1333 posts
  • 78 / 134
  • 1
  • 78
  • 134
 by Hacksaw
1 week ago
 Total posts:   16747  
 Joined:  Apr 15 2015
United States of America   AT THE BEACH
Moderator

SWAdude wrote:Great read.

Thank you!


Ditto

 by Lancer
1 week ago
 Total posts:   53  
 Joined:  May 01 2016
United States of America   LA Coliseum
Practice Squad

AvengerRam wrote:For those who don't get that the government has to make policy choices that balance health and safety against prosperity, personal freedom and the economy ALL THE TIME, I give you this...
Image


Sure, this is understood.

The issue I think ppl rightly wonder over, is when TPTB responsible for proposing/implementing policy choices, have repeatedly chose car death analogies (which, are bad) to illustrate their thinking on particular proposals.

 by SWAdude
1 week ago
 Total posts:   2409  
 Joined:  Sep 21 2015
United States of America   LA Coliseum
Pro Bowl

Many of us appreciates Mike Rowe's perspective things. I found this on his Facebook page so my limited skills are unable to provide a link.

I share this with a word........Balance.


Safety Third - Ok, I’m going to need you to walk me through this whole “Safety Third” thing one more time. How can safety be anything other than first? Are you seriously suggesting that saving the economy is more important than saving lives? Now, more than ever, safety must be first, whatever the cost!

Roger Martin

Hi Roger

What I suggested in my post last week, was that Safety is not a thing to be “ranked,” but rather, a state of mind, to be applied as needed to a myriad of situations in varying amounts. But if we were to rank it, it would rarely be “first.” Were safety truly “first,” no level of risk would ever be encouraged or permitted, and no work would ever get done. Or play, for that matter.

Obviously, this does not mean that Safety isn’t a critical part of living. It is. And there are times, like right now, when extraordinary circumstances compel us to temporarily elevate safety above everything else – even our individual liberty. Which is why I’m hunkered down in my bunker, waiting for the all clear. But the notion of telling people that safety is always first, no matter the cost, is not only untrue, it’s counter-intuitive.

On Dirty Jobs, I was struck by the number of safety professionals who repeatedly insisted that nothing was more important to them, than my personal safety. “Your safety,” they said, over and over again, “is our top priority.”

I usually heard these words moments before I was invited to walk up the cable of a suspension bridge, or field test a stainless-steel shark suit, or climb into a bosuns chair to wash windows at the top of a high-rise. I still hear them today from pilots who invite me to strap myself in as they attempt to defy gravity in a pressurized aluminum tube that travels through the air at 600mph. And now Roger, I’m hearing them from you. You’re telling me safety must always be first, no matter the cost.

Here’s an honest question - would you be OK if the government reduced the posted speed limits by 50%, required all motorists to wear helmets, and outlawed all left turns? If not, why not? Doing so would save almost 40,000 lives a year.

The reason most people would not agree to those new protocols, is because we’ve already come to terms with the human cost of driving the way we want to drive. We believe, collectively, that 40,000 annual deaths are an acceptable price to pay. It’s a steep price, but we pay it, year after year after year. Sure, we’ve made things much dafer with safety belts, air bags, ABS brakes, and so forth. But we haven’t done ALL we can to eliminate traffic fatalities. Nor will we. Because when it comes to driving, safety isn’t first.

I’m not trying to be provocative, or insensitive. As I wrote on my first day of quarantine, I have two parents in the at-risk category, and I’m terribly worried about their well-being. But assigning a cost to preserving human life is hardly a new calculus, or a sign of misanthropy. We humans are constantly deciding which calamity to worry about, which disaster to panic over, and which tragedy to outright ignore. Just yesterday, 24,000 people died of starvation. The same will happen tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow, and the day after that. Over nine million a year die of hunger related illnesses. Why is this not a global emergency? Why doesn’t cable news report these tragic deaths every minute of every day, like they do with this virus?

Over the last few weeks, we’ve been inundated with facts, but very little context or perspective. And that lack of context is prompting more and more people to ask the same question I posed here last week – what if the cost of the cure is greater than the cost of the disease? It’s not an unreasonable question, or a heartless one, but people don’t like to hear it. Last night on Tucker Carlson, a former Lt. Governor from Texas named Dan Patrick learned that the hard way.

“Let's get back to work," said Patrick, who emphasized that he is a grandparent. "Those of us who are 70-plus, we'll take care of ourselves, but don't sacrifice the country. Don't do that. Don't ruin this great American dream."

The backlash has been brutal.

"This crisis is really laying bare the extent to which we are ruled by completely craven psychopaths," tweeted Micah Uetricht, managing editor at Jacobin magazine.
Democratic Texas state Rep. Donna Howard, a grandparent herself, told Dallas Morning News that "the idea that the only option is for us to sacrifice ourselves is really incredulous to me."
Texas state Rep. Gene Wu also ripped Patrick's remarks in a tweet late Monday. "This statement is repulsive and unfortunately reflective of the attitude many Texas Republicans have regarding people and money."

What do you guys think? Is it repulsive to suggest that a country’s economy might be more important than saving the lives of thousands of its citizens?

In the comments below, I’ll likely be criticized for comparing this virus to other deadly diseases and hazardous pursuits, but that’s not what I’ve done. I’m simply wondering why the safety of our fellow man is such a fungible thing? It's a sincere query. No one today is suggesting we should change the way we drive in order to save 40,000 lives, even though we easily could. But many seem to believe our entire economy should be sacrificed in order to save as many lives as possible. People who, like you, seem to believe that safety is always the most important thing.

Anyway, to answer your question, Safety Third was my slightly subversive attempt to start an honest conversation around occupational safety back in 2009, and to acknowledge the unintended consequences of exaggerating the importance of safety on the job. For what it’s worth, it worked. Attached is a short video that spells it out for you.

And here’s one of a hundred articles written by various safety professionals who actually agrees with me. https://bit.ly/2vL04O0

And here’s another one, just so you know I’m not alone... https://bit.ly/2Ue99bF

Be careful out there…

Mike

 by Dick84
1 week ago
 Total posts:   5359  
 Joined:  Oct 29 2015
Italy   LA Coliseum
Hall of Fame

aeneas1 wrote:is that another way of asking if we can do both? speaking of paths, this guy certainly seems to think there's more than one road to take:

The New York Times - Opinion
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/opin ... Position=2

Is Our Fight Against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease? There may be more targeted ways to beat the pandemic.

By David L. Katz - President of True Health Initiative and the founding director of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center.

What we know so far about the coronavirus makes it a unique case for the potential application of a “herd immunity” approach, a strategy viewed as a desirable side effect in the Netherlands, and briefly considered in the United Kingdom.

https://davidkatzmd.com/


My question was more about whether our current societal setup is what’s best as we move forward, long term.

I like the different science based approaches and looking into options. I think getting everyone to stay home while the peak approaches was the easiest, best way to react now, and we would need much greater antibody testing capacity to move forward with large segments of society getting back to work.

 by PARAM
1 week ago
 Total posts:   4656  
 Joined:  Jul 15 2015
Barbados   Just far enough North of Philadelphia
Superstar

I guess po folks have much less to lose so they'd prefer the economy be put on the back burner until we get a handle on things.

I guess the rich folks have much more to lose so they're more worried about the economy.

And let's face it, money talks bullshit walks. People more well off have more access to the testing.

 by /zn/
1 week ago
 Total posts:   4946  
 Joined:  Jun 28 2015
United States of America   Maine
Superstar

No one today is suggesting we should change the way we drive in order to save 40,000 lives, even though we easily could. But many seem to believe our entire economy should be sacrificed in order to save as many lives as possible.


That's a question only being asked in the USA, where neo-liberal economic considerations dominate everything. And in even asking the question, you are naturalizing those neo-liberal assumptions. Meaning, you're acting like they're the only way to think of economics. Well they're not. Throughout Europe there is no blood calculus which says the economy counts more than lives because the economy is set up differently in the first place. Actual sick leave, public health insurance and/or socialized medicine, etc.

You are not asking us to consider the ECONOMY, you are asking us to justify and defend THE CURRENT ECONOMIC SYSTEM. There's nothing natural inevitable or necessary about this particular system of economic rules and so on and IN FACT another way to look at this crisis is that it exposes the problems and weaknesses in our economic system.

Meanwhile yes we control driving and auto accidents--you have to have a license, you are subject to fines for violating driving regulations, there are speed limits, have to wear seat belts, must have insurance, if you drive recklessly and hurt people you can be jailed, the law does not allow you to drink and drive, we spend all sorts of time and money making sure roads are paved and traffic signs and signals are visible, and so on. Without those things it would be MORE than 40,000 lives. No one is saying drop all that stuff and let the auto and fossil fuel industries make more.

In contrast if this pandemic breaks out across the country the way it threatens to, 40,000 lives is a drop in the bucket. We're talking about the potention for hundreds of thousands of lives lost in an overwhelmed medical system. And I promise you once we reach a point where medical infrastructure is stretched and hundreds of thousands die, people are going to be even MORE afraid to go to work.

Do I think THIS economic system is worth dying for to preserve in the face of an epidemic? Absolutely no I do not. Instead, I think the problems this epidemic is exposing in our current economic environment need to be addressed.

 by St. Loser Fan
1 week ago
 Total posts:   4141  
 Joined:  May 31 2016
United States of America   LA Coliseum
Superstar

Not NFL, but shows how things are being pushed.


 by AvengerRam
1 week ago
 Total posts:   3867  
 Joined:  Oct 03 2017
Israel   Longwood, FL
Superstar

PARAM wrote:I guess po folks have much less to lose so they'd prefer the economy be put on the back burner until we get a handle on things.

I'm not so sure about that. "Po folks," as you term them, are much more likely to lose their homes if the economy tanks. That's why "Po folks" are more likely to take hazardous jobs (NFL players aside)... because its that or extreme poverty, homelessness, etc.
I guess the rich folks have much more to lose so they're more worried about the economy.

Again... maybe not. "Rich folks" are (in most, though not all, cases) more likely to have sufficient reserves to ride out the storm with little impact on their lifestyles, long-term prospects, etc. Remember, as Warren Buffet said, you only lose money in a crash if you sell your stock.
And let's face it, money talks bullshit walks. People more well off have more access to the testing.

Only if the testing is available to buy. I can guarantee you that, no matter how rich you are, you would not have been able to score paper towels at any Target or Wal-Mart in my area in the last week.

 by PARAM
1 week ago
 Total posts:   4656  
 Joined:  Jul 15 2015
Barbados   Just far enough North of Philadelphia
Superstar

AvengerRam wrote:I'm not so sure about that. "Po folks," as you term them, are much more likely to lose their homes if the economy tanks. That's why "Po folks" are more likely to take hazardous jobs (NFL players aside)... because its that or extreme poverty, homelessness, etc.

Again... maybe not. "Rich folks" are (in most, though not all, cases) more likely to have sufficient reserves to ride out the storm with little impact on their lifestyles, long-term prospects, etc. Remember, as Warren Buffet said, you only lose money in a crash if you sell your stock.

Only if the testing is available to buy. I can guarantee you that, no matter how rich you are, you would not have been able to score paper towels at any Target or Wal-Mart in my area in the last week.


Question? How many poor folks you know that are homeowners?

 by AvengerRam
1 week ago
 Total posts:   3867  
 Joined:  Oct 03 2017
Israel   Longwood, FL
Superstar

PARAM wrote:Question? How many poor folks you know that are homeowners?

Does one need to be a homeowner to lose one's home?

If you can't pay your rent, eventually (seems that lawmakers are slowing the process right now, which is appropriate) you will be evicted. That would be a bad thing to happen as a result of the economy's shutdown, no?

  • 78 / 134
  • 1
  • 78
  • 134
1333 posts Apr 03 2020