economic crisis death toll

[BrilloPad]

Option B is always the better in the long term, what your option A doesn't take into account is the early deaths due to economic hardship

There is a crisis in society. Caused by people with lack of empathy. Maybe we could cull them.....

[tomtomagain]

Government already announced they are going to borrow like crazy, which means this has to be paid back later

This is true. But don't forget countries are immortal, humans aren't. It took 100 years to pay back the borrowing for World War 1. I think we are still paying off World War II. It can be spread over a long, long time.

Like it or not, we are all going to take a hit on this one. Whether it's directly losing jobs, family members, contracts, investment value or via paying higher taxes.

It's unavoidable, regardless of the course of action the government takes.

The key thing for me though is getting through the next 3 - 6 months and then being a place to start rebuilding.

[WTFH]

So generally a lot of people live on or just above the poverty line.

Potentially the effect this is having in the economy could push a few million below the poverty line which could cause more deaths and suffering than the virus.

Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or not?

More a discussion point than my personal point of view.

Potentially yes. Potentially we should just leave the over 70s out to die so that those who are of working age can work, earn money and pay taxes.
Scrap "zero hours contract", give people jobs where they get paid and know they are going to get paid rather than making poorer people suffer to line the pockets of those with no social responsibility.
Prioritise long term benefits over short term headlines.

Discuss?

[Lost It]

I agree we can live without a lot of these things, but not without healthy food, heating and a roof above our head. Government already announced they are going to borrow like crazy, which means this has to be paid back later, which in its turn means social services and other government funded services will be cut including benefits. Result poor people will die even earlier then they do already and crime will go up in some areas.

PS on the other hand, not buying all these unnecessary things will also contribute to further decline of the economy

I'll just say needs must.

As you say we need healthy food, heating but an electric radiator can provide that, (do what we did in the past and wear more clothing) and a roof over our head.

My thinking is the economy isn't going to cure anyone, there's no pockets in shrouds to take all the money with you that's being made by whoever is making it so it might as well be ploughed into keeping the country going. Just needs a change in thought processes. I know practically the whole planet is only concerned with how much money some people can earn but we are in a unique situation here, we need to forget the "Every man for himself" Tory thinking and pull together.

To suffer as a result of a poor economy you have to be alive in the first place. And if you are alive the economy can be dealt with.

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

Despite the inhumane way the OP introduced this topic, there is definitely a harsh truth in that logic.

It's a balancing act - how long do you shut down the economy for and at what cost should the country accept for saving lives? Further down there will be no money for the NHS and many more people will die as a result, as well as joblessness, rioting and a continuous economic crisis.

[GJABS]

Twat.

That's a bit harsh. Despite the blatant falsehood of his second point, OP was correct for raising the first point, which is relevant and important to bear in mind. There WILL be repercussions from the government's present financial actions that are likely to adversely affect the poor over the next few years. Careful decision-making is required.

[tomtomagain]

Despite the inhumane way the OP introduced this topic, there is definitely a harsh truth in that logic.

It's a balancing act - how long do you shut down the economy for and at what cost should the country accept for saving lives? Further down there will be no money for the NHS and many more people will die as a result, as well as joblessness, rioting and a continuous economic crisis.

If you don't shut-down the economy in a planned, controlled ( as controlled as it can be ) way, then this virus will spread like wildfire and the economy will shut down anyway.

If we did nothing, had maybe 500,000, deaths over a couple of months do you think that things would simply to "go back to normal"?

[GhostofTarbera]

If you don't shut-down the economy in a planned, controlled ( as controlled as it can be ) way, then this virus will spread like wildfire and the economy will shut down anyway.

If we did nothing, had maybe 500,000, deaths over a couple of months do you think that things would simply to "go back to normal"?

500K in death duties is a big win for HMRC it’s trillions in a windfall


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

[unixman]

No, it won't cause some mild cold for 99% of the population, it causes mild symptoms for 80% of the population.

14% will require medical invention.

6% will be in such respiratory distress that they will require machines to breathe for them.

Coronavirus symptoms: What are they and how do I protect myself? - BBC News


Get your facts straight.

Also, the 6%, if it is 6%, might well find no ventilators available. Assume the best, but prepare for the worst (so that it might be less "worst"). Personally I care more about keeping myself and others alive than I do about the economy. And I say that as a benched contractor, albeit with enough savings to last for the present.

Some kind of government action to distribute and ration groceries would be a good idea, if it is possible. It would both reassure people of a supply of core items and stop them visiting the supermarket. People are bulk buying not because they fear for the supply chain, but because they want to visit the shops a little as possible IMO.

[tomtomagain]

500K in death duties is a big win for HMRC it’s trillions in a windfall

The inheritance tax-threshold is £325,000 - the government takes 40% over that amount.

You're assuming that most pensioners have more than that in assets.

And that in, in the case of a couple, both would die.