going to be a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. Just remember that. If we had not implemented social distancing and instead went about things like business as usual things would be much much much worse.
If we do nothing and lose 1,000,000 people to the virus then that effect has just as negative of an impact on the economy as what we’re doing now.
There are several case examples of this in history. The most famous one involves Minneapolis and St. Paul during the Spanish Flu. Minneapolis banned public gatherings and social events while St. Paul basically mocked them for it. As a result St. Paul had a death rate nearly twice as high and their local economy took years longer to recover.
I think we probably know enough about the virus now to feel a little more comfortable about what will happen but we still need to keep social distancing in place until we have a couple weeks worth of decline in new infections/deaths and until the infection rate falls below 1.
If we do nothing and lose 1,000,000 people to the virus then that effect has just as negative of an impact on the economy as what we’re doing now.
There are several case examples of this in history. The most famous one involves Minneapolis and St. Paul during the Spanish Flu. Minneapolis banned public gatherings and social events while St. Paul basically mocked them for it. As a result St. Paul had a death rate nearly twice as high and their local economy took years longer to recover.
I think we probably know enough about the virus now to feel a little more comfortable about what will happen but we still need to keep social distancing in place until we have a couple weeks worth of decline in new infections/deaths and until the infection rate falls below 1.
You're not familiar with Bill Gates' obsession with population reduction?
I am a history buff and I am involved in Ancestory and FindAGrave. All around the U.S. the number of folks who died in 1917-18 is scary.
I hope that this gets no where near 50,000,000 deaths world wide and it should not because our medicine is far, far better than 102 years ago.
But back to Kevin's point we do need to get the population down. But the countries that have near negative growth brings in immigrants to keep things going. One way or the other we need to reduce our numbers, I don't see it happening in the near future. (I am opposed to abortion as I view it as taking a human life, but I am all in for birth control to avoid a child.)
I did my part. My wife and I had two children. But we only one one grandchild, so that is actually negative reproduction.
I hope that this gets no where near 50,000,000 deaths world wide and it should not because our medicine is far, far better than 102 years ago.
But back to Kevin's point we do need to get the population down. But the countries that have near negative growth brings in immigrants to keep things going. One way or the other we need to reduce our numbers, I don't see it happening in the near future. (I am opposed to abortion as I view it as taking a human life, but I am all in for birth control to avoid a child.)
I did my part. My wife and I had two children. But we only one one grandchild, so that is actually negative reproduction.
I have 2 siblings, none of us have children. But then you have people like the Duggers popping out 94 kids.
I kind of agree with the sentiment, but there is a LOT of baby-making going on right now. There will be more babies conceived from this than individuals who perish from the virus most likely.
I can think of better countries for it to happen to.
You think it’s still getting worse in a month? Not saying we will be out of the woods but mid May I expect the worst to be over
There are some greats folks on this board. I get laughs even from serious threads.
Keep it up boys.
Keep it up boys.
I don’t mind the question, but the eventual number of deaths isn’t one of the factors. It’s the number of lives saved, not lost, that matters most in that question.
Honestly, the economy will be fine. Some sectors are even benefitting. People will be ready to go out and spend money in 3 months.
What I’ve seen most apparent from all this is that some folks needed a hard lesson in living within their means and keeping a rainy day fund. Not that hard to save up enough cash to cover 3-6 months worth of bills, and if it is then you probably aren’t living within your means.
In 3 months? Do you mean people will go out and be able to spend money in 3 months after finally catching up on missed wages or that we will be stuck inside for 3 more months?
Little bit of both. We aren’t just gonna go from stuck inside to normal life in one day. It’s gonna be a gradual ease in. Probably won’t have arenas full of fans at sporting events until a vaccine is widely available.
But people will definitely be spending money in a few months. Shoot, I’m spending money now.
Yea financially I agree, its going to take a little bit for economy to fully recover and people are out spending money again.
I can’t see people making it past May stuck in their houses. Come 6/1, unless their is a major spike in infected and death rate, people will be outside doing normal things again.
I’ve read the opposite of this actually. Some think that people are too afraid of the virus right now to want to conceive and there’s going to be millions of people badly affected by this and won’t have the money to go forward with children. For a lot of folks trying to get pregnant is partly a financial decision. Like can we afford this baby or not decision.I kind of agree with the sentiment, but there is a LOT of baby-making going on right now. There will be more babies conceived from this than individuals who perish from the virus most likely.
Oh yeah, way more. I am always baffled by how many children there are in 3rd world countries. These people live a miserable life and don't even have clean water and very limited food. I get it, humping is probably the only thing that brings them any kind of happiness, but damn....stop having kids!I kind of agree with the sentiment, but there is a LOT of baby-making going on right now. There will be more babies conceived from this than individuals who perish from the virus most likely.
If we just eliminate India and China I think that will buy us a couple decades.
Sure, people will be out by 6/1...and then we will be right back in again when cases spike due to all the increased activity.
I'm biased because I have worked from home for almost 6 years, but I'm having a little bit of a difficult time understanding how some folks are going THAT stir crazy. It's just a couple months people. All these folks are the same ones that are like "I could handle prison easy" when you play the game of "would you go to prison for 5 years for $10 million?" or whatever.
The biggest impact to my life BY FAR has been no March Madness. Beyond that...so I stay home and work in the garden or play with my dog or do a puzzle. It's really not that bad.
I do a lot of work from home as well, but the thing is you can leave at any point and say go to the bar or to the movies. Yes technically people can leave now, but most aren't. That's why they are going stir crazy.
I get the second spike theory, but if everybody would follow the stay at home orders now and continue to follow basic hygiene principles we won't have to necessarily worry about a massive second spike.
No, I don't think it will get worse, but what I suspect is that businesses will open and masks will either be required or highly recommended in same way quarantines were. Get your masks now.
My good friends are pregnant with twins and she already has health problems. They are pretty terrified. We were supposed to have a kid this summer, but that ain't happening. I sure as hell don't want to risk her being in hospital next winter either. Weird times.
The last time I went to a grocery store, practically everybody was wearing a mask.
one of my good friends just died yesterday. I hope youre next so the population is reduced.
Sorry about your friend, but everyone dies dude. My best friend died at 18 from leukemia. Life isn't always fair and not everyone lives to be 95. That doesn't change the fact that overpopulation is a big problem.
You're really missing the point here and it's a pretty easy point to see. If there was no "cure" the death toll would've been astronomically higher and it would've crashed the economy anyway. At least this way we don't have dead bodies piling up in the streets.
Not at all. I am sure my mom would like some grand kids, but she'll get over it.
Similar threads
