Poor people wouldn't be better off if you gave them free healthcare and raised the minimum wage? That's not going to fly. You might argue that the country as a whole wouldn't be better off, and that is the usual argument, but you can't argue that certain sectors would not be better off when you redistribute money their way. Just like you can't argue that the rich are not better off when you give them tax cuts. It's literally nonsense. — Baden

If you raise minimum wage, you reduce minimum wage jobs, so, whether the whole sector benefits isn't obviously so. Medicaid is free healthcare for the poor. They already have that. The rich keep more money if you pass a law that they keep more money. That I agree with.

The coronavirus has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. If we ought to increase minimum wage or whether all sorts of government benefits ought be increased or decreased is no more or less evident or obvious due to this pandemic. Whether you're a right wing libertarian or a totalitarian Marxist, this pandemic is not cause for you to lose your religion, and that is the gist of my (recent) objection to this meandering conversation. This whole "let's take advantage of every crisis in order to advance our political agenda" thing is what I'm objecting to.

I think there is a political discussion to be had here. For example, the much touted healthcare systems of Europe, often held against the American system as far superior, are not fairing much better when put to the test in this crisis. The notion that we must risk our livelihoods and put ourselves on lockdown to keep them from collapsing is damning, in my opinion.

The principles underlying our systems of government are being put to the test, and I think the political implications are severe.

I don’t agree. The world can act together. The quicker the developed countries get sorted out the sooner they can ship supplies and equipment to help out.

I hope you're right, although even if it does go the way you lay out. It will be to late. The help is needed now and the West is nowhere near coming out the other side of the first peak yet. The help wouldn't start to be sent out for a few months at the earliest and there are to many countries crying out for help now. Just imagine if that Ebola outbreak had been in multiple countries at the same time, it would have been a struggle to get it under control even with our own countries not infected.

think there is a political discussion to be had here. For example, the much touted healthcare systems of Europe, often held against the American system as far superior, are not fairing much better when put to the test in this crisis. The notion that we must risk our livelihoods and put ourselves on lockdown to keep them from collapsing is damning, in my opinion. — NOS4A2

This strikes me as two points: (1) those nations with public healthcare are not faring any better than the US, and (2) we shouldn't allow for a lockdown because it risks our livelihoods.

I agree with #1 because it's true. I disagree with #2 because it's dependent upon what the greater good is. That is, if there were a nationwide pandemic of Ebola, I think we'd all agree everyone would have to do their share to be sure we didn't all start dying in the streets, regardless of the risk to our livelihood. I suspect you distinguish the coronavirus from ebola in that you believe the danger posed by the former has been hyped up and you don't believe it's that dangerous. If that's the case, that's a debate over the empirical evidence showing its dangerousnes, not a debate over the general question of whether we have a duty to society not to infect our neighbors with deadly diseases.

Just imagine if that Ebola outbreak had been in multiple countries at the same time, it would have been a struggle to get it under control even with our own countries not infected. — Punshhh

Ebola isn't as easily spread as the coronavirus because the infected person becomes symptomatic quickly and then dies fairly quickly, making it easier to detect and the person doesn't have as much time to spread it.

Sweden just recorded it’s highest daily death count since the 6th of April after a slow weekend. This will surely ignite pressure for more draconian measures and put their choices under more scrutiny. I’m still hoping for them because I believe the lives vs. livelihoods approach is a false dichotomy, and that a sustainable balance would be preferable and more sustainable. But if I’m being honest it’s not looking good.

As countries open up I suspect the lives vs. livelihoods approach will loosen—governments cannot task itself with saving lives forever—and a better balance will be sought.

As countries open up I suspect the lives vs. livelihoods approach will loosen—governments cannot task itself with saving lives forever—and a better balance will be sought.

At this stage of the pandemic, it is not a simple choice between lives and livelihoods. There is the chaos resulting from what would happen without lockdown measures. It would not only be a medical crisis and an economic one, but a food and civil disobedience crisis as well. This was already pointed out at the beginning of the thread, but ought to be considered here.

I personally would deviate from your point because I do not believe in any notion of a greater good, but I certainly do agree we should all do our share during a time of pandemic for the obvious reasons. It’s just I disagree with the manner in which they are enforced or implemented.

I don’t believe the danger of a pandemic, no matter which virus, can be hyped up given the history.

At this stage of the pandemic, it is not a simple choice between lives and livelihoods. There is the chaos resulting from what would happen with out lockdown measures. It would not only be a medical crisis and an economic one, but a food and disobedience crisis as well. This was already pointed out at the beginning of the thread, but ought to be considered here.

That’s a good point. The line-ups outside the barbershop alone will cause chaos.

It's good to see you so unforgiving about failures. Oh wait. :rofl:

The hypocrisy is just too funny since you lack any ability at introspection to see how utterly ludicrous it is coming from you.

If you raise minimum wage, you reduce minimum wage jobs — Hanover

Not true. We have raised the minimum wage in Ireland consistently (at above inflation rates, you know, to reflect economic growth and actually give everyone a share of it) over the past 30 years and also consistently increased employment. And, besides, reducing minimum wage jobs as a proportion of overall jobs would be great for obvious reasons as long as overall employment levels remained steady.

Whether you're a right wing libertarian or a totalitarian Marxist, this pandemic is not cause for you to lose your religion, and that is the gist of my (recent) objection to this meandering conversation. This whole "let's take advantage of every crisis in order to advance our political agenda" thing is what I'm objecting to. — Hanover

You can't disentangle the crisis from politics. The fuck ups we're in are political fuck ups. The bailout was political. Different solutions have different political implications. Your characterisation that some here are "taking advantage" of the crisis is also political. It could easily be interpreted as "don't look now while the cover's blown on the good thing my lot have going". Even if you don't agree with that, how can you talk about the way the crisis is being dealt with in the US, for example, without discussing the bailout? And how do you discuss that without being "political"? Every one of us has an "agenda", only from each of our perspectives, the agenda boils down to nothing more than advocating for what we see as the right thing to do, both in the short and long term, and that requires generalisation from the specific problem to the underlying factors exacerbating it. And their context is social and political. So, unless, you can explain what a politics-free conversation would look like here, I don't see much substance to the objection.

Who's the totalitarian Marxist by the way? I want to meet that guy. We need the gulag back in fashion.

It's obviously difficult to see my point with your politically partisan glasses on.

For example, the much touted healthcare systems of Europe, often held against the American system as far superior, are not fairing much better when put to the test in this crisis. The notion that we must risk our livelihoods and put ourselves on lockdown to keep them from collapsing is damning, in my opinion. — NOS4A2

More stupidity. The quality of healthcare doesn't affect outcomes where it concerns a virus we don't have an effective treatment for. Universal healthcare is always better for a simple reason: risk mutualisation is cheaper. So whatever quality you're paying for, you'll be paying less than any option that isn't universal.

By any measure the US healthcare system underperforms: life expectancy, infant mortality, unmanaged asthma, unmanaged diabetes, heart attack mortality, hospital admittance for preventable diseases etc. etc.

How a country fares depends on the policies enacted and how fast. Since it spreads at the same rate regardless of which country we're talking about, the country with the most infections and most deaths will have done the worst. At this time, due to all the variation in testing capacity, methodology and qualification of deaths, any comparison is nearly impossible to make. We can be pretty sure that for modern Western countries the USA, France, Italy, UK and Spain fucked up in greater or lesser extent. Although I'd be willing to forgive the Italians since they were hit early when very little data was available. The fact it was that terrible there probably has saved a lot of lives in other European countries as it was a wake up call for them.

I’m no statistician but I suspect deaths per million is a more adequate measure to determine who faired better or worse. In that respect, some countries, the Netherlands included, have done worse.

More bad news:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/coronavirus-destroys-lungs-but-doctors-are-finding-its-damage-in-kidneys-hearts-and-elsewhere/2020/04/14/7ff71ee0-7db1-11ea-a3ee-13e1ae0a3571_story.html?tid=pm_pop&itid=pm_pop

And (!):

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/coronavirus-china-mcdonalds-black-people-home-evictions-a9465776.html

To be honest I could've ranted on at you @ssu for a very long time, but I wanted to add one more thing that's important to notice; the delays didn't just exacerbate the deaths, they will exacerbate the long term economic damage too.

Care minister literally laughing when being told that 4,000 people have died in care homes. Just in case anyone thought un was being paranoid. Horrible human being.

Not true. We have raised the minimum wage in Ireland consistently (at above inflation rates, you know, to reflect economic growth and actually give everyone a share of it) over the past 30 years and also consistently increased employment. And, besides, reducing minimum wage jobs as a proportion of overall jobs would be great for obvious reasons as long as overall employment levels remained steady. — Baden

The US has increased its minimum wage as well and there's obviously a breaking point, as I understand some areas, like Seattle, have priced some employees out of jobs. Whether Ireland is the best historical example of a thriving economy I don't know.

So, unless, you can explain what a politics-free conversation would look like here, I don't see much substance to the objection. — Baden

We have a bit of a tautology here, considering a decision maker by definition is a politician. So, sure, we can't take the politics out of decision making. My objection is to using this crisis to bring about permanent structural change that could not be achieved during normal times. That is, I don't see this crisis as evidence that we've been doing things all wrong and we need non-crisis times to be different now. If we need to change things, then we can do that, but this isn't the needed catalyst for that change.

@Punshhh
At this stage of the pandemic, it is not a simple choice between lives and livelihoods. There is the chaos resulting from what would happen with out lockdown measures. It would not only be a medical crisis and an economic one, but a food and disobedience crisis as well. This was already pointed out at the beginning of the thread, but ought to be considered here.

@NOS4A2

That’s a good point. The line-ups outside the barbershop alone will cause chaos.

Good to see that you are prepared to debate the crisis with the seriousness it deserves. Just like Trump who showered himself with glory lastnight, by withholding funds to the WHO the only international authority trying to help countries around the world save lives. But vanity comes before lives of course.

That is, I don't [want to] see this crisis as evidence that we've been doing things all wrong and we need non-crisis times to be different now — Hanover

There, fixed it for you.

That is, I don't [want to opportunistically pretend] see this crisis as [is] evidence that we've been doing things all wrong and we need non-crisis times to be different now — Hanover

Fixed it.

This is precisely what the use of "herd immunity" by politicians was for. It was not used as a statement of the uncontroversial fact that eventually populations will immunise. The fact was used rhetorically as a stalling tactic. Eventually all countries effected which used the rhetoric have responded somehow, because they needed to. - The use of "herd immunity" by politicians was a stalling tactic against every response. — fdrake

I agree with this.

With some politicians. I'm not so sure about Swedish politicians (or the Dutch). When there were two cases in Sweden in the end of February Swedish prime minister Löfven convened a Crisis Management Council that previously had met only in 2018. And right from the start Löfven has consistently followed what the health authorities have purposed and (at least to my knowledge) the prime minister has not given any demeaning or dismissive statements about the corona virus or it's outbreak in China. Trump and I-shake-hands-with-corona-patients Johnson were different.

But I don't agree on that "herd immunity" wouldn't be real and wouldn't be important. And I assume that this isn't your intention.

The best example of this is when you had the greatest "long quarantine" opened in human history: when humans in one continent had been separate from others and hadn't trade with other continents for ages and what happened when you then mixed the people for the first time starting from 1492 onwards. And yes, it was especially those zoonotic diseases from animals that hadn't existed in the continent that were the culprits.

But I think we understand each others points here...

Those hard Brexiters in government must be sh****g themselves, now they are having to deal with something serious, just when they were revelling in getting Brexit done. It's all a world of sh*t now and they are going to have to pull us through.

As I understand some areas, like Seattle, have priced some employees out of jobs. — Hanover

The unemployment rate (until the crisis) in Seattle was 3.3%. That's what's known as full employment.

In Mississippi, on the other hand, the figure is 5.4%. Guess what? Mississippi has the joint-lowest state minimum wage in the country. You can repeat that for Pennsylvania, Louisiana etc.

Your argument is just without foundation. A higher minimum wage does not lead to more unemployment. Period. Part of the reason it doesn't is because more people have more money to spend on shit. And when you're on minimum wage, you spend what you have. Which is good for business.

https://www.google.com/search?q=seattle+unemployment+rate&rlz=1C1CHBF_enIE831IE831&oq=seattle+unemployment+rate&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l7.4326j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.google.com/search?q=pennsylvania+unemployment+rate&rlz=1C1CHBF_enIE831IE831&oq=pennsylvania+unemployment+rate&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l7.5901j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

That is, I don't [want to opportunistically pretend] see this crisis as [is] evidence that we've been doing things all wrong and we need non-crisis times to be different now — Hanover

Hey, do something original dude. What am I, your guru?

Sweden just recorded it’s highest daily death count since the 6th of April after a slow weekend. This will surely ignite pressure for more draconian measures and put their choices under more scrutiny. I’m still hoping for them because I believe the lives vs. livelihoods approach is a false dichotomy, and that a sustainable balance would be preferable and more sustainable. But if I’m being honest it’s not looking good.

As countries open up I suspect the lives vs. livelihoods approach will loosen—governments cannot task itself with saving lives forever—and a better balance will be sought. — NOS4A2

Well, let's remember what the definition is of an epidemic:

the occurrence of more cases of disease, injury, or other health condition than expected in a given area or among a specific group of persons during a particular period.

So if still in 2030 this corona virus still kills people, but it's the expected rate, then it's not an epidemic.

But I'm not so sure just what your reasoning is here lives vs livelihoods is here. If we would pretend that the pandemic isn't real we'd not have an economic depression or? :brow: You don't think the health sector collapsing, those mass graves dug and freezer trucks next to hospitals wouldn't make people alter lifestyles or what?

If this hasn't already been shown, it has to be shown here now (again)...

I think the WHO needs to be accountable for its errors, namely spreading Chinese misinformation, declaring a pandemic too late, opposing travel restrictions, all of which arguably contributed to the spread of the virus across the globe. This is one instance where the WHO might have been useful. But it wasn’t.

Is the middle of a pandemic really the best time to withhold funds from the world health organization?

So we'll withdraw funding during a pandemic, which will surely lead to many more deaths in vulnerable populations? (such a stable genius).

Admit that this is Trump trying to pass blame to anyone he can, rather than take responsibility for his actions.

It can only be a vanity project, by an egomaniac, anyone else would realise that everyone objective will see through it. This is his death nail, he can only be grasping at any semblance at credibility as he falls from grace, to reduce the fallout.

This whole "let's take advantage of every crisis in order to advance our political agenda" thing is what I'm objecting to. — Hanover

Let's also not forget that those using the crisis to further their own ends are more than likely to be the very same ones hyping it up and blowing it out of proportion...and they got all the suckers to take a bite. Unfortunately, this is not the first time.