I actually had a similar thought this weekend; re: "WE CANNOT LET THE CURE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF".....
pudds (Canadian; 17093)
Posted on: 03-23-2020 10:54.
Client: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/80.0.3987.149 Safari/537.36
Message views: 9 (Score: 0)
I really do wonder, is there a point in all of this where the economic costs of this begin to outweigh the lives being lost.
I understand that we're never going to just let people die in their homes, but as a thought experiment, let's say we went with an approach of "if you get sick, you're quarantined at home, and if you die, you die."
The death count would be massive, no doubt. But how would it compare to say, 12 months of huge portions of the workforce being unemployed? How many lives are lost if 30% of the country can't afford rent or food? Can our governments cover us for the amount of time necessary to actually flatten the curve and keep it flat?
I really have no idea, I'm not an expert in any of this. I do think that it's going to be very hard to convince people that the costs are worth it if we're still doing this in 2 months.
You do not have the required security level to post to this thread.
Report a Bug!