Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
How Many People Are You Willing to Kill to Open the Economy?
Well, how many?
You tell me; How many more are going to die?
This study by Drexel University says that there would have been 233,000 more deaths if we didn’t self-quarantine.
Hmmm, let me see. “Based on models developed by epidemiologists working with the New York Times.” Now that’s a publication known for statistical prowess and unbiased scientific research. Did they also find that the virus was caused by racism? Does Drexel University not have its own statisticians and medical researchers? Why are they relying on the New York Times?
Ahh…I don’t know.
And, of course, every other model thrown at us during this fiasco has been incredibly accurate, right?
Well, no, but. . .
Does this story have any information on the methods they used to create the model? The dataset used? Who at the New York Times created the model and what their qualifications are? Who at Drexel University used the model and what their qualifications are? How about the people who reported this? Do we know if they even asked any of these questions?
No, but . . .
But it was a Scientific study released by a University, so SCIENCE!, right?
No! I mean . . .
And you can’t prove a negative, so it’s unfalsifiable. If you can’t prove it wrong, it’s got to be right. That’s the cornerstone of the scientific method, isn’t it?
I guess. Even so, if you open up, people are going to die.
And if we stay locked down, there will be no more deaths.
Of course not, don’t be silly.
So how many more if we open? You made the assertion.
I just know that Texas had more cases and more deaths the day after they opened up.
They had more cases because more people were being tested. Deaths occur an average of two weeks after diagnosis, so that has nothing to do with the loosening of restrictions.
If the economy opens up there will be more deaths!
Ok, I’ll agree with you. There will be more deaths, though you can’t say how many. And of course no one is going to die because of the economic disaster caused by the shutdown, right?
That’s a choice they make. The people who die of the virus don’t have a choice.
Are you talking about suicides?
No one has to kill themselves.
I’m sure all the depressed people out there will be glad to hear that. But I’m also talking about deaths from drug overdoses and domestic violence. Plus things like colonoscopies, mammograms, PAP smears, biopsies, CTs and MRIs are being put on hold because they’re “elective” procedures. But nobody is going to die due to a missed or delayed diagnosis, are they? And poverty doesn’t shorten life at all does it?
Okay, open the economy! You’ve just got to tell me which member of your family you are willing to sacrifice.
That’s easy. I’ll sacrifice myself to keep my kids and grandchildren from living in poverty and despair. Because I’m the person you’re trying to protect. It just seems odd that you’d throw all the “marginalized communities” under the bus to protect old rich white males like me. Thanks!
There’s just one thing I want to ask, Whoopie. You still have your job, your mansion, all your assets. Since you want poor people to suffer, what have you sacrificed to protect me?
Published in Healthcare
Nicely done.
Ditto
How many people are you willing to kill to keep the economy shut down?
How many people are you willing to kill to open the economy?
Four. I won’t tell you who.
“I’ll sacrifice myself to keep my kids and grandchildren from living in poverty and despair. Because I’m the person you’re trying to protect.”
Ditto.
Three cheers
My, my, my!
It’s like Socrates meets Whoopie Goldberg. Love it.
Can we pick who gets sacrificed? Would the entire Antifa movement qualify? What can I say, I’m not a nice man.
So how many of those 233,000 deaths really would have been in the greater New York metropolitan area? About 225,000? Because if you’re putting 5,000 in Austin, with a population of 700,000, and extapolate that out to other medium to large-scale metro areas across the country, that’s not going to leave many new cases for the NYC area, given how centered the overall death toll from COVID’s been in the NYC area due to local pols and other officials’ mishandling of things back in February and March.
The Times did do a story about 3-4 weeks ago noting the failures of Cuomo and de Blasio, and Pro Publica did the one over the weekend slamming their response, with the updated nursing home deaths. But while the national media normally follows the Times’ lead on story selections, they really didn’t here, and the Times itself hasn’t obsessed with their original story, as is the paper’s wont to do when they really care about hammering home a subject and trying to set/control the narrative.
In this case, it’s more important for them to push a “One size fits all” plan for government control of public activities across the U.S., so the death toll estimates have to be spread out across the country in order to justify the actions already taken. The idea that New York because of its population density might have to take a different course than other places where people are less in close contact (or have higher air temperatures earlier, lowering the ability for COVID to spread without in-close direct contact) never occurs to them.
from the Drexel article: “The point of this is to not be exact,” said Jennifer Kolker, associate dean for public health practice and clinical professor of health management and policy at Drexel University’s Dornsife School of Public Health. “. It’s all about the “feels”.
Now if they would tell me how many of those 223,000 would have died this fall, winter or next spring, until there is a herd immunity, then l can ask how many they are willing to kill, or impoverish, just to give someone another six months?
We have a lot of data on the lifetime impacts of interrupted education, so never tell us again that you’re doing something for the children.
As many as were going to die anyway. The lockdown wasn’t supposed to keep anyone from getting infected. It was supposed to spread out the infections over time to keep the medical system from being overwhelmed by everyone getting sick at once.
I’m going to go bald, Jose, from all the hair I’m pulling out over these issues. Oops, yeah, there goes another clump.
(Good job!)
Way to go Jose.
“Self quarantined”
Hah!
Do I get to pick ’em out?
Professional level comedy writing.
Actually there is adequate information coming in and being compiled that shows how the nations that went full bore over-the-top into lockdown mode did not do that much better than the nations that remained open. I am forgetting which of my fellow Ricochet colleagues posted this but here is an article with a chart that demonstrates some major truth abotu lockdowns:
https://wmbriggs.com/post/30833/
No, just the IHME model.
Yes, thank you Muleskinner. I think so often of how the kids who are HS seniors won’t have their senior prom, the late night festivities, the sheer fun of having that milestone occur. All they will have in their scrap books is some used up masks.
The authorities kept bringing home the point that the lockdowns were needed for our vulnerable and especially the elderly. Then we started getting reports from family members that when their relatives were hospitalized, the staff wanted signatures on Do Not resuscitate forms.
This is standard operating procedure. As someone who did nursing assistant work, I know it happens all the time. What does not happen though is hospital staff informing an elderly person that if they choose not to sign the DNR, then they’ re selfish for depriving a younger person of a ventilator. Often the lecture includes such tidbits as “You’ve led your life already, Granny. A young person hasn’t.”
In the USA, Jose, people who ask questions about who sponsored a study, whose donations keep afloat the institution that is undertaking the study, what were the modeling methods considered and why was the one method that was chosen picked out – all those questions indicate that such a questioner is lacking an appreciation for Science!
The Inquisitioners of the Holy Mother Church would be so proud.
100,000 – as long as they’re all leftists . . .
On the other hand, my unemployment benefits finally kicked in, so I’ll be okay for a while – hopefully, at least some of the economy will recover by then.
How many people are you willing to kill to keep the borders open, with NO IDEA how many drug dealers, criminals, and gang members come across every day?
How many people are you willing to kill to take away our 2nd amendment right to self-protection (from those same criminals?).
How many people are you willing to kill to keep unrestricted abortion not only legal, but actively funded by tax dollars through Planned Parenthood?
How many people are you willing to kill by Obama’s advice to Grandma with a heart condition – “Just take a pill”.
How many people are you willing to kill when your “Green New Deal” devastates the economy and impoverishes untold millions (hey, kinda like your Covid response will)?
I’m so glad you are finally asking this question about killing people – we conservatives have been asking it for years.
I now am wondering if the Drexel study was using the same style of modeling that informed European scientists that Sweden had taken the wrong approach:
In turning the tables on those who fail to consider that the lockdown itself has costs in lives, we have talked much about the deaths attributable to the lockdown. Unfortunately, those will be spread out in time and in geography, and therefore hard to identify.
But there are other costs too.
For each Covid-19 death you claim to prevent, how many children are you willing to condemn to a life of poverty due to the long-term economic consequences of shuttering the economy? What is that number if the lockdown only delays that Covid-19 death by six months or a year?
For each Covid-19 death you delay by six months or a year, how many children are you willing to condemn to a life of poverty because you are preventing them from getting an education by closing the schools for a year or two or maybe more? You don’t really think that children kept out of school for a year are going to just bounce back and not suffer permanent effects on their academic achievements, do you? Even wealthy highly educated parents report that online school is much inferior to in-person school. Children in disadvantaged homes are going to have even worse results. What is that number if the lockdown only delays that Covid-19 death by six months or a year?
For each Covid-19 death that you delay by six months or a year, how many people are you willing to condemn to a life of shattered dreams and feelings of failure? What is that number if the lockdown only delays that Covid-19 death by six months or a year?
I was so confident that Pres Trump wpuld be the one to consider these things, and then back Fauci, Gates and Birx into the WH broom closet while he appointed new and better admins for health agencies and divisions. Then he and the nation as a whole might pursue the truth about COVID, an infection which is throttled from being serious if HCQ and zinc are administered, and just as importantly the economy.
Instead, all the wisdom I am hearing comes from normal everyday people like you, Full Sized Tabby. Although I relish realizing how many people have thoughtful responses to this crisis, I find it bewildering and maddening that most of our elected officials are not really well informed, or else are possibly bought and paid for. (It now appears that Kushner has a huge interest in a vaccine manufacturing process.)
I will sacrifice my jerky cousin and I am willing to accept 15,000 dead per year of Corona. I am also willing to sacrifice Boss Mongo.
Hey, the Corona virus can take it’s shot against the Boss. It better have its arm wrestling game together.
Poverty doesn’t exist in America.
Even economic downturns return to normal in 3-4 years (assuming you don’t keep re-electing Democrats named FDR).