economic crisis death toll

[WTFH]

The whole world has to suffer a long lasting economic crisis.

Maybe it's because some of us on here are/were actual contractors that we understand the concept of a warchest. You don't spend every £ you have, you keep some in reserves. Don't pay out dividends if you can't afford to.
But no, the "economic crisis" is due to a lack of resilience in the existing capitalist model, where short-term shareholder satisfaction is considered more important than long term business sustainability.

[MasterBait]

By the way, you realise the Flu has a mortality down somewhere around 0.1%. This thing is anything up from about 1.5%.

To compare it to the flu or, Jesus Christ, the common cold displays an ignorance and level of stupidity that is truly hard to fathom.

BS it's maybe 1.5% of confirmed cases but the real number of cases is much higher .

[MasterBait]

I wonder if Trump secretly wishes he could choose option B.

(A) Flatten the infection curve at any cost
Lower death toll
Major impact on economy and future prosperity

(B) Do nothing, let the virus take its course
Higher death toll
Minor impact on economy

Option B is always the better in the long term, what your option A doesn't take into account is the early deaths due to economic hardship

[Lost It]

By the way, you realise the Flu has a mortality down somewhere around 0.1%. This thing is anything up from about 1.5%.

To compare it to the flu or, Jesus Christ, the common cold displays an ignorance and level of stupidity that is truly hard to fathom.

Ah but of you extend that back and consider that the Flu virus kills that 0.1% every year, and has done since who knows when then common cold/flu virus mutations still killed a lot more people than CoVID 19 has. It has just taken longer. Depends how you want to organise the numbers.

Always more than one way to look at it.

But then I'm one of those who doesn't believe a few billion people can cause global warming either because we really have not been here long enough in the planets history and this planet has been hotter and colder than it is now. But it's a good source of tax income. So a lot of people are riding that particular gravy train.

[tomtomagain]

Option B is always the better in the long term, what your option A doesn't take into account is the early deaths due to economic hardship

So if you choose option "B" what happens?

Nobody has immunity to COVID-19. So you rapidly get 80 - 90% infection of the whole population within a very short period of time.

It kills large amounts of people, the elderly, the sick. But also some young people ( < 50 ), a small percentage, but a small percentage of a big number.

The NHS gets completely overwhelmed. Probably would have to shut down. So anyone with a non-COVID related issue would suffer ( it would be a bad time to have a car-crash or heart attack ).

And you'd likely have to stay at home trying to care for your dying parents without any support or protection rather than being at work anyway.

There would have to be mass-graves to get rid of the bodies. They are already piling up in Italy, they cannot burn them fast enough.

At the end of it there would be potentially hundreds of thousands of deaths, maybe even a million-plus.


No politician could survive that scale of crisis with a "I did nothing approach".


Plan "B" sucks. I'd rather stick with "Plan A".

[xoggoth]

Not sure on his comparison but the economic impact will have a significant effect on health.

[Lost It]

Not sure on his comparison but the economic impact will have a significant effect on health.

OK. I have to ask. Why?

The days before we have what we have now...

You have to consider that most of what we take for granted are luxuries. We managed for years without Broadband, Mobile phones, Central heating, 4 cars per family, holiday abroad, colour TV, Sky, Netflix. All the luxuries that we come to take for granted these days.

So worst case we can go back to basics. If we turn off streaming/interweb, social media the country's power demands would plummet. Do we really need 34 types of beans on supermarket shelves?

[tomtomagain]

OK. I have to ask. Why?

Do we really need 34 types of beans on supermarket shelves?

There are no types of beans on the shelves at the moment.

[original PM]

So generally a lot of people live on or just above the poverty line.

Potentially the effect this is having in the economy could push a few million below the poverty line which could cause more deaths and suffering than the virus.

Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or not?

More a discussion point than my personal point of view.

[Eirikur]

OK. I have to ask. Why?

The days before we have what we have now...

You have to consider that most of what we take for granted are luxuries. We managed for years without Broadband, Mobile phones, Central heating, 4 cars per family, holiday abroad, colour TV, Sky, Netflix. All the luxuries that we come to take for granted these days.

So worst case we can go back to basics. If we turn off streaming/interweb, social media the country's power demands would plummet. Do we really need 34 types of beans on supermarket shelves?

I agree we can live without a lot of these things, but not without healthy food, heating and a roof above our head. Government already announced they are going to borrow like crazy, which means this has to be paid back later, which in its turn means social services and other government funded services will be cut including benefits. Result poor people will die even earlier then they do already and crime will go up in some areas.

PS on the other hand, not buying all these unnecessary things will also contribute to further decline of the economy