Very well authored Thry.
I see the economic debate as more of a political debate, ultimately it's about privilege, private versus public health ideology. But even for the privileged, it only makes sense if you think there is a certain cure, which it seems there isn't!
For example the actions in the UK are contradictory to experience. Does this mean Boris Johnson thinks he is now immune to a second bout of Sars-CoV-2? It would seem to be that he thinks the risk to health from opening the economy is justified, so he either hasn't learned or he thinks the rest of the population are collateral damage to economic management. But what if the worst case scenarios are correct or even under-estimated?
In the long term, isn't this just a shift of the real costs from the general population and small business into health? Yet ultimately we will all pay via taxes anyway!
If you fail politically, a good way to get rid of the NHS by some other means is to send it broke
Some may argue that re-opening the economy only makes sense if you think health care is the domain of the wealthy. It's the ultimate outcome of the worst case scenario of re-opening the economy, is this something Sweden and a couple of other European states are now learning the hard way? It seems they are proof the economic rationalism was fundamentally wrong, having grossly underestimated the economic cost of leaving a natural resolution to the infection. Brazil is now also in this same boat, with it seems Mexico to follow.
Some will argue there will be just as many deaths from economic suffering and stress, perhaps even from war. But the unaddressed infection will see millions starving anyway, which will then probably lead to dispute, I suppose the economic rationalists will say that is a NIMBY issue!
I see the economic debate as more of a political debate, ultimately it's about privilege, private versus public health ideology. But even for the privileged, it only makes sense if you think there is a certain cure, which it seems there isn't!
For example the actions in the UK are contradictory to experience. Does this mean Boris Johnson thinks he is now immune to a second bout of Sars-CoV-2? It would seem to be that he thinks the risk to health from opening the economy is justified, so he either hasn't learned or he thinks the rest of the population are collateral damage to economic management. But what if the worst case scenarios are correct or even under-estimated?
In the long term, isn't this just a shift of the real costs from the general population and small business into health? Yet ultimately we will all pay via taxes anyway!
If you fail politically, a good way to get rid of the NHS by some other means is to send it broke
Some may argue that re-opening the economy only makes sense if you think health care is the domain of the wealthy. It's the ultimate outcome of the worst case scenario of re-opening the economy, is this something Sweden and a couple of other European states are now learning the hard way? It seems they are proof the economic rationalism was fundamentally wrong, having grossly underestimated the economic cost of leaving a natural resolution to the infection. Brazil is now also in this same boat, with it seems Mexico to follow.
Some will argue there will be just as many deaths from economic suffering and stress, perhaps even from war. But the unaddressed infection will see millions starving anyway, which will then probably lead to dispute, I suppose the economic rationalists will say that is a NIMBY issue!
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"