eg When there has been no wars
money builds up
health is nore affordable than war
work it out
Coronavirus - A pale horse,4 men and ....beer
-
SweetLyrics
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2018 7:57 pm
Sure, the money spent on the Iraq War (for example) could have gone into the NHS and saved many lives. However, I think that's a different discussion entirely to the one we are having. 
So much to not getting involved in this topic.SweetLyrics wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:09 pmAll I am saying is that there is such a thing as an acceptable risk. You can't insulate yourself from risk without taking such extreme measures that, ironically, there is a danger of even creating even greater risk.
Some people say, for example, that lives are more important than the economy. However, that argument breaks down when you consider that you need a healthy economy for the NHS to buy drugs. To put it crudely, if the economy ends up fucked because the government has shut down just about every business out there, then the NHS will be fucked too, and people will die.
Jeff
I know it's a difficult balancing act and one that requires scientific and mathematical consideration, but one of the problems is that many people are in one camp or the other without balancing health and the effect on the economy. But if this new strain is as highly contagious as they think drastic restrictions are essential. With 1000 people a day dying, that's 10,000 plus a day being bereaved, people are beginning to just think of them as numbers.
-
SweetLyrics
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2018 7:57 pm
I think that's a good point.
The government have said from the start that they are listening to the experts. I don't doubt that's the case. But are they inviting the right experts into the conversation, i.e. do they listen to economists as well as epidemiologists to get a balanced view of the short- and long- term effects of their policies? And are they asking the right questions? Are they asking merely 'What can do to minimise the number of people getting Covid?', or are they asking 'What can we do that will minimise the years of life lost?'.
I'm sceptical of the government's decisions (and very critical of a lot of their decision making, which can be inconsistent and sometimes comes across as being made on the basis of someone's gut feeling). However, I don't claim to know what the answer is (and I think many experts would privately admit that they don't, either).
The government have said from the start that they are listening to the experts. I don't doubt that's the case. But are they inviting the right experts into the conversation, i.e. do they listen to economists as well as epidemiologists to get a balanced view of the short- and long- term effects of their policies? And are they asking the right questions? Are they asking merely 'What can do to minimise the number of people getting Covid?', or are they asking 'What can we do that will minimise the years of life lost?'.
I'm sceptical of the government's decisions (and very critical of a lot of their decision making, which can be inconsistent and sometimes comes across as being made on the basis of someone's gut feeling). However, I don't claim to know what the answer is (and I think many experts would privately admit that they don't, either).
-
SweetLyrics
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2018 7:57 pm
I agree with comments like this, most opinions seem to be sentimental or emotionally based hearsay which is unquantifiable.SweetLyrics wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 9:50 pmA doctor dealing with Covid patients will see a lot of Covid patients.
An oncologist will see a lot of cancer patients.
Neither will be able to tell you about the extent of the illness they treat based purely on personal experience.
I wish more people would watch unbiased journalism such as the first 5 minutes of this from today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWSwDCBJWkk&
They look at the statistics with a much more methodical approach, and break down the mainstream media's reports which shows the propaganda being used
I agree and find a paradox within there similar to trading.SweetLyrics wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:09 pmAll I am saying is that there is such a thing as an acceptable risk. You can't insulate yourself from risk without taking such extreme measures that, ironically, there is a danger of even creating even greater risk.
Some people say, for example, that lives are more important than the economy. However, that argument breaks down when you consider that you need a healthy economy for the NHS to buy drugs. To put it crudely, if the economy ends up fucked because the government has shut down just about every business out there, then the NHS will be fucked too, and people will die.
Jeff
The loss aversion of humans to try and save everyone will likely cause more OVERALL deaths and suffering the same way the loss aversion of a trading strategy will indadvertedly cause you to lose more OVERALL money.
It's very easy for people to make the emotional "oh so we just let the 0.3% die because they don't matter do we?" comment, but rationally the rewards of letting the 99% carry on whilst shielding the vulnerable (if they choose to) could be the better option in the long-term to minimise overall suffering and deaths
-
Trader Pat
- Posts: 4327
- Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:50 pm
Conspiracy theories, personal attacks, insults, lizard people ... I can take all thatSweetLyrics wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:22 pmYou're.
And I assure you I am calm - strangely, I'm enjoying my rare foray into the forum, although it does feel a bit weird!
But correcting peoples grammar, tut tut
-
SweetLyrics
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2018 7:57 pm
Quite.
It's a bit like the trolley problem - https://theconversation.com/the-trolley ... five-57111.
'Imagine you are standing beside some tram tracks. In the distance, you spot a runaway trolley hurtling down the tracks towards five workers who cannot hear it coming. Even if they do spot it, they won’t be able to move out of the way in time.
As this disaster looms, you glance down and see a lever connected to the tracks. You realise that if you pull the lever, the tram will be diverted down a second set of tracks away from the five unsuspecting workers.
However, down this side track is one lone worker, just as oblivious as his colleagues.
So, would you pull the lever, leading to one death but saving five?'
You don't want anyone to die, but if death is unavoidable then you need to take the course of action which results in the least death.
It's a bit like the trolley problem - https://theconversation.com/the-trolley ... five-57111.
'Imagine you are standing beside some tram tracks. In the distance, you spot a runaway trolley hurtling down the tracks towards five workers who cannot hear it coming. Even if they do spot it, they won’t be able to move out of the way in time.
As this disaster looms, you glance down and see a lever connected to the tracks. You realise that if you pull the lever, the tram will be diverted down a second set of tracks away from the five unsuspecting workers.
However, down this side track is one lone worker, just as oblivious as his colleagues.
So, would you pull the lever, leading to one death but saving five?'
You don't want anyone to die, but if death is unavoidable then you need to take the course of action which results in the least death.
alexmr2 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:29 pmIt's very easy for people to make the emotional "oh so we just let the 0.3% die because they don't matter do we?" comment, but rationally the rewards of letting the 99% carry on whilst shielding the vulnerable (if they choose to) could be the better option in the long-term to minimise overall suffering and deaths
-
SweetLyrics
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2018 7:57 pm
OK, let's get this straight.
I live in Glasgow.
You want me to spend a day travelling down to London at my own expense (breaking the law which forbids non-essential travel from Scotland to England) to prove a point? Nah, I'll pass, if it's all the same! :
I live in Glasgow.
You want me to spend a day travelling down to London at my own expense (breaking the law which forbids non-essential travel from Scotland to England) to prove a point? Nah, I'll pass, if it's all the same! :
-
SweetLyrics
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2018 7:57 pm
OK, let's use an analogy.
Would I spend a day working on the flu ward if I hadn't had a flu vaccination? Nope!
Do I think we should have a lockdown each winter to prevent people dying from the flu (as happens every year)?
Nope, that would be total overkill.
There is no contradiction.