Wednesday, May 06, 2020

Sigh


Something I read today:


"What weight do we apportion the fact of life versus quality of life? At what point of psychological and economic degradation is that quality unacceptable and is the life worth putting at risk? What number of lives, if any, is it OK to endanger so that a much higher number of lives can be bettered? What’s the higher number? And how should betterment be defined?
Sweden’s herd-immunity approach provided one set of answers. Michigan’s lockdown provided another. Whichever fork a given place or population takes, it’s making a profoundly moral decision.
A friend of mine recently asserted that no matter the Covid-19 data in July and August, all college campuses should welcome students back for the fall semester because young people aren’t the primary victims of Covid-19; because the current disruption to their lives, if prolonged, could strain them in ways that haunt their futures; and because they have so much future ahead of them. They warrant a little extra consideration.
Implicit in that reasoning is that older people, who are vulnerable if the resumption of business as usual spreads the virus, warrant a little less.
There’s no way to sugarcoat that, and there’s no point in being anything less than wholly honest about the implications of the transcendently difficult choices before us."  Frank Bruni,  New York Times

Someone on Facebook responded thus:
"Wonder what it costs for a two week stay in ICU? Families then have to bury their loved one. Legal fees for will probate. Cemetery plot if one is available.
All that expense and suffering. And then, medical people that spent fortune to train. Throwing it into the bonfire to care for humanity.
If we are reducing this to a matter of money, then the answer is NO. The economy will recover anyway. Your portfolio will eventually go back up. Yearly profits will not be as high. But the human cost is unspeakable. The children left without a parent. That price is too high and the economy is not worth needless deaths. I do not accept that nihilistic nightmare."

15 comments:

  1. I said it when this began-- that I'd prefer it to hit my generation hardest as we have lived our lives. The problem is it appears that younger people also can have heart attacks, strokes, etc. from this virus. Children get inflammations. I just keep hoping for a vaccine, but we want what we want with no cost. It's the nature of this generation. So, travel, a lot of the things some value so much must continue and who cares who gets hurt from it. Likewise cruises, etc. Balancing this all is not going to be easy.

    It's easier for people like me where my idea of a vacation is our travel trailer on the banks of a river somewhere, where i haven't had a salon visit in years and where we started getting takeout from restaurants when the meal sizes got too big for us to not want to just share one. For some, what's going on is a major sacrifice and not just jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My best shot? Banish the Prez. And the Vice Prez. Make sure the crowds that march all get the virus, and ditto for those who leave the grocery store and yank off their masks.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah, I agree that younger people warrant a little extra consideration. It's a basic tenet of triage. But I hope we don't get to that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's too bad that we can't shutdown for a few months without people losing it. That is really all that is being asked at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I haven't been out to a store or any place where people are for six weeks now, due to my age. So I understand the value of social isolation to stop the spread of the virus. However unless a vaccine is created soon, whenever the lockdown is ended, another wave of illness will occur, in addition to the flu, this fall.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is one of those between the devil and the deep blue sea. People can die. But if people don't work, there are two ways for the government to pay for things-- feds print money meaning dollars are worth less... or taxes. With no taxes how does the government pay for pensions, services, etc.? This isn't just about people who didn't have $500 in their bank account when it began. It's also about state governments needing there to be income and people buying things for sale taxes. There is nothing easy about this situation.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is the toughest time I remember. People are desperate financially and so many lives are at stake. Who is expendable? I say no one but I am in the vulnerable group. Does what happens depend on who is in charge? It appears to be so...

    ReplyDelete
  8. And so we are, as they say, on the horns of a dilemma, an uncomfortable place to sit, for sure. As we begin to open up for the sake of the economy, a good reason, we will all have to use our good judgement about what is right for each of us. There are no easy answers, and still a whole lot of unknowns with this virus.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree with Linda Reeder.
    The unknowns of the virus, society and the economy will sift through the blunders from all sides.
    Blaming anyone is a waste of good energy going forward.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The only answer to this will be whatever happens but my hope is that the old normal is gone and that there will be a new and far better normal to eventually take place. People will realize we are one with the earth and we need to take care of each other and the planet. Some days I am an optimist. Some days I am fully depressed. My only solution on a persona level is to make the best I can of each day.

    My husband's grandfather died in the 1918 pandemic. I can tell you for sure that the scars affected subsequent generations to this day.

    ReplyDelete
  11. So many questions, and so few, if any, definative answers.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The country went berserk over aborting fetuses. the country went berserk over assisted suicide for the sick and dying. now, I guess allowing people to die unnecessarily is OK. now I guess forcing people out and into the crowded workplaces without needed protections exposing them to possible and probable death is acceptable. I guess hundreds of thousands of dead is now acceptable as long as it's the moving finger of fate that decides who lives and dies instead of an individual. But it's not the moving finger of fate alone. everyone who insists that the economy must open now and open completely, everyone who refuses to wear a mask or prevents their employees from wearing masks is behind that finger. all to protect the young? it's not just the old and health challanged that are dying. the young and healthy are dying too.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If our government had planned ahead and gotten their act together like South Korea and had restocked the PPEs and other necessary equipment when they should have, we'd be in a much better position. Trump was warned about this in January and did nothing. Our testing is woefully lacking. So what to do with this mess we're in now? Sacrifice our senior population for the sake of the economy? I don't know what to say.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Very good presentation of situation. Challenges us to consider our values, life. I do think all may choose to reassess their life style and what matters in life. Some may choose to forgo activities they considered important in their life and choose others. Given our nation has deteriorated to being one based primarily on consumerism, maybe we might well adjust differently.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I heard someone on TV say, "Are we trying to save lives or a life-style?" I thought that well said. I agree that eventually the economy will recover... without the needless sacrifice of lives.

    ReplyDelete

Take your time...take a deep breath...then hit me with your best shot.