Northern Europe during Pandemic -- Summers 2020 & 2021 & onwards

[letsgetsailing3]

Alright, I went back and read your response.


While you raise some good points, you may as well say "let's let old folks die, because we could redeploy that money to make younger folks more comfortable".


Yes, it has been brought up many times. We spend a LOT of resources saving older folks. Because we can.


When you get a bit older, I'm going to guess you'll be expecting that wheel to turn your way.


You're right. Economically, it makes no sense. There is a reason nature goes for "survival of the fittest".



But it is our current societal philosophy to save the weak. Which is why we invest so much in saving the weakest of our population.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by TigerPaws

While you are OK with the way things are what about the 25 or so million Americans without a job today? What about those facing eviction because they cannot pay the rent? What about the people who have poured their blood, sweat, tears and life savings into a business that has been forced by gov edict into bankruptcy? There are untold hundreds of thousands suffering because of gov edicts to save a few?

Are you willing to tell those families who are about to become homeless and relying on what they are given by a food bank that they need to suffer because of your fears.

I agree the most venerable are at the most risk, accommodations can be made for them not the public at large? Locking up an entire city because a small percentage of the population might be affected is insane.

If someone is at risk they can stay home and let the rest of the population get on with their lives.

Shall we kill a bunch of people over YOUR fears?

No. We're trying to flatten the curve. Which is sort of the best of both worlds. I live in Florida. Only about half the businesses are closed down. Turns out almost everything is essential.

Though a lot of folks are out of work, they were going to be anyway. Who was going to go to eat-in restaurants if millions of people were dying from social contact? Answer: nobody. Who was going to pack into soccer stadiums when hospitals were running out of PPE and ventilators? Again: nobody.

We've learned quite a bit, and we'll be opening up major segments of the economy accordingly within a month or two.

It's the smart money to have a reasonable compromise on this, and it's pretty much where every country is ultimately going to go.

Hopefully, it buys us time to come up with effective therapies, better testing, more PPE, better processes, and ultimately a vaccine.

[TigerPaws]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Shall we kill a bunch of people over YOUR fears?

No. We're trying to flatten the curve. Which is sort of the best of both worlds. I live in Florida. Only about half the businesses are closed down. Turns out almost everything is essential.

Though a lot of folks are out of work, they were going to be anyway. Who was going to go to eat-in restaurants if millions of people were dying from social contact? Answer: nobody. Who was going to pack into soccer stadiums when hospitals were running out of PPE and ventilators? Again: nobody.

We've learned quite a bit, and we'll be opening up major segments of the economy accordingly within a month or two.

It's the smart money to have a reasonable compromise on this, and it's pretty much where every country is ultimately going to go.

Hopefully, it buys us time to come up with effective therapies, better testing, more PPE, better processes, and ultimately a vaccine.

What happens to the millions and millions of Americans who are out of work, out of resources and out of time to keep from being destitute?

If and I mean IF a vax comes along that will be a year to 1-1/2 years away, what are the 25 MILLION unemployed supposed to do NOW?

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by TigerPaws

What happens to the millions and millions of Americans who are out of work, out of resources and out of time to keep from being destitute?

If and I mean IF a vax comes along that will be a year to 1-1/2 years away, what are the 25 MILLION unemployed supposed to do NOW?

For some period of time, they'll be on unemployment.

Particularly as the government chose to make it more lucrative than many of their paying jobs were.

I don't for one second think the economy is going to be closed down for 1 1/2 years.

But maybe you didn't read my answer. Many of those folks were going to be unemployed ANYWAY. Those businesses were going to close down with or without governmental guidance.

[TigerPaws]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

For some period of time, they'll be on unemployment.

Particularly as the government chose to make it more lucrative than many of their paying jobs were.

I don't for one second think the economy is going to be closed down for 1 1/2 years.

I suggested that it would be 1 to 1-1/2 years before a vax might be ready if ever, I never suggested that the economy would be shuttered for that length of time.

Are you suggesting that 25 Million Americans (and counting) are going to go right back to work? That the 45% of small business that will be closed forever will somehow reopen as if nothing happened?

[DeepFrz]

An interesting chart posted by the Atlantis. May be of interest to those who think its just another flu.
https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publi...ashes-not-like

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by TigerPaws

Are you suggesting that 25 Million Americans (and counting) are going to go right back to work? That the 45% of small business that will be closed forever will somehow reopen as if nothing happened?

I didn't suggest that.

What I stated was that a good bit of that unemployment was going to happen anyway. Regardless of what action the government decided to pursue. Nobody thinks any of this is going to be easy.

There are different ways to lower the curve. The Swedish approach is different from that of it's neighbors, and those are apt comparisons. It seems to be working OK. Higher deaths so far, but their hospital resources were never overrun, and we'll see how it works out in the long run.

The U.S. is probably more comparable to Italy. Given that, I think the U.S. has done a decent job of managing this. And I like Trump's approach of letting states manage their own regions, with Federal support. Makes sense to me.

Nobody is going to accuse Trump of not wanting to open up the economy as soon as it's reasonable. But what you don't want is to see infection rates going up drastically because you opened up too soon.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

. . .While you raise some good points, you may as well say "let's let old folks die, because we could redeploy that money to make younger folks more comfortable".. . .

Not at all what I said -- you missed the point.

If you want to boil it right down, what I said was:


"Let's save all the old folks we can, let's try hard, let's make sacrifices, and let's spend money to do so -- as we have always done -- but let's be reasonable about it, not forgetting that it is quite possible to go too far, incurring too much cost in terms of mortgaging our children's economic future, destroying people's livelihood and throwing people into poverty, and wiping whole summers out of people's lives. We will do some of that, but let's find a reasonable balance and use our brains, instead of just knee-jerking towards the most extreme measures without thinking it through. Let's especially be careful not do costly stuff which doesn't even save any lives -- as quite possibly lockdowns don't."

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Not at all what I said -- you missed the point.

If you want to boil it right down, what I said was:


"Let's save all the old folks we can, let's try hard, let's make sacrifices, and let's spend money to do so -- as we have always done -- but let's be reasonable about it, not forgetting that it is quite possible to go too far, incurring too much cost in terms of mortgaging our children's economic future, destroying people's livelihood and throwing people into poverty, and wiping whole summers out of people's lives. We will do some of that, but let's find a reasonable balance and use our brains, instead of just knee-jerking towards the most extreme measures without thinking it through. Let's especially be careful not do costly stuff which doesn't even save any lives -- as quite possibly lockdowns don't."

And what's your suggestion for doing that? Isn't that what governments are attempting to do?

You'll have to pardon them that your cruising season isn't one of their highest priorities. They have, as one says, bigger fish to fry.

[TigerPaws]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

I didn't suggest that.

What I stated was that a good bit of that unemployment was going to happen anyway. Regardless of what action the government decided to pursue. Nobody thinks any of this is going to be easy.

There are different ways to lower the curve. The Swedish approach is different from that of it's neighbors, and those are apt comparisons. It seems to be working OK. Higher deaths so far, but their hospital resources were never overrun, and we'll see how it works out in the long run.

The U.S. is probably more comparable to Italy. Given that, I think the U.S. has done a decent job of managing this. And I like Trump's approach of letting states manage their own regions, with Federal support. Makes sense to me.

Nobody is going to accuse Trump of not wanting to open up the economy as soon as it's reasonable. But what you don't want is to see infection rates going up drastically because you opened up too soon.

But you never answered the question in regards to the 25 Million (and counting) unemployed Americans and the millions of bankrupt businesses?

What are they to do, being unemployed and or loosing their businesses is not their fault. How do you suggest they are to be made whole again?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

... There is a reason nature goes for "survival of the fittest".
But it is our current societal philosophy to save the weak. Which is why we invest so much in saving the weakest of our population.

The phrase “survival of the fittest“, which was coined not by Charles Darwin, but by the philosopher/economist Herbert Spencer, is widely misunderstood.
For starters, there is a lot more to evolution by natural selection, than just the survival of the fittest.
Natural selection is the idea that, species that acquire adaptations, favorable for their environment, will pass those adaptations to their offspring. Eventually, more individuals, with those favorable adaptations, will survive, which is how the species changes over time, or evolves through speciation.
The phrase seems, to me, to be a circular argument (tautology); describing those that survive, as the fittest; being similar to stating that those that survive, survive.
Survival of the fittest has been claimed to justify all kinds of things, from free markets, to eugenics. Such notions still have a powerful grip in some circles.
However, natural selection is simply a description of what happens, in the living world. It does not tell us how we should behave, nor does it describe universal definitions of what it means to be "fit".

The Meaning of Fitness
➥ https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog...ng_of_fitness/

Social Darwinism

➥ https://www.history.com/topics/early...cial-darwinism

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The phrase “survival of the fittest“,

I wasn't talking about "natural selection", which is why I didn't use that term. Clearly, we've done our best to eliminate natural selection from human survival, as we apply extreme health care measures to eliminating as many health threats to the vulnerable as possible. We're even working on genetic manipulation to eliminate many of those threats. Whole different topic.

As the coronavirus is mostly a threat to the older population (greater than reproductive age), none of what you mention is really relevant here.

I was, in fact, referencing "survival of the fittest" as a criteria for people surviving. Outside of evolution, it has a popular meaning of "the strongest survive". In a business concept, it's the stronger companies survive, and the weakest companies fail. This is the "let her rip" approach. Keep everything open, let folks use their own judgment on social distancing in business, and see where it takes us.

People can make an argument in favor of that approach. Governments mostly intervened to "flatten the curve", and keep infections below that which our health care resources could handle, which seems to me a valid way of looking at this.

Italy and Wuhan are examples of where governments did NOT act in time, and lives were needlessly lost, as their health care resources got overrun. Nobody wants to go there, and by the time you realize you're there, it's too late.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

And what's your suggestion for doing that? Isn't that what governments are attempting to do?

You'll have to pardon them that your cruising season isn't one of their highest priorities. They have, as one says, bigger fish to fry.

I don't have any specific policy recommendations. I am not qualified, as I've said many times, and the questions are hellishly difficult.



The only argument I make is against knee-jerk, oversimplified answers based on flawed logic. Like just take the most radical action we can think of, just in case. The kind of thinking which caused a lot of people to ridicule the Swedish approach to the crisis, as if the right answers were so obvious, that people assume that the Swedish health authorities are idiots.


And my cruising season? The summers of 9 billion people hang in the balance. My cruising season is as precious as any other chunk of life like that -- I am not ashamed to demand that this and everyone else's summers not be treated as something which can be casually thrown away -- a summer which no one will ever get back, as we every one of us marches year by year towards death -- without any evidence-based and well thought-through public health imperative.


I'm not actually worried about my own summer -- I'm living in what may be the only remaining sane part of the world, and it seems clear that the sailing season will be OK here. I'm worried about YOUR summer.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The only argument I make is against knee-jerk oversimplified answers based on flawed logic. Like just take the most radical action we can think of, just in case.
.

Have countries been doing that? Seems to have been many errors made by not looking at the science. Like UK early days and USA. Plus you seem to be hesitant to take onboard that our human bias is extremely strong, evident in so many posts (like nearly everyone's, mine included )
Portugal has saved many lives by early strong lock down. Seems like it would fit your 'kneejerk' description. But compared to Spain.....
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/...211502982.html

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by conachair

Have countries been doing that? Seems to have been many errors made by not looking at the science. Like UK early days and USA. Plus you seem to be hesitant to take onboard that our human bias is extremely strong, evident in so many posts (like nearly everyone's, mine included )
Portugal has saved many lives by early strong lock down. Seems like it would fit your 'kneejerk' description. But compared to Spain.....
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/...211502982.html

I certainly agree about errors being made beacuse of failing to look at the science. I think that's my point.



There is a serious question whether actual lockdowns -- forcing people to stay at home -- does any good at all, based on what science we do know. See the interview with Johan Giesecke linked above. This particular particularly destructive measure does not seem to have been taken on the basis of any science-based thinking.


Whether Portugal saved lives by lockdown or by something else -- we don't know. Early action in Portugal probably played a big role, but early lockdown? We don't know that lockdown was necessary. Early action in Sweden also prevented a bad outbreak there, but the action was much milder and therefore much less destructive than Portugal's full lockdown. We don't even know whether what has happened in Spain is actually all that bad -- or whether they just got it over with faster, got over with what we will all go through eventually. 0.04% of the population has died -- maybe a couple times worse than a bad flu year -- hospitals were not overwhelmed, unlike Italy -- and most of the population may already be immune. If the same number people die, would you rather do it 4 weeks and then move on, or would you rather stretch it out over a year and obliterate your economy and ruin a year of the whole population's lives? I'm not saying that this is the choice, but there is no science-based evidence that it's not, so it needs to be taken seriously. It is not obvious that there is anything good about slowing down the epidemic beyond what the health care system can handle. If we're really all going to get it anyway sooner or later, then there is nothing good about it.