meregreen Posted January 4, 2021 Share Posted January 4, 2021 4 hours ago, Jon said: She's not worded it too well, but I agree with her. Assuming you and yours aren’t the ones to die presumably. How much is a human life worth in monetary terms in Tory Britain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted January 4, 2021 Share Posted January 4, 2021 31 minutes ago, meregreen said: Assuming you and yours aren’t the ones to die presumably. How much is a human life worth in monetary terms in Tory Britain. Do you support banning all food allergens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 4, 2021 Moderator Share Posted January 4, 2021 3 minutes ago, Davkaus said: Do you support banning all food allergens? Is the virus clearly labelled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted January 4, 2021 Share Posted January 4, 2021 (edited) 6 minutes ago, bickster said: Is the virus clearly labelled? Accidents happen It's somewhat flippant, but the point remains. We agree "tolerable" levels of death all the time. There are around 8,000-9,000 alcohol related deaths per year in the UK. Mostly people who consent to the risk, but some of those deaths are innocent third parties. Should we ban booze? How many people die in car accidents each year? If you don't want to ban cars, why? Are you just selfishly assuming it isn't you and yours that'll die? It's an order of magnitude fewer deaths than covid, that's undeniable, but at that point you're debating where the line is, whereas some people whenever this conversation comes up like to get on their high horse and pretend there isn't a line at all, and we should preserve all lives at any cost, which is completely at odds with how we otherwise live our lives. I don't know who that woman is, and the fact she's asking this question right now when there's a vaccine solution in sight suggests she sets that line in a place that's quite unpalatable to me, but it's far too simplistic to object to the discussion at all with the premise "money shouldn't matter more than lives". Edited January 4, 2021 by Davkaus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted January 4, 2021 Share Posted January 4, 2021 To add to that, the economy isn't the only factor either, it's relative value of the duration of a small number of people's lives vs quality of life for everyone else. I'm absolutely prepared to live like this for another month to save thousands of lives. I'm less willing to live like this for my entire life. Again, it's unpalatable to think about, and I'm glad it's not my decision, but there's a judgement to be made somewhere between those two values. Hopefully the vaccine precludes us having to make that decision in the medium to long term. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonesy7211 Posted January 4, 2021 Share Posted January 4, 2021 I think the term for the level of deaths shouldn't be acceptable, but understandable. For example, a lot of elderly die each year from the flu, and the levels of death are never acceptable but are rather more understandable when we consider other factors associated with the deaths including age, underlying health conditions etc. It's the same with driving. I don't think anyone gets into a car with the intention of having a serious accident, but deaths relating to driving are more understandable when we consider speed of the vehicle, condition of the driver, condition of the vehicle etc. Certainly the number of deaths in relation to these things become a lot less scary when we understand there are other factors. What the Tory MP said about acceptable levels of death is abhorrent and shows just how little she values life. There should never be an acceptable level of death, even with Covid. However there will always be an understandable level of death so long as those in charge are doing all they can to manage the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted January 4, 2021 Share Posted January 4, 2021 37 minutes ago, Jonesy7211 said: I think the term for the level of deaths shouldn't be acceptable, but understandable. For example, a lot of elderly die each year from the flu, and the levels of death are never acceptable but are rather more understandable when we consider other factors associated with the deaths including age, underlying health conditions etc. It's the same with driving. I don't think anyone gets into a car with the intention of having a serious accident, but deaths relating to driving are more understandable when we consider speed of the vehicle, condition of the driver, condition of the vehicle etc. Certainly the number of deaths in relation to these things become a lot less scary when we understand there are other factors. What the Tory MP said about acceptable levels of death is abhorrent and shows just how little she values life. There should never be an acceptable level of death, even with Covid. However there will always be an understandable level of death so long as those in charge are doing all they can to manage the situation. So it’s more the semantics of the words she used that bothers you rather than the actual concept of what she is talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonesy7211 Posted January 4, 2021 Share Posted January 4, 2021 9 minutes ago, LondonLax said: So it’s more the semantics of the words she used that bothers you rather than the actual concept of what she is talking about? Absolutely not, perhaps my point isn't clear. I think the whole framework of "acceptable" is wrong, and it bothers me greatly that anyone could use that in an argument against saving lives. I think the use is entirely wrong and is used by people such as her to play down the number of deaths in the face of financial loss. What I do hope for is that we change this to an understandable level of deaths, as I believe the government would come in for far greater criticism. They are simply not doing enough to reduce the number of deaths to a more understandable level, in my opinion. Ideally there would be no deaths, and no pain of losing a loved one to this awful virus for anyone else. However that simply won't happen, but what we can do is try to prevent the number of deaths being so high by making it the highest priority, and not financial gains for a corrupt and greedy shower of MP's currently occupying government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted January 4, 2021 Moderator Share Posted January 4, 2021 14 hours ago, OutByEaster? said: I'm trying to think of when this has happened before - when a government has said 'this must happen' and the country has just said no. it's weird. Poll tax? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted January 4, 2021 Share Posted January 4, 2021 1 hour ago, Davkaus said: Accidents happen It's somewhat flippant, but the point remains. We agree "tolerable" levels of death all the time. There are around 8,000-9,000 alcohol related deaths per year in the UK. Mostly people who consent to the risk, but some of those deaths are innocent third parties. Should we ban booze? How many people die in car accidents each year? If you don't want to ban cars, why? Are you just selfishly assuming it isn't you and yours that'll die? It's an order of magnitude fewer deaths than covid, that's undeniable, but at that point you're debating where the line is, whereas some people whenever this conversation comes up like to get on their high horse and pretend there isn't a line at all, and we should preserve all lives at any cost, which is completely at odds with how we otherwise live our lives. I don't know who that woman is, and the fact she's asking this question right now when there's a vaccine solution in sight suggests she sets that line in a place that's quite unpalatable to me, but it's far too simplistic to object to the discussion at all with the premise "money shouldn't matter more than lives". Most things that have a "tolerable" level of death involved has a preventative, a cure or some sort of safety attached to it. Cars have seat belts. The flu has the flu jab. Alcohol has warnings everywhere regarding risks. If you kill someone whilst driving under the influence, you'll be on a murder/manslaughter charge. All of these things exist. What's in place for Covid? There's no cure, no preventative - and also no liability for spreading it. Why can't we wait until the vaccine is in place, assess the results and go from there before we start "accepting" deaths? The main issue that people have - and by people, I mean the majority of the general public - is that they're bored. They don't want to live like this. As has been said many times on here, until you've experienced what this virus does, it's easy to be blasé about it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desensitized43 Posted January 4, 2021 Share Posted January 4, 2021 36 minutes ago, bobzy said: Most things that have a "tolerable" level of death involved has a preventative, a cure or some sort of safety attached to it. Cars have seat belts. The flu has the flu jab. Alcohol has warnings everywhere regarding risks. If you kill someone whilst driving under the influence, you'll be on a murder/manslaughter charge. All of these things exist. What's in place for Covid? There's no cure, no preventative - and also no liability for spreading it. Why can't we wait until the vaccine is in place, assess the results and go from there before we start "accepting" deaths? The main issue that people have - and by people, I mean the majority of the general public - is that they're bored. They don't want to live like this. As has been said many times on here, until you've experienced what this virus does, it's easy to be blasé about it. From what I've seen and heard there's a lot of greed involved too. Can't people just hurry up and die so I can get back to making money? We're all pretty sick of it now and want things to go back to something like normal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 4, 2021 Share Posted January 4, 2021 I just don't understand 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted January 4, 2021 Share Posted January 4, 2021 8 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: I just don't understand I mean the first response would be that our country is full of morons but that poll looks a bit fishy. Labour's share has stayed the same and the large Tory rise is made up nearly entirely of Lib Dem share? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 4, 2021 Author Moderator Share Posted January 4, 2021 3 hours ago, meregreen said: How much is a human life worth in monetary terms in Tory Britain. 2.4 million pounds per life. As @Genieand others have alluded to, this sort of monetary statistical assessment is quite routine and normal in safety, risk and medical fields. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted January 4, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted January 4, 2021 England loves the Tories. And always will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 4, 2021 Author Moderator Share Posted January 4, 2021 1 minute ago, Chindie said: England loves the Tories. More people in England don't than do. It's just the rigged system that gives them disproportionate influence. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 4, 2021 Moderator Share Posted January 4, 2021 3 hours ago, StefanAVFC said: I just don't understand That Poll is an outlier in terms of Tory Vote Look at where the Tory vote is in comparison to recent trends (way higher), mid-summer is the last time they were so high Look at where the gains have come from (Lib Dems) - again, no way have they dropped that much imo For the Tories to have effetively taken over half of the LibDems votes nationwide in the last month is beyond any reality I would have thought Look at where their gain has come from (Libdems) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted January 4, 2021 Share Posted January 4, 2021 51 minutes ago, bickster said: That Poll is an outlier in terms of Tory Vote Look at where the Tory vote is in comparison to recent trends (way higher), mid-summer is the last time they were so high Look at where the gains have come from (Lib Dems) - again, no way have they dropped that much imo For the Tories to have effetively taken over half of the LibDems votes nationwide in the last month is beyond any reality I would have thought Look at where their gain has come from (Libdems) Yeah that one doesn't make sense. The polls have been around 40/40 Labour/Tories since Corbyn, Labour dropped when the leave vote went to Tories and remain vote split between them and Lib Dems, now it's back to where it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted January 4, 2021 Share Posted January 4, 2021 Again, it all comes down to the way the Tories pummelled the “Labour crashes the economy” line during two different elections, how the media didn’t question it and how Labour failed to counter it. That line has since turned to “Labour can’t be trusted” even though the ones who are corrupt are the ones in power. The opposition are held to account by the public more so than the ones making decisions. Part of the post truth world we live in. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fun Factory Posted January 5, 2021 Share Posted January 5, 2021 9 hours ago, Chindie said: England loves the Tories. And always will. Just imagine the electoral arithmetic if/when Scotland become independent. It would be practically a one party state with no escape out. Sleep well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts