bubblypop wrote: » Frontline worker here. Funny you speaking for all over 70s there, the majority I speak with, every day, seem to be very happy with the way it is right now. They know it's not forever & they are very resilient. A lot more than the snowflakes I see posting on here
Idbatterim wrote: » many are actually better off now, not working and on the E350 with no commute costs etc...
IAMAMORON wrote: » Do you think so?
housemouse wrote: » The lockdown policy is driven by fear and panic. Medical experts are not economists. They are tasked with fixing one problem: the spread of disease. They don't know how (because it's not their job, and it's difficult) to do a proper cost-benefit analysis. The policy of lockdown means the death of our economies. A temporary death, yes. But with long-term consequences that reduce the wealth, happiness and life expectancy of everybody. A cost-benefit analysis would try to understand what were the full costs of the policy, and see if there are alternatives that are better value, i.e. the opportunity cost. For example, the Central Bank has predicted that the cost to the Irish government of the current lockdown policy will be €22 billion. I'm going to ignore the absolutely huge cost to everybody else and focus only on this €22 billion cost to government. The supply of ICU care isn't cheap and the supply of nurses and doctors is not very elastic. But for the cost of ten overpriced children's hospitals, don't tell me there was no alternative. The lockdown is already going to cost an entire annual healthcare budget in lost taxes and income supports. More, if it is extended. Investing any amount up to €22 billion in ICU care and other measures to deal with the virus would be cheaper to the Irish government than the policy of lockdown, and would be far better for all private citizens and private business. GDP is expected to fall by 8% this year, thanks to lockdown - this has real-life consequences. A proper cost-benefit analysis would also include the remaining life expectancy of those who are vulnerable to Covid-19, after taking into account their other underlying health conditions. The media doesn't bother distinguishing between those dying with the virus, versus those who die of the virus. Health budgets should be focused on extending survival for those who can have a high quality of life (see the recent article by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick on his website for more). The total number of deaths in Western countries has not increased by any noticeable amount as a result of this virus. And the life expectancy of the typical victim might well be less than 2 years, given their age and existing conditions - so the virus is likely to make almost no difference to the total number of deaths over the next year or two. If you think it makes sense to spend €22 billion on this project, then you haven't considered the alternatives.
threeball wrote: » All countries are in the same boat. There will be debt write down or massive injections. Italy won't survive without this.
beggars_bush wrote: » A lot of staff from creches earning more now while at home
Gael23 wrote: » https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/coronavirus-ireland-s-infection-peak-may-have-passed-toll-could-hit-400-by-august-report-forecasts-1.4223043?mode=amp
Retr0gamer wrote: » Cost benefit analysis is all well and good it you are an analyst shaving off pennies buy reducing packaging on a product against the cost of a new production line. It's a little bit different when you are dealing with people's lives. It's some real sociopathic craziness like we see in America and the UK to put an economic price on people's lives.
brutes1 wrote: » Yes totally agree and would go farther and question the whole agenda re lockdown . Never happened before with bad flu or Swine flu seasons. Needs to end know. I am not sure if any politican has any courage to put forward this though it is incredible the lack of critical thinking. Although I understand questions are limited or not allowed at briefings and the Dail is shut. Why .
terrydel wrote: » If it was your 70+ year old parent and a middle aged person who you were asked to choose between, who would you choose? Your post comes across as about as cold and lacking in any empathy or humanity as it is possible to be. Life is not measured on a spreadsheet.
Idbatterim wrote: » I know several that are... Look, they have paid into the system, they are far more worthy of it, than hundreds of thousands of others here, bleeding the system dry from cradle to grave, supported by FG etc. I just know in quite a lot of cases, say someone on twenty hour week, min wage, roughly a tenner. Two hundred odd. Now getting E350 and you have to bear in mind, many if living at home etc, wont have to pay rent or virtually anything out of it...
housemouse wrote: » If a government body is making the decision and it costs the same to extend one person's life by 2 years as it does to extend another person's by 20 years, then it should choose the latter. This is what happens in the UK and other countries which try to make the most out of limited resources. I don't necessarily believe the government should have the power to make that decision, but that is what it should do, if it is making the decision. In a world of finite resources, decisions have to be made. When they are made in a state of fear and panic, they tend to be poor ones.
terrydel wrote: » So I'll ask again, they are choosing your old parent or someone half that age, do you fully endorse the decision to allow your parent die in the scenario you are effectively advocating? Unless you have facts, numbers and details to back up your assertion that the decisions taken are poor, your statements have no merit whatsoever and are nothing more than your opinion.
Padre_Pio wrote: » I don't know anything about domestic violence, but I don't see how banning alcohol is going to do much to alleviate domestic violence. An abusive relationship is still abusive, whether alcohol is involved or no. At the same time, the 99.99% of people who drink responsibly are going to go spare and start breaking restrictions. As my mother would say, it's ridiculous she has to go out shopping twice on Sunday, as she can't buy wine before 10am. What's the point of having a dedicated time for over 60's when parts of the shop are still shut? Builders providers are still open. You can still buy paint if you want. Ya know i doubt that. The hordes of people on Harcourt street every night aren't sitting at home now necking vodka and red bull.
Padre_Pio wrote: » Builders providers are still open. You can still buy paint if you want.
housemouse wrote: » There were plenty of facts and numbers given in my original post. Many people can't process the reality of finite resources and health budgeting, so they react like you do, instead of adding to the discussion. Have a good day.
terrydel wrote: » You added nothing other than turning human life into cells on a spreadsheet, I'll have a great day knowing Im not you.
KiKi III wrote: » No, they're not. If you adjust for population, there's a difference of about 25%, which is massive.
Because economists rarely think about people and often get figures quite wrong. Mostly because they guess/project based off their own biases of course Medicine is a hard science. Economics isn’t. And policy can’t be decided solely by either
Pete_Cavan wrote: » The thing about the restrictions is, vulnerable people can (and probably should) self-restrict even after restrictions generally have eased. Not doing so is effectively the person making the decision you mention above for themselves. As long as the health system is coping, such dilemmas are not more common than is normally the case (and these dilemmas do exist in normal times). How about the people not currently having other necessary medical treatments, where do they fit in in your over-simplified scenario?
