Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion Thread

[EricHiggin]

SpokenTruth said:

EricHiggin said:

Since it's been decided by the professionals, that the here and now is more important and relevant than the foreseeable future, are we actually saving lives, or just trading them by pushing back and shifting the deaths?

For example, what about the life saving medical research and treatments that are being held back or have been put on hold due to the lock down? What about the people who are known to only have so much time left, who were hoping/expecting those treatments to be ready in time to save their lives? How many of these people are now going to die because the professionals chose to shut things down to save some people in the present? How many will die due to contracting covid 19 itself, which puts them over the edge, when they could've fought it off and lived after being treated? There are many more examples of how people may die in other ways due to this lock down.

Now this may seem stupid to some, because we can't be certain of the future, so why bother worrying about it in this case?

If the near or even distant future isn't worth worrying about, then why for example, should anyone bother saving money? If for all you know, you may be dead tomorrow, why bother having money in the bank? What if every single person was just days away from being flat broke? Would that be a good message for the professionals to put out to the public? Don't bother saving money because the future isn't certain? $250 account limit lock downs going forward because why have more? What about the potential future consequences of a decision like that?

While I don't necessarily think that some are simply virtue signalling when it comes to how much they care about saving lives, I also don't think the overall picture is being taken into account, which makes it seem like some may care less than they actually do. It doesn't appear all that clear which choice is better or worse, if either. Maybe this way ends up saving more lives, maybe it doesn't. We won't really know until later, in the future, so it's pretty hard to say anyone is definitely right or wrong.

Given that your first main paragraph is built on this premise, can you provide examples of medical research that has shut down?  Can you provide a list of the medications/treatments that would have been ready very soon but now will not? Can you provide an estimate of the number of people that will die from this delayed new medication/new treatment?

The rest of your post is nonsensical.  We may as well get rid of all regulations, medications, laws, etc...and just let it all play out naturally. OR....we could be smart and try to save as many lives as we possibly can.

As much as I could potentially provide, it'll never be enough to go against what the professionals have said. You could say they have an 'unfair' advantage. More importantly, even if I could, would it change anyone's mind anyway? The fact some know the answer to that should be alarming.

For example though, in my province, it was mentioned that part of the push for the phase one portion of getting back to normal, was at the top of that list, allowing much needed cancer treatments and surgery to take place again. 

The rest of my post was supposed to be nonsensical. That was the point. Not taking future deaths into account and not treating them as important as the deaths that could occur now, that will happen due to locking down because of Covid 19, is to a degree, nonsensical. Yet we're doing it anyway.

Does this mean that some level of nonsense is a sensible thing?

Ignoring the future would not be a smart thing to do, at least some would say.

Last edited by EricHiggin - on 28 April 2020