byco42
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2011
- Messages
- 15,989
That's like a third of GDP.
There's one big element that can really swing that total cost that's politically untouchable: valuing lives at different rates. I think the value is calculated by looking at what we spend on other safety measure with statistics spread over millions so you're never trying to place a value on a person. Like hazard pay rates, insurance rates, things like that. How much risk are people willing to take for how much money and vice-versa (through insurance). We know these things change as people age or get wealthy. Knowing that the virus impacts older people in poor health (and there's probably a correlation to wealth in there too) that would knock the $7.5 T down considerably.
That's some stone cold rationalization. To be clear, I'm against just letting the virus run its course.
In my opinion, this virus, like every other before it, will run its course, regardless of what we do, and the "elect" know this already. It will just take longer to do so, conditioning us to be more complaint, now and in the future. Also, the people in "charge" hold us, the profane, in little to no regard, so it matters not to them what happens to us, so long as they can use the outcome to their own benefit.
The "elect" really don't care about you and me.