Penfailed wrote: » What would you rather? More deaths and a booming economy? The world is going to enter a recession regardless of what Leo and the lads do.
lord quackinton wrote: » The actions taken by this government is what is causing our economy to implode I will say what the majority of people believe but won’t say It is a Recession we are entering but it has the potential to be a long term economic depression Public sector employees and those on social welfare this time will receive huge live changing cuts You think 2008 was bad, what is coming this year could be widespread panic Take the question you asked and flip it on yourself My answer is 10,000 lives annually is acceptable if it means we can save our economy and our country and our children’s future
Ace2007 wrote: » Do you trust that journalist knows the difference between median and average given how few on here do? What source do they quoted for their figures For example Tony states that the age range for all deaths is from 32 to 105. So that means that are young people dying - but that’s not getting reported here - all I read about is the elderly dying
Blueshoe wrote: » Low risk of dying group still can catch and spread the virus. Imagine an office of young people. They are working away and different individuals become infected and start spreading it around between each other, when they shop, when they are out and about. You are not solving anything by allowing people who might not die from the virus to go back to work as per normal. You are actually allowing the virus to spread again. Not a hope in hell of the government risking that.
Cupatae wrote: » They had a choice to make, protect the people or protect the economy, they chose the people, and rightly so imo we can always rebuild.. look at the UK tried to protect the economy and are paying a high price for it now.
Plumbthedepths wrote: » The IMF has described what is coming as the biggest economic shock since the Great Depression.https://m.economictimes.com/news/economy/indicators/covid-19-imf-anticipates-sharply-negative-economic-growth-fallout-since-the-great-depression/articleshow/75067158.cms
Cork Boy 53 wrote: » If restrictions are lifted too soon before a vaccine is developed the annual death toll would be far higher than 10000. You could multiply that figure by a factor of 7 or 8.
Penfailed wrote: » Yep. Nothing the Irish government will do can change that.
Blueshoe wrote: » Excuse me?
Plumbthedepths wrote: » So just push the economy over a cliff? What outcomes do you think the health service will deliver in a depression style environment. We have seen what it delivers in an age of austerity .
Cupatae wrote: » So just protect the economy at all costs, till the health service gets overrun, what sort of economy do you think we d have with mass amounts of people getting sick/dying?
Nermal wrote: » Twaddle, absolute twaddle. Show your work. Show how 80,000 people could die from this here, and show us your references.
Plumbthedepths wrote: » Nope, but there needs to be a balance not an economic wasteland after a lockdown.
[Deleted User] wrote: » One thing that must be factored into the equation is that very sick people cannot work. Even if we just let nature/virus take its course this illness will cause a 14 day absence from work in each individual it causes a mild-moderate illness in. Then the more seriously afflicted you get people will likely be out of work up to a month. Considering it’s so infectious that’s a lot of sick people unable to work, even if we were to dispense with lives and overcrowd hospitals, and bring out the body bags and makeshift morgues. That’s a major toll on the economy in itself.
Cupatae wrote: » I agree, but i think beating/controlling the virus as quick as possible is still the best way to protect the economy, in the long game.
donaghs wrote: » In the 20s/30s healthy group less than 50% probably will have symptoms. And even half of them being sick is still more than telling everyone to stay at home?
donaghs wrote: » As quick as possible means letting to it spread as quickly as possible. Those you recover get immunity. Hard to stomach the death toll on that. Especially without a healthcare system ready for it.
Cupatae wrote: » Ah a vaccine within a year is happy talk, then u have people the world over demanding it... id say if we have one within 2 we d be doing well. I think the ultimate goal is management of it, at this stage.. just control the numbers flowing into hospitals but there is alot riding on when the returns to work begin and how.. i imagine it ll be a very different world we ll be returning to we ll have a new definition of "normal"
Cupatae wrote: » Who looks after the sick ? when the hospitals get overrun? the healthy 20/30 yr olds are gonna look after who every in there family that is sick, there is no straight forward solution and i dont think there is any outcome now where the economy does take a massive hit its simply a case of buckle up. Infairness to the government i think they are making the right calls and doing the best they can, i dont think anyone wants a great depression style economy if it can be avoided.
Cupatae wrote: » I meant as quick as possible while saving the most at risk, i wouldnt sacrifice people for economy sake.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d290c7df69a5f031e01b26c4e297c4c6.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/07abd39dc4f0afde3c391afc78cc920e.svg)
