Anon Archived The Cold Calculations America's Leaders Will Have to Make Before Reopening. How many deaths would be acceptable to you! (nytimes.com)
submitted ago by 3783307?
Posted by: 3783307?
Posting time: 8 months ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 7/23/2020 10:00:00 AM
Views: 14
SCP: -1
3 upvotes, 4 downvotes (43% upvoted it)
Anon Archived The Cold Calculations America's Leaders Will Have to Make Before Reopening. How many deaths would be acceptable to you! (nytimes.com)
submitted ago by 3783307?
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 23534459? ago
Well, I'm taking a 30% hit on my retirement savings at the moment. Not happy about it. I'm kinda down on death panels. Whether in the present form: for-profit health care, or in the form of government groups that "decide." We come back to not numbers, tho, but who decides. Is it like what Stalin said about votes: it doesn't matter who votes; it matters who counts. Do we give the decision to people who have profited from the work of others. Or do we give it to the others? And how on earth do we make either of these ways work. - The big losers at the moment appear to be big companies that have responded, correctly, to the market and saved as close to nothing as possible. Small companies and small farms? That's laughable. We have displaced these for years in the interest of cheaper and cheaper. Smart management has sent skill overseas. What jobs we are protecting, and probably we need to do so, is the low-wage and short hours segment of the economy that lives from paycheck to paycheck. And without health care. In the end, we are going to discover that our economy was a hollow sham. Printing money to give to people is the path to inflation: lots of dollars without substance to back it up. - I'd say the way to research the die v jobs problem is to ask people. Find out who would be willing to lose children and relatives. Possibly many would. After all this was the way society worked for centuries. I'd like to think that we could provide both better care and better jobs. But I fear that we have let that slip by.
[–] 23534573? 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
You didn't answer the question.
We elected our governors to decide things like this. I think people who are scared of coming out have the right to hunker down, but we can't just keep printing money forever to pay for that.
[–] 23539196? ago
Well, that's handy. What I just wrote disappeared when I tried looking at the context. Shitfuk. You want a simple answer to a huge social and medical crisis. I'm baffled by the calculus, and so too are elected and medical people, it would seem. I'm socially trained to believe people with certain credentials, many doctors for example. And completely distrust other people. Pols might fall into the not trust box. Doctors try to lose no one, and that can be a mistake. Politicians try not to lose their friends, and keep an eye toward whether or not it's going to be possible to lie one's way out if the situation goes bad. In my great state, I have never heard a governor campaign overtly on deciding who will live and who will die. I suspect that part of the depth of the problem becomes what happens with the fallout from being wrong. What does a family do when the wage-earner comes home sick? Then the kids or wife gets sick. And now no bills are being paid. Is there a just social remedy? What is the legal remedy for someone who is willing to work, who goes to work, and who is infected by someone who should not have been there? - The money isn't there whether we print it or not. The last great experiment in bailout when banks created imaginary money was just more debt for a government that has been behind since the late sixties.
So, how many people dying v losing positions? 18 and 75. But I guess we have gone beyond that, haven't we.