The post that was quoted here has been removedHeard a similar story about some fella in the US called Fredo. It's not surprising, there are people that view themselves as a special ruling class (some post here at RHP), and the profession attracts them.
One of my theories is; anyone who aspires to be a polly should immediately be banned from being a polly.
06 May 20
The post that was quoted here has been removedThis was already published in 24th of March by Dr. Ditiu (https://www.evangelisch.de/inhalte/167558/22-03-2020/expertin-corona-pandemie-trifft-tuberkulose-erkrankte-hart) [German source]
The reasons given are:
* vulnerability of TB atients to any lung disease, such as Covid19
* MD's are pulled to Covid-patients
* Hospital beds needed for TB patients are taken up by covid19 patients
* Medicine is more difficult to Transport
So what we do have is a Problem with medical systems especially (but not restricted to) poorer countries
And we do have a ethical Problem, worthy of discussion: If I have to patients with potential terminal illness which one I save and why?
06 May 20
@wajoma saidhttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8211169/Chicago-Mayor-Lori-Lightfoot-defends-decision-haircut-amid-city-wide-lockdown.html
Heard a similar story about some fella in the US called Fredo. It's not surprising, there are people that view themselves as a special ruling class (some post here at RHP), and the profession attracts them.
One of my theories is; anyone who aspires to be a polly should immediately be banned from being a polly.
Do as I say, not as I do. the world is full of hypocrites.
06 May 20
@ponderable saidrestricted to) poorer countrieswithout knowing the answer, and assuming you cannot fix both, the one that is cheapest to fix? That will have less residual effect on society. Empathy is nice but the empathy is not necessary in a crisis. It can be a hindrance.
And we do have a ethical Problem, worthy of discussion: If I have to patients with potential terminal illness which one I save and why?
just threw that in for those that like these empathic leaders.
06 May 20
@jimmac saidThere is of Course not the one and only correct answer.
without knowing the answer, and assuming you cannot fix both, the one that is cheapest to fix? That will have less residual effect on society. Empathy is nice but the empathy is not necessary in a crisis. It can be a hindrance.
just threw that in for those that like these empathic leaders.
I understand you would put Forward economic criteria. How would "cheapest to fix" compete with "will have the bigger (economical?) Impact in future?"
06 May 20
@ponderable saidNot sure how / why you have phrased this??
There is of Course not the one and only correct answer.
I understand you would put Forward economic criteria. How would "cheapest to fix" compete with "will have the bigger (economical?) Impact in future?"
Not trying to be ignorant but? the cheapest option will have the biggest impact, on being able to help the most, because money is a limited resource, while having the least effect on the future.
I fear I am misunderstanding your question.
@jimmac saidI started a thread about this some time ago.
Well done, We are on the same page.
As I have stated before the lockdown could kill millions.
For every 0.4% increase in unemployment, there is a 1% increase in mortality rates.
https://www.genre.com/knowledge/blog/does-an-economic-downturn-lead-to-an-increasing-mortality-rate-en.html
Anyone want to do the math of how many people die from a 1% increase in unemployment in the US?
06 May 20
@jimmac saidSo I wasn't clear.
Not sure how / why you have phrased this??
Not trying to be ignorant but? the cheapest option will have the biggest impact, on being able to help the most, because money is a limited resource, while having the least effect on the future.
I fear I am misunderstanding your question.
The two competing theses on economy would be for me:
"cheapest to fix" affects cost now.
"biggest economical Impact" affects "future Profits"
06 May 20
@ponderable saidWhat do any of those have to do with the "lockdown"?
This was already published in 24th of March by Dr. Ditiu (https://www.evangelisch.de/inhalte/167558/22-03-2020/expertin-corona-pandemie-trifft-tuberkulose-erkrankte-hart) [German source]
The reasons given are:
* vulnerability of TB atients to any lung disease, such as Covid19
* MD's are pulled to Covid-patients
* Hospital beds needed for TB patients are taken up by ...[text shortened]... orthy of discussion: If I have to patients with potential terminal illness which one I save and why?
06 May 20
Now have researched her source https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/may/06/millions-develop-tuberculosis-tb-covid-19-lockdown
Dr Ditiu is representing an agency that aims to stop Tb and she tries to raise awareness, doing her Job well
Quote from the article: “I have to say we look from the TB community in a sort of puzzled way because TB has been around for thousands of years,” Ditiu said. “For 100 years we have had a vaccine and we have two or three potential vaccines in the pipeline. We need around half a billion [people] to get the vaccine by 2027 and we look in amazement on a disease that … is 120 days old and it has 100 vaccine candidates in the pipeline. So I think this world, sorry for my French, is really …. up,” she said.
06 May 20
@no1marauder saidIt has Nothing to do with Lockdown, but the reader of the article with an average reading comprehension would have realized that.
What do any of those have to do with the "lockdown"?
A study is cited, but not sourced. I would like to read that study tio see what it actually contains