It's not about protecting stock options. It's about not destroying an
economy, which will also kill many people. Just different people.
On 3/26/20 1:41 AM, Jake Anderson (Redacted sender jake for DMARC) wrote:
It's complicated because people don't typically enjoy being left to die in their fluids over the course of a few weeks to protect stock options. Despite assurances by those with said stock options that it's really better for society this way.
I understand maths too, I also understand how at these levels you can make statistics say pretty much anything you want to so it's very important to see who is saying them. Further I know enough about the science of economics to know that it's half made up and a lot of the rest is guesswork. Not the best basis for making life and death predictions on IMO.
If you want a purely rational economic argument then nobody over 60 with a net worth less than the likely cost of treatment should be treated. When you run out of money you die. Also insurance should be suspended for people unlikely to recover to preserve the funds for young healthy people and the owners of insurance companies.
Why do we even have healthcare for people over 60? Their grand kids are typically grown enough not to need extended family daycare. Yet these people consume the majority of healthcare costs. They are just a burden on the economically viable young people.
That's not the world I want to live in.
On 26/3/20 6:29 pm, David Summers wrote:
You are under no obligation to spend any money to save my life. Society is marginally better off if you save my life spending $100k. Society is worse off if you spend $100m to save my life.
Why is this complicated? I am not evil because I understand math. The reality was there before the math, the math merely describes it. Emotive reasoning does not change reality.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020, 9:24 PM Jake Anderson <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I guess the equations are different in America than the rest of
the world.
So much freedom.
Should we kill you if I can prove it's good for the economy too?
On 26/3/20 6:08 pm, David Summers wrote:
Speaking very roughly, for every $1-10 M lost someone dies. They
die because we couldn't get the cancer treatment, or the process
wasn't as safe as it could be, etc. So by wiping out a trillion
dollars, long term you have kill 100k to 1m people unless we dig
ourselves out.
Money is life people. Technology, even medical technology,
doesn't matter without the money to deploy it. And money is not
something that can be arbitrarily created or stolen. Theft and
printing money destroys it, rather than create it. Basic economics.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020, 8:58 PM Jake Anderson
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Sorry dad, trumps stockmarket portfolio is going down so you
need to die.
On 26/3/20 4:22 pm, roxanna Mason wrote:
Today one week later:
657 infections, 12 deaths, 43 recovered.
Were's the age vs deaths data? If it's disproportionately
the elderly and health
compromised then maybe its time to get back to work and let
herd immunity do its job.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 3:23 PM Henry Spencer
<hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 10:26 AM ken mason
<laserpro1234@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:laserpro1234@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> Observation: One of the largest population
> country with the lowest infection rate is India -
> Over a billion people with only 244 infected 5
> deaths 20 received. Why?
India and Pakistan are now both on lockdown,
desperately hoping to flatten
the peak enough that their limited medical resources
can more-or-less
cope. It hasn't been done particularly skillfully in
either country, and
they've got big problems with very large numbers of
poor people who don't
have enough safety margin to handle being out of work
for weeks, but
they're trying.
Henry