Corona-virus, a new ethical dilemma, to lock-down or not to lock-down

[Broken Fence]

The truth. None of them do. The state and federal government. The rioters, none of them do.

 

[Radagast]

So your social safety net has not improved in a century ?

Social safety nets cost money.

Destroying the economy makes it hard to find that money.

 

[Radagast]

Typical influenza strains aren't nearly as deadly nor as transmissive.

Covid-19 is worse than some flu strains, but not nearly as bad as the 3 or 4 worst ones of the last century.

The IFR of the new coronavirus is much higher than 0.1%. It seems to be in an around the 0.4 to 0.6% range, at least per the studies I've seen.

You have to allow for the high rates of asymptomatic disease revealed by antibody tests.

 

[pitabread]

Covid-19 is worse than some flu strains, but not nearly as bad as the 3 or 4 worst ones of the last century.

We'll see. We're still only in the beginning of the pandemic.

You have to allow for the high rates of asymptomatic disease revealed by antibody tests.

Which is what studies of the IFR (infection fatality rate) take into account. We're not talking about the CFR (case fatality rate).

From what I recall, antibody studies in NY as an estimation of total infected (I think it was around 20% of the population) put the IFR close to 1%. That was a couple months back though.

 

[Running2win]

You said: This could be a time where we can rethink and do things differently like with the way we make money god. So perhaps we don't have to go back to how we use to do things economically but be more local and creative. I think we will have no choice as some nations will be reluctant to let people in or interact.

I agree. consider, when the Beast comes into power and those seven kings/leaders, we will not be able to buy or sell. This at least to us (my husband an I) see a smaller economy, closer to home were Christians, Jews and Muslims can trade, barter and survive. This too could have been the fruit of this crisis but sadly we've seen the opposite.

You ought to read this guys works. I believe he is spot on in most of his writings.
Resources - Joel's Trumpet

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

What does that question even mean and what are you inferring?

Does one persons opinion because it differs from yours mean they are wrong?

It means that when we are talking about conditions that left estimated 70 000 humans total alive on the whole planet then how would you rate the effects of Covid 19 to this date in order of comparison ?

Pretty much meaningless ?

If anything else feel free to explain your point of view why a million dead here or there of mostly old and sick people are in historic sense any way significant.

It is a personal tragedy for many but in global, historical scale.......looking at population levels on global population approaching 8 billion it is hardly noticeable.

 

[Bobber]

Are you kidding? You only have to look at the increasing job losses, business closures, and eventual shutdowns and increasing unemployment rates and welfare and you know that there are more and more problems adding up due to the Virus. What sort of evidence so you need.

All groups need to be considered and not marginalized on how the shut down effects them. It's easy for those who aren't experiencing financial and economic collapse about this to be all for lock downs to continue. I think they need to at least look at how it's effecting others.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The IFR of the new coronavirus is much higher than 0.1%.

You have to allow for the high rates of asymptomatic disease revealed by antibody tests.

More than 0.1% of the entire populations of New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts are already dead of COVID-19.

 

[FireDragon76]

I was watching 60 Minutes today and they had a story on how a professor was advocating for the cessation of all lock-downs relating to the Corona-virus and allow business and the economy to get back to normal. Her reasoning was that now we have been battling the Virus for over 6 months we are seeing 2nd waves of contamination and we will not be able to eradicate the virus.

In the meantime, the economic hardship and all the problems that people are experiencing from lock-downs are causing more problems than the Virus. The longer we try to stop the Virus through lockdowns and restrictions the greater other problems are being created. So the reasoning is to accept the fallout of the virus spreading and the consequences which will include many deaths.

Some people say that this is the best solution. That most of the deaths will be people who are already weak such as the elderly who don't have much time left anyway or the sick who are a burden on the health system.

None of those are moral justifications for endangering their lives.

That this is a price worth paying to allow the economy and life to get back to normal so that the rest of society can get on with living. But do people really understand what this means? It may be easy for young people but what about the rest of us. Is this a case of survival of the fittest.

I think the US is made of lazy people lead by unscrupulous and foolish leaders who refuse to do what is right (wear a mask and stay away from bars and restaurants), and as a consequence will reap the whirlwind.

 

[FireDragon76]

Many of those who support lifting restrictions believe the deadly character of the virus to be a worldwide conspiracy concocted by liberals to make Trump look bad. The don't believe that lifting restrictions would have a bad result.

People dying in their homes has already been happening in Texas. The hospitals are so overwhelmed, some people are not even bothering to go, despite being gravely ill.

 

[FireDragon76]

Are job losses worse than deaths? Are business closures worse than deaths?

Serious question.

Jobs and businesses aren't any good to the dead.

 

[Strathos]

Jobs and businesses aren't any good to the dead.

Except for undertakers and coffin makers.

 

[loveofourlord]

Also gives time to develop working vaccine.

And if done long enough and strong enough, you can eliminate it from a area, the handling of the lockdowns are like how many people treat antibiotics.

They are told to take it for 4 weeks, they take it for 2 weeks, are feeling somewhat better, but feel the pills are making them feel ill in other ways so stop taking it, then surprised when they get worse.

 

[loveofourlord]

So that is another thing those who support lifting restrictions haven't thought of. Our health system would be overwhelmed and many left suffering and dying in their homes and on the street.

WOULD? you seen texas, they are overwhelmed right now, and having a hurricane that probably isn't helping at all.

 

[loveofourlord]

Are you kidding? You only have to look at the increasing job losses, business closures, and eventual shutdowns and increasing unemployment rates and welfare and you know that there are more and more problems adding up due to the Virus. What sort of evidence so you need.

well what I would say is most of those have nothing to do with the shutdowns, but with the virus. Some places are different, but quiet a few places even after they lifted restrictions people were not flocking out to do stuff, and once the virus bounces back like in texas and florida the % of people willing to go out will drop, then add in the cost to the healthcare system.

 

[loveofourlord]

Short term studies in this political climate does nothing but promote fear. And yes, it will mutate and there will be another version, thus the need to allow it to run its course.

The survival rate is very good, esp. now when we do have ways to treat it and make it less effective. This never gets mentioned, just a body count tote board. Even this has been politics as usual.

survival rate isn't the main issue, this maims many people who were never showing majour symptoms, you guys all focus on one aspect of it. And if it mutates so there is another version then running it's course won't help, some studies are showing the immunity doesn't last without the vaccine *and hopefully it can with it* the more people that get sick the stronger the chance it mutates, and mustates in a more lethal way.

 

[Heavenhome]

It means that when we are talking about conditions that left estimated 70 000 humans total alive on the whole planet then how would you rate the effects of Covid 19 to this date in order of comparison ?

Pretty much meaningless ?

If anything else feel free to explain your point of view why a million dead here or there of mostly old and sick people are in historic sense any way significant.

It is a personal tragedy for many but in global, historical scale.......looking at population levels on global population approaching 8 billion it is hardly noticeable.

Your comment of whether a million dead here and there of mostly old or sick people are insignificant on a historical scale is enough for me.
We differ in the fact that I look on any death as significant in some way and the difference I also see here is that many sicknesses of the past were in times that there was little in the way of medicines and medical care as we have now.
The fact that Covid19 is so unknown in many ways, tells me anyway that if there is a way of lessening the spread via masks, extra hygiene, social distancing, and temporary lockdowns, then we should do it. If not for ourselves, then for the vulnerable.
I believe our treatment of the elderly and vulnerable show clearly where our hearts truly are.
Anyway that's my thoughts, you have yours so thank you.
Please respect my opinion as I do yours even if we don't see things in the same way.

 

[FireDragon76]

Your comment of whether a million dead here and there of mostly old or sick people are insignificant on a historical scale is enough for me.
We differ in the fact that I look on any death as significant in some way and the difference I also see here is that many sicknesses of the past were in times that there was little in the way of medicines and medical care as we have now.
The fact that Covid19 is so unknown in many ways, tells me anyway that if there is a way of lessening the spread via masks, extra hygiene, social distancing, and temporary lockdowns, then we should do it. If not for ourselves, then for the vulnerable.
I believe our treatment of the elderly and vulnerable show clearly where our hearts truly are.

Of course it does.

Being sick and dying from COVID-19 is a truly miserable thing and to see interviews with doctors talking about the stress they go through... it makes me genuinely angry at times to think that people could be so thoughtless as to endanger other peoples lives all for trivial things like a beer or a haircut.

 

[JohnDB]

Of course it does.

Being sick and dying from COVID-19 is a truly miserable thing and to see interviews with doctors talking about the stress they go through... it makes me genuinely angry at times to think that people could be so thoughtless as to endanger other peoples lives all for trivial things like a beer or a haircut.

I'm going to take exception to your "trivial" comment.

I was needing a regularly scheduled haircut when I went into quarantine...I haven't left that status.

When I finally get a haircut it's not going to be anyway near something trivial.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm going to take exception to your "trivial" comment.

I was needing a regularly scheduled haircut when I went into quarantine...I haven't left that status.

When I finally get a haircut it's not going to be anyway near something trivial.

Barbers and hair salons are luxuries. Our ancestors survived tens of thousands of years without them.