Discussion:
Kindness And Samfundssind
Add Reply
Rich80105
2020-11-02 03:59:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Well worth reading:
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/kindness-and-samfundssind
BR
2020-11-02 04:10:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/kindness-and-samfundssind
That title sounds like an Ardern and Biden double act.

Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Rich80105
2020-11-02 09:33:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/kindness-and-samfundssind
That title sounds like an Ardern and Biden double act.
Bill.
Until you read it, but I agree, not many will have heard the last word
before. I was intrigued at the further evidence that econimics is a
mix of science and art - in other words, it is subject to fashion and
opinion; and some of the expectations of economists have been proved
wrong by the worldwide Covid experience - putting lives before profits
has worked better than expected in getting us through covid, with less
of an economic effect than many economists would have predicted; and
many may not have been aware of the economic losses through the
Roger-nomics /Ruth-anomics era.
Crash
2020-11-03 01:09:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/kindness-and-samfundssind
That title sounds like an Ardern and Biden double act.
Bill.
Until you read it, but I agree, not many will have heard the last word
before. I was intrigued at the further evidence that econimics is a
mix of science and art - in other words, it is subject to fashion and
opinion; and some of the expectations of economists have been proved
wrong by the worldwide Covid experience - putting lives before profits
has worked better than expected in getting us through covid, with less
of an economic effect than many economists would have predicted; and
many may not have been aware of the economic losses through the
Roger-nomics /Ruth-anomics era.
What this boiled down to is that the principle of sacrificing the
economy to mitigate loss of life (the lock down approach) is currently
proving more effective that the sacrificing of lives to mitigate
economic losses (the Swedish approach). PM Ardern chose the lock down
approach, Sweden in particular chose the other approach, which
sacrifices lives to achieve herd-immunity (in the belief that
widespread infections produce natural immunity in many more people
than those that die).

While it looks like the lock down approach is producing vastly lower
death-rates at a lower economic cost that feared, we are still in the
early stages of the pandemic so it is too early to tell. As time goes
on, the effectiveness of the lock down approach is dependent on
induced immunity ( aka immunisation) against COVID19 to allow trade
barriers to be reduced. It also looks like the Swedish approach is
not producing the level of natural immunity that was hoped for, but
this may change over time.

It is still too soon to know which was most effective.


--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-11-03 02:36:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/kindness-and-samfundssind
That title sounds like an Ardern and Biden double act.
Bill.
Until you read it, but I agree, not many will have heard the last word
before. I was intrigued at the further evidence that econimics is a
mix of science and art - in other words, it is subject to fashion and
opinion; and some of the expectations of economists have been proved
wrong by the worldwide Covid experience - putting lives before profits
has worked better than expected in getting us through covid, with less
of an economic effect than many economists would have predicted; and
many may not have been aware of the economic losses through the
Roger-nomics /Ruth-anomics era.
What this boiled down to is that the principle of sacrificing the
economy to mitigate loss of life (the lock down approach) is currently
proving more effective that the sacrificing of lives to mitigate
economic losses (the Swedish approach). PM Ardern chose the lock down
approach, Sweden in particular chose the other approach, which
sacrifices lives to achieve herd-immunity (in the belief that
widespread infections produce natural immunity in many more people
than those that die).
While it looks like the lock down approach is producing vastly lower
death-rates at a lower economic cost that feared, we are still in the
early stages of the pandemic so it is too early to tell. As time goes
on, the effectiveness of the lock down approach is dependent on
induced immunity ( aka immunisation) against COVID19 to allow trade
barriers to be reduced. It also looks like the Swedish approach is
not producing the level of natural immunity that was hoped for, but
this may change over time.
It is still too soon to know which was most effective.
I haven't seen statistics on immunity, whether natural or otherwise,
but I believe Sweden has admitted they did not adopt the best
approach. So far, it is fair to say that the lock down approach,
accompanied by good border protecton (difficult for any country but
less difficult for island nations like New Zealand) is by far the best
approach so far. The best hope for the future is an effective vaccine
or vaccines; it appears there is still some time before that happens.

Unfortunately we have a number of countries with political parties
that have encouraged distrust of government for political ends - the
lockdown approach requires a fair amount of trust in government, and a
willingness to act in the interests of the common good. New Zealand is
lucky that such attitudes are more muted than in say the UK and USA;
but the impression that National would have moved even slightly
towards the Swedish approach may have done as much to affect the
election result as satisfaction with the decisions that the Labour-led
government had made; explaining to some extent the shift of some
National supporters to the ACT party.
Gordon
2020-11-03 07:12:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Until you read it, but I agree, not many will have heard the last word
before. I was intrigued at the further evidence that econimics is a
mix of science and art - in other words, it is subject to fashion and
opinion;
Or in other words, the total scientific approach does not work so we fudge
things by getting some art into it.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
and some of the expectations of economists have been proved
wrong by the worldwide Covid experience - putting lives before profits
has worked better than expected in getting us through covid, with less
of an economic effect than many economists would have predicted; and
many may not have been aware of the economic losses through the
Roger-nomics /Ruth-anomics era.
What this boiled down to is that the principle of sacrificing the
economy to mitigate loss of life (the lock down approach) is currently
proving more effective that the sacrificing of lives to mitigate
economic losses (the Swedish approach).
I read the other day a viewpoint/review of the two models and it is not a
case of either or. The counties that had a lax attitude about the lockdowns
had as much damage to the economy as those that locked down hard.

Covid-19 is a distrupter.





PM Ardern chose the lock down
Post by Crash
approach, Sweden in particular chose the other approach, which
sacrifices lives to achieve herd-immunity (in the belief that
widespread infections produce natural immunity in many more people
than those that die).
While it looks like the lock down approach is producing vastly lower
death-rates at a lower economic cost that feared, we are still in the
early stages of the pandemic so it is too early to tell. As time goes
on, the effectiveness of the lock down approach is dependent on
induced immunity ( aka immunisation) against COVID19 to allow trade
barriers to be reduced. It also looks like the Swedish approach is
not producing the level of natural immunity that was hoped for, but
this may change over time.
It is still too soon to know which was most effective.
--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-11-03 08:22:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gordon
[snip]
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Until you read it, but I agree, not many will have heard the last word
before. I was intrigued at the further evidence that econimics is a
mix of science and art - in other words, it is subject to fashion and
opinion;
Or in other words, the total scientific approach does not work so we fudge
things by getting some art into it.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
and some of the expectations of economists have been proved
wrong by the worldwide Covid experience - putting lives before profits
has worked better than expected in getting us through covid, with less
of an economic effect than many economists would have predicted; and
many may not have been aware of the economic losses through the
Roger-nomics /Ruth-anomics era.
What this boiled down to is that the principle of sacrificing the
economy to mitigate loss of life (the lock down approach) is currently
proving more effective that the sacrificing of lives to mitigate
economic losses (the Swedish approach).
I read the other day a viewpoint/review of the two models and it is not a
case of either or. The counties that had a lax attitude about the lockdowns
had as much damage to the economy as those that locked down hard.
Certainly there are more than two models - Melbourne's first outbreak
was lax border security,the second was lax compliance with lockdown.
No territory that has adopted the model of keeping businesses and
organisations running has done well; and no territory that has
effectively locked down has donebadly - but there are certainly
differences between countries.
Post by Gordon
Covid-19 is a distrupter.
The knowledge that it was caught from a push button in a lift, and on
another occasion by touching a waste bin lid; certainly indicates it
can be easy to catch. Overall we have done well. We have also had our
share of individual stupidity - going to a supermarket with symptoms
seems remarkeably silly for someone working at an isolation facility.
Post by Gordon
PM Ardern chose the lock down
Post by Crash
approach, Sweden in particular chose the other approach, which
sacrifices lives to achieve herd-immunity (in the belief that
widespread infections produce natural immunity in many more people
than those that die).
While it looks like the lock down approach is producing vastly lower
death-rates at a lower economic cost that feared, we are still in the
early stages of the pandemic so it is too early to tell. As time goes
on, the effectiveness of the lock down approach is dependent on
induced immunity ( aka immunisation) against COVID19 to allow trade
barriers to be reduced. It also looks like the Swedish approach is
not producing the level of natural immunity that was hoped for, but
this may change over time.
It is still too soon to know which was most effective.
--
Crash McBash
Tony
2020-11-03 19:37:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
[snip]
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Until you read it, but I agree, not many will have heard the last word
before. I was intrigued at the further evidence that econimics is a
mix of science and art - in other words, it is subject to fashion and
opinion;
Or in other words, the total scientific approach does not work so we fudge
things by getting some art into it.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
and some of the expectations of economists have been proved
wrong by the worldwide Covid experience - putting lives before profits
has worked better than expected in getting us through covid, with less
of an economic effect than many economists would have predicted; and
many may not have been aware of the economic losses through the
Roger-nomics /Ruth-anomics era.
What this boiled down to is that the principle of sacrificing the
economy to mitigate loss of life (the lock down approach) is currently
proving more effective that the sacrificing of lives to mitigate
economic losses (the Swedish approach).
I read the other day a viewpoint/review of the two models and it is not a
case of either or. The counties that had a lax attitude about the lockdowns
had as much damage to the economy as those that locked down hard.
Certainly there are more than two models - Melbourne's first outbreak
was lax border security,the second was lax compliance with lockdown.
No territory that has adopted the model of keeping businesses and
organisations running has done well; and no territory that has
effectively locked down has donebadly - but there are certainly
differences between countries.
Post by Gordon
Covid-19 is a distrupter.
The knowledge that it was caught from a push button in a lift, and on
another occasion by touching a waste bin lid; certainly indicates it
can be easy to catch. Overall we have done well. We have also had our
share of individual stupidity - going to a supermarket with symptoms
seems remarkeably silly for someone working at an isolation facility.
I believe you are doing her a disservice, what I heard and subsequently read
was that she did not develop symptoms until after the supermarket visit.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
PM Ardern chose the lock down
Post by Crash
approach, Sweden in particular chose the other approach, which
sacrifices lives to achieve herd-immunity (in the belief that
widespread infections produce natural immunity in many more people
than those that die).
While it looks like the lock down approach is producing vastly lower
death-rates at a lower economic cost that feared, we are still in the
early stages of the pandemic so it is too early to tell. As time goes
on, the effectiveness of the lock down approach is dependent on
induced immunity ( aka immunisation) against COVID19 to allow trade
barriers to be reduced. It also looks like the Swedish approach is
not producing the level of natural immunity that was hoped for, but
this may change over time.
It is still too soon to know which was most effective.
--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-11-04 20:57:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 03 Nov 2020 13:37:42 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
[snip]
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Until you read it, but I agree, not many will have heard the last word
before. I was intrigued at the further evidence that econimics is a
mix of science and art - in other words, it is subject to fashion and
opinion;
Or in other words, the total scientific approach does not work so we fudge
things by getting some art into it.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
and some of the expectations of economists have been proved
wrong by the worldwide Covid experience - putting lives before profits
has worked better than expected in getting us through covid, with less
of an economic effect than many economists would have predicted; and
many may not have been aware of the economic losses through the
Roger-nomics /Ruth-anomics era.
What this boiled down to is that the principle of sacrificing the
economy to mitigate loss of life (the lock down approach) is currently
proving more effective that the sacrificing of lives to mitigate
economic losses (the Swedish approach).
I read the other day a viewpoint/review of the two models and it is not a
case of either or. The counties that had a lax attitude about the lockdowns
had as much damage to the economy as those that locked down hard.
Certainly there are more than two models - Melbourne's first outbreak
was lax border security,the second was lax compliance with lockdown.
No territory that has adopted the model of keeping businesses and
organisations running has done well; and no territory that has
effectively locked down has donebadly - but there are certainly
differences between countries.
Post by Gordon
Covid-19 is a distrupter.
The knowledge that it was caught from a push button in a lift, and on
another occasion by touching a waste bin lid; certainly indicates it
can be easy to catch. Overall we have done well. We have also had our
share of individual stupidity - going to a supermarket with symptoms
seems remarkably silly for someone working at an isolation facility.
I believe you are doing her a disservice, what I heard and subsequently read
was that she did not develop symptoms until after the supermarket visit.
Thanks, I had not picked that up - from the radio report I heard it
appeared that she had symptoms earlier.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
PM Ardern chose the lock down
Post by Crash
approach, Sweden in particular chose the other approach, which
sacrifices lives to achieve herd-immunity (in the belief that
widespread infections produce natural immunity in many more people
than those that die).
While it looks like the lock down approach is producing vastly lower
death-rates at a lower economic cost that feared, we are still in the
early stages of the pandemic so it is too early to tell. As time goes
on, the effectiveness of the lock down approach is dependent on
induced immunity ( aka immunisation) against COVID19 to allow trade
barriers to be reduced. It also looks like the Swedish approach is
not producing the level of natural immunity that was hoped for, but
this may change over time.
It is still too soon to know which was most effective.
--
Crash McBash
Loading...