By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Pemalite said:
KiigelHeart said:

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. 

The depression is unavoidable, you cannot sustain economic growth indefinitely, you will have depressions, you will have recessions, it's a part of economic life.

The cost impact is temporary, people will be back driving the economic wheels at some point...

But the people who are dead... Are Dead. - And will never contribute to the economy ever ever again.

After World War 2 concluded many countries entered into a depression because... A large percentage of their population was dead, they couldn't come back and re-contribute to the economy.

Yes it's unavoidable, but things going down like this and so fast will be something different. It will be painful shit for many to be back driving the economic wheel, if they even make it.

As far as I know, a large percentage of population dying in WW2 helped to speed up the recovery of economy. But this isn't the same situation anyway and hopefully it won't come to it.

And also, death is unavoidable, you cannot sustain life indefinitely, you will have people dying, you will have people born, it's part of life. Sorry, couldn't resist.

KiigelHeart said:

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.

The difference is... One infected individual can infect dozens more and they can all potentially infect several dozens more on top of that resulting in exponential increases in infections and thus death rates...
It's exponential... Remember the hundreds of thousands of deaths today all originated from one person.

The difference with your car analogy... (And I am a road crash technician!) is that cars are made safer year by year by learning from vehicle accidents... And one person isn't going to be directly attributed to hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Plus... Only a tiny percentage of vehicles will have an accident... And an even smaller percentage of those accidents still will be fatal... And the fatality rates are decreasing every year from improved vehicles, road/infrastructure and us first responders getting better at our jobs with better equipment.

My car analogy was just an example of not trying to prevent deaths at all costs. Not a direct comparison to this situation obviously. But you kind a proved what I'm trying to say. You do what you can to limit the casualties, but not ban all traffic because it would lead to many other problems. Also a smallish percentage of infected people will have severe symptoms, and even smaller percentage of infections will be fatal. We can improve healthcare and keep older people and those at risk safe without shutting down the whole country.

KiigelHeart said:

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..

We have very different training obviously.. I respond to vehicle accidents, hazmat, structure fires, bush fires, vertical rescue, marine rescue, confined space, restricted space, flood and storm and so much more.

All lives are worth saving, we don't get to decide who is worth saving and who isn't... Especially when it's just the value of a dollar that is being questioned over life.

I have known individuals who were drug-addicts, they were homeless, abusive... They turned their lives around, went to university, became contributing tax payers. - They were worth saving and investing in.

I know what firefighters do and we share some responds. I know you don't get to decide who is worth saving, neither do I unless it's a situation where you have no option but to risk killing someone to protect the lives of others. It was just a side notion that sometimes saving someone ends up being not worth it. I also know some people who were able to turn their lives around.. but unfortunately I know countless examples where things didin't end up so well after saving someone from overdose or assault.

KiigelHeart said:

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. 

Economy comes second to life. The economy will always be there.

The debt is irrelevant, debt isn't always a bad thing either, especially if you are a nation with a sovereign currency... And over time the economy will start to grow again and that debt will be paid off or become such a small fraction of the overall economy that it's redundant anyway.

I actually can't believe I am having a discussion where someone values the worth of a dollar over a life...


The simple reality is... That opening the markets up and letting people get infected and die could potentially result in a larger and longer economic impact than closing things down for a month or two... Australia and New Zealand are starting to return to normal now... Whilst the Americans are potentially yet to hit the peak.

Economy will start to grow again but at what cost. When you put out bush fires you don't necessarely see the effects collapsing economy has to life and quality of life. Social security system is not some magical safety net that can prevent all the shit from happening. Especially when our country is in debt already. Most economists are very much worried about where things are headed, and for a good reason.

At his point in many countries it's not about closing things down for a month or two anymore. Finland did it too and we are potentially yet to hit the peak. I'm also not saying everything needs to be opened at once. But continuing this level of lockdown will result in huge economic impact and affect lives. And these lives I'm worried about despite you accusing me of valuing the worth of dollar over a life. Which is insulting by the way.

Good for Australia and New Zealand if you can put all this behind already. But it's too late for many countries and I think we'll be living with COVID-19 for a long time, it can't be erased anymore. And trying to protect everyone from infection will result in worse.