Kerem jojjenek maskor es kulonosen masho
הִשְׁתַּדֵּל הִזְדַּקֵּן
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC43eDJvBqnK6W8SVxuydGcw>
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC43eDJvBqnK6W8SVxuydGcw> Debéis las
mujeres colaborar, en hermosa obre de la humanidad;
mujeres, mujeres, necesitamos vuestra unión el día que estalle nuestra
grande revolución.
Hermanas que amáis con fe la libertad habéis de crear la nueva sociedad...
El sol de gloria que nos tiene que cubrir a todos en dulce vivir. Por una
idea luchamos, la cual defendemos con mucha razón. Se acabarán los
tiranos, guerras
no queremos ni la explotación. Debéis las mujeres colaborar, etc.
Todos nacemos iguales, la naturaleza no hace distinción; comunistas
libertarios, luchad con firmeza
palma, a paolo shaul םֹשׁ ְרֵגּ
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 12:38 PM Torgeir Fjeld <t.fjeld1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Who was out of his mind?
To address the substantial issue -- the question of a certain Italian
professor's sanity when he suggested the present global fix was an excuse
for a new permanent state of exception governed by draconian, totalitarian
measures -- we read in an interview with Bjarne Robberstad, Professor of
Health Economics at the University of Bergen, Norway, that the overwhelming
numerical information regarding the present "crisis" is hardly matched by
an interest in fatalities that are due to budgetary allocations and other
measures in the health sector relating to the current scare. He states that
Covid 19 isn't particularly serious. On a scale from 1 to 6 it has the
second lowest degree of seriousness. The loss of good (quality) years of
life per patient is low: Generally it affects older patients that already
are seriously ill. Those who die have an average life expectancy of seven
years. At the same time hospitals have closed much of their ordinary
operations and ended treatments of conditions that are far more serious if
we base our judgement on the official definition of seriousness. These
priorities may be sensible, but they should be open to discussion. Could
they have health related consequences that we haven't yet considered?
In Norway, a country that now claims to have the situation "under control"
a democratic, parliamentary process a few years ago culminated in a
national agreement around these three criteria for priorities in the health
services:
1. Usefulness: health services should make a priority of measures that
they expect to *function* (there was our term again) well;
2. Resourcefulness: the less resources a measure demands the higher it
should be prioritised;
3. Seriousness: the most seriously ill, those with the largest probability
of loss of health, should be of highest priority.
These criteria are to be weighed against each other. In this context
health care priorities are grounded in the term "good [quality] years of
life," which can be measured as the product of years of life and health
condition. We quote Robberstad:
Underneath this calculation there is an assumption that both length of
life *and* quality of life are important. It has some significance how daft
one's life is. Poor health or mortality are insufficient [criteria] by
themselves. Therefore we speak about "good years of life," or life
expectancy adjusted for quality [of life].
There is much more to be said about this, but the key here is that when we
obliterate our present way of life, not for a day, a week or a month, but
for years to come, what are the effects of this on the quality of life of,
say, a child, who has to live with the consequences of saving some elderly,
already ill persons?
There is an interesting essay by Professor Alex Broadbent, philosopher of
science, medicine and epidemiology, and Director of the Institute for the
Future of Knowledge, University of Johannesburg, that discusses some of
these issues. He notes, e.g., that
We, personally, have elderly relatives whom we care about deeply. But
would we actively move children who are otherwise at a minimal risk into aprofessor was far off the mark in his characterisation of the measures
high risk situation, in an attempt to prolong the life of some of those
elderly? Would we do so when the effectiveness of those measures is
questionable, and the economic effects of those measures also puts the
elderly themselves at risk?
In considering these question is it still "obvious" that said Italian
taken?
Take care, and all the best,
Mvh. / Yours sincerely,
Torgeir Fjeld <https://torgeirfjeld.com/>
~~ ereignis <https://ereignis.no/>: taking you to who you are ~~
