This will be an unpopular analysis and seem heartless. It's intended to be purely cold and heartless, so very well.

It occurs to me that the Wuhan flu, if left to burn through the population, would not negatively impact school or working age adults in any long term significant manner. It will, instead, likely cull large portions of the population that are much older, infirm, using significant portions of medical bandwidth already and drawing on currently overtaxed social welfare systems like social security. Therefor, the losses we are all discussing are very unlikely to affect the productive population of the country and would likely reduce long term liabilities and stressors placed on the economy by the sickest among the elderly population.

Some data to consider:

The only stable populations (closed system) we have studied are the cruise ships. So far, the data on at least one cruise ship shows that, inside a cruise ship population (where the bulk of the cases were in over 50 year old individuals), the asymptomatic population was over 50%. (50.5%) That means that even in older populations, half of the populace won't suffer any negative issues.

As of 2019:

- Circa 64 million Americans will receive over one trillion dollars in Social Security benefits in 2020.
- Circa 50 million of those were over 65.
- A loss rate of 15% in that 50 million would result in a decrease in SS benefits per year of circa $120 billion
- In 2018, Medicare benefit payments totaled $731 billion
- Circa 84.5% of medicare beneficiaries are 65 or older
- A reduction of 15% in the 84.5% of that $731 billion, would see an annual decrease in benefits paid of circa $93 billion.

So, the estimate of losing 15% of the over 65 population, in government expenditures alone (ignoring other economic costs) would be approximately $213 billion per year.

This is not advocating any course of action. But it is an interesting thought exercise to see what the long term impacts to this will be from both the negative and the positive sides.

I actually had the same thought but was afraid to say it.

Makes it sound a lot like Obamacare.

These are just broad estimates, too. They don't take into account:

- A small proportion of the over 65's likely account for an outsized proportion (mode) of Medicare costs
- Private insurance would see a decrease in expenditures as well
- Demand for (costly) extraordinary medical interventions would potentially drop in the long term or at least level off
- Long term care costs, including LTC insurance expenditures, would likely see a sharp decline in an environment where nursing home care can run as much as $89,297, per year.

And overall, this is the age when per capita consumption increases, while productivity plummets:

But keep in mind this is one of the reasons Obamacare is bad.

Sam Lowry said:

---

But keep in mind this is one of the reasons Obamacare is bad.

---

What does this have to do with Obamacare?

Sam Lowry said:

---

But keep in mind this is one of the reasons Obamacare is bad.

---

Again, not advocating a particular course of action. But it's important to view how we approach that eventual decision dispassionately.

My real concern is that we are shutting down much of the world economy, closing schools, etc and we may be doing more harm to more people than we are saving. Some questions include:

1. How many people are laid off now and will have a hard time feeding their kids?
2. How many people aren't laid off yet, but relied on schools for day care in order to work?
3. How many kids that were getting fed with school lunches and breakfasts are now going hungry?
4. How many small businesses that were going to be the source of income for 50 or more families each this year will shut down?

The economic consequences to our reaction have real negative implications for the younger school aged and productive population as well. We appear to be shutting down the world to save a small demographic of sick and elderly people.

It's one thing to force people into a system like Obamacare where the government decides who lives and dies within a specific medical insurance scheme. It's quite another to force everyone into a global economic downturn, via government intervention, to save a relatively small subset of people.

I personally don't see that the benefits are going to outweigh the negatives, with regard to this shut down.

It's not even "Lifeboat Ethics", here. It's really more a question of burning down your house to keep your sick grandmother warm for a little while.

Bearitto said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

But keep in mind this is one of the reasons Obamacare is bad.

---

Again, not advocating a particular course of action. But it's important to view how we approach that eventual decision dispassionately.

My real concern is that we are shutting down much of the world economy, closing schools, etc and we may be doing more harm to more people than we are saving. Some questions include:

1. How many people are laid off now and will have a hard time feeding their kids?
2. How many people aren't laid off yet, but relied on schools for day care in order to work?
3. How many kids that were getting fed with school lunches and breakfasts are now going hungry?
4. How many small businesses that were going to be the source of income for 50 or more families each this year will shut down?

The economic consequences to our reaction have real negative implications for the younger school aged and productive population as well. We appear to be shutting down the world to save a small demographic of sick and elderly people.

It's one thing to force people into a system like Obamacare where the government decides who lives and dies within a specific medical insurance scheme. It's quite another to force everyone into a global economic downturn, via government intervention, to save a relatively small subset of people.

I personally don't see that the benefits are going to outweigh the negatives, with regard to this shut down.

It's not even "Lifeboat Ethics", here. It's really more a question of burning down your house to keep your sick grandmother warm for a little while.

---

Part of the reason for being productive in the prime of life is that you expect to be taken care of when you're older. If you know you'll be cast aside like garbage, it makes little sense to do anything but consume. There's a reason we evolved with the instinct to care for our elders.

If not shutting down the global economy was in some way equivalent to "casting aside" the elderly, you might have a point. But it isn't.

What we are discussing is simply not destroying an entire economy, making life miserable for families and potentially causing nutrition disruptions for poor children in order to save a relatively small proportion of the already dying population.

Again, not setting your house on fire to keep granny warm for a little while, is not casting granny aside.

Bearitto said:

---

If not shutting down the global economy was in some way equivalent to "casting aside" the elderly, you might have a point. But it isn't.

What we are discussing is simply not destroying an entire economy, making life miserable for families and potentially causing nutrition disruptions for poor children in order to save a relatively small proportion of the already dying population.

Again, not setting your house on fire to keep granny warm for a little while, is not casting granny aside.

---

We're not destroying an entire economy. The fact that only a certain number of lives are at stake doesn't change my point when it comes to human motivation. You don't know who will die and who won't, so you can't just tell a few of the elderly that they're disposable. You're telling them all.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

If not shutting down the global economy was in some way equivalent to "casting aside" the elderly, you might have a point. But it isn't.

What we are discussing is simply not destroying an entire economy, making life miserable for families and potentially causing nutrition disruptions for poor children in order to save a relatively small proportion of the already dying population.

Again, not setting your house on fire to keep granny warm for a little while, is not casting granny aside.

---

We're not destroying an entire economy. The fact that only a certain number of lives are at stake doesn't change my point when it comes to human motivation. You don't know who will die and who won't, so you can't just tell a few of the elderly that they're disposable. You're telling them all.

---

But you aren't telling them they are disposable. You are telling them you aren't going to set the house on fire to keep them warm for the last two years of their lives. If you don't think we are talking about destroying the global economy for a very long time, you aren't paying attention. That is precisely what we are talking about.

We may not have a good measure of the total number of people who have the virus, but we do have good data on who has died. The data in the U.S. is similar to Italy, found the average age among the 105 patients who died from the virus as of March 4 was 81 years old. It also roughly matches data from China.

We are talking about setting our entire economy ablaze, including laying off young workers with families and children to feed, so we can prevent a handful of people who are at the end of their lives from dying from a virus we will all be exposed to. That is wrong. It prioritizes the lives of those who have already lived long lives over the lives of young children and families and it does so without the consent of most of those young people and by telling the young to stop living their lives.

Bearitto said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

If not shutting down the global economy was in some way equivalent to "casting aside" the elderly, you might have a point. But it isn't.

What we are discussing is simply not destroying an entire economy, making life miserable for families and potentially causing nutrition disruptions for poor children in order to save a relatively small proportion of the already dying population.

Again, not setting your house on fire to keep granny warm for a little while, is not casting granny aside.

---

We're not destroying an entire economy. The fact that only a certain number of lives are at stake doesn't change my point when it comes to human motivation. You don't know who will die and who won't, so you can't just tell a few of the elderly that they're disposable. You're telling them all.

---

But you aren't telling them they are disposable. You are telling them you aren't going to set the house on fire to keep them warm for the last two years of their lives. If you don't think we are talking about destroying the global economy for a very long time, you aren't paying attention. That is precisely what we are talking about.

We may not have a good measure of the total number of people who have the virus, but we do have good data on who has died. The data in the U.S. is similar to Italy, found the average age among the 105 patients who died from the virus as of March 4 was 81 years old. It also roughly matches data from China.

We are talking about setting our entire economy ablaze, including laying off young workers with families and children to feed, so we can prevent a handful of people who are at the end of their lives from dying from a virus we will all be exposed to. That is wrong. It prioritizes the lives of those who have already lived long lives over the lives of young children and families and it does so without the consent of most of those young people and by telling the young to stop living their lives.

---

We're not prioritizing lives over lives. That's kind of like the argument that if you were really pro-life you'd support unlimited spending on welfare. It's a specious argument because no one advocates killing the poor. You might argue that people will die because of layoffs, etc., but the same is just as true of welfare cuts if not more so.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

If not shutting down the global economy was in some way equivalent to "casting aside" the elderly, you might have a point. But it isn't.

What we are discussing is simply not destroying an entire economy, making life miserable for families and potentially causing nutrition disruptions for poor children in order to save a relatively small proportion of the already dying population.

Again, not setting your house on fire to keep granny warm for a little while, is not casting granny aside.

---

We're not destroying an entire economy. The fact that only a certain number of lives are at stake doesn't change my point when it comes to human motivation. You don't know who will die and who won't, so you can't just tell a few of the elderly that they're disposable. You're telling them all.

---

But you aren't telling them they are disposable. You are telling them you aren't going to set the house on fire to keep them warm for the last two years of their lives. If you don't think we are talking about destroying the global economy for a very long time, you aren't paying attention. That is precisely what we are talking about.

We may not have a good measure of the total number of people who have the virus, but we do have good data on who has died. The data in the U.S. is similar to Italy, found the average age among the 105 patients who died from the virus as of March 4 was 81 years old. It also roughly matches data from China.

We are talking about setting our entire economy ablaze, including laying off young workers with families and children to feed, so we can prevent a handful of people who are at the end of their lives from dying from a virus we will all be exposed to. That is wrong. It prioritizes the lives of those who have already lived long lives over the lives of young children and families and it does so without the consent of most of those young people and by telling the young to stop living their lives.

---

We're not prioritizing lives over lives. That's kind of like the argument that if you were really pro-life you'd support unlimited spending on welfare. It's a specious argument because no one advocates killing the poor. You might argue that people will die because of layoffs, etc., but the same is just as true of welfare cuts if not more so.

---

We are absolutely prioritizing lives over lives. At a minimum we are prioritizing 7.5 m elderly American pensioners (numbers extrapolated from OP) against the lives of 320m Americans who have virtually no chance of dying.

You are trying to compare welfare spending to actively stopping people from working and having a productive economy. You and I both know those two things are not remotely equivalent. You know very well that you are being incredibly disingenuous to compare freedom to work with limiting free money.

We are talking about destroying our economy and causing the suffering of hundreds of millions of young and working people with families to feed in order to possibly limit exposure and spread of a disease that kills people with an average age of 81 years.

Bearitto said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

If not shutting down the global economy was in some way equivalent to "casting aside" the elderly, you might have a point. But it isn't.

What we are discussing is simply not destroying an entire economy, making life miserable for families and potentially causing nutrition disruptions for poor children in order to save a relatively small proportion of the already dying population.

Again, not setting your house on fire to keep granny warm for a little while, is not casting granny aside.

---

We're not destroying an entire economy. The fact that only a certain number of lives are at stake doesn't change my point when it comes to human motivation. You don't know who will die and who won't, so you can't just tell a few of the elderly that they're disposable. You're telling them all.

---

But you aren't telling them they are disposable. You are telling them you aren't going to set the house on fire to keep them warm for the last two years of their lives. If you don't think we are talking about destroying the global economy for a very long time, you aren't paying attention. That is precisely what we are talking about.

We may not have a good measure of the total number of people who have the virus, but we do have good data on who has died. The data in the U.S. is similar to Italy, found the average age among the 105 patients who died from the virus as of March 4 was 81 years old. It also roughly matches data from China.

We are talking about setting our entire economy ablaze, including laying off young workers with families and children to feed, so we can prevent a handful of people who are at the end of their lives from dying from a virus we will all be exposed to. That is wrong. It prioritizes the lives of those who have already lived long lives over the lives of young children and families and it does so without the consent of most of those young people and by telling the young to stop living their lives.

---

We're not prioritizing lives over lives. That's kind of like the argument that if you were really pro-life you'd support unlimited spending on welfare. It's a specious argument because no one advocates killing the poor. You might argue that people will die because of layoffs, etc., but the same is just as true of welfare cuts if not more so.

---

We are absolutely prioritizing lives over lives. At a minimum we are prioritizing 7.5 m elderly American pensioners (numbers extrapolated from OP) against the lives of 320m Americans who have virtually no chance of dying.

You are trying to compare welfare spending to actively stopping people from working and having a productive economy. You and I both know those two things are not remotely equivalent. You know very well that you are being incredibly disingenuous to compare freedom to work with limiting free money.

We are talking about destroying our economy and causing the suffering of hundreds of millions of young and working people with families to feed in order to possibly limit exposure and spread of a disease that kills people with an average age of 81 years.

---

The fact that one involves public spending is beside the point. Life vs. suffering is still a different dilemma with different moral implications from life vs. life.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

If not shutting down the global economy was in some way equivalent to "casting aside" the elderly, you might have a point. But it isn't.

What we are discussing is simply not destroying an entire economy, making life miserable for families and potentially causing nutrition disruptions for poor children in order to save a relatively small proportion of the already dying population.

Again, not setting your house on fire to keep granny warm for a little while, is not casting granny aside.

---

We're not destroying an entire economy. The fact that only a certain number of lives are at stake doesn't change my point when it comes to human motivation. You don't know who will die and who won't, so you can't just tell a few of the elderly that they're disposable. You're telling them all.

---

But you aren't telling them they are disposable. You are telling them you aren't going to set the house on fire to keep them warm for the last two years of their lives. If you don't think we are talking about destroying the global economy for a very long time, you aren't paying attention. That is precisely what we are talking about.

We may not have a good measure of the total number of people who have the virus, but we do have good data on who has died. The data in the U.S. is similar to Italy, found the average age among the 105 patients who died from the virus as of March 4 was 81 years old. It also roughly matches data from China.

We are talking about setting our entire economy ablaze, including laying off young workers with families and children to feed, so we can prevent a handful of people who are at the end of their lives from dying from a virus we will all be exposed to. That is wrong. It prioritizes the lives of those who have already lived long lives over the lives of young children and families and it does so without the consent of most of those young people and by telling the young to stop living their lives.

---

We're not prioritizing lives over lives. That's kind of like the argument that if you were really pro-life you'd support unlimited spending on welfare. It's a specious argument because no one advocates killing the poor. You might argue that people will die because of layoffs, etc., but the same is just as true of welfare cuts if not more so.

---

We are absolutely prioritizing lives over lives. At a minimum we are prioritizing 7.5 m elderly American pensioners (numbers extrapolated from OP) against the lives of 320m Americans who have virtually no chance of dying.

You are trying to compare welfare spending to actively stopping people from working and having a productive economy. You and I both know those two things are not remotely equivalent. You know very well that you are being incredibly disingenuous to compare freedom to work with limiting free money.

We are talking about destroying our economy and causing the suffering of hundreds of millions of young and working people with families to feed in order to possibly limit exposure and spread of a disease that kills people with an average age of 81 years.

---

The fact that one involves public spending is beside the point. Life vs. suffering is still a different dilemma with different moral implications from life vs. life.

---

No. The fact that one involves government spending is precisely the point - it's what makes the two things entirely different. It's the difference between positive and negative rights. I have read enough of your posts to know that you understand the difference between positive and negative rights and, right now, you are just putting that knowledge to the side because you are more interested in making an argument from your pro-life view point (in order to try for consistency) than from a rational point of view.

But I do appreciate you engaging. Thanks. Good discussion.

The original post is so disgusting, I can't believe someone even remotely associated with Baylor would post it. You are permanently on record.

Sam Lowry... said:

---

It's a specious argument because no one advocates killing the poor. ...

---

Isn't there an old saying: One man's specious argument (trash) is another man's treasure?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Makes it sound a lot like Obamacare.

---

You really have lost it. What in the world are you talking about? Obamacare doesn't cast aside the elderly. It's Trump who wants to cut Medicare.

You seem to think a discredited accusation Sarah Palin made is actually true. Do you think there are death panels or something? Obamacare is saving lives because people are getting medical care who weren't getting it before.

The OP is disgusting.

BaylorTaxman said:

---

The original post is so disgusting, I can't believe someone even remotely associated with Baylor would post it. You are permanently on record.

---

Why? Because it analyzes facts dispassionately? Do you dispute those facts?

I can see if it were full of lies, then sure, let's call it disgusting, but there is no lie within the entire post. It's simply a recounting of extant facts.

Tell me what is wrong, specifically with the post, if you will.

Thanks

George Truett said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Makes it sound a lot like Obamacare.

---

You really have lost it. What in the world are you talking about? Obamacare doesn't cast aside the elderly. It's Trump who wants to cut Medicare.

You seem to think a discredited accusation Sarah Palin made is actually true. Do you think there are death panels or something? Obamacare is saving lives because people are getting medical care who weren't getting it before.

The OP is disgusting.

---

Obamacare does cast people aside, including but not limited to the elderly. And I don't need Sarah Palin to tell me about it. I've watched it happen close enough to where I live.

George Truett said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Makes it sound a lot like Obamacare.

---

The OP is disgusting.

---

Be specific please. Which facts in the OP do you believe to be lies? What about the analysis did you find disgusting?

Is it that it was dispassionate? Do you require that every post that has a human impact be accompanied by weeping, gnashing of teeth and despondency?

Is it that someone would dare view the massive economic impact this virus will have from an economic point of view?

Bearitto said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

The original post is so disgusting, I can't believe someone even remotely associated with Baylor would post it. You are permanently on record.

---

Why? Because it analyzes facts dispassionately? Do you dispute those facts?

I can see if it were full of lies, then sure, let's call it disgusting, but there is no lie within the entire post. It's simply a recounting of extant facts.

Tell me what is wrong, specifically with the post, if you will.

Thanks

---

It may be factual. But what you are suggesting is morally reprehensible, which is why I called it disgusting. And while you said above that you are not suggesting a specific course of action, on another thread, you posted the following:

"This tells me that the economy destroying measures we are taking in order to keep an already long lived population alive even longer at the detriment of families and children, is a bridge too far." So you have been indirectly advocating this.


You could take that statement an extrapolate it to include many more groups of people based on many more fact patterns. In my opinion, it is still disgusting. But we are clearly different people.

Bearitto said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

The original post is so disgusting, I can't believe someone even remotely associated with Baylor would post it. You are permanently on record.

---

Why? Because it analyzes facts dispassionately? Do you dispute those facts?

I can see if it were full of lies, then sure, let's call it disgusting, but there is no lie within the entire post. It's simply a recounting of extant facts.

Tell me what is wrong, specifically with the post, if you will.

Thanks

---

So who died and made you God???

BaylorTaxman said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

The original post is so disgusting, I can't believe someone even remotely associated with Baylor would post it. You are permanently on record.

---

Why? Because it analyzes facts dispassionately? Do you dispute those facts?

I can see if it were full of lies, then sure, let's call it disgusting, but there is no lie within the entire post. It's simply a recounting of extant facts.

Tell me what is wrong, specifically with the post, if you will.

Thanks

---

It may be factual. But what you are suggesting is morally reprehensible, which is why I called it disgusting. And while you said above that you are not suggesting a specific course of action, on another thread, you posted the following:

"This tells me that the economy destroying measures we are taking in order to keep an already long lived population alive even longer at the detriment of families and children, is a bridge too far." So you have been indirectly advocating this.


You could take that statement an extrapolate it to include many more groups of people based on many more fact patterns. In my opinion, it is still disgusting. But we are clearly different people.

---

The initial post wasn't suggesting any course of action. But, as happens when discussions progress, we do tend to come to conclusions.

You will note why I come to the conclusion, as you have read the entirety of the thread.You see the average age of death from the virus is 81 years old. I don't find the damage being caused to innocent families and children with their whole lives ahead of them, in order to limit exposure to a virus which will affect so few who are at the end of their lives regardless of the virus, to be an acceptable trade off.

It's wrong to watch millions of kids potentially suffer so that 81 year olds can live another 12 months. There are long term negative ramifications to the economic damage for the next generation as well.

We should not burn down our houses to keep our grandparents warm. That is counterproductive and foolish.

Nguyen One Soon said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

The original post is so disgusting, I can't believe someone even remotely associated with Baylor would post it. You are permanently on record.

---

Why? Because it analyzes facts dispassionately? Do you dispute those facts?

I can see if it were full of lies, then sure, let's call it disgusting, but there is no lie within the entire post. It's simply a recounting of extant facts.

Tell me what is wrong, specifically with the post, if you will.

Thanks

---

So who died and made you God???

---

God made the virus (with Chinese help), not me. I'm not trying to be God. The people shutting down the world economy are.

Who decided that the lives of hundreds of millions of people who won't have any long term problems due to the virus should have their entire lives upended and their future prospects dampened for the mere chance to limit exposure to a virus by people already at the end of their lives? Why should hourly workers who live paycheck to paycheck find themselves desperate to feed their kids so that an 81 year old in a nursing home doesn't have to encounter the 15% chance he or she will die from a virus we will all be exposed to?

The damage we are all about to encounter in search of a hope to let those already past life expectancy live even longer, simply isn't worth it.

Bearitto said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

The original post is so disgusting, I can't believe someone even remotely associated with Baylor would post it. You are permanently on record.

---

Why? Because it analyzes facts dispassionately? Do you dispute those facts?

I can see if it were full of lies, then sure, let's call it disgusting, but there is no lie within the entire post. It's simply a recounting of extant facts.

Tell me what is wrong, specifically with the post, if you will.

Thanks

---

It may be factual. But what you are suggesting is morally reprehensible, which is why I called it disgusting. And while you said above that you are not suggesting a specific course of action, on another thread, you posted the following:

"This tells me that the economy destroying measures we are taking in order to keep an already long lived population alive even longer at the detriment of families and children, is a bridge too far." So you have been indirectly advocating this.


You could take that statement an extrapolate it to include many more groups of people based on many more fact patterns. In my opinion, it is still disgusting. But we are clearly different people.

---

The initial post wasn't suggesting any course of action. But, as happens when discussions progress, we do tend to come to conclusions.

You will note why I come to the conclusion, as you have read the entirety of the thread.You see the average age of death from the virus is 81 years old. I don't find the damage being caused to innocent families and children with their whole lives ahead of them, in order to limit exposure to a virus which will affect so few who are at the end of their lives regardless of the virus, to be an acceptable trade off.

It's wrong to watch millions of kids potentially suffer so that 81 year olds can live another 12 months. There are long term negative ramifications to the economic damage for the next generation as well.

We should not burn down our houses to keep our grandparents warm. That is counterproductive and foolish.

---

My Dad is 82 and my mom is 79. They are both vibrant, active people who still accomplish more than most folks of "working age" (Actually my dad still works). They travel extensively, have a vast network of friends and treasure time with their grandchildren and new great grandchild. While I suspect that they are not as at risk as many in their age group based on pretty miraculous health, the suggestion that their lives are somehow not worth protecting if it slows your well accumulation is grotesque.

Bearitto said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

The original post is so disgusting, I can't believe someone even remotely associated with Baylor would post it. You are permanently on record.

---

Why? Because it analyzes facts dispassionately? Do you dispute those facts?

I can see if it were full of lies, then sure, let's call it disgusting, but there is no lie within the entire post. It's simply a recounting of extant facts.

Tell me what is wrong, specifically with the post, if you will.

Thanks

---

For the record, I'm 65 and am not offended. My parents are now 89 and 90. My mom taught in public school and my veteran dad retired from Civil Service along with many years split between the Army Reserve and National Guard. They were able to retire modestly at 58 with gold-plated government employee health insurance. My dad was diagnosed with lymphoma 4.5 years ago and had been through all sorts of chemo and radiation which have kept the lymphoma at bay, but the dispassionate part of my brain knows the cost of the care he has received must be many hundreds of thousands of dollars. How is this sustainable?

curtpenn said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

The original post is so disgusting, I can't believe someone even remotely associated with Baylor would post it. You are permanently on record.

---

Why? Because it analyzes facts dispassionately? Do you dispute those facts?

I can see if it were full of lies, then sure, let's call it disgusting, but there is no lie within the entire post. It's simply a recounting of extant facts.

Tell me what is wrong, specifically with the post, if you will.

Thanks

---

For the record, I'm 65 and am not offended. My parents are now 89 and 90. My mom taught in public school and my veteran dad retired from Civil Service along with many years split between the Army Reserve and National Guard. They were able to retire modestly at 58 with gold-plated government employee health insurance. My dad was diagnosed with lymphoma 4.5 years ago and had been through all sorts of chemo and radiation which have kept the lymphoma at bay, but the dispassionate part of my brain knows the cost of the care he has received must be many hundreds of thousands of dollars. How is this sustainable?

---

1.That is something different than what the OP is talking about.

2. Less gold-plated toilets for billionaires?

.. said:

---

... My dad was diagnosed with lymphoma 4.5 years ago and had been through all sorts of chemo and radiation which have kept the lymphoma at bay, but the dispassionate part of my brain knows the cost of the care he has received must be many hundreds of thousands of dollars. How is this sustainable? ...

---

And many children, born with complications, require treatment in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and may never live "normal" lives. Will you write them off as well?

Booray said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

The original post is so disgusting, I can't believe someone even remotely associated with Baylor would post it. You are permanently on record.

---

Why? Because it analyzes facts dispassionately? Do you dispute those facts?

I can see if it were full of lies, then sure, let's call it disgusting, but there is no lie within the entire post. It's simply a recounting of extant facts.

Tell me what is wrong, specifically with the post, if you will.

Thanks

---

It may be factual. But what you are suggesting is morally reprehensible, which is why I called it disgusting. And while you said above that you are not suggesting a specific course of action, on another thread, you posted the following:

"This tells me that the economy destroying measures we are taking in order to keep an already long lived population alive even longer at the detriment of families and children, is a bridge too far." So you have been indirectly advocating this.


You could take that statement an extrapolate it to include many more groups of people based on many more fact patterns. In my opinion, it is still disgusting. But we are clearly different people.

---

The initial post wasn't suggesting any course of action. But, as happens when discussions progress, we do tend to come to conclusions.

You will note why I come to the conclusion, as you have read the entirety of the thread.You see the average age of death from the virus is 81 years old. I don't find the damage being caused to innocent families and children with their whole lives ahead of them, in order to limit exposure to a virus which will affect so few who are at the end of their lives regardless of the virus, to be an acceptable trade off.

It's wrong to watch millions of kids potentially suffer so that 81 year olds can live another 12 months. There are long term negative ramifications to the economic damage for the next generation as well.

We should not burn down our houses to keep our grandparents warm. That is counterproductive and foolish.

---

My Dad is 82 and my mom is 79. They are both vibrant, active people who still accomplish more than most folks of "working age" (Actually my dad still works). They travel extensively, have a vast network of friends and treasure time with their grandchildren and new great grandchild. While I suspect that they are not as at risk as many in their age group based on pretty miraculous health, the suggestion that their lives are somehow not worth protecting if it slows your well accumulation is grotesque.

---

It's really easy to make dispassionate arguments when talking about hypothetical lives. Thank you for putting a face to these.

I work with seniors -- all between the age of 82 and 94. The idea that they should be sacrificed for my convenience is unfathomable to me.

Dave Campbell turned 95 yesterday. Anyone want to tell him, or his daughter, that he has outlived his usefulness?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Makes it sound a lot like Obamacare.

---

If you like your deathbed, you can keep your deathbed.

ABC BEAR said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Makes it sound a lot like Obamacare.

---

If you like your deathbed, you can keep your deathbed.

---

"Anybody who wants a covid-19 test can get a test." DJ Trump

"If you like you doctor you can keep your doctor" BH Obama

"I did not have sex with that woman" Bubba

"I am not a crook" RM Nixon

Booray said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

The original post is so disgusting, I can't believe someone even remotely associated with Baylor would post it. You are permanently on record.

---

Why? Because it analyzes facts dispassionately? Do you dispute those facts?

I can see if it were full of lies, then sure, let's call it disgusting, but there is no lie within the entire post. It's simply a recounting of extant facts.

Tell me what is wrong, specifically with the post, if you will.

Thanks

---

It may be factual. But what you are suggesting is morally reprehensible, which is why I called it disgusting. And while you said above that you are not suggesting a specific course of action, on another thread, you posted the following:

"This tells me that the economy destroying measures we are taking in order to keep an already long lived population alive even longer at the detriment of families and children, is a bridge too far." So you have been indirectly advocating this.


You could take that statement an extrapolate it to include many more groups of people based on many more fact patterns. In my opinion, it is still disgusting. But we are clearly different people.

---

The initial post wasn't suggesting any course of action. But, as happens when discussions progress, we do tend to come to conclusions.

You will note why I come to the conclusion, as you have read the entirety of the thread.You see the average age of death from the virus is 81 years old. I don't find the damage being caused to innocent families and children with their whole lives ahead of them, in order to limit exposure to a virus which will affect so few who are at the end of their lives regardless of the virus, to be an acceptable trade off.

It's wrong to watch millions of kids potentially suffer so that 81 year olds can live another 12 months. There are long term negative ramifications to the economic damage for the next generation as well.

We should not burn down our houses to keep our grandparents warm. That is counterproductive and foolish.

---

My Dad is 82 and my mom is 79. They are both vibrant, active people who still accomplish more than most folks of "working age" (Actually my dad still works). They travel extensively, have a vast network of friends and treasure time with their grandchildren and new great grandchild. While I suspect that they are not as at risk as many in their age group based on pretty miraculous health, the suggestion that their lives are somehow not worth protecting if it slows your well accumulation is grotesque.

---

Your mom and dad sound like they are likely to be in the 50.5% of the elderly population that won't even see symptoms. But by all means, let's prevent the perhaps millions of people who work paycheck to paycheck in industries like food service who have kids to feed start scrambling to figure out where rent and food are coming from, so your apparently very healthy parents with a large nest egg and no need to work can not face the realities of aging.

curtpenn said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

The original post is so disgusting, I can't believe someone even remotely associated with Baylor would post it. You are permanently on record.

---

Why? Because it analyzes facts dispassionately? Do you dispute those facts?

I can see if it were full of lies, then sure, let's call it disgusting, but there is no lie within the entire post. It's simply a recounting of extant facts.

Tell me what is wrong, specifically with the post, if you will.

Thanks

---

For the record, I'm 65 and am not offended. My parents are now 89 and 90. My mom taught in public school and my veteran dad retired from Civil Service along with many years split between the Army Reserve and National Guard. They were able to retire modestly at 58 with gold-plated government employee health insurance. My dad was diagnosed with lymphoma 4.5 years ago and had been through all sorts of chemo and radiation which have kept the lymphoma at bay, but the dispassionate part of my brain knows the cost of the care he has received must be many hundreds of thousands of dollars. How is this sustainable?

---

Thanks for an honest and truly thoughtful post. I really appreciate that.

We all have family (me included) we could face losing. No one wishes to lose family members.

The purpose of this thread was to analyze the outcomes that no one wishes to talk about. What it shows me is that very few people are willing to think rationally in times they see as crises. Emotion really does cause people to circle the wagons and leave their intellect outside that circle.