Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
The more everyday life is disrupted by the CV 19 virus the closer the world will come to having to ask the following question.
'At what point does the saving of lives not justify the cost of doing so?'
This isn't a callous view and it an incredibly difficult question to answer but think about it for a moment.
As an example, supposing hospitals start postponing operations to free up bed space. Some people who need an operation will die.
Another, lesser example but more relevant, is just how long can a population be confined to their homes with trouble breaking out? It will be OK at first but if it goes on too long, and governments are aware of this, restrictions will have to be lifted because the mass of people of will start ignoring them.
We are already seeing chaos on the financial markets and, if it continues too long, the infrastructure of many countries will break because money will run out. At that point, the cost of saving lives will have to be reconsidered.
I say all of this because it is worth checking out online the flu virus of 2009 and 2010. Between 700,000 and 1.4 million people died in a worldwide outbreak, yet we had almost no disruption to everyday life. Had we known the level of death in advance back then would we have behaved the same as we have today? I doubt it.
But since 2009, I suspect social media has totally tied the hands of government in respect to making hard decisions. Nobody is yet willing to suggest that the price of saving lives is too high because so many more will eventually suffer in many other ways to do so.
A final point to consider is that IF the current virus peters out in an unexpected way (it might mutate) then the over-reaction we are now seeing will cause a big issue in the future.
If, one day, something does come along that really does threaten all of mankind the public will refuse to take it seriously enough, quickly enough, because they will say authorities have 'cried wolf once too often'.
So, all in all, authorities now need to think carefully about what is happening and, to end where I began, probably start to consider 'At what point does the saving of lives not justify the cost of doing so?'.
'At what point does the saving of lives not justify the cost of doing so?'
This isn't a callous view and it an incredibly difficult question to answer but think about it for a moment.
As an example, supposing hospitals start postponing operations to free up bed space. Some people who need an operation will die.
Another, lesser example but more relevant, is just how long can a population be confined to their homes with trouble breaking out? It will be OK at first but if it goes on too long, and governments are aware of this, restrictions will have to be lifted because the mass of people of will start ignoring them.
We are already seeing chaos on the financial markets and, if it continues too long, the infrastructure of many countries will break because money will run out. At that point, the cost of saving lives will have to be reconsidered.
I say all of this because it is worth checking out online the flu virus of 2009 and 2010. Between 700,000 and 1.4 million people died in a worldwide outbreak, yet we had almost no disruption to everyday life. Had we known the level of death in advance back then would we have behaved the same as we have today? I doubt it.
But since 2009, I suspect social media has totally tied the hands of government in respect to making hard decisions. Nobody is yet willing to suggest that the price of saving lives is too high because so many more will eventually suffer in many other ways to do so.
A final point to consider is that IF the current virus peters out in an unexpected way (it might mutate) then the over-reaction we are now seeing will cause a big issue in the future.
If, one day, something does come along that really does threaten all of mankind the public will refuse to take it seriously enough, quickly enough, because they will say authorities have 'cried wolf once too often'.
So, all in all, authorities now need to think carefully about what is happening and, to end where I began, probably start to consider 'At what point does the saving of lives not justify the cost of doing so?'.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 2
|
By:
last week sunak was getting cheered to the rafters rattling out disney land growth figure,hailing the NHS as best in weorld,hailing jobs miracle,3 working days later the country,world is in meltdown, everything was built on straw and lies and couldn't withstand someoine dropping a match,
the billionaires, bransons of this eworld markets, getting their begging letters in 1st latest crazy policy on the hoof rent holidays, uk housing is now built on millions of BTL LANDLORDS, who,s going to them,theyve got bills,mortgages to pay,what would be the monthly rent blli of London alone |
|
By:
Good post, the knight.
Since we have already tolerated a certain amount of death due to flu etc forever, were really talking about how much is too much tolerance. Unless covid-19 becomes the catalyst for permanent curfew and social distancing laws but that seems highly unlikely. Many good responses are neither uncaring or anti-liberal though. Suggesting over 70s might want to self isolate with no obligation to seems fine. If theyre worried about catching or spreading then take the advice and stay home. If they want to organise an open air rave or an orgy of handkerchief sniffing then go right ahead as long as they take responsibility for it. |