Pro-Lifer says, "Let them die if it costs me money"

[Jimmy Higgins]

Pro-Lifer says, "Let them die if it costs me money"

I am very concerned. But not to the point that society should come to a standstill. This virus is going to have to run its course. We tolerate tens of thousands of deaths from flu every year with barely a murmur. This is just going to be part of life now.

Yes, we tolerate in a year what we've seen now in two months. And that's what we've seen WITH LOCKDOWN. Do the math.
I for one am hoping this wakes people the fuck up about getting their flu vaccine and staying home when sick. Those tens of thousands bother me, too. But these are much worse. We can already do the math. Here's a picture for you.

View attachment 27161

This is just idiocy at the highest levels seen in a long while. People are arguing because the death toll isn’t too high because of the soft shutdown, we don’t need the soft shutdown. (We don’t need that dam anymore to keep the water behind the dam there.)

The death toll in a couple weeks would have been, what 4 to 5x higher and the hospitals overflowing without the soft shutdown? That estimate is based on the exponential trend around March 24th when we started observing the benefit of school closures setting in.

The soft shutdown worked in stopping the exponential trend. And people are actually arguing the soft shutdown is hysteria. We’d be looking at 150,000 dead otherwise. That isn’t hysteria, that is math. And apparently some people suck at it so badly, they can’t see the obvious truth before them.

You can lead an idiot to facts, but you can’t make them think.

 

[Rhea]

The soft shutdown worked in stopping the exponential trend. And people are actually arguing the soft shutdown is hysteria. We’d be looking at 150,000 dead otherwise. That isn’t hysteria, that is math. And apparently some people suck at it so badly, they can’t see the obvious truth before them.

You can lead an idiot to facts, but you can’t make them think.

Perhaps they have a hard time when counting in units of dead people. Too abstract.

 

[Arctish]

To some extent you're right--in the truly rural areas the transmission threat is low. However, that's not that many people. Most of the objectors have to be suburban reds.

Good point. If the dead are not too many people to worry about, then the bankrupted are also not too many people to worry about, amirite?

This is a very good point.

Yes, an extended shutdown means there will be bankruptcies. Yes, bankruptcies means business owners and employees can lose their livelihoods. But the owners and employees can establish new livelihoods a lot more readily than dead people can get new lives. And let's not forget that in the Age of Social Media, a business linked to a COVID-19 cluster will be clusterf**ked within 24 hours, so it's not like reopening businesses today means they won't close forever tomorrow.

 

[ZiprHead]

It wouldn't be over in three, four weeks.

Firstly, some people don't want to die from COVID-19, or get other people killed through their negligence.

You’re not paying attention. The vast, VAST majority of people don’t die from Covid19. Now, following the lock down etc, it’s probably for the best if we start to build on the herd immunity.

Here's a bag of 100 skittles. One of them is a deadly poison. I'm sure you won't mind taking a chance and trying some.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I find it remarkable that many right-wingers are complacent about the COVID-19 virus. One would expect them to be especially fearful of it, but they are not.

I suspect there's a correlation that's being overlooked. I suspect (but have no proof) that it's more a case of urban versus rural fear levels than it is political persuasion. COVID is having a devastating effect on urban areas, where social distancing is difficult to maintain and where population density makes transmission very effective. Additionally, stay-at-home orders in urban areas are more likely to be highly disruptive to every day life. For people in more rural settings, there's not as much social contact to begin with, and people tend to be more naturally isolated. It stands to reason that people in urban areas would have a higher level of fear and stress related to COVID than people in rural areas.

I think this is the more likely driver of the difference you're observing, with political preference being a correlated effect than a cause.

I think there is some reliance on this myth in the rural areas, but it is nevertheless a myth. Hence their danger
(posting from rural area)
Yes we have more room around our houses.
BUT
- our schools are just as crowded, 25-30 kids to a class, school buses full.
- Our grocery stores only exist every 5-10 miles. So the stores are still full, and we still stand in line.
- Our movie theaters are the same density as urban ones.
- Our restaurants put tables just as close together
- Our churches are just as mega.

Once we get home, it is easy-peasy to self-isolate. And the one thing we DON'T have is public transportation. But in very many ways, we are just as "crowded" as NYC and DC.


The measure of this is in counties like mine are that people don't take it very seriously, then one funeral happens with an out of town guest and 100 people are infected and 20 dead representing a rate equal to Fairfax county, VA.

But the myth to them is that we're all safe.

I don't know what she was picturing but that's not what I was picturing as truly rural. The sort of places I was picturing are sparse enough that you don't get out all that much because it takes too long to get anywhere.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

To some extent you're right--in the truly rural areas the transmission threat is low. However, that's not that many people. Most of the objectors have to be suburban reds.

Good point. If the dead are not too many people to worry about, then the bankrupted are also not too many people to worry about, amirite?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Almost 40 THOUSAND people are DEAD.

So what’s the acceptable level before we get back to our lives ? 30k ? 20k ? What we looking at here, when no one dies, ever ?

Your approach would mean it would be more likely to be 3 million. Are you ok with that?

 

[Rhea]

I don't know what she was picturing but that's not what I was picturing as truly rural. The sort of places I was picturing are sparse enough that you don't get out all that much because it takes too long to get anywhere.

My county (more than 1000 square miles) has a population density of about 70 people per square mile. That’s an average, tho. If you subtract out our “cities” (20K people per city), then it’s more like 30ppl/mi2. We don’t get out much - except for school, groceries, bars, funerals, town board meetings and the occasional movie. The folks in our cities probably do more,

Everyone needs groceries. Because of our rural nature, we tend to go once a week or less. But we do wait in lines at the grocery. And we show up for funerals. And our kids go to schools.

 

[Rhea]

To some extent you're right--in the truly rural areas the transmission threat is low. However, that's not that many people. Most of the objectors have to be suburban reds.

Good point. If the dead are not too many people to worry about, then the bankrupted are also not too many people to worry about, amirite?

I was playing the role of the person who wants to “open up” who say it is not a big deal that 1% of the population dies - pointing out then why is it a big deal if 1% of the population goes bankrupt, either?

 

[Half-Life]

Here's a bag of 100 skittles. One of them is a deadly poison. I'm sure you won't mind taking a chance and trying some.

That was Donald Trump JR's argument against Islamic immigration.

Glad to see you might finally be coming around!

 

[Ford]

Taking a stay at home order and turning it into a recommendation to appease the mouth breathers will further endanger those of us who have enough sense to stay at home when we do have to go out for groceries and other necessities.

Mouth breathers or not, people are suffering extreme hardships because they have had their livelihoods taken away from them unnecessarily. It's enough already. It's time to ease up and start allowing some businesses to open. Keeping the "stay at home/shelter in place" order because of mass hysteria is unnecessary and unjust.

Almost 40 THOUSAND people are DEAD.

Granted, the Trumpster has said no words of empathy or sorrow.
But if that's "Hysteria" to you also, then you appear to have a pretty cold heart.

It's instructive here to focus on one part of the argument TSwizzle made:

...they have had their livelihoods taken away from them unnecessarily.

At the core of this is the idea that money is of greater importance than life. An odd position for any "pro-life" person to take, but not without historical precedent. In fact from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution up until the early 20th Century, this idea was pervasive. So your 12 year old kid lost an arm in a machine after working a 60 hour week for a few dollars a day? So what? The factory has to stay productive! Your grandfather died after a short life of inhaling toxic fumes in the mine? So what? We need coal!

As I wrote that last bit, I remembered my own grandfather, who worked in the coal mines in Wales as a teenager, and went on to become an RAF pilot in WWII. He'd happily share tales of his time in the war, but went silent if you dared ask about the mines. Let that sink in for a moment. The terror of the worst war in human history < working in a mine as a child.

Anyway, it does indeed appear to be cold-hearted to say "40,000 dead? No big deal! We need the economy open!", but that's what you're dealing with. People who put money over lives. Shut up and get back to work, because "captains of industry" need a new yacht, or a refresh of the kitchen in their Hampton's home. That stuff is important. Lives? Not so much.

There was a scene in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" that always bothered me. I'd have to go crack open the book for all the details, but it was near the end when the protagonists were breaking into some facility to put their plan into motion, and Dagny straight up murdered a hapless security guard in cold blood. The excuse boiled down to "he was standing in the way of unfettered capitalism."

Now, is TSwizzle a captain of industry? With a home in the Hampton's or a yacht? Probably not. But the profit over lives people need willing accomplices or they won't get anything done.

 

[Half-Life]

Almost 40 THOUSAND people are DEAD.

Granted, the Trumpster has said no words of empathy or sorrow.
But if that's "Hysteria" to you also, then you appear to have a pretty cold heart.

It's instructive here to focus on one part of the argument TSwizzle made:

...they have had their livelihoods taken away from them unnecessarily.

At the core of this is the idea that money is of greater importance than life. An odd position for any "pro-life" person to take, but not without historical precedent. In fact from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution up until the early 20th Century, this idea was pervasive. So your 12 year old kid lost an arm in a machine after working a 60 hour week for a few dollars a day? So what? The factory has to stay productive! Your grandfather died after a short life of inhaling toxic fumes in the mine? So what? We need coal!

As I wrote that last bit, I remembered my own grandfather, who worked in the coal mines in Wales as a teenager, and went on to become an RAF pilot in WWII. He'd happily share tales of his time in the war, but went silent if you dared ask about the mines. Let that sink in for a moment. The terror of the worst war in human history < working in a mine as a child.

Anyway, it does indeed appear to be cold-hearted to say "40,000 dead? No big deal! We need the economy open!", but that's what you're dealing with. People who put money over lives. Shut up and get back to work, because "captains of industry" need a new yacht, or a refresh of the kitchen in their Hampton's home. That stuff is important. Lives? Not so much.

There was a scene in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" that always bothered me. I'd have to go crack open the book for all the details, but it was near the end when the protagonists were breaking into some facility to put their plan into motion, and Dagny straight up murdered a hapless security guard in cold blood. The excuse boiled down to "he was standing in the way of unfettered capitalism."

Now, is TSwizzle a captain of industry? With a home in the Hampton's or a yacht? Probably not. But the profit over lives people need willing accomplices or they won't get anything done.

Do you know how many Americans suffered for years during the Great Depression? Keeping the economy closed for too long means our descendants could suffer for years as well. If we open it soon, the deaths will be big now, but less than if we closed the economy indefinitely and millions of families all of a sudden experience extreme poverty for possibly a decade.

If you value human life, you do open it up.

But as to your "40,000 deaths" argument, if the choice is "40,000 deaths" and "millions of deaths over a depression induced decade," then any sane sensible rational person would choose the 40,000 deaths. Obviously, we wish it to be 0 deaths. But, if those are the only 2 options you can choose, then anyone is lying if they say they wouldn't choose the 40,000.

 

[Arctish]

But as to your "40,000 deaths" argument, if the choice is "40,000 deaths" and "millions of deaths over a depression induced decade," then any sane sensible rational person would choose the 40,000 deaths. Obviously, we wish it to be 0 deaths. But, if those are the only 2 options you can choose, then anyone is lying if they say they wouldn't choose the 40,000.

It's "40,000 deaths since the beginning of March with new infections still occurring at an exponential rate" not "40,000 deaths, tops".

Any sane sensible rational person would choose the economic disruption of furloughs for non-essential workers over the economic disruption of a 3-5% fatality rate coupled with COVID-19's current rate of infection.

 

[Patooka]

Do you know how many Americans suffered for years during the Great Depression? Keeping the economy closed for too long means our descendants could suffer for years as well. If we open it soon, the deaths will be big now, but less than if we closed the economy indefinitely and millions of families all of a sudden experience extreme poverty for possibly a decade.

If you value human life, you do open it up.

But as to your "40,000 deaths" argument, if the choice is "40,000 deaths" and "millions of deaths over a depression induced decade," then any sane sensible rational person would choose the 40,000 deaths. Obviously, we wish it to be 0 deaths. But, if those are the only 2 options you can choose, then anyone is lying if they say they wouldn't choose the 40,000.

Wow. I have never seen a sunk cost fallacy demonstrated so superbly. Do you honestly think lifting quarantine measures when there is no effective testing (let alone a workable vaccine), in effect exposing more people to this pandemic is going to save lives? That's the argument you're making?

 

[lpetrich]

Any sane sensible rational person would choose the economic disruption of furloughs for non-essential workers over the economic disruption of a 3-5% fatality rate coupled with COVID-19's current rate of infection.

That's around how many people died as a result of Joseph Stalin's persecutions. But when it's for the benefit of the economic elite, right-wingers eagerly defend the prospect of that happening.

This is an economic elite that is not giving away any of its assets to keep ordinary people going.

 

[ZiprHead]

Well, someone finally gets it.

 

[marc]

Well, someone finally gets it.

View attachment 27171

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, someone finally gets it.

View attachment 27171

there was a guy in 1987 protesting abortions in Virginia. The court made a sweeping decision, all protesters had to be 50 yards from any clinic. "How dare the government tell je what i can and cannot do with my body!!" I thought it was commendable that the anouncer kept a straight face.


Ot's so very weord that there's such a huge overlap, people insisting they're free to ignore state mandates who, a short time ago, were insisting the entire solution to Black Lives Matter was, 'If the cops tell you to do something, you do it!"

 

[marc]

Ot's so very weord that there's such a huge overlap, people insisting they're free to ignore state mandates who, a short time ago, were insisting the entire solution to Black Lives Matter was, 'If the cops tell you to do something, you do it!"

Somebody else noticed

 

[Ford]

Do you know how many Americans suffered for years during the Great Depression? Keeping the economy closed for too long means our descendants could suffer for years as well. If we open it soon, the deaths will be big now, but less than if we closed the economy indefinitely and millions of families all of a sudden experience extreme poverty for possibly a decade.

If you value human life, you do open it up.

But as to your "40,000 deaths" argument, if the choice is "40,000 deaths" and "millions of deaths over a depression induced decade," then any sane sensible rational person would choose the 40,000 deaths. Obviously, we wish it to be 0 deaths. But, if those are the only 2 options you can choose, then anyone is lying if they say they wouldn't choose the 40,000.

Wow. I have never seen a sunk cost fallacy demonstrated so superbly. Do you honestly think lifting quarantine measures when there is no effective testing (let alone a workable vaccine), in effect exposing more people to this pandemic is going to save lives? That's the argument you're making?

I've never seen such a display of willful ignorance!

Oh who am I kidding? Willful ignorance is par for the course with Halfie.

I've just got done re-watching Ken Burns' excellent documentary on The Dust Bowl...an event which preceded the Depression by a bit and then overlapped with it until just prior to America joining in WWII. It was a catastrophe caused by human ignorance and lack of foresight. Kinda like opening the economy up in the middle of a global pandemic. High estimates are that 7,000 people died as a result, but the economic impact of the Dust Bowl alone made this current situation look like a walk in the park. It isn't just that the family farm shut down because they wanted to socially distance, but the entire farm was wiped out by dust.

But "millions of deaths over a depression induced decade?" Life expectancy in America actually went UP during the Depression. Fewer traffic deaths, less drinking and smoking, fewer workplace accidents, and even lower blood pressure have been cited as reasons. Yes, there were some suicides at the outset, but simply being broke did not lead to massive numbers of people dying. It was rough (my grandparents lived through it, and it was not pretty), but folks didn't generally just cast themselves down on a lonely hill and die of "grief."

By comparison, the 1918 flu pandemic killed 675,000 people in the US. Part of the reason is that some idiots in power felt it was more important to keep the economy "open" rather than prevent the spread of the virus. What Halfie doesn't seem to grasp (one of the many things, anyway) is that the US economy is incredibly resilient. Yes, the Great Depression sucked. My grandfather even considered throwing a brick through a store window at one point. Not because he wanted to rob the place, but because he would be arrested, go to jail, and get three squares a day. He didn't go through with it. What followed was a little trip to Italy to fight Nazis, while my grandma worked in the factory in Detroit and great grandma raised their three kids. The Dust Bowl, followed by the Depression, followed by the most devastating war in history hurt the economy far more than a few months of social distancing could ever do. Then the US government threw a huge amount of money into rebuilding war-torn Europe and remaking Japan.

Did millions die from the economic impact? No. In fact the post-war period was pretty damned good economically. I've made the argument that the Depression was ended not by the "miracle of the free market," but by a massive government spending program (WWII) that hijacked large parts of the economy, and that the "back to work" programs initiated by FDR simply hadn't gone far enough.

In any case, what Halfie (and apparently Tswizzle and others) are presenting is a false dichotomy taken to absurd extremes. This is not a choice between a "mere" 40,000 deaths or millions as a result of depression. That's the dumbest thing I've read all day. Then again, the day is young.