Ibra wrote:
Those who push for economy first while downplaying virus health risk are not doing anything good for economy long-term, even if it turns out they are right, it will hard to convince other people to buy airline tickets, go out for restaurants, go to work if there is a pile of infected bodies sitting next or if they risk sleeping on the ground in a hospital…those who accepted short-term economic risk and took the virus seriously, are now having it under control and they are opening their economies while other countries are still debating if economy/health or if this is “winter flu” or “Black Death”
I am not so sure any more. I think that the evidence is becoming clearer that mortality rates across the population are higher than flu but nothing like the 1-3% floating around earlier. Strong protection measures around older people and easing elsewhere appears to be the right way to go. The only issue in my mind is can the health services cope with the increase caused by younger people occasionally requiring hospitalisation.
Let’s remember the premise of the lockdown was to flatten the shape of the curve, not reduce the integral.
not reduce the integral.
I doubt that, because they would not want say 500k to die (of the virus) even if it happened over a year.
Peter wrote:
I doubt that, because they would not want say 500k to die (of the virus) even if it happened over a year.
The view is that by that time of 1 year you will have technology treatments/vaccines….
On treatments, hydroxychloroquine is not really promising (US study with 300 was a fail and EU study with 3000, not out yet but the insiders word is not very shinny), the new thing for treatment now seems to be nicotine, apparently the virus did kill lot of smokers as percentage of population (more chances to touching face? or to die of pneumonia?) but once infected the chances of ending up on a ventilator or die is way low compared to teh death rate for average normal population, which is very puzzling
On vaccines, British American Tobacco has already started working on a vaccine since February 
Peter wrote:
It is always very difficult to control a system which has a long time lag.
A classic example is controlling an oven.
Wouldn’t the Mars Rover, or even the Apollo missions be an example better suited for an aviation forum? ;-)
“It is absolutely horrible to see how politicians are willing to sacrifice the health of millions of people on the altar of the economy. "
It isn’t just the financial side that worries me. It’s the potential failure of food and energy supplies, as well as the maintenance and repair of required infrastructure.
The survival of our civilization may be sacrificed due to rash and wrong decisions.
My cheerful thought.
Maoraigh wrote:
It isn’t just the financial side that worries me. It’s the potential failure of food and energy supplies, as well as the maintenance and repair of required infrastructure.
The survival of our civilization may be sacrificed due to rash and wrong decisions.
My cheerful thought.
Personally I think this is a key aspect that is often overlooked.
Money is only real because we accept the concept of it and the face value of coins, bills and digital currency. This value is arbitrary however and can, in theory, be changed or even nullified by both deliberate and indeliberate human decisions at any given time.
This means that money should ultimately not worry us when it comes to existential crises. Food, water and energy are very real in a physical sense, and we cannot live without them. To a lesser degree, this is also true of all other natural resources, be it wood, iron, oil, coal, etc.
So what we as a civilisation must ensure is not that money keeps its current value or that we have “enough” of it…because that’s really just a completely artificial, even imaginary thing…but that we keep the “real” world intact, first of all by securing food, water, energy and medicine supplies and second by keeping the flow of real world goods and resources intact.
This forms the basis of all human civilisation. Money is just a handy thing to reduce the complexity of bartering…
MedEwok wrote:
This means that money should ultimately not worry us when it comes to existential crises. Food, water and energy are very real in a physical sense, and we cannot live without them.
As well as human labour. People sitting at home unemployed because their workplace have gone out of business are resources wasted.
Airborne_Again wrote:
As well as human labour. People sitting at home unemployed because their workplace have gone out of business are resources wasted.
Of course, very important. As long as we have the natural resources and human labour to produce and transport the goods we need (“essential” stuff), we should be good, even if some budgets will be deep in the red. After this crisis is over, a worldwide purging of (public) debt would make a lot of sense…
MedEwok wrote:
So what we as a civilisation must ensure is not that money keeps its current value or that we have “enough” of it…because that’s really just a completely artificial, even imaginary thing…but that we keep the “real” world intact, first of all by securing food, water, energy and medicine supplies and second by keeping the flow of real world goods and resources intact.This forms the basis of all human civilisation. Money is just a handy thing to reduce the complexity of bartering…
Ummm, we are digressing but I think that is a naive assertion. Money is the primary means of storing value, and a medium of exchange. Money has formed the basis of all human “civilisation”. In an emergency, protecting life is of course the first priority. But it eventually has to be paid for.
MedEwok wrote:
Of course, very important. As long as we have the natural resources and human labour to produce and transport the goods we need (“essential” stuff), we should be good, even if some budgets will be deep in the red. After this crisis is over, a worldwide purging of (public) debt would make a lot of sense…
What do you mean when you suggest public debt is “purged”?
