None. Not one is the answer.
Not sure that's entirely true, even if it's a PR disaster to discuss it in those terms.
For example, there's currently X number of road deaths per year, which we maybe don't seem acceptable acceptable, but we could reduce to almost zero if we decided to totally ban cars for example. But the impact on people from doing that, is not considered more important than those lives. So, for each restriction we place on people, there's a limit to what improvement we expect from it, weighed against the negative from implementing it.
Same goes for cigarettes, alcohol, junk food.
All kinds of stuff.
Hell, the decision (that even a Corbyn government would make) to keep taxes at a low enough level that people can afford luxuries like holidays rather than spending the maximum possible on healthcare is an implicit decision to sacrifice some people's lives for most people's comfort.
Going into mountains of debt and killing thousands of businesses is not a temporary setback.
There is no higher calling for anyone than to bravely give up their life so that a stock may live
Tbf, dantes just said the exact opposite, in that not one person's life should be sacrificed for the economy.I’ll miss Dantes when he sacrifices himself so the rest of us might carry on and build a better world.
He'll only do this after he's uploaded his conciousness to the SCM servers.I’ll miss Dantes when he sacrifices himself so the rest of us might carry on and build a better world.
Of course it is temporary, humans have a good track record of recovering from these things, a 100% track record in fact. You're only a participant in the economy to satisfy your wants and needs. Imagine you were now asked to die to participate in the economy. You'd think hang on a minute, the economy is there for my wants and needs, if I have to die, something doesn't add up in that equation. A few seconds later you will come to the logical conclusion of fuck you, just give me what I want and need or I'll kill you and burn your store to the ground. Do you think society won't come to the same conclusion?
LOL.. Could so easily have been youI immediately thought of myself when you described the person you were quoting, couldn't remember having said any of that, then scoffed at it being Tesla.
Probably not if put in those terms, but it accepts the trade off all the time in the other ways I outlined, and which you ignored.
It's exactly the same trade off.
A small increase in the risk of death for material gain. It's that simple.
The trade off is accepted because they receive the benefit of... a glass of red....
Wtf?
We're realistically a month or so before some more people other key workers can return to work.
We're fuck knows how long away before they can safely allow schools, pubs & public gatherings again, probably whenever a vaccine is made, so the rest of this year plus some of next year?
The exit strategy is fairly simple, same as being in a bunker in war time, stay the fuck inside until it's safe to come out.
The media pressure to lift the restrictions is fucking mental. The pressure should be to ensure that it isn't lifted before its safe to do so, & applying is as simple as repeatedly asking why the athletico match was allowed to go ahead, why Cheltenham went ahead, & how many lives that cost.
Every member of the press needs to ask that repeatedly until they get a fucking answer, instead of remaining supine throughout, & now, changing the narrative.
The 'narrative' should be tens of thousands are dead, many more thousands will be dead, & many thousands of those deaths were needless, how many lives can we save by keeping restrictions in place? Cos that's what actually fucking matters.
Washington Post reporting that cheques to be sent out to people suffering economic hardship in the US have been delayed so as they can print Trump’s name on all of them.
It certainly sounds like the sort of thing he’d do - we’ll know for sure when he starts pointing out who’s name is on the cheque to deflect important questions he can’t answer.
Tbf, dantes just said the exact opposite, in that not one person's life should be sacrificed for the economy.
I actually disagree, I've seen a seemingly endless parade on TV of people who NEED to be sacrificed for the economy, every day at about 4/5pm, in fact.
Yes but the economy can't just be paused indefinitely because there are creditors who need to be paid. So if a small business runs out of cash it's fucked permanently regardless of whether it would be viable once things get going again.
And governments plugging the gaps take on debt permanently, permanently putting stress on public services, the taxpayers, and the currency.
It's not just a matter of patience. Not at all.
Cases of the novel coronavirus in Chile have climbed past 7,500, including 82 deaths, while over 2,300 have recovered from infection as of Tuesday, according to data from Johns Hopkins University.
But coronavirus patients in Chile who have died are being counted among the country's recovered population because they are "no longer contagious," Chile's Health Minister Jaime Mañalich said this week.
"We have 898 patients who are no longer contagious, who are not a source of contagion for others and we include them as recovered. These are the people who have completed 14 days of diagnosis or who unfortunately have passed away," Mañalich announced at a press conference.
Austria has today allowed certain types of businesses to reopen so long as they are in premises under 400m2 (and with restrictions on how many allowed in at one time). Those with larger premises or different types of business can reopen in May.
The UK will go down this road and there's is not a snowball's chance in hell of holding off until the spread of the virus has declined to the point of imperceptibility. Once a decline in new infections is obvious then reopening in stages will commence.
I meant longer-term strategy, and thinking ahead. The exact thing that needs to be done in the future.
Dealing with the current situation, and the situation as it evolves is tactics, not strategy.
The economy can't be allowed to collapse totally, and that's what I meant, not that we should be letting Karen have a BBQ on the local common because it's fucking sunny. But I think some key workers, facilities, businesses and perhaps schools are going to return to operation and open again - in stages - sooner rather than later, and certainly before fucking next year, otherwise far worse is on the horizon.
The amount of times dantes says something, and people can think he meant the exact opposite of what he said, does not reflect well on his communications skills.
Or is it everyone else's cognitive skills?