Many people over 60 and younger deaths will likely die as well.

You seem to infer that elderly lives are not as worthy as let's say 50 or younger. Elderly lives still have value. Would your answer change if it was mainly under 50's dying? Would you allow more time for under 50's than over 60's?

I really think this kind of thinking is dangerous.

While I agree with your point, the number quoted is not accurate for most countries. It's well known in Britain, that some specific NHS hospitals had near-100% occupancy in the middle of winter, and this caused (and continues to cause) severe problems and cancellations of appointments. But the "normal" winter peak is over. The latest stats (prior to the Covid outbreak) showed 90% bed occupancy across England and Wales.
That number - which leaves very little scope for coping with epidemics - was probably the worst of any G20 country, but I presume Italy is currently worse. I also believe that London's hospitals are particularly stretched right now.
From what I've read, the US healthcare system currently has considerably more capacity than the UK's. I heard (but haven't confirmed) that bed occupancy even in states like Washington, where Covid and flu are rife, is nearer 70%.

Obviously the pressures on each country's healthcare system will worsen, however, and this will lead to negative outcomes for all kinds of patients.

I think we have to value lives over economic damage, but I would point out that if we have more cases than we have ventilators doctors will almost certainly implement a policy that gives priority to younger patients. There is a calculus that weighs age as part of the value of life. It also happens in wrongful death cases. It’s gruesome, but we do this kind of math from time to time.

However, we are almost always gg going to choose economic harm over widespread loss of life.

In another viewpoint, the more famous people who test positive make it a lot more real for people who have been saying things like "this is just a flu, whats the big deal."

I know plenty of people who didn't even pay attention till the NBA got shut down and Tom Hanks tested positive.

Hilarious that people think that despite the postponement of the second biggest sporting event of the year already, which starts after the WSOP, that the WSOP will actually run

I'm 63, way older than most on here and owing to an accident in January which left me in Intensive Care for a 4 days, broke all my left hand ribs, my left clavicle (collarbone) and damaged my lungs (mainly my left one, which has half its normal capacity) I reckon I have the right to reply...a reply which may surprise.

I think you have a valid point and, assuming it is expressed with due regard to moral philosophy and - hopefully - coming from a decent heart, does not have to be a "dangerous" line of thought.

Clearly last year, if expressed hypothetically, in a "what if" scenario, yeah it would have been massively controversial point of view...but we are not in last year anymore are we? We in a world none of us expected to be in, and none of us know where its going.

Currently the UK governement are putting protection of the vulnerable as the most important priority, and given where we are, and the possiblity we can still reign it in - at least to the extent our NHS can ride it out - I think they right.

But if it gets out of control, then sometime soon NHS doctors will be calling the shots in priorities and then I suspect the younger cases will get the priority. Speaking as a dad and grandad, this is how it should be (hand on heart - which I can do as long as I don't press hard ).

I think "life" should trump "economics" at this stage, but clearly, if we disregard economics completely, then society collapses and potentially many more people die. That's the cold, hard logic here folks, and we should not shoot the messenger.

So I can live with what you are saying, and won't hold it against you. Just be nice how you say it.

You all be careful out there now.

Peace.

Oh..and good luck at the felt.

Certainly I think all lives have value. But cost/benefit health and morbidity questions are often framed not just in terms of lives, but also in terms of “years of life lost”. I -don’t- think they should be framed in term of raw economic benefit. But I do think as a default you should be willing to spend much more money to save the life for a 20-year old than you would to save a 90-year old.

Please tell us a better alternative.

Confirmed cannot be transmitted sexually.

Not sure what the danger is. This sort of calculation is made every day and only more so when resources are stressed. Its unfortunate, but a fact of life in a world without unlimited resources.

it goes beyond pure financial interests to other "economic" issues as well, such as things like organ donor lists or rationing of any medical resource which is in demand.

So if something happens everyday then it isn't dangerous? This makes no sense @all. So many ways to validate your point without saying well it happens everyday,so it's cool

Would guess they feel a whole lot better about being in a position to pay their bills...no work, no pay. And it would not surprise me if a substantial number of them are in a demographic that is not going to qualify for any manner of fiscal aid...

He’s not saying the thing itself isn’t physically dangerous. He saying that doing a cost/benefit analysis to assess its risk isn’t morally dangerous.

Allegiant Stadium construction continues amid 30-day state shutdown

"Some residents have voiced concern about the project employing in excess of 2,000 people and how such a large workforce could be prime for possibly spreading the new coronavirus.

Hill said that with a project site as large as the stadium, social distancing recommendations of maintaining at least 6 feet between each person can be easily carried out."

“Being outside helps a lot,” Hill said. “These construction sites are huge. On a huge construction site like this … that (social distancing) should not be an impact felt on a construction site.”

https://www.reviewjournal.com/busine...ate%20shutdown

I get what he's saying. My point is you literally cannot defend anything by saying welp it happens everyday so xyz

don't think you are using the word "literally" correctly.

Your "impression" (read: assumption) is wrong. The study did no such thing:

"In total, in an unmitigated epidemic, we would predict approximately 510,000 deaths in GB and 2.2 million in the US, not accounting for the potential negative effects of health systems being overwhelmed on mortality."

You should go to the source, rather than your impression from reading news articles (download Report #9):
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-globa...n-coronavirus/

As regards babies, the article I linked (did you read it?) reported on a study showing 40 children under the age of 1 became seriously or critically ill out of sample size of 2,143 children under 18 that became infected in China. It doesn't report any deaths, but when you magnify the numbers, as in your theoretical case of "what if we did nothing", you will most certainly end up with a baby mortality rate (which is also posited in the report from the Imperial College of London).

I literally am. As before a usage problem replacing really or actually. Why don't we just pull our d***s out now, and measure and bypass the semantics.

A friend is working that Stadium construction job. The rest of his immediate family has been laid off from hotel or retail jobs ....

I suspect they all feel a whole lot better that he is working.

I know it's a tough time for a lot of people but can someone please confirm if WSOP is still a go? Thx.

I'll have a fiver on Nutella.

God, I miss live poker.