Moral choices of the government (poll)

What should the government do?

  • Take the 1-2% population hit mostly of the elderly and get back to normal as soon as possible.

    Votes: 16 43.2%
  • Keep up the quarantine even if it takes months and even if the economy goes down, extended recession

    Votes: 19 51.4%
  • I am not sure, but I am scared.

    Votes: 2 5.4%

  • Total voters
    37
2% is 6 million, mostly old people, mostly Republicans, including senators, governors, mayors, donors, plus tens of millions of the elderly scared shitless for the rest of their lives.

You think the GOP is going to allow Trump to let them lose every single race for the next 20 years?
Do you spend nights wondering why you you have received only one 1 up vote after 3000+ posts. Your current post is probably typical of your posts.
 
Young people can pass it to each other all they want. If you are at risk age then quarantine yourself with government aid. If the situation is unique then deal with that uniqueness. I think that would work better, just my opinion. Even with just a little awareness like work from home, social distancing etc we would probably fair better than everything closed. Just a thought.

problem is, nobody's talking about the reduced lung capacity & damage of those that recover
 
Lets do the math.

1-2% of the population is 3.2m to 6.4m

This means for every trillion dollars we spend, it cost us between $312,500 to $650k for each life we save. And with the government likely to spend $4 trillion on this, that's $1.25m to $2.5m for each person we save.

And we haven't even counted the drop in GDP this will cost us. Some are saying the GDP could drop 50%. That's a $10 trillion on top of the money we already threw at the problem and now we're talking about some REAL money.

And of course, nobody seems concerned about the lives that will be lost due to poverty and crime that goes up with a drop in GDP like that.

So how many lives ARE we saving by not taking the hit? I would say it's quite possible that we may even lose more lives than what we save.
 
Lets do the math.

1-2% of the population is 3.2m to 6.4m

This means for every trillion dollars we spend, it cost us between $312,500 to $650k for each life we save. And with the government likely to spend $4 trillion on this, that's $1.25m to $2.5m for each person we save.

And we haven't even counted the drop in GDP this will cost us. Some are saying the GDP could drop 50%. That's a $10 trillion on top of the money we already threw at the problem and now we're talking about some REAL money.

And of course, nobody seems concerned about the lives that will be lost due to poverty and crime that goes up with a drop in GDP like that.

So how many lives ARE we saving by not taking the hit? I would say it's quite possible that we may even lose more lives than what we save.

first you have to remove all the fugazzi economy of this administration fueled by stock buy back & corporate tax cuts. Then run your calculations again.
 
You haven't worked it out yet, it's not about the old people, young people don't care, the media has convinced them, they can get it and be ill and even DIE OMFG, it's the damn millennials that are locked away scared they'll get it, not the old, there all errr I'm old, whatever, not wasting my life worrying and nothing most likely.

Mate, locked himself away 2weeks ago, he's a Germphobe clean freak, making out so he doesn't spread it to any old people, but he likely hasn't got it, so it's just you don't want it, despite I've had it and wasn't a big deal and loads of my other mates but didn't see him for a weeks damn it :(
 
I’ve called for this plan. We can risk the curve on the young, the virus working its way to flatline on its own with some possible deaths(less risk population). Then help the sick and elderly achieve a flat line by self quarantine and government assistance.

YES someone gets it, Old are locked away anyway, but as said the young are SCARED which is why that plan failed, they whined to much sadly.

Yep we get it, few need treating, old come back out, less of us have it, they get it slowly over the next year, hospitals can handle, effect on the economy / jobs / suicides very very minimal.

Not rocket science, but snowflakes running the show sadly :(

Everyone on facearse in the UK wanted martial law to protect them, that's how scared they are, I mean the old people LOL
 
This might sound as a joke, but....

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...o-save-economy-for-their-grandkids-2020-03-23

“No one reached out to me and said, as a senior citizen, are you willing to take a chance on your survival in exchange for keeping the America that all America loves for your children and grandchildren? And if that’s the exchange, I’m all in.”

— Texas Lt. Gov Dan Patrick

if you have kids or grandkids this would acually be the prevailing sentiment.
 
I can't believe it's even a debate.

HUMAN LIFE IS WAY FUCKING MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE ECONOMY.

That's the only time in 14 years here I've shouted all caps.

Anybody who values people working, infecting and killing our treasured seniors is a fucking psychopath, period. Mortality rates in NYC are skyrocketing among 18-65 year olds, too, it kills all ages

Wake the fuck up. This is the biggest life-killer of our generation. STAY HOME , don't be like those now-infected Florida spring break fucktards
 
In this post I am making a point that there are more things than just to consider the economy on one side....

So how many lives ARE we saving by not taking the hit? I would say it's quite possible that we may even lose more lives than what we save.

This is actually possible, even if most people here or generally don't realize it.

--If normally or suddenly sick (not virus) people can't have the help because the hospitals are busy or low on stuff and resources, they might die
--When a recession occurs, suicide rate goes up. There is a quote in Big Short about that. "Don't dance..." (1% unemployment = 40K death)
--If there are food/work/race riots people will die.
--There could even be a civil war as far as we know...

We don't know yet, but people's life expectancy who survived 2-3 weeks on ventilators could get much shorter due to lung damage.
 
I can't believe it's even a debate.

It is, because you don't realize there are lives lost on BOTH sides. 1% unemployment equals 40K deaths, not to mention those people who can't be treated for other illnesses, because the hospitals are over whelmed. Throw in food shortages and race riots and we can easily lose 2 million people AND have a recession.

So stop shouting and start thinking...


Last line from the scene: "Wow, I just got really scared."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top