Pemalite said:
KiigelHeart said:
Depends on life, really. It's not as simple as protect all lives at all costs.
Effects of economic crisis will be serious, destroy lives and cause all kinds of problems in the long run. I'm much more concerned about it than corona deaths even though I agree it has been important to slow down this pandemic.
|
It really is that simple. Life should come before money. More money can always be earned, you cannot replace a life lost... But I am a first responder. - Life should ALWAYS be the priority. Not even up for debate!
The effects of the economic crisis can be mitigated by smart government choices... I.E. Spending money.
The Australian Government started paying $750 per week for every worker who is employed by an employer but not currently working due to forced business closures.
They also paid a $750 payment to every single person who is on welfare in April with another payment being made in July.
They also increased the payment of the unemployed by an additional $275 per week.
You would think that would be it? But no. They increased the maximum draw of superannuation rates, made getting finance easier and cheaper (lower interest), $2,000 - $100,000 payments to small and medium businesses and charities based on the number of employees and more.
And the State Government has implemented it's own schemes... By providing a $550 once-off payment to the unemployed, reduced taxes and levies for businesses and home owners... And more. And that was just in the month of March!
The end result is... By sacrificing some "money" we managed to shut the nation down, completely stopped the corona virus, saved lives.
And because of such a rapid and successful response... Our economy will start to power up again before other countries.
That is how you do it right, do it expediently and where you save lives.
The American approach is just bullshit, people are placing money above life... And those people should absolutely be ashamed of themselves.
|
I'm not defending American approach. Finland has a good social security system and our government has done something similar and managed to slow down the virus significantly. I'm fine with that. But you can't sustain it forever without risking economic crisis and depression. Last time it happened here in early 90s it was brutal.
And by saying it's not as simple as protecting all life at all costs I mean sometimes you can't save a life because doing so would risk the life of others. And then, traffic kills people each year but you don't ban cars to protect these people. Costs would be too much.
I'm a cop so I guess I'm also a first responder then. Yes when on duty it's simple, you do what you can to save lives. What sucks though is seeing that life then fuck up or even end the life of others if you know what I mean. Some lives just aren't worth saving..
Now I'm not sure where I'm going with this :D I guess I'm saying I'd hope that if something similar happens when I'm 70, they won't fuck up the lives of my children and grandchildren in attempt to save my sorry ass. At some point you have to think about economy. We can still protect the elder and others at risk while opening up the economy.
edit. Just read this lockdown is estimated to cost 5 billion euros a month for Finland. This is huge..not good.
Last edited by KiigelHeart - on 28 April 2020
