Coronavirus - Overall
-
@Godder well as has been mentioned numerous time in this thread, what is the cost of a human life vs the economy...
What is Swedens economy doing by comparison, given they are on of the few who have done nearly nothing in terms of restricting movement.
But with a population double our size and almost 4,000 deaths, has the cost to thier economy been ok while sacrificing some peoples lives?
In regard to Vaccines, I see NZ is likely well down the queue if or when one gets made, which I assume is because we arent really down the path of developing our own, and I expect urgency to receive one must also play a part too?
-
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - Overall:
But with a population double our size and almost 4,000 deaths, has the cost to thier economy been ok while sacrificing some peoples lives?
Comparing Sweden to it's neighbours is more valid
-
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - Overall:
But with a population double our size and almost 4,000 deaths, has the cost to their economy been ok while sacrificing some peoples lives?
I think, much like NZ and Oz, Sweden can't avoid the economic impact of Covid and many commentators and Sweden's reserve bank seem to be holding this view.
-
My point is more that you can't compare them to NZ. Our geographic isolation, luck that other 'canaries' were further up the coal mine etc.. those factors make any comparison meaningless
Comparing Sweden to it's neighbours still gives you a comparison of responses
-
@Duluth said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - Overall:
But with a population double our size and almost 4,000 deaths, has the cost to thier economy been ok while sacrificing some peoples lives?
Comparing Sweden to it's neighbours is more valid
Not yet peer-reviewed and now 7 days old, but the Danish-Swedish Bank payments data showed a 25% drop in Sweden compared to a 29% drop in Denmark.
Not a great outcome given the much higher death and transmission rates, but on the other hand, Sweden's approach has been based on long term losses being the same no matter what approach is taken, so additional economic pain was pointless. Judging them in a year might be more applicable.
NZ had a choice, to give up international tourism for health, but having chosen health, not a lot of point going back on that.
-
@Godder said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Civil liberties and human rights are important. The current social contract around those liberties and rights can simplistically be summed up as do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on someone else's rights.
The obvious question would be where a pandemic sits in that framework, particularly a disease which has a long asymptomatic but infectious period, and a high impact on certain demographic groups. It's pretty easy to catch it and spread it unknowingly, so where does your right to do whatever you want infringe on others' rights? That's a tough question, and it's not something with an easy answer.
There is an answer when not locked in a nanny state mindset
Let people decide themselves but with restriction on the sick only. So restrict the sick only not the law abiding healthy.
The Govts role would be an advisor (except for the sick) not an enforcer. So offer advise re staying at home, working from home, face-mask pros and cons, healthy living to improve the immune system, avoiding crowded areas in confined enclosed space etc. Trust the good sense of the population rather than treating everyone like children.
-
Japan's results are interesting
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-22/did-japan-just-beat-the-virus-without-lockdowns-or-mass-testing -
@dogmeat said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@antipodean what about all those (like me) who were isolating alone?
I guess we'll know once they start finding the bodies.
During the GFC it increased by about 10K - so again 10 times as bad as the impact of GFC and while he economic impact could be that high I doubt it will add 100K suicides. According to a Reuters report the suicide rate goes up 1% for every point increase in unemployment - so worst case the number of suicides might go up by a third - or 15K. Even if you assume suicides will go up for a few years its still seven years of 30% above the norm before you get to the reported COVID fatalities to date.
Is that data NSW, Japan or NZ?
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Civil liberties and human rights are important. The current social contract around those liberties and rights can simplistically be summed up as do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on someone else's rights.
The obvious question would be where a pandemic sits in that framework, particularly a disease which has a long asymptomatic but infectious period, and a high impact on certain demographic groups. It's pretty easy to catch it and spread it unknowingly, so where does your right to do whatever you want infringe on others' rights? That's a tough question, and it's not something with an easy answer.
There is an answer when not locked in a nanny state mindset
Let people decide themselves but with restriction on the sick only. So restrict the sick only not the law abiding healthy.
Not easy when you have no real way of knowing if people are sick or not. Your plan would allow those who are asymptomatic or in the early stages of the disease or others that think the whole thing is a conspiracy to mix freely and spread it.
Not really a plan is it?
-
@Catogrande You beat me to it. The reason SARS-CoV1 was beaten was patients were symptomatic early and only infectious when symptomatic (or so I have read/heard).
Having said that the risk here is Australasia is becoming very close to nil (Aus still had 6 new cases over night), but it will be so low that identifying and controlling any outbreak should be a lot easier than 3 months ago.
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@MiketheSnow said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@MiketheSnow said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Firstly that's been changed from when it took place.
The same para in in the guidance on 17 March - when it was first published.
But riddle me this, Boris gets it goes off the grid at Chequers and it's announced to the world. Transparent.
Cummings gets it, skulks off. No word. Secretive.
Hardly. It was in the press at the time when people were criticising the government for not taking enough care. Surely Cummings is entitled to the same privacy rights as any one else isn't he?
We have very different views on this.
Hopefully we'll agree to disagree.
I think when kids and medical matters are concerned, politicians and Snr civil servants deserve some space.
That's effectively a get out of gaol card.
Not really. They're still human and dealing with personal issues.
-
@dogmeat said in Coronavirus - Overall:
According to a Reuters report the suicide rate goes up 1% for every point increase in unemployment - so worst case the number of suicides might go up by a third - or 15K
Fascinating. This interests me.
Can you post a link?
-
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Civil liberties and human rights are important. The current social contract around those liberties and rights can simplistically be summed up as do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on someone else's rights.
The obvious question would be where a pandemic sits in that framework, particularly a disease which has a long asymptomatic but infectious period, and a high impact on certain demographic groups. It's pretty easy to catch it and spread it unknowingly, so where does your right to do whatever you want infringe on others' rights? That's a tough question, and it's not something with an easy answer.
There is an answer when not locked in a nanny state mindset
Let people decide themselves but with restriction on the sick only. So restrict the sick only not the law abiding healthy.
Not easy when you have no real way of knowing if people are sick or not. Your plan would allow those who are asymptomatic or in the early stages of the disease or others that think the whole thing is a conspiracy to mix freely and spread it.
Not really a plan is it?
Not for those locked in the nanny state mindset. Where a parent figure must decide for them and everyone else.
Even if it means destroying the economy and many livesI trust the good sense of people. If unhealthy then mostly stay at home or risk becoming very ill. If healthy then go about your business but with a few extra steps as required
Maybe the Govt could do some temperature readings in bigger areas but don't go overboard and destroy the economy. This is madness for what was a fairly mild flu for most. Its the vulnerable that need to take care. That is those who are older (like me) and esp those (young or old) with underlying health issue -
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Civil liberties and human rights are important. The current social contract around those liberties and rights can simplistically be summed up as do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on someone else's rights.
The obvious question would be where a pandemic sits in that framework, particularly a disease which has a long asymptomatic but infectious period, and a high impact on certain demographic groups. It's pretty easy to catch it and spread it unknowingly, so where does your right to do whatever you want infringe on others' rights? That's a tough question, and it's not something with an easy answer.
There is an answer when not locked in a nanny state mindset
Let people decide themselves but with restriction on the sick only. So restrict the sick only not the law abiding healthy.
Not easy when you have no real way of knowing if people are sick or not. Your plan would allow those who are asymptomatic or in the early stages of the disease or others that think the whole thing is a conspiracy to mix freely and spread it.
Not really a plan is it?
Not for those locked in the nanny state mindset. Where a parent figure must decide for them and everyone else.
Even if it means destroying the economy and many livesI trust the good sense of people. If unhealthy then mostly stay at home or risk becoming very ill. If healthy then go about your business but with a few extra steps as required
Maybe the Govt could do some temperature readings in bigger areas but don't go overboard and destroy the economy. This is madness for what was a fairly mild flu for most. Its the vulnerable that need to take care. That is those who are older (like me) and esp those (young or old) with underlying health issueYou really didn't address my point at all. I and many others understand your view about the nanny state. There is really no need to answer every query or contrary view with the same argument. At no point did I disagree with that viewpoint, I merely raised a factual issue which your plan ignored. Your counter is to ignore it again with repetition.
How about addressing the issue of asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic people spreading the virus and how your plan would cater for this. That is quite a simple point. If you can address this issue then maybe we can discuss the nanny state and the economy v health concerns.
-
@Catogrande you new here mate?
-
@Bones said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Catogrande you new here mate?
It's my strict Christian upbringing. If you can save one sinner for heaven, then it's worth trying again.
-
@Catogrande insha'Allah