TheJediBrah
Well-known member
You're possibly right. Maybe assorted governments have put a numerical value on each projected loss of life and are using that in conjuction with economic models. I don't know.There isn't but don't insurance companies do this literally all the time? I'm pretty sure the value they assign to an individual life (i.e. the amount that it's reasonable to spend to avoid one avoidable death) is a few million or so. Multiply that by, say, 50000 (i.e. what you'd get with a "herd immunity" strategy at a minimum) and you vastly exceed the economic costs of a short-term shutdown purely in terms of direct costs alone. Let alone the galaxy brain assumption that somehow economic life will return to normal for everyone else.
And there's the point that we spend tons on palliative care too, so obviously just because people are near the end of their life doesn't mean people think it's not worth spending money on them any more.
Anyway I think most would agree that a short shut-down is warranted, but what I was saying is there must be a point (probably a few months away at a guess) where it won't be "worth it" to continue.
suppositories only bebe, and they are much larger than most can takeI'd let TJB inject me full of sedatives any day
Last edited: