Forums - General Discussion - Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion Thread

You concerned yet?

Yes 83 47.98%
 
No, but I will be followi... 50 28.90%
 
No, its being overblown 40 23.12%
 
Total:173
EricHiggin said:
SvennoJ said:

The difference is, you can risk your own life for whatever you want but you should not put the lives of others at risk if you can help it. Air shows have been made much safer than they ever were. Yet look at Kamloops airport, houses build right behind the runway, that's dumb planning.

According to ABC News, there is an average of five small plane crashes each day, resulting in approximately 500 deaths annually.

With most crashes happening on take off or landing, a bit of a ditch margin between airport and residential area would be the smart thing to have. Or we could ban small planes and save 500 lives a year. The North kinda relies on those to survive though, yet the flying for fun crowd serve no purpose. Air shows, at least they are professionals and there's usually a good cause tied to the shows. Nothing like watching someone risk their live to donate some money to a good cause.

Is baseball more important than lives?
https://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/25926592/fan-struck-head-foul-ball-dodgers-game-died-blunt-force-injury

Preventable deaths are just stupid. No need to ban baseball or air shows or living, safety is more important than profit margins.

At the very least ground them all temporarily. I mean, if you're going to help fund people from non essential sectors to stay home and refrain from working, then pay those aviators to stay on the ground and refrain from flying. All for the greater good. Clearly what flight tech and standards we have isn't up to the task. We need to take action and save as many lives as possible. 

If we weren't going to allow people out while social distancing because of possible transmission and death, then we sure shouldn't allow people to be airborne leading to possible altitude loss and death.

'Not that many people died from Covid 19', probably wouldn't be taken so well by more than a few, so suggesting small plane deaths are fairly meaningless wouldn't make much sense either in that case.

Professionals aren't always perfect or right and make mistakes. Sometimes big mistakes. What if the professionals doings led to major financial losses instead? Would that be acceptable? What if life was spared because of it?

SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

Professionals aren't always perfect or right and make mistakes. Sometimes big mistakes. What if the professionals doings led to major financial losses instead? Would that be acceptable? What if life was spared because of it?

You can bring back an economy.  You can't bring back dead people.  And you certainly can't bring back an economy with dead people.

EricHiggin said:
SpokenTruth said:

You can bring back an economy.  You can't bring back dead people.  And you certainly can't bring back an economy with dead people.

Can dead people fly planes? Will we ever be able to bring dead people back? People haven't always been able to bring an economy back. 

SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

Can dead people fly planes? Will we ever be able to bring dead people back? People haven't always been able to bring an economy back. 

Well which one do you think we'll have a greater chance at?

1). Bringing the economy back from this pandemic?

2). Bringing dead people back from this pandemic?

EricHiggin said:
SpokenTruth said:

Well which one do you think we'll have a greater chance at?

1). Bringing the economy back from this pandemic?

2). Bringing dead people back from this pandemic?

Bit of a trick/tricky question in a few ways, but for one, if the economy doesn't come back, then you can pretty much forget about bringing dead people back period, so it better be able to come back strong, if that's the point of course.

The question would be like asking, 'Which one would we have a better chance at? Saving people's lives from Covid 19, or keeping the economy quite strong?' The question to that answer is pretty obvious, yet that wasn't even up for debate because saving as many people as possible was seen as much more important. So really, is the question worth asking in the first place?

SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

Bit of a trick/tricky question in a few ways, but for one, if the economy doesn't come back, then you can pretty much forget about bringing dead people back period, so it better be able to come back strong, if that's the point of course.

The question would be like asking, 'Which one would we have a better chance at? Saving people's lives from Covid 19, or keeping the economy quite strong?' The question to that answer is pretty obvious, yet that wasn't even up for debate because saving as many people as possible was seen as much more important. So really, is the question worth asking in the first place?

Doing nothing would have led to millions dying.  Why means the economy would have died too. 

EricHiggin said:
SpokenTruth said:
Eric, you are reaching so hard to defend your perspective that you've suggested cloning dead people as a viable strategy to keep the economy open.

Funny you bring that up now. You didn't seem to have much of a problem with it prior, before others decided to join the convo.

I suggested? Perspective?

SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

Funny you bring that up now. You didn't seem to have much of a problem with it prior, before others decided to join the convo.

I suggested? Perspective?

WTF?  You're saying I didn't seem to have much of a problem with you talking about cloning dead people as a viable strategy to keep the economy open until others decided to join the conversation?

Well considering I didn't suggest those things. I did ask some questions in reference to points made for those individuals to chew on.

Then there's the trick/tricky question, which my comparative question makes most of this null anyway since that question is off the table.

Why you didn't bring up reaching prior, seems odd that you did now, if I was indeed reaching and you thought that at that earlier time.

Since the main point was about a dead pilot and plane crash into a house due to flyovers to inspire during Covid 19, it seems a little odd we've ended up here. Maybe I should have spoken up sooner as well?

SvennoJ said:
EricHiggin said:

Hopefully we don't eventually find out this was terrorism, and not necessarily by the Chinese, because that would be some very scary world changing news.

Terrorism has motives and a common goal, achieved by directing anger to a particular group or nation. What could possibly be the goal by releasing a slow burning virus that mostly kills the elderly.

Never mind that it has already been shown multiple times that sars-cov-2 was not made in a lab or could have come from a lab. But perhaps there are a bunch of deluded terrorists somewhere angry at the whole world, injecting bat blood from thousands of bats into many thousands of civets for many years, praying for that random mutation to occur while feasting on civet cats for years until someone finally got sick and ran out into busy markets. Yep, that's what happened.



As for cause and effect, do too little, effect shit gets out of control
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/mrc-gida/2020-05-08-COVID19-Report-21.pdf

Well just look at what it's done to the world. If you wanted to go after a booming economy let's say, you've accomplished your task and more. Maybe you want to set up China on a worldwide level?

It wouldn't necessarily have to be made with evil intent. Now if it was terrorism, there's almost zero chance this get's told the the public for a while (if ever). You've already got a worldwide health crisis, panic, etc, so the last thing you would do, would be to inform the world it was a terrorist act. You would take care of the crisis at hand first, or do both but keep it quiet. If you didn't have great intel then you're not going to pull another "they have WMD's" again either. You would need to take the time to investigate and keep it quiet.

Now I do think this is quite unlikely, though not impossible.

Last edited by EricHiggin - on 22 May 2020

Around the Network

JFC. Life > Economy.
Why is this even up for debate? Seriously.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Wow. It amazes me how certain people can self-destruct on a forum, in the middle of a pandemic.



Pemalite said:
JFC. Life > Economy.
Why is this even up for debate? Seriously.

The economy is a life support machine for billions of people, If you think it's fucked up now how many people or dying wait until you see the rates in a global depression with near eight billion people and it won't be passing away peacefully in an induced coma it'll often be right after violently shiting blood out after the body has eaten itself from the inside out with no food or being beaten in some riot or shot in some war people had no choice but to join, and what not.

The virus at most means tens of millions dead and this can be spread over a period as not to destroy the economy and give time to adjust but we know now it should not reach those numbers if we act intelligently. A global depression and/or a breakdown of goverments means billions dead in our currently over populated world. The vast majority of people are on a life support machine known as the economy, most don't even have the option or knowledge of survival without a working economy and our current supply of food and water and it would be pointless for them to even think about adjusting. About half of all the worlds people live in cities and large towns... yeah, a global depression in the 2020's will work out really well, they'll all be so happy they'll not leave and riot for the land of farmers once they have no food for a week or two with no prospect of food and the government rations don't extend to keeping wieght on or their childerns bellies full. 

Economy = life



When 3/4 of your economy (I'm talking about my USA) depends on people buying crap, going to restaurants, movie theaters and getting drunk in bars then maybe society should have a reflection and strive for a better economy.

Service economy can only get you so far and majority of people have propped up US economy by taking loads of debt to sustain their materialistic buying habits to keep up with the Joneses. Now that I look at it what the fuck is the point of our existence? To buy shit?



Around the Network
John2290 said:
Pemalite said:
JFC. Life > Economy.
Why is this even up for debate? Seriously.

The economy is a life support machine for billions of people, If you think it's fucked up now how many people or dying wait until you see the rates in a global depression with near eight billion people and it won't be passing away peacefully in an induced coma it'll often be right after violently shiting blood out after the body has eaten itself from the inside out with no food or being beaten in some riot or shot in some war people had no choice but to join, and what not.

The virus at most means tens of millions dead and this can be spread over a period as not to destroy the economy and give time to adjust but we know now it should not reach those numbers if we act intelligently. A global depression and/or a breakdown of goverments means billions dead in our currently over populated world. The vast majority of people are on a life support machine known as the economy, most don't even have the option or knowledge of survival without a working economy and our current supply of food and water and it would be pointless for them to even think about adjusting. About half of all the worlds people live in cities and large towns... yeah, a global depression in the 2020's will work out really well, they'll all be so happy they'll not leave and riot for the land of farmers once they have no food for a week or two with no prospect of food and the government rations don't extend to keeping wieght on or their childerns bellies full. 

Economy = life

Not in my country, we value life a lot more than money.



John2290 said:
Pemalite said:
JFC. Life > Economy.
Why is this even up for debate? Seriously.

The virus at most means tens of millions dead and this can be spread over a period as not to destroy the economy and give time to adjust but we know now it should not reach those numbers if we act intelligently.

If we just had the virus spread globally, additionally to the tens of millions dead we'd also have hundreds of millions ill people who couldn't work for a while and the health system would collapse. The economy would be affected by that also a lot.

So there wasn't the option to just ignore the virus to keep the economies prospering by sacrifying ~1% of the world population for that.



John2290 said:
Pemalite said:
JFC. Life > Economy.
Why is this even up for debate? Seriously.

The economy is a life support machine for billions of people, If you think it's fucked up now how many people or dying wait until you see the rates in a global depression with near eight billion people and it won't be passing away peacefully in an induced coma it'll often be right after violently shiting blood out after the body has eaten itself from the inside out with no food or being beaten in some riot or shot in some war people had no choice but to join, and what not.

The virus at most means tens of millions dead and this can be spread over a period as not to destroy the economy and give time to adjust but we know now it should not reach those numbers if we act intelligently. A global depression and/or a breakdown of goverments means billions dead in our currently over populated world. The vast majority of people are on a life support machine known as the economy, most don't even have the option or knowledge of survival without a working economy and our current supply of food and water and it would be pointless for them to even think about adjusting. About half of all the worlds people live in cities and large towns... yeah, a global depression in the 2020's will work out really well, they'll all be so happy they'll not leave and riot for the land of farmers once they have no food for a week or two with no prospect of food and the government rations don't extend to keeping wieght on or their childerns bellies full. 

Economy = life

The majority of economic activity in developed nations is not "necessary to life". Lets absolutely not kid ourselves into thinking otherwise here. - Allot of our economy activity in the developed world is there to bolster our standard of living, not to survive.

The economic hit is also temporary, markets, jobs and so forth will return to normal.

Lockdown and defeating the virus, saving lives, whilst the economy goes into hibernation is proving to be the most effectual course of action, Government then needs to step in with various safety nets to assist the most vulnerable.

Again. The economic hit is only temporary, who gives a crap if a $1 Trillion dollar company makes a few billion less this quarter.

A depression in the 1900's will not have the same effect as a depression in the 2020's, there are allot more controls in place at various stages of government to assist those in need.

Life > Economy/Money. Always.

And also let's not kid ourselves here, we are going to have a recession, the world is going to have a recession, we might as well defeat the virus while we are at it.




--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Nighthawk117 said:
Wow. It amazes me how certain people can self-destruct on a forum, in the middle of a pandemic.

SpokenTruth still has a lot to learn.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

2 deceased in Norway the last week



Nothing to see here, move along