Remain isolated or restart the economy?

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

What is a “moral wrong”? Is that another way of saying “sin”?

News item:
Sweden is not doing any lockdowns. People are leaidng normal lives. Danmark has just re-opened its elemntary schools.

Let’s wait and see what happens. Do Sweden and Denmark have extensive, reliable testing capabilities?

HomeschoolDad:

we need to avoid going into a depression, even if it means more people die, than would die if we isolated longer

This is contrary to our Faith. Protecting life from conception til natural death is more important than “the economy”

I did not advocate this idea. I am utterly opposed to opening up vast segments of our economy and social structure before the curve has flattened dramatically, and before mass testing is available. There are many in this country, though, who are so enamored with getting the economy up and running ASAP, who may even view the whole “CV as pandemic” phenomenon as a liberal plot to achieve total social control while making everyone into welfare recipients (or something like that), that they simply will not listen to reason. And there is a small percentage of religionists (of all faiths) who so desperately want to get back to church, that some are even willing to defy SAH orders and then they call it “persecution of religion” when they receive civil consequences for so doing. Church services are like school — by their very nature, normally-sized religious services cannot be “socially distanced” in any meaningful way. You are sitting still for an hour or longer in an enclosed space with many other people who are all breathing. That, too, is a Petri dish.

 

[Socrates92]

It’s also a mischaracterization of the situation, because it doesn’t even acknowledge the fact that lives will be lost as a result of a Depression as well. The failure to even ask the question how many lifes could be lost as a result seems to support tseleehw’s point:

It’s apparent that people are in denial about how bad things are truly going to be. Unemployment may reach record levels, homelessness is on the rise, a housing crisis is looming and foreclosures are set to skyrocket,

How many suicides will be triggered by the suffering? (I’m a little scared to start hearing stories about corpses rotting in isolation, unbeknownst to former neighbors, when things restart) What about deaths through violent crime? What about detrimental affects to people’s health brought about by the stress, making them more vulnerable to disease and health complications?

Also, the economy is not simply the stock market and “profits”. It is true that there is a lot of obscurity and corruption within financial markets, however, the economy itself refers properly to real world interactions between people that facilitate the movement of real goods and services necessary to support life. There is already evidence of supply chains feeling major stress. I tremble to think what could happen if this continues 3 or 6 or more months. You can’t eat a stimulus check, regardless of what the Fed would have you believe.

This is a pragmatic decision, not the black and white one that many people are assuming it is. Like it or not, there is some point at which an increased lockdown will cost more lives than it saves. It is the grave moral responsibility of legislators to consider that question.

 

[ontheway1]

This is a pragmatic decision, not the black and white one that many people are assuming it is. Like it or not, there is some point at which an increased lockdown will cost more lives than it saves. It is the grave moral responsibility of legislators to consider that question.

Yes, Socrates. But being pragmatic at a time when emotions are high and reason is clouded by passion is not likely to win you many friends.

 

[Socrates92]

Yes, Socrates. But being pragmatic at a time when emotions are high and reason is clouded by passion is not likely to win you many friends.

Meh, I’ll manage.

 

[Dovekin]

This is a pragmatic decision, not the black and white one that many people are assuming it is. Like it or not, there is some point at which an increased lockdown will cost more lives than it saves. It is the grave moral responsibility of legislators to consider that question.

This is always the consideration. It is why the lockdown was started, because it would save more lives than it would cost. The problem is we do not have any real way to estimate how many lives anything will cost.

Right now, the consideration seems to be “we will lose more lives if our hospitals get overwhelmed.” A safe bet, so lockdown to prevent that by flattening the curve. If we restart the economy and do not have enough hospital capacity, it will cost more lives than a lockdown would save.

The object now is to find alternatives to the lockdown, like testing. If you know of other things that will cost lives, besides hospital capacity, they can be considered too. Stimulus payments etc. are all efforts to prevent a lack of food from killing people, for example.

These are not easy times.

 

[otjm]

Benefits are not decided on a parish level; they are decided by the diocese;so hiring anyone without benefits ain’t gonna happen.

 

[otjm]

I am not “anti Feds”, and rules have a purpose (and sometimes several). However my reference was to a distillery which did as the one you mentioned, and their work got shut down. It is a bit akin to the issue of the use of the malarial drug, which has had not years but decades of use and the safety of it is well known; but when it comes to possible use for someone who is rapidly going the wrong direction, there is a first class hissy fit.

And yes, I understand Dr. Fauci’s hedged answers; he was not remarking as to the danger of the drug but as to its unknown utility against the virus. That, however, got translated into denial of its use fairly widely by some who either can’t think critically, or think emotionally.

All of which is off track to the initial question, I guess. Glad your company is stepping into the breach. Hand sanitizer is needed in far greater quantities than is available - needed being thje operative term.

 

[otjm]

we’ve got to get the economy up and running sooner instead of later

While I agree we need to get the economy up and running, it also appears that there is a “black and white” approach to the whole matter; the economy is “running”, but a significant part of it, particularly among small businesses is shut down. The argument seems to imply that we cannot practice some safety (distance) between workers, or workers and the public; it is"all or nothing". My grocery stores have simply put up a shield between checkers and buyers; is it perfect? Nope. But it is reducing the chance of infection.

“Social distancing” does appear to be flattening the curve, and the death rate to infected appears lower than projections. There is a middle ground in spite of all the loud voices.

the effects of this virus are being exaggerated, possibly by liberal interests with their own agenda

Given some of the liberal voices (de Blasio, Pelosi) initially went the extreme opposite direction until the brown stuff hit the fan, I suspect the projections were based on the widely acknowledged lack of honesty out of the Chinese Communist government coupled with how contagious the virus is. Economies can be turned around (length of time being a great variable) but emergencies elicit strong and rapid responses. They may be overblown, but that is not a factor of “liberal” vs. “conservative” economics. Monday morning quarterbacks never seem to get the position of being the decision maker the next time a crisis arrives.

 

[Ardent_Fire]

I think it depends on where someone is. The outbreaks haven’t escalated and been at their worst at the same place and at the same time. I’m in the UK (London/Southeast) and we’re in the thick of it, and in my area it’s had an adverse affect on our ability to have things like routine doctor’s appointments, right now it’s for emergencies only, my blood tests and appointments were all canceled, so everything is pretty much going to be shut down for a while because our healthcare system does risk being overloaded. It’s not just treating people with the virus, but being able to treat others for serious problems as well. But again, it really does depend on where someone is. For some other places in the world where they have turned a corner, places are slowly starting to open, very slowly.

For everyone touting Sweden as an example – they are also doing quite a lot of social distancing and their streets and public transport are more quiet than usual, so it’s not like things are “normal” – and Sweden’s people generally have more trust in their healthcare system and resources available than other places do. Their population is healthier, has a high quality of life and they are more health conscious than other places in my experience (my husband is from Sweden so that’s just been my general experience of spending a lot of time there and they often score well on the health/quality of life index), so what might work in Sweden has many factors that may not apply in other places. Worth noting there is also some growing concern about their climbing rates of death and infection, so whether or not their strategy works remains to be seen.

It seems pretty clear that testing availability has helped the situation a great deal in a lot of places, across the boards. But as far as how to handle the economy, I don’t think there is a one size fits all answer for everywhere at once.

 

[Socrates92]

Benefits are not decided on a parish level; they are decided by the diocese;so hiring anyone without benefits ain’t gonna happen.

Whoever makes these decisions at the diocese level might need to wake up then.

 

[otjm]

Whoever makes these decisions at the diocese level might need to wake up then.

I take it that your diocese doesn’t have any benefits?

 

[Socrates92]

They probably do. What’s that got to do with anything? My diocese probably needs to wake up too.

 

[otjm]

What’s that got to do with anything?

My original reply was to someone who proposed that minimum wage people would be hired with no benefits. I disagreed with them. The “anything” was a prior comment, not yours.

 

[Socrates92]

tafan2:

Yes to all of your quote. What we need to do right away is change the question from “what is essential” to “what can be done safely”.

That already is the case.

When did this start happening? I’ve so far only heard talk in terms of essential/nonessential business.

 

[Socrates92]

It does seem too long. To think that some people are actually speaking as if this could on for another six. I don’t know how they expect countries to feed themselves at that point, forget about mortgage defaults and homelessness.

 

[Socrates92]

That’s a given. Remember to lock your doors at night. This grocery chain forgot and suffered the consequences. https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/toronto-loblaws-mistakenly-left-open-on-easter-sunday-1.4895458

 

[on_the_hill]

Restart.

I have a daughter who’s a senior in college and one who’s a senior in high school. They lost some of the most important moments their lives will ever have.

At this point, I couldn’t care less about the whole situation. Might as well restart.

 

[Glennon_P]

Depends on the location. Some places will be able to restart sooner than others. There cannot possibly be a one-size-fits-all approach across a country, or even a state/province/region.

I heard one person state that restarting too soon, or in too widespread a fashion, could throw away any benefit from what we’ve done so far. That’s terrifying.

I think the best thing we can all do is pray for God’s guidance for those making the decisions.

 

[rosejmj]

I mean the point of social distancing is to slow the spread not stop it. It will only stop when 70+% have been exposed naturally or through a vaccine. it would take at least a year for a vaccine to be formulated and so the best method seems to be to just let more people get it. The longer it takes the worse the economy. As we have seen now, the number of deaths has gone down from the number predicted and many hospitals are not overwhelmed here.

 

[Pattylt]

so the best method seems to be to just let more people get it.

So, you and your family first? Or, did you mean let everyone else get it?

I’m sorry but in my family we have two over 65, one with diabetes, one with high blood pressure. One who is the primary caregiver to a post op liver transplant on immune drugs and two children, one that was a micropremie with delayed lung development. We all live together. One gets it, we all will. No, thank you.