Or well prepared? It is usually a LOT cheaper to have avoidance and mitigation measures in place than it is trying to clean up the mess afterwards.
S
General / Off-Topic The safest place
- Thread starter Robin of Spiritwood
- Start date
- Status
Or well prepared? It is usually a LOT cheaper to have avoidance and mitigation measures in place than it is trying to clean up the mess afterwards.
S
Or well prepared? It is usually a LOT cheaper to have avoidance and mitigation measures in place than it is trying to clean up the mess afterwards.
.....
Because they can't afford to.
This is blatantly false. For tens of millions of Americans saving 10% of their income would mean not being able to eat or pay rent. Nearly 17 million households have negative net worth. Any surplus they come into has to go to holding debt at bay, because saving it would risk eviction, foreclosure, loss of utilities, or a necessary vehicle being repossessed.
"Just save more money" isn't a solution when expenses already exceed income and there is no money left over to save.
We generally aren't talking about 'huge heaps of money', nor is this list remotely the list of sacrifices that would be rational.
I'm thinking fewer corporate rebates and bailouts, maybe a few less border fences of highly dubious utility, delaying the commissioning of that 12th supercarrier, or paying politicians less.
That assumes there is not enough money for everything. Also, it assumes that the disaster fallout will not impact those other things. We are seeing quite clearly a spill-over from the pandemic into other aspects of human wellfare, and you don't have to have COVID-19 to suffer the consequences of its presence.
S
As he replies on his computer as predicted through the ISP he pays for, likely along with his cable bill...
Well done
All too easy
In the Netherlands the last two weeks the total national mortality is roughly twice the norm. Directly or indirectly COVID19 killed as many people as all other causes combined. And that is despite a massive drop in traffic incidents, crime statistics and so on due to the measures taken to slow the spread. Last year the flu was a relatively small blip. The year before that it was one of the worst flu seasons here in many, many years. COVID19 absolutely dwarfs it. Despite all the measures taken. It is good to be critical, it always is. And there is a lot of misinformation floating around, either by accident or sometimes on purpose. But we can safely stop comparing this with the flu at this point.
What the best path to take is now? That is very, very hard. You have the 'objective' elements: what will happen regarding the number of fatalities given each scenario? How will individuals and groups respond to each scenario? What is the likelihood of compliance, and what are the consequences when compliance drops below certain threshold? What are the economic consequences of each scenario? All of this is based on extraordinarily complex models, each with a healthy margin of error, applied in a context of a scope and complexity rarely seen before. And when all the virologists, chemists, doctors, sociologists and econometricians have run their models you have the 'subjective' parts where the cultural, societal, legal and political spheres all weigh in on the matter.
I dont know what the answer is. But I do know that ignoring the crisis for the sake of the economy will have consequences that are on a completely different scale than the flu. And on the other hand a 18 month lockdown is simply not going to have anywhere near the required level of compliance without going full police-state, even if it was financially possible to do so, which it is not. We'll have to find a middle road, and even the smallest nuances will influence the number of people who will die, and the economy for many, many years to come.
Last edited:
That assumes there is not enough money for everything. Also, it assumes that the disaster fallout will not impact those other things. We are seeing quite clearly a spill-over from the pandemic into other aspects of human wellfare, and you don't have to have COVID-19 to suffer the consequences of its presence.
Not sure where I implied that I'm in anyway suffering from financial hardship.
Most Americans are no where near as well off as you or I.
I don't think anyone is advocating an "either or" approach.
Although I'm sure some would accuse me of that.
We need a sensible return to employment before the printing presses burn out and the "free" money stops falling from the tree. I don't think it makes any sense to ignore anything that can seriously impact one's life.
That assumes there is not enough money for everything. Also, it assumes that the disaster fallout will not impact those other things. We are seeing quite clearly a spill-over from the pandemic into other aspects of human wellfare, and you don't have to have COVID-19 to suffer the consequences of its presence.
I absolutely agree that the effects of a disaster are likely to be more damaging than the cost of preparation.
The problem is, a government that plans to spend money on stuff that might happen instead of spending it on stuff that definitely is happening all the time probably isn't going to be that popular.
Doesn't really matter which side of the political fence you sit on.
A party that announces they plan to spend a heap of money on disaster prevention is going to get labelled as a bunch of "loony doomsday preppers" by their opponents and they're probably going to lose some support of their own voters as well.
Let's face it, everybody's a political NIMBY.
Tree-huggers are going to be happy with money spent on disaster prevention unless it reduces funding for environmental projects.
Workers are going to be happy with money spent on disaster prevention unless it reduces funding for industry.
Parents are going to be happy with money spent on disaster prevention unless it reduces funding for education.
Unemployed people are going to be happy with money spent on disaster prevention unless it reduces funding for welfare.
Etc.
It'd be nice if this C19 epidemic did compel governments to make better plans but, at the end of the day, when they've got voters screeching about a variety of immediate concerns, I wouldn't count on it.
Well I didn't get there by ignoring prudent allocation of my resources. I wasn't handed anything.
Sound money management is even more important when your income is low than when it's high. Just ask Mike Tyson.
And by the way - I didn't imply - nor do I care - anything regarding your financial status.
It's that logic thing again.
It is certainly an economic experiment! A shame the lockdown method is better for viral diseases with faster showing and clearer symptoms. Here in NZ it for now seems to be working, but how the economy looks on the other side is a good question.
It's also an exercise in the difference between caution and precaution. With caution we limit activities to avoid an effect (lockdown). With precaution, we put in measures to limit an effect, but otherwise allow the activity to continue (better hygiene, etc). The main issue with lockdown is how it hits different population groups differently - it is basically a method suitable mostly for the well off.
And yes, people tend to want public funds spent on their own immediate concerns, not on things that are distant concerns even when the consequences of those things are dire. It is often seen as development creep into sensitive and/or dangerous areas. Because, well, "nothing has happened for ages".
S
Last edited:
Not everyone has the same opportunities. Even those who did and didn't make the best use of them earlier may be in over their heads now.
Not in dispute.
You implied that there was something incongruous about my statements because I could afford internet access.
Last edited:
Ha, I keep tabs on the comment section of the most frequently visited Dutch news site (it isn't clearly biased, but I don't think they have any actual journalists on the staff either
). The comment section is a pretty decent representation of what 'the people' think and you'll find a worrying number of people who want either a complete lockdown until there is a vaccine ("we cant sacrifice any lives on the altar of the economy!"), and people who just want to ignore it ("old people die anyway!"). Most are like you and me, looking for a sensible solution.What helps is that we have a less polarized and politicized culture in the Netherlands than many other countries in Europe and elsewhere (the so-called Polder-model). We have piles of political parties on the left (generic left, green, animal welfare, socialist and even a genuine communist party), three Christian parties ('hip', traditional and hardcore-women-should-not-vote), parties on the right (conservative, neo-liberal, nationalist) and various 'miscellaneous' parties (elderly interests, minority/migrant interests and so forth). During one election, all my mates voted each for a different party for example. As such we're all pretty accustomed to disagreeing on some issues, and everyone agrees with everyone else on at least some other issues. A consequence on a higher level is that everyone has to work with everyone at some point or another; consensus is in all our interest and 'playing it hard' might get you a short-term success but will cost you in the long run.
As an example strikes are rare in the Netherlands, despite ever-present unions. Unions and employers (we also have employer unions!) simply sit together, exchange perspectives, run various models and end up with an agreeable consensus. Sometimes a major employer can show convincing evidence that an increase in wage would be unreasonably damaging to the company, other times compelling arguments are presented that employees deserve better; in the end reasonable arguments typically prevail. In contrast in Belgium there are non-stop strikes. Completely different culture: employers offer unreasonably low wages, unions demand unreasonably high wages, no agreement ever is made but everyone makes a lot of noise. It (no offense intended) reminds me quite a bit of the situation in the US; when I read the media outlets all I see are clear sides, biases and the focus is on scoring points and 'being right' rather than finding common ground and getting things done.
I much prefer the Dutch model.
Last edited:
Game?
If I was mistaken about what you wanted to convey here, I'd appreciate clarification.
What does my ISP have to do with anything I said in the post you quoted?
5/15
See, this is where the shrivelled husk of leftie really does come out in me.
We (in the UK) have a situation where everybody with enough money has bought up every house bigger than a shoebox, partitioned it into half a dozen
Now we've got the C19 epidemic and we're being told to "self isolate", despite the fact that millions of people are living in shared properties, with shared bathrooms and kitchens, that were originally built to house a single family.
Despite the fact that I live in a small town, I've got a mate who (with his girlfriend and child) lives in a single room of a 3 floor house, with 7 other residents, and they've had to draw up a timetable for using the kitchen and bathroom - and disinfect it afterwards.
But at least a big ol' house has a decent garden, right?
Well, no.
The owner long-since built an extension over the garden to squeeze another 2 renters into the property.
Honestly, there ought to be a law......
It is pretty clear here in NZ as well, as we do have very serious issues with especially child poverty, often seemingly along cultural divides. On my street, the locals are mainly polynesians living either out of choice in big family units, or out of necessity in overcrowded rental housing. My wife and I, white middle-class and approaching middle age, live with our piles of cats and chickens but otherwise without other relatives in the house. I, working as a GIS analyst and geologist can (and have) work from home, and her work for the regional council has been taken home as well. Life continues, with only our access to our horse on off-site grazing reduced.
Meanwhile, we can watch the fireworks in the public housing across the street, complete with in-street domestic spats and gang confrontations. The police are regular visitors, and that hasn't reduced during the lockdown at all! Many of the occupants are stuck with their children, living in garages.
COVID-19 was here first feared and used as yet another excuse for hating asians. Now it has been laughed off by some as a white man's disease. I fear that when it takes hold in the poorer communities of "necessary workers" (which we don't really pay like they really are that necessary, like everywhere else I cynically assume), it's going to burn hard and fast at least among those there with existing respiratory issues.
S
Just think back to the more than enormous bailouts of Banks in 2008 ? At a fraction of the cost, good preparation for a Pandemic is doable...
- Status