Spending money to save at risk people might not be profitable!

[Rational Agnostic]

I look forward to this becoming the parroted talking point among the rest of the party faithful that claim they're Right To Life.

You're aware that many people will die from a failed global economy due to a global economic shutdown, right? 650,000 people die annually from the flu. Why don't we all quit going to work for the entire flu season? Maybe because groceries don't pay for themselves?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

You're aware that many people will die from a failed global economy due to a global economic shutdown, right? 650,000 people die annually from the flu. Why don't we all quit going to work for the entire flu season? Maybe because groceries don't pay for themselves?

Chalk and cheese. The seasonal flu doesn't have a ~2% fatality rate. Remember the global response to swine flu a few years back?

 

[Sunstone]

What a foolish statement, based in nothing more than malice and ignorance.

Really? If you on the Right stand for more than economic expediency, then why are you always reducing every political issue except abortion to whether or not it will cost a rich person a dime more in profits that they could otherwise horde in some offshore account?

 

[Father Heathen]

Yet at the same time, the left supports aborting babies based on lack of said "dollars"... As if "dollars" dictate whether a life should enter the world to begin with... Does the circular hypocrisy ever end?

It would only be hypocrisy if they considered something that lacked the attributes of personhood a person, therein lies the difference. Also, forced pregnancy and birth violates one's bodily autonomy which is a human right, thus your analogy falls flat.

Besides, why are you pretending to care about babies when you vote against programs that many of them and their mothers depend upon? How many babies have you adopted that resulted from unwanted pregnancies?

 

[Mock Turtle]

With this virus hitting the elderly much more than any other demographic one might suspect any right-wing government to do their best to keep them alive, given that the elderly do tend to vote that way much more than those younger (for whatever reasons). But, as the #BoomerRemover tag shows, there are numbers who, given the chance, couldn't care less if many of the elderly did die - as long as it wasn't their granny or grandad, or they left them their assets at least.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

In this mess we all have the opportunity to show some responsibility and respect toward one another, and all it takes is sacrificing normalcy for a while and tightening up ship. Anyone talking this sort of sacrifice up as something dire and problematic is simply downright irresponsible. They are admitting they aren't up for the challenge, obviously, and they are too weak to do without their precious [insert convenience here]. Just show some damn restraint, respect and responsibility. Survive and allow others to do the same. Beyond that you're demanding people hand over their lives for you to keep your convenience. Simple as that.

I'd love to sit on my a$$ and play video games in my house indefinitely. But the bills don't stop, and if I can't pay my grocery bills, I starve. Clearly you don't understand basic economics. There is a domino-effect that is happening as different sectors of the economy are shutdown. And, if it continues, the entire domino system of the world economy will fall, and it isn't going to magically come back with a measly $1000 stimulus check.

 

[shmogie]

Seem to remember plenty of talk of killing suspects from lower socioeconomic dogwhistles backgrounds being preferable to all that tiresome trial business.

BS. Prove it. I stated that once upon a time cop killers always resisted arrest and were killed as a result.

I also stated that when I had in my custody a man who had just killed three people, two of them cops, things would have been better for the families of his victims if he had been killed. I stated I wanted to kill him, but did not.

You assume those who kill cops are from lower socioeconomic levels, since I never mentioned it.

I said nothing about "tiresome trials"

In other words, you are blatantly lying.

 

[Sunstone]

You're aware that many people will die from a failed global economy due to a global economic shutdown, right? 650,000 people die annually from the flu. Why don't we all quit going to work for the entire flu season? Maybe because groceries don't pay for themselves?

Give the virus time, Mr. Farnsworth. The fun has only just started and yet we already know it is likely to have a mortality rate at least ten times greater than the flu, and to be even more infectious then the flu. You are confusing early reports of the illness with its total potential.

Flu mortality rates are generally under 1%.

This virus is of a class that has historically come in at 10% to 30% mortality rates. Currently, on incomplete data, it is showing a mortality rate at least double that of flues.

 

[Father Heathen]

Speak for millions of others? Not hardly mate. I speak for me, and believe in many cases those millions of others would agree with me.
Please, comb through my posts, you might learn something very worthwhile.

No, I mean where you have taken the remarks or actions of a few and attempted to paint the entire left with them.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Older people would rather die than let Covid-19 harm US economy – Texas official

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

No, I mean where you have taken the remarks or actions of a few and attempted to paint the entire left with them.

that too. But then, if consistency or self reflection were there strong suits, they wouldn't be trumpettes, would they?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Give the virus time, Mr. Farnsworth. The fun has only just started and yet we already know it is likely to have a mortality rate at least ten times greater than the flu, and to be even more infectious then the flu. You are confusing early reports of the illness with its total potential.

Flu mortality rates are generally under 1%.

This virus is of a class that has historically come in at 10% to 30% mortality rates. Currently, on incomplete data, it is showing a mortality rate at least double that of flues.

You may be correct, but I think the mistake many are making is creating a false dichotomy, namely: saving lives vs. saving the economy, without realizing that the two are not mutually exclusive. Many people WILL die from a massive global depression. Tens of millions of people die annually from infectious diseases of all sorts. Clearly, we could save tens of millions of lives annually if we forced the close of all non-essential businesses all the time. But, the tens of millions of lives that we save from this would be offset by many more starving to death or becoming homeless due to not having money for food or housing. We're between a rock and a hard place here, I fully admit. But, anyone who is realistic can see that a global economic shutdown is not sustainable without catastrophic consequences.

 

[shmogie]

With this virus hitting the elderly much more than any other demographic one might suspect any right-wing government to do their best to keep them alive, given that the elderly do tend to vote that way much more than those younger (for whatever reasons). But, as the #BoomerRemover tag shows, there are numbers who, given the chance, couldn't care less if many of the elderly did die - as long as it wasn't their granny or grandad, or they left them their assets at least.

Is this tag you mention somehow associated with conservative thinking, or just selfish thinking?

In many ways my generation ( baby boomer ) is responsible for these kinds of attitudes.

We decided to give our children what they wanted that we could afford, as often as possible.

We decided to be their friends instead of their parents.

We protected them as much as possible from negative consequences and the slings and arrows of life.

We made them feel that what they wanted was was always critically important.

Now we old geezers are reaping the whirlwind of our misapplied love.

 

[dfnj]

Yet at the same time, the left supports aborting babies based on lack of said "dollars"... As if "dollars" dictate whether a life should enter the world to begin with... Does the circular hypocrisy ever end?

The left doesn't support aborting babies. The left supports a woman's right to choose.

 

[dfnj]

What a foolish statement, based in nothing more than malice and ignorance.

Sometimes the truth hurts for people who are in denial.

 

[dfnj]

Is this tag you mention somehow associated with conservative thinking, or just selfish thinking?

In many ways my generation ( baby boomer ) is responsible for these kinds of attitudes.

We decided to give our children what they wanted that we could afford, as often as possible.

We decided to be their friends instead of their parents.

We protected them as much as possible from negative consequences and the slings and arrows of life.

We made them feel that what they wanted was was always critically important.

Now we old geezers are reaping the whirlwind of our misapplied love.

God, you are such a square.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Is this tag you mention somehow associated with conservative thinking, or just selfish thinking?

In many ways my generation ( baby boomer ) is responsible for these kinds of attitudes.

We decided to give our children what they wanted that we could afford, as often as possible.

We decided to be their friends instead of their parents.

We protected them as much as possible from negative consequences and the slings and arrows of life.

We made them feel that what they wanted was was always critically important.

Now we old geezers are reaping the whirlwind of our misapplied love.

We should be I, since you haven't got the right to speak for all of that generation. As for most generations, about half usually vote for the opposition, many don't vote for particular policies, and mostly we get what our government does rather than what we might want. Also, changing attitudes don't affect all. I never did any illegal drugs for example, didn't get the sex that most apparently got, and wasn't into much of the music that was around then. I suspect the tag mentioned is because here in the UK many do blame the boomers for all sorts of ills when it is simply not justified.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I look forward to this becoming the parroted talking point among the rest of the party faithful that claim they're Right To Life.

Let's just say I agree with the article on principle.

I don't agree with the article on overall practicality.

You should not tank an entire nations economy for 2% of the people.

It's the classic philosophical argument in which needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Oop, didn't take the resident bootlickers long to join us and defend killing grandma.

Well Grandma can die in a car accident.

Should all cars be banned to save a few grandmas? Should you stop driving in vehicles and cars for yourself?

Not so simple is it? Or am I wrong here?

 

[sun rise]

Who is this guy? You think one opinion represents the view of tens of millions?

Italy, according to one of their virologist MD's will no longer allow anyone infected over 60 to go onto breathing support equipment.

Do you suggest those there making these decisions are following some nefarious rule of the American Republican party?

It's the right that's promoting the idea that the old should die for the sake of the economy.

Triage is quite something else and is utterly false equivalence.