Originally Posted by Icarus2001
(Post 11078008)
Can we remember that 98% of COVID positive people recover.
Bur not all Covid cases are counted. So there’s no way in hell the mortality rate is actually 2%. |
Originally Posted by Icarus2001
(Post 11078008)
Can we remember that 98% of COVID positive people recover.
(Not that I agree with your 98% figure) |
Originally Posted by MickG0105
(Post 11077968)
Just noting that the formerly worst punishment we inflicted on prisoners, the death penalty, is precisely what gets put on the table as a possible outcome for at least some of "these old people" if we don't "effectively order all these old people to go into solitary confinement". It strikes me as somewhat odd that "well-known psychologist, social researcher and writer, Hugh Mackay," hadn't observed the incongruity in being so perturbed by the lesser of the two punishments.
Separately, it is also notable that nearly four decades ago we determined that the death penalty should not be countenanced for even the most heinous crimes yet in some quarters that is exactly what has been seen as an acceptable outcome for entirely innocent people so that we can avoid public health measures that temporarily impact civil liberties. That strikes me as a tad incongruous but I expect that others will have no issues with reconciling that. You do you. But back to the point you keep avoiding. Would you advocate that our society spend - let's pluck $100 Billion - to save one innocent life? Yes or no. Would you advocate that our society spend $100 Billion to save two innocent lives? Yes or no. Three? Yes or no. If you've answered 'yes' to all of the above, we'll have to agree to disagree. If you've answered 'no' to all of the above, what is the number at which your answer changes from a 'no' to a 'yes' and what is the basis for the change at that number? We as a society make decisions about how much to sacrifice to save lives, all day, every day. That's why we have a road toll. It could be zero, but the cost of making it zero outweigh the astronomic costs of doing it. We could build unsinkable ships and uncrashable aircraft. We could put every life-saving drug on the pharmaceutical benefits list. |
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 11078243)
So the little old lady sitting alone and freezing in her home, who'd rather go to the warm shopping centre to meet her friends and take the risk of contracting C-19, would be 'sentenced to death' if she made that choice? If yes, presumably it would be her doing the sentencing? I know what my dearly-departed Granny would have said and done about all this. Her life; her choice.
But back to the point you keep avoiding. Would you advocate that our society spend - let's pluck $100 Billion - to save one innocent life? Yes or no. Would you advocate that our society spend $100 Billion to save two innocent lives? Yes or no. Three? Yes or no. If you've answered 'yes' to all of the above, we'll have to agree to disagree. If you've answered 'no' to all of the above, what is the number at which your answer changes from a 'no' to a 'yes' and what is the basis for the change at that number? We as a society make decisions about how much to sacrifice to save lives, all day, every day. That's why we have a road toll. It could be zero, but the cost of making it zero outweigh the astronomic costs of doing it. We could build unsinkable ships and uncrashable aircraft. We could put every life-saving drug on the pharmaceutical benefits list. whats a life worth then? $50? $100? $10,000? how much money would you want the government to spend if it was spending it to save your child’s life? It’s different when it’s not a faceless person. And your granny wouldn’t have just been risking herself, she would be risking others. So I don’t care too much for the ‘my life, my choice’ idea. |
Originally Posted by Tucknroll
(Post 11078251)
pretty callous mate.
whats a life worth then? $50? $100? $10,000? how much money would you want the government to spend if it was spending it to save your child’s life? It’s different when it’s not a faceless person. And your granny wouldn’t have just been risking herself, she would be risking others. So I don’t care too much for the ‘my life, my choice’ idea. |
It's called "reality", Tucknroll. It may be unpalatable, but executing the messenger won't change it.
I know people who can't afford a life saving drug and I know why the government hasn't put it on the pharmaceutical benefits list: Cost. |
Originally Posted by Tucknroll
(Post 11078251)
pretty callous mate.
whats a life worth then? $50? $100? $10,000? how much money would you want the government to spend if it was spending it to save your child’s life? It’s different when it’s not a faceless person. And your granny wouldn’t have just been risking herself, she would be risking others. So I don’t care too much for the ‘my life, my choice’ idea. a ridiculous argument. I sure hope you have never had an overseas holiday or have ever bought anything but a basic second hand car or own a nice big tv or any other item that isn’t necessary for basic survival. Because if you have or do, you have chosen your own self gratification over saving lives. Especially those of children in third world countries. Just think how many lives 10,000 or 20,000 or 50,000 dollars would save there. how callous of you. Oh, it’s ok because they are unseen. see how that works. Oh and it isn’t up to government to look after that, you are perfectly able to give to charities. |
How long will it be before WA and SA close off to Vic? They’re getting steady cases again. One more tomorrow and Dan will do a sharp quick snap lockdown for three days.
|
Originally Posted by SHVC
(Post 11078275)
How long will it be before WA and SA close off to Vic? They’re getting steady cases again. One more tomorrow and Dan will do a sharp quick snap lockdown for three days.
|
Originally Posted by Transition Layer
(Post 11078045)
Don’t forget…all deaths “with Covid” (not from) are counted.
Bur not all Covid cases are counted. So there’s no way in hell the mortality rate is actually 2%. Excess mortality during the Coronavirus pandemic Excess Deaths Associated with Covid 19 As far as true infection fatality rate goes Australia has been very thorough at testing, tens of thousands of tests whenever there’s an outbreak, so it’s likely we can record most infections when one occurs. And with 30,000 cases and 900 deaths that’s about a 3% IFR. But we already know that, regardless of the IFR, the pandemic has had consequential effects on excess mortality and health systems where it has been allowed to run unchecked in unvaccinated populations. |
Originally Posted by dr dre
(Post 11078283)
Don’t stir people up unnecessarily, there was one new case today and they were isolating throughout their infectious period.
|
Originally Posted by SHVC
(Post 11078287)
Im not at all, it’s the new country we live in. Constantly shutting borders over a few cases because they could potentially lead to a mass breakout of 20. Having border papers to cross into another city, a test just to leave the airport.
When there’s unlinked cases spreading throughout the community that’s when restrictions tighten, both in the state and out. When it’s spreading unchecked due to an incompetent government (Gladys) and a population that isn’t taking stay at home orders seriously (Sydney) then you get hard borders. |
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 11078243)
So the little old lady sitting alone and freezing in her home, who'd rather go to the warm shopping centre to meet her friends and take the risk of contracting C-19, would be 'sentenced to death' if she made that choice? If yes, presumably it would be her doing the sentencing? I know what my dearly-departed Granny would have said and done about all this. Her life; her choice.
But back to the point you keep avoiding. Would you advocate that our society spend - let's pluck $100 Billion - to save one innocent life? Yes or no. Would you advocate that our society spend $100 Billion to save two innocent lives? Yes or no. Three? Yes or no. If you've answered 'yes' to all of the above, we'll have to agree to disagree. If you've answered 'no' to all of the above, what is the number at which your answer changes from a 'no' to a 'yes' and what is the basis for the change at that number? We as a society make decisions about how much to sacrifice to save lives, all day, every day. That's why we have a road toll. It could be zero, but the cost of making it zero outweigh the astronomic costs of doing it. We could build unsinkable ships and uncrashable aircraft. We could put every life-saving drug on the pharmaceutical benefits list. Broadly, CBA loses its objective utility whenever the analysis has to include non-market factors, that is, elements that are not marketed, not openly and routinely bought and sold, such that their dollar value cannot be determined objectively. When CBAs have to include factors such as lives (public health), something like air quality (environmental management) or say a cave of historical significance (cultural issues) the value assigned to those factors is arbitrary. And as soon as you introduce that arbitrariness into the equation, the utility of CBA breaks down. It is no longer a cut-and-dried objective analysis, it is now just an articulation of subjective values. If you want to get into a your values versus someone else's values debate, fine and beaut, but don't try to dress that up under the veil of an objective tool like CBA. And no, I'm not going to play The Price Is Right - Human Life edition. While I may not be the sharpest tool in the drawer I am most assuredly not dumb enough to step out onto that slippery slope. If you want to assign a dollar value, knock your socks off. My only caution would be to watch your footing because it's a long way down. |
Originally Posted by Tucknroll
(Post 11078251)
pretty callous mate.
Originally Posted by Tucknnroll
whats a life worth then?
$50? $100? $10,000? But...The concept itself has been thrown out the window for Covid, with no explanation given as to why it is now deemed ok to spend double, maybe triple that amount to save a significant number of people who, rightly or wrongly, wouldn't even be valued at that $5.0M figure due to their age.
Originally Posted by Tucknroll
how much money would you want the government to spend if it was spending it to save your child’s life?
It’s different when it’s not a faceless person.
Originally Posted by Tucknroll
And your granny wouldn’t have just been risking herself, she would be risking others. So I don’t care too much for the ‘my life, my choice’ idea.
|
Originally Posted by MickG0105
(Post 11078292)
And no, I'm not going to play The Price Is Right - Human Life edition. While I may not be the sharpest tool in the drawer I am most assuredly not dumb enough to step out onto that slippery slope. If you want to assign a dollar value, knock your socks off. My only caution would be to watch your footing because it's a long way down.
|
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 11078264)
It's called "reality", Tucknroll. It may be unpalatable, but executing the messenger won't change it.
Happy to be proven wrong on this but there appeared to be a manifest lack of sufficient political support for alternative approaches to the pandemic for said alternative to get implemented. You can say that your 'unicorn' of an alternative approach would have been far superior on every dimension to the camel that we've got but the camel is what was realistically achievable, the unicorn is imaginary. |
Originally Posted by ruprecht
(Post 11078297)
You may not like to do it because it’s “too icky”, but rest assured we do it every day.
|
Originally Posted by ruprecht
(Post 11078297)
You may not like to do it because it’s “too icky”, but rest assured we do it every day.
|
Originally Posted by MickG0105
(Post 11078305)
Do you use the statistical life value of $5m for a 35 year old in good health or do you have a different value?
the average age of WuHu flu deaths here is 82, same as the uk and representative of world wide figures. I would think the statistical value of a 82 year old is somewhat less than 5 million. perhaps use that number instead. oh and many if not most people who die of WuHu are most certainly not healthy but have significant co morbidity factors. |
Originally Posted by Icarus2001 View Post Can we remember that 98% of COVID positive people recover. There isnt enough research done on the long term effects of Covid for you to make that assessment. The lowest CFR I could see is Qatar at 0.3% and most are between 1 & 2 %. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality It found that of the patients studied, 80 per cent recovered within a month, and just under 5 per cent were still experiencing symptoms three months after their diagnosis. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:12. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.