Would you be willing to risk the lives of any of your loved ones to save the economy?

[ArmenianJohn]

Curious to see how people feel about this - explain your answer with a post if you like.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I would risk my loved ones if I had to, but I would rather risk other peoples loved ones. The economy means more to me than other people’s families. The needs of the economy trump all.

//S//

 

[Salvadore]

I would risk my loved ones if I had to, but I would rather risk other peoples loved ones. The economy means more to me than other people’s families. The needs of the economy trump all.

//S//

Wow

 

[tall73]

Already am. It is called loved ones who are essential workers.

 

[tall73]

Wow

His posts are often sarcastic.

 

[pitabread]

No, for two reasons.

1) Economies can recover. Dead bodies do not.

2) Research actually shows that downward economies reduce mortality rates. IOW, less people die, not more people.

 

[dzheremi]

I voted no. I have very few family members left, really. My mother died over 20 years ago, all three grandfathers over the last 30 years (three because my grandparents on my mother's side got divorced and remarried before I was born, so I have two sets of grandparents on one side, and one set on the other), one grandmother about 8 year years ago ,and another grandmother about 5 years ago. Now it's my one remaining grandmother (my mother's mother) who is 95 (!), my brother, and our father. And our father is not doing well right now (please remember him in your prayers, as he is homeless and sick right now; his name is John).

Given this, I can't imagine sacrificing the few who are left for any economic reason at all. I know that we all have to go back to work as soon as we can, but I don't see anything good from rushing things to the point where everything collapses anyway, and on top of that there are a bunch of deaths and much sickness that could have all been prevented if we had only been smarter and not pretended that the virus cares about our economies. I don't think there's any easy answer, and I don't envy Trump et al. in this situation, but I have a hard time believing that our only options are "shut the economy down forever" (which seems to be what the 'protesters' think is happening) or "open back up and let the chips fall where they may". Truth is your barber, pizza man, etc. are not essential, though it is certainly essential that they be able to eat and pay bills, too. What's the best, most powerful, most great country in the world to do? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

(I mean the United States, in case that wasn't clear by the fact that I'd type something like that. Sorry, Dutch Antilles or wherever.)

 

[Bobber]

A question like this is so crazy and nonsensical. And what's to stop it being asked every time a strain of any virus or flu of different types and sorts come about in the future. Every second of third year going forward because it can be proven somebody is most likely to die that means the whole economy shuts down to the point it collapses because if you don't do this that means you don't care if people die? Maybe you need to consider some don't want others lives destroyed in other ways as well?

Look leaders of nations are called upon to make some of the most toughest decisions anyone has to make and they KNOW that all things and EVERY THING needs to be considered. You can even fall into condemning people about this on all levels if you so chose. Even for regions that are in favour of opening but doing it slowly somebody can even throw stones at them and insist if you cared about your loved ones you'd want everything locked up for two years with not even able to step outside.

 

[bèlla]

I voted no. But I understand the issue is many layered. I don’t want to see anyone destitute. I wish more were in a position where they could opt to remain home without encumbrance.

~Bella

 

[St_Worm2]

Would you be willing to risk the lives of any of your loved ones to save the economy?

Would you be willing to risk the lives of any of your loved ones by ~not~ saving the economy?

2) Research actually shows that downward economies reduce mortality rates. IOW, less people die, not more people.

That may be true of a recession (I'd like to see the data if you happen to have a link), but not an economic downturn of this magnitude. That's why our doctors continue to say that we have to open the economy back up, so that the "cure" (which we successfully implemented to keep our hospitals from being overwhelmed) doesn't become FAR more deadly for us than Coronavirus.
.

 

[pitabread]

That may be true of a recession (I'd like to see the data if you happen to have a link), but not an economic downturn of this magnitude. That's why our doctors continue to say that we have to open the economy back up, so that the "cure" (which we successfully implemented to keep our hospitals from being overwhelmed) doesn't become FAR more deadly for us than Coronavirus..

I created a thread about it here: An upcoming recession might actually save, not cost lives

Even during the Great Depression people reportedly lived longer than previously.

I began researching this after seeing various posters claiming that a down economy from the shutdown would be worse than the pandemic. But I can't find any evidence to suggest that will be the case.

 

[rambot]

No.

Not too surprised by the lack of answers. Sometimes we over complicate things I think.

 

[Salvadore]

His posts are often sarcastic.[/QUOT

Oh, good!

 

[Sophrosyne]

All I can say is this argument can be used against some of the people arguing to continue shutting down.
Some of these people did not shut things down to protect loved ones from many flus and viruses like H1N1 and so on..... they risked many people and many died. Add all the deaths together and maybe the number is greater than this pandemic will have even if we reopen things. Add to this that other outbreaks killed younger people that if they had been protected may have produced offspring that don't exist now because they died while this outbreak tends to hit those who are older and have had all their offspring.

 

[St_Worm2]

I created a thread about it here: An upcoming recession might actually save, not cost lives

Even during the Great Depression people reportedly lived longer than previously.

I began researching this after seeing various posters claiming that a down economy from the shutdown would be worse than the pandemic. But I can't find any evidence to suggest that will be the case.

Thanks for the link Pitabread I'm interested in finding out more about all of this.

As for the Great Depression, it unquestionably resulted in a lot of major health issues and death among our population (and I'm not just talking about the men who lost everything and jumped out of windows to their deaths because they did).

I wonder what effect the new wonder drug, Penicillin (which was introduced by Fleming in 1929, and was in mass production/became affordable towards the end of the depression) had on the death rate back then?

That said (& going back to the reality of what we are facing today now), many/most of our doctors are now saying that we need to open things back up so that other physical and mental health issues do not become more of a deadly threat for us that COVID-19 is, the only question remaining seems to be how to do that, and how fast to do it!

I'll see you over on the thread that you linked for me/us in a bit. Thanks for creating it

--David

 

[Yttrium]

As usual, I would try to strike a balance. Jumping all the way to one side or the other just isn't my style.

 

[topher694]

The question itself is a "complex question" logical fallacy

 

[Aryeh Jay]

His posts are often sarcastic.

From time to time.

 

[flicka]

If you mean would I be willing to risk us catching a virus? Yeah. We "risk our lives" in many ways every day as it is. There are steps that can be taken to keep health risks to a minimum but clearly we can't kill the economy by trying to hide from a virus. Do you know how stupid "hide from a virus" sounds? It can't be done unless you want to live in a bubble forever. And nobody want's that.