Shard

One life? Is that how many that have been lost in Canada? Or the USA? I understand economic imperatives, but if (and it's not that big of an if) the virus knocks out a large portion of the population, there will be no economy? Britain took a very laissez faire approach in the first weeks of March, insisting on the economic priorities, and look at how the spread of the virus has eneded up having a much greater impact than if a strict lockdown was introduced from the start. If the argument is an acceptable mortality rate, then that should be discussed in the public domain. How many Covid related deaths are we willing to endure for varying degrees of economic freedom? It's not one death, it's hundreds or even thousands. By way of analogy, imagine a new chemical plant was to be built, but it was likely to kill hundreds of residents due to some uncontrollable toxicity? Would there not be a massive debate and public analysis on whether that plant should be opened?

BristolUK

Somewhat dependent on honesty though.
Are they now doing that with passports everywhere in Europe? Say one has been in a high incidence area or country (Lombardy, parts of France, UK etc and you get on a train or take a car to, say, Germany. Unless they are swiping passports at all borders in Europe they can't be sure where you've been. So it's either let everyone through with no restrictions or apply a restriction to everyone.
This is only like driving a car though. Your safety is also dependent on others.
Yes, so best not to do some non-essential shopping. Stick to the essential stuff be it shopping or travelling. Shopping requires some restrictions/behavioural changes, so should travel.
I find this idea, previously suggested, that people should get infected ASAP, get immunity (as if that's a known fact), while at risk people should isolate to lack thought.

I have two mothers both in their 80s and at risk. One, my MIL, lives with someone else at risk (me) and a granddaughter who works customer facing retail. The other, with some mobility issues, lives with a grandson who runs a shop.

I don't believe households like this are unusual. How do you keep the at risk safe in a house with shared areas, appliances and gadgets if the healthy ones are encouraged to get infected?

Siouxie

I hear you ... with all of my arteries more than 70% blocked my concern is that as COVID 19 has a tendency to cause the sufferer to have blood clots - I'd only need one to do me in, so I'd really rather not catch it.

BristolUK

As someone in a province with a population a 6th of that size with something like a 17th of the cases and 2 deaths compared to 169, I can certainly relate to that.

Unfortunately when you know the numbers have rocketed, it happened several days ago.

Here, we went 2 weeks with no new cases and only 120 altogether. Then there was one and then another 17 days (I think) with no more. There were no active cases, 100% recoveries and no deaths.

Then it emerged that someone failed to self isolate when he should have done (and there's a lot more to the story) upon return to the province, he has tested positive and is directly linked to around 40 other cases, which was a third of the total we'd had to that point.

Fortunately (but not for those living there) this has been confined to a small area with a population of around 6,000.
What if it had happened at the southern border of the province instead and the infected individual went to work for two weeks in a city with a population of 144,000?

It's quite scary.

Former Lancastrian

Some people watch far too many TV programmes and have these ideas that UK/US/CBSA/Australian or any other countries Border officers simply scan a passport and voila we know everything about the person in front of us or if at a kiosk that also knows about you. In my 30 plus years I cannot recall anyone ever being dishonest with me or telling a white lie or a whopper.

I know Jerseygirl had strawberry jam on her bagel this morning, Shard had 1 sugar in his coffee and added Soy milk. Bristol UK had 2 x rashers of bacon on his breakfast plate and that Gozit still has a lot to learn in life. I haven't got around to all the other posters yet. OMG (nameless poster) you did that last night in bed you seriously need help.

BristolUK

And that was just from the stains on the passports, nothing to do with scanning.

Almost Canadian

The vast majority of those being killed are not earning wages and paying taxes. So your analogy doesn't really work.

Jurisdictions cannot afford to keep paying money to those that can't work while not receiving their taxes. So, if we cannot return to normal until a vaccine is obtained, i don't believe societies will survive. Those that are advocating for such restrictions are not surviving on $2,000 a month.

caretaker

Well that's the thing, isn't it? You only have to catch it once and you could be screwed, or you could pass it to your MIL. I've got it easier, but still trying to keep protocol, but there are always lapses when you go out.

caretaker

We had a cop here in Regina who was head of the Identification Division and he was a great guy, but I always used to say he could look into your eyes and know exactly what you had for breakfast. Born to it, I suppose.

Pulaski

Let's say that the US has a population of 328million and life expectancy is 80 years. As a simple arithmetic exercise, the number of deaths per day on average in the US will be 328million / (80x365), which is 11,233, therefore to date, coronavirus has killed 11.0 days of average deaths in the US. It's barely a drop in the bucket. For Canada with a population of 38 million, the corresponding figure is 6.50 days of average deaths, so not only does the number of deaths barely register as compared to the total population, it hasn't really made much difference to the number of deaths that would have occured anyway. The coronavirus is a tragedy at the personal and family level, but barely registers at a national level.

Shard

My analogy is to do simply with debating a mortality rate in public, so it is sound.

What you seem to be saying is that older economically inactive citizens are expendable. That is a valid policy option, not one that I or most compassionate people would entertain, but some might see it as a necessary trade-off for higher economic growth.



​​

Almost Canadian

I was referring to your reference to knocking out a large amount if the population.

No, what I am saying is that tanking the economy may not be justified to keep elderly, frail citizens alive for a short period of time (assuming that they are likely to die of natural causes in any event). The counter argument, the one you appear to favour, is that keeping those same citizens alive for a period of time, is worth any economic cost. I don't know the answer to that dilemma but I am happy to debate it without making references to the morales of the person debating it.

Of course, the ability of any government to fund the services its citizens require is the ability to raise funds through taxes and to balance those receipts with its expenses. That is difficult to do if its tax base is being decimated while at the same time its expenses are increasing as a result of having to make payments in lieu of wages to a huge numbers of its citizens.

Do you believe that lockdowns should remain until a vaccine is found even if it may take a decade to do so?

Nand

I think one argument against your idea that getting rid of the elderly will help the economy is that many younger people are just barely surviving the Covid19 disease. A fair amount of reports are coming to light now on how people do not fully recover from this disease, even from the milder cases. Many people are suffering strange ongoing health problems incuding brain damage, neurological disease, and most often it is permenant lung damage. Many of these permenant symptoms are going to render people unable to work and they will be a draw on the health system over the long run.

Its not just about letting the elderly go, as you suggest. There are more economic problems with these quasi-recovered but never-well-again group who are younger and these younger people will bring that financial burden onto the government and we will be having to pay higher taxes because of the permenant damage resulting from Covid19 infection. IMO it would be a better path to do our best to illiminate the spread of new cases altogether rather than hightening them, hoping for some future immunity.

Almost Canadian

I have never suggested that governments should get rid of the elderly. I have always suggested that those that are vulnerable should ensure that they do all they can to avoid contracting the virus. I'd respectfully suggest that any financial problems that may arise from those that may be affected in the long term, are going to be significantly less than those that are currently being experienced.

Well, those that going to be permanently affected have already been affected, so what happens in the future is not going to change that. I accept that those that haven't been infected, may get infected in the future that may give some credibility to your argument, but the financial consequences are already occurring. The small businesses that have folded are not likely to come back. Those that have lost jobs in sectors such as aviation are not necessarily going to come back as soon as restrictions are lifted.

If you wish to eliminate the spread of new cases altogether, you must be advocating for the lockdowns to continue until such time that a vaccine is found. What if that never happens, or takes 5 years to occur? Are you willing to accept that jurisdictions will have to continue to funds their citizens' lives and, if so, where are they to receive such funds from?

BristolUK

And there's something else about that too.

Older people not paying taxes or contributing to society? They have already done so, in their working lives, probably more than many of the younger ones who have only worked a fraction of the time. They're still paying purchase and property taxes too.
I once worked out that my annual property tax bill was equivalent to income tax for a renter on something like $45k gross income.

I have a (virtually unemployable) adult stepson living with me. There's this nice catch-22 where he's only going to get a work placement or similar by reason of receiving income assistance, but he can't receive that because he lives in my home. So I (with a bit of help from his grandmother) house and provide for his needs.

But we're not contributing? My aunt fanny we're not.