Official *MLB Season Delayed* Thread

[GwynnInTheHall]

True, but I think JJ will likely be right about this. I think most folks are on board now, but once this round is over, maybe in 8 weeks, and things flare up again, I think there is gonna be backlash for many places on doing this again. These "cost analysis" conversations are gonna happen at the highest levels, but also at the family and individual level as well. At a certain point, those two groups will converge and everyone will look at where we are and may come to a different decision than what we are doing now.

Why is the economy more important than any individual life?

[Sour Masher]

I don't think this will happen, but the extreme suppression strategy seems best. If we could all quarantine for about 3 weeks--I mean really isolate--it would allow the virus to run its course in everyone that has it right now. Then, it would be gone, or close to it, and we could all go back to normal by tax day. Again, it won't happen, but that would be by far the most expedient solution. Much better to hunker down for 3 weeks than have to go back and forth shutting everything down for a year or more.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Why is the economy more important than any individual life?

Anybody making money is not more important than any individual life. But if we have an extended economic downturn, that will result in loss of life, too. It's more indirect and perhaps easier to morally tolerate that way. I'd have a really tough time saying great grandma is just going to have to take her chances when we spin the Russian Roulette revolver for her, but I don't think that the real impacts to people from major economic downturns, including how more people die prematurely because of the stress and so forth, should be ignored. Hopefully we will see out of this crisis the need to take societal action to improve the safety net and reduce the impact that economic stress can have on people. But I don't think we'll ever be able to eliminate it.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Anybody making money is not more important than any individual life. But if we have an extended economic downturn, that will result in loss of life, too. It's more indirect and perhaps easier to morally tolerate that way. I'd have a really tough time saying great grandma is just going to have to take her chances when we spin the Russian Roulette revolver for her, but I don't think that the real impacts to people from major economic downturns, including how more people die prematurely because of the stress and so forth, should be ignored. Hopefully we will see out of this crisis the need to take societal action to improve the safety net and reduce the impact that economic stress can have on people. But I don't think we'll ever be able to eliminate it.

Wouldn't one way to do both, prevent a total return to the Great Depression (or worse) AND save as many lives as possible, be changing our structure of Govt to a more socialist construct? Take everyone's wealth and re-distribute it towards a cure and containment and assure that everyone in the country have means to cope with a new reality? I know that's drastic, but to me (of course to me) it sounds far more humane than deciding who's gonna have to die to prevent my 401k from vanishing.

[Judge Jude]

I don't think this will happen, but the extreme suppression strategy seems best. If we could all quarantine for about 3 weeks--I mean really isolate--it would allow the virus to run its course in everyone that has it right now. Then, it would be gone, or close to it, and we could all go back to normal by tax day. Again, it won't happen, but that would be by far the most expedient solution. Much better to hunker down for 3 weeks than have to go back and forth shutting everything down for a year or more.

we're going to see what happens in Washington and New York 2-3 weeks from now.
the pace of cases should show slower increases, flatline, or decreases. from there, we figure out how much longer to isolate.

spikes will occur by the end of the month in places like Chicago, which went on its merry way in bars on St. Patrick's Day.
they'll wind up in isolation as well, but at least they'll get a hint of what happened in Washington and NYC as a guide to the extent of benefits of isolation.

[Gregg]

Why is the economy more important than any individual life?

survival of the fittest?

All kidding aside. The economy has a huge impact on surviving. I am in the motor industry. Shut us down and we effect hospitals, Electricity, food growing, food processing, food transportation. Medicine manufacturing, clean water, dirty water, safety, fire pumps, Medical Ventilators, and yes even toilet paper production.

So is one life more important than shutting down the motor company? You would eventually doom many more lives.

[GwynnInTheHall]

survival of the fittest?

All kidding aside. The economy has a huge impact on surviving. I am in the motor industry. Shut us down and we effect hospitals, Electricity, food growing, food processing, food transportation. Medicine manufacturing, clean water, dirty water, safety, fire pumps, Medical Ventilators, and yes even toilet paper production.

So is one life more important than shutting down the motor company? You would eventually doom many more lives.

Again, wealth redistribution could make both goals attainable.

[GwynnInTheHall]

As for survival of the fittest--more like survival of the most heavily armed and best shot. Because that's what it'd come down to.

[Gregg]

Wouldn't one way to do both, prevent a total return to the Great Depression (or worse) AND save as many lives as possible, be changing our structure of Govt to a more socialist construct? Take everyone's wealth and re-distribute it towards a cure and containment and assure that everyone in the country have means to cope with a new reality? I know that's drastic, but to me (of course to me) it sounds far more humane than deciding who's gonna have to die to prevent my 401k from vanishing.

It might just work if we start with Germany and Japan, then Russia. Maybe someone with extra oil.

[Gregg]

As for survival of the fittest--more like survival of the most heavily armed and best shot. Because that's what it'd come down to.

And just like that you understand why people do not want to give up their guns.

[GwynnInTheHall]

And just like that you understand why people do not want to give up their guns.

I have never advocated for confiscation of guns.

[DMT]

Are guns gonna get you on a respirator? It's yet another pitiful indictment of our country that we'd rather run out and buy guns then stay in to keep the pandemic from killing more people.

[GwynnInTheHall]

It might just work if we start with Germany and Japan, then Russia. Maybe someone with extra oil.

I think you missed my point

[GwynnInTheHall]

Are guns gonna get you on a respirator? It's yet another pitiful indictment of our country that we'd rather run out and buy guns then stay in to keep the pandemic from killing more people.

You definitely missed the point

[DMT]

As for survival of the fittest--more like survival of the most heavily armed and best shot. Because that's what it'd come down to.

....

You definitely missed the point

Really? You weren't saying that those with guns would have the advantage?