Coronavirus

[Maou]

Yeah, the issue is that when people get back to work so will the epidemic. Very virulent strains usually only die off because of herd immunity (they spread too fast for their own good basically) - there is only a point to imposed isolation if it's done to built up capacity in hospitals etc. but that's not how we'll stop the epidemic. Anyone who says otherwise is a fucking idiot.

As long as it doesn't overwhelm the medical system, its just another flu. Life goes back to normal.

 

[á´…eparted]

As long as it doesn't overwhelm the medical system, its just another flu. Life goes back to normal.

Why not go say this to the thousands of folks who are dead? I'm sure they'd love to hear your oh so wonderfully informed and illuminating prospective on this. Oh, that's right, you can't, because they are dead.

 

[Luminous]

Life goes back to normal.

If you're still alive.
If you still have a job.
If you still have a roof over your head.
If you don't end up losing loved ones.

 

[Vendrah]

Well, (...)

Also another stuff I want to highlight is a same thing that has many different names: Excessive individualization/lack of collectiveship, excessive selfishness, lack of "charity", lack of solidarity, lack of volunteering, or many other names that describes the same stuff (and it is not about being rational, being a thinker or a feeler, as many use the "I am being rational" trap). It is also very likely that involves Big 5 Agreebleness.

I think 2-3 weeks ago, perhaps in this same topic, I said that super rich people would be smart enough and appear out as a heroes in the middle of the crisis by giving some few amount of their fortunes to avoid the crisis in the intention of saving the system. You said that you didnt really much believed in that. You seem to be incredibly right so far and I am surprisied that I was wrong.

If we stopped to think about, a place with full of solidarity doesnt really need a government. Yep, that would be the place that could really lack government with no problem. Think about this crisis, for example: Super rich people do have enough money to pass out to poorer people, so they wont starve, in a crisis like this. They do have enough money to make the construction and some hospital expansion to happen. They dont do it because they dont want to, and they have every right to do so. But the enviroment will pay for that. Expanding that into a non-crisis enviroment, you can think the "charity" stuff (just remember that solidarity is not a word that fully describes what Im refering to) with people so collective to the point where they will, voluntarily, create the roads, the structure, or that, even if it is quite unrealistic (but not impossible), run some public services as we know it with volunteers. They would take care of the poorest people, the people troubled in accident, on their own. There is always this idea that people on way too much solidarity are irrational or excessive feelers, that this is too much "heart", and, when there is too much "heart", there is no "head". Well, that is very inaccurate, being rational doesnt imply being selfish.

The pro-market people are also against the charity stuff and are all pro-FFA in real life (Free For All, which in old gaming language means a type of game where there are multiple players in the game and no one is ally from each other; I like that type of game; FFA in no way auto-imply in real/effective freedom although). And with that they flush in the toilet the possibility of volunteering fixing the market issues. But one thing is real on this crisis: Places with more volunteering are on advantage into dealing with it, regardless of having a big or small government. And those with small government and low volunteering/too much selfish individuality, are definitely going to pay for it.

 

[Maou]

Why not go say this to the thousands of folks who are dead? I'm sure they'd love to hear your oh so wonderfully informed and illuminating prospective on this. Oh, that's right, you can't, because they are dead.

Do you know how many people die of the flu each year, and no one sings their songs of mourning? I am not trying to down play their deaths, I am stating a fact life, and that it goes on regardless of how many die. Because it has too. If we spend all our time trying to stop it, more will die of other things. Most of what [MENTION=35566]Luminous[/MENTION] said can be prevented if some worked, some risking their lives. Some risking their loved ones so everyone doesn't suffer the same fate. People working is just as important as people staying home. The government can't help you otherwise.

 

[á´…eparted]

I am not trying to down play their deaths, I am stating a fact life, and that it goes on regardless of how many die. Because it has too. If we spend all our time trying to stop it, more will die of other things. Most of what @Luminous said can be prevented if some worked, some risking their lives. Some risking their loved ones so everyone doesn't suffer the same fate. People working is just as important as people staying home. The government can't help you otherwise.

The coronavirus exceeds this and is a much more severe threat than what we are facing. Go look at what doctors, scientists, and epidemiologists are saying and have been saying for weeks and months.

I am not trying to down play their deaths.

Yes, you are.

I am stating a fact life, and that it goes on regardless of how many die.

And how is that helping? It's not and coming from a woefully and willfully misinformed prospective and thus does harm.

Because it has too. If we spend all our time trying to stop it, more will die of other things.

You clearly don't understand what it means to prioritize or understand what threats actually are.

Most of what @Luminous said can be prevented if some worked, some risking their lives. Some risking their loved ones so everyone doesn't suffer the same fate.

Which people - doctors, medical professionals, researchers, workers in essential industries - are doing, but it's not enough without government and institutional support. Saying it's "just the flu" does the opposite of supporting them because it is a denial of reality.

The government can't help you otherwise.

Yeah because it's being run by psychopathic corrupt morons who actively oppose science and meaningful support, but you don't see or understand that either. Why don't you go back to worshiping Trump and his other fuckshit authoratarians and let the rest of us try and solve this deadly problem inspite of their global deathwish.

 

[Maou]

The coronavirus exceeds this and is a much more severe threat than what we are facing. Go look at what doctors, scientists, and epidemiologists are saying and have been saying for weeks and months.

Yes, you are.

And how is that helping? It's not and coming from a woefully and willfully misinformed prospective and thus does harm.

You clearly don't understand what it means to prioritize or understand what threats actually are.

Which people - doctors, medical professionals, researchers, workers in essential industries - are doing, but it's not enough without government and institutional support. Saying it's "just the flu" does the opposite of supporting them because it is a denial of reality.

Yeah because it's being run by psychopathic corrupt morons who actively oppose science and meaningful support, but you don't see or understand that either. Why don't you go back to worshiping Trump and his other fuckshit authoratarians and let the rest of us try and solve this deadly problem inspite of their global deathwish.

I've been following this since November. I have also listened to scientists, and doctors since. The only thing worse about Corona vs the flu is how likely it will kill old people. So many are asymptomatic, that they do not even get sick. Its only a matter of time before people develop immunity, since mutations are far slower than the flu. Creating some herd immunity.

Don't tell me what I'm doing, I know exactly where I stand. Don't accuse me of downplaying when you're freskin3g out. Nothing worse than a bunch of fearful humans in a crisis.

No information or disinformation helps in a crisis. Once fear is planted (which the media hss done already) humans become snimals. There is no way to syop it other thsn unity. Which is promptly ignored, especially by Dekocrsts in Congress as we speak.

The biggest threatbright now, is panic and anarchy. Not the virus. People will be the cause of their own demise. They need to cslm down.

I work in an "essential industry" too. These people should br supported. Just like I said, once the curve is flattened. Life has to return to "normal" at some point. By that, I mean everyone can work again. The economy recovers... etc.

Trump is doing a decent job, cslm the fuck down. Go be sngry at Dems for blocking funds for doctors in their stimilus package.

 

[Galena]

The only thing worse about Corona vs the flu is how likely it will kill old people.

Factual subtleties aside, that’s a big difference. They are people, like you and as valuable as you. And because:

I am stating a fact life, and that it goes on regardless of how many die.

This contradicts itself. It demands a slow re-read, with attention to the definitions of the words. “Life” is us, including those who will die. It’s not an abstract or a functionality level. It is just physically us, and it stops when we die.

 

[Maou]

Factual subtleties aside, that’s a big difference. They are people, like you and as valuable as you. And because:


This contradicts itself. It demands a slow re-read, with attention to the definitions of the words. “Life” is us, including those who will die. It’s not an abstract or a functionality level. It is just physically us, and it stops when we die.

Valuing life in general, does not negate the fact of death. Its like saying you'll never go outside again, because you'll get skin cancer, while the population dies out because there are no farmers to grow food.

 

[Jonny]

 

[Jonny]

Valuing life in general, does not negate the fact of death. Its like saying you'll never go outside again, because you'll get skin cancer, while the population dies out because there are no farmers to grow food.

What is your point here? You're accusing other people of freaking out and not considering the practical nature of the choice in front of us. I think you're misjudging what others are actually feeling.

Yes, we all understand that there is a limit to what we should endure for the sake of saving lives. It's a balance. But is it not possible that some of us don't think we're at the point where we have to scale back our efforts to stop the spread of the virus, lives be damned? It has nothing to do with freaking out. It has to do with considering all the factors at play and making a reasoned judgment. You're the one talking about people never going outside and populations dying because there are no farmers to grow food. Hyperbolic much?

You know how many people on my facebook feed were talking about how "tHeRe wEre OnlY 60 DeAtHs In 2 MoNtHs itZ Da FlU" a few weeks ago. There were 4 times as many deaths just today. And were we to do nothing about it, the total deaths would likely grow into the millions.

Part of why I'm posting my trendlines frequently is to illustrate the ability to estimate the future based on current information. Obviously my graphs are really simple and are considering a very limited set of data, but one can extrapolate from them that the professionals who are actually advising the decision makers might just know something more about future of this than @SearchingforPeace @Tellenbach @Maou, who each in their own way have lamented our response to this as being too sacrificial of the economy for the sake of "people who would die in 5 years anyway."

It's asinine.

Give it time. My best guess? Testing will become more widespread, which will lead to more sophisticated measures that will allow the economy to pick back up while also slowing/stopping the spread of the virus. We're nowhere near the point of talking about people starving or economic collapse.

 

[á´…eparted]

I've been following this since November. I have also listened to scientists, and doctors since.

Nah, cause if you did your "opinions" on this would be vastly different.

The only thing worse about Corona vs the flu is how likely it will kill old people.

Wrong.

So many are asymptomatic, that they do not even get sick. Its only a matter of time before people develop immunity, since mutations are far slower than the flu. Creating some herd immunity.

Translation: "I don't understand why everyone is freaking out and what's happening right now doesn't matter in the end". Yeah, that's pretty obvious, and is a huge problem.

Don't tell me what I'm doing, I know exactly where I stand. Don't accuse me of downplaying when you're freskin3g out. Nothing worse than a bunch of fearful humans in a crisis.

Too bad, I just did. And yes, I am freaking out - along with the majority of the world - for good reason, because this is a major global problems and morons and psychopaths with the authority to minimize this are doing the very things that will make all of this FAR worse.

No information or disinformation helps in a crisis. Once fear is planted (which the media hss done already) humans become snimals. There is no way to syop it other thsn unity. Which is promptly ignored, especially by Dekocrsts in Congress as we speak.

You might want to stop listening to Trump and authoratarians if you want to achieve the things you seem to aim for here, and what you interpret as fear is urgency and a rational response to idiots and psychopaths with death's wishes for us all.

The biggest threatbright now, is panic and anarchy. Not the virus. People will be the cause of their own demise. They need to cslm down.

Yep, and your ignorance is directly fueling this, not that you understand that or anything. What Trump supporter possibly could?

I work in an "essential industry" too. These people should br supported.

Duh?

Just like I said, once the curve is flattened. Life has to return to "normal" at some point. By that, I mean everyone can work again. The economy recovers... etc.

What a strange mix of rose colored glasses and simplification. It smells as if it's originated from some sort of over-idealized mode of rugged individualism wrapped in anti-intellectualism. Perverted american dream ideals at their bestworst.

Trump is doing a decent job

man that is some intense fantasyland you live in, or wishful thinking. Not sure anyone could tell the difference at this point.

cslm the fuck down.

No.

Go be sngry at Dems for blocking funds for doctors in their stimilus package.

Nah, I am glad they did because the GOP/fascist's/Nazi's bill was poison for a multitude of reasons that would lead to further global crime committed by the trump administration and private corporation. Not that'd you'd ever care to understand that or anything.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Also another stuff I want to highlight is a same thing that has many different names: Excessive individualization/lack of collectiveship, excessive selfishness, lack of "charity", lack of solidarity, lack of volunteering, or many other names that describes the same stuff (and it is not about being rational, being a thinker or a feeler, as many use the "I am being rational" trap). It is also very likely that involves Big 5 Agreebleness.

I think 2-3 weeks ago, perhaps in this same topic, I said that super rich people would be smart enough and appear out as a heroes in the middle of the crisis by giving some few amount of their fortunes to avoid the crisis in the intention of saving the system. You said that you didnt really much believed in that. You seem to be incredibly right so far and I am surprisied that I was wrong.

If we stopped to think about, a place with full of solidarity doesnt really need a government. Yep, that would be the place that could really lack government with no problem. Think about this crisis, for example: Super rich people do have enough money to pass out to poorer people, so they wont starve, in a crisis like this. They do have enough money to make the construction and some hospital expansion to happen. They dont do it because they dont want to, and they have every right to do so. But the enviroment will pay for that. Expanding that into a non-crisis enviroment, you can think the "charity" stuff (just remember that solidarity is not a word that fully describes what Im refering to) with people so collective to the point where they will, voluntarily, create the roads, the structure, or that, even if it is quite unrealistic (but not impossible), run some public services as we know it with volunteers. They would take care of the poorest people, the people troubled in accident, on their own. There is always this idea that people on way too much solidarity are irrational or excessive feelers, that this is too much "heart", and, when there is too much "heart", there is no "head". Well, that is very inaccurate, being rational doesnt imply being selfish.

The pro-market people are also against the charity stuff and are all pro-FFA in real life (Free For All, which in old gaming language means a type of game where there are multiple players in the game and no one is ally from each other; I like that type of game; FFA in no way auto-imply in real/effective freedom although). And with that they flush in the toilet the possibility of volunteering fixing the market issues. But one thing is real on this crisis: Places with more volunteering are on advantage into dealing with it, regardless of having a big or small government. And those with small government and low volunteering/too much selfish individuality, are definitely going to pay for it.

In my country people that openly push too much for market and individualization are often seen as public enemy, since they will get us all killed. This is the part of the world that constantly sees political "tectonic shifts" and therefore the structure has to be made in a way that revolves around the survival of the collective (otherwise we all die). Plus this is the only part of the world that skipped the classic colonialism on giving or receiving end and therefore we place less weight on trade and getting rich. Since our history revolves around brutal wars and survival, not money and exploitation in classic capitalistic sense.



Here is our history in the form of a map. I mean just wait until Roman Empire collapses, the last long lasting order in these part. You simply can't expect to do a business in this kind of environment, especially since this process is knocking down currencies all the time. Instead you need to make more compact society and hope you will not get overwhelmed from all sides or that your "upper management" will not collapse from within. Plus just if a border stands still that doesn't mean there is no war on it, that just means no one is advancing. Or perhaps there are strong internal tensions or hunger. (and this is still the process in motion, this isn't over)

Also towards this map the socialistic east of Europe is doing much better than liberal west in this situation (although they are probably doing less testing as well).


Coronavirus in Europe

 

[anticlimatic]

Part of why I'm posting my trendlines frequently is to illustrate the ability to estimate the future based on current information. Obviously my graphs are really simple and are considering a very limited set of data, but one can extrapolate from them that the professionals who are actually advising the decision makers might just know something more about future of this than @SearchingforPeace @Tellenbach @Maou, who each in their own way have lamented our response to this as being too sacrificial of the economy for the sake of "people who would die in 5 years anyway."

It's asinine.

Give it time. My best guess? Testing will become more widespread, which will lead to more sophisticated measures that will allow the economy to pick back up while also slowing/stopping the spread of the virus. We're nowhere near the point of talking about people starving or economic collapse.

You guys are having the right conversation in the wrong tone. How about some ideas- when we are ready for it- to open the economy while maintaining some impactful social distancing. I personally think large entertainment venues, rally's, concerts, marches, or anything else should at least be put on hold until a treatment at the very least can be approved and distributed. I think occupancy and sanitization protocols for businesses need to be rewritten, or amended temporarily for pandemics. Credit card machines need to be pen/hand free across the board, though many have already made this change. Doors could be propped open in warmer months, or opened for people by the host/hostess at restaurants.

 

[21%]

I don't understand what people mean by saving the 'economy'?

- If you think there's a chance you might need to pay $30,000 or more to get treatment when you get sick, will you be spending on anything non-essential?
- If you think there's a chance that you might lose your job soon, will you be spending on anything non-essential?
- If you think there's a chance that the economy is going to crash (which it already has, globally), will you be spending on anything non-essential?

You force people back to work, shops open, etc. They won't get customers. 3.28 million jobs are already lost -- these people have disappeared from the system as consumers of the non-essential market, because they now have to be frugal. This has started a domino effect that will affect all non-essential businesses, and they will all have to close, leading to more job loss, leading to even more businesses closing, leading to more job loss. It's horrifying.

How do we fix this, though? If you can't make people spend (because of the three points above), you can't 'save' the economy.

The best way forward is:
- Freeze rent, debts, and make it temporarily illegal to evict people. (If you can afford to rent out your second home, you can afford to not have that income for a while)
- Get cash to the people
- Launch a massive health program to hire these jobless people to join the COVID fight -- you're going to need something here when you re-open. People who do contact-tracing, etc. Medical staff. Anything. People answering the phone.
- Pay everyone to stay home for 2-3 weeks. Force everything to close down. This will kill a lot of the infection chains and will get the numbers back under control.
- Accept that things are not going to 'go back to normal' for a very long time. There's a psychological effect from this. People have been forced to confront the prospect of death. People see death. The society is going to change. Social distancing will need to keep happening for at least a year, which means that a lot of these businesses (conference, travel, hotel, etc.) will not bounce back. You need to make sure these workers have other things to do before those sectors can recover.

Please take a look at this:

View attachment 22177

'Flatten the curve' is the best we've got but it's not going to be enough. We're going to have a massive amount of deaths. This will leave a scar.

My point is, whether you practice social distancing or not, the economy is already ruined. Even if we isolate the vulnerable, the health system still won't be able to cope with the number of 'young' people who are going to getting sick. When that happens, it will decimate about 10% of the 'young' population. Some might sustain permanent damage to their lung capacity -- now what will that do, permanently, to their lives? No matter what we do, there is no 'saving the economy'. The only way to save the economy is to save the people first.

 

[Virtual ghost]

My point is, whether you practice social distancing or not, the economy is already ruined. Even if we isolate the vulnerable, the health system still won't be able to cope with the number of 'young' people who are going to getting sick. When that happens, it will decimate about 10% of the 'young' population. Some might sustain permanent damage to their lung capacity -- now what will that do, permanently, to their lives? No matter what we do, there is no 'saving the economy'. The only way to save the economy is to save the people first.

This is basically what I said in detail. Either you are trading in economy or your are trading in economy and people. This is why countries have to hibernate since that for the most part is freezing income and costs. Airline that doesn't have to pay the bills and it is not flying basically only has to give some small amounts of money to the employees, so that they have something to eat at home. Since their expenses are frozen as well. Especially if you have socialized healthcare (or socialized utilities like me). While the longer you wait the harder it will get, since even quarantines can spill if there is enough infected around.

 

[anticlimatic]

I don't understand what people mean by saving the 'economy'? - If you think there's a chance you might need to pay $30,000 or more to get treatment when you get sick, will you be spending on anything non-essential? - If you think there's a chance that you might lose your job soon, will you be spending on anything non-essential? - If you think there's a chance that the economy is going to crash (which it already has, globally), will you be spending on anything non-essential? You force people back to work, shops open, etc. They won't get customers. 3.28 million jobs are already lost -- these people have disappeared from the system as consumers of the non-essential market, because they now have to be frugal. This has started a domino effect that will affect all non-essential businesses, and they will all have to close, leading to more job loss, leading to even more businesses closing, leading to more job loss. It's horrifying. How do we fix this, though? If you can't make people spend (because of the three points above), you can't 'save' the economy. The best way forward is: - Freeze rent, debts, and make it temporarily illegal to evict people. (If you can afford to rent out your second home, you can afford to not have that income for a while) - Get cash to the people - Launch a massive health program to hire these jobless people to join the COVID fight -- you're going to need something here when you re-open. People who do contact-tracing, etc. Medical staff. Anything. People answering the phone. - Pay everyone to stay home for 2-3 weeks. Force everything to close down. This will kill a lot of the infection chains and will get the numbers back under control. - Accept that things are not going to 'go back to normal' for a very long time. There's a psychological effect from this. People have been forced to confront the prospect of death. People see death. The society is going to change. Social distancing will need to keep happening for at least a year, which means that a lot of these businesses (conference, travel, hotel, etc.) will not bounce back. You need to make sure these workers have other things to do before those sectors can recover. Please take a look at this: View attachment 22177 'Flatten the curve' is the best we've got but it's not going to be enough. We're going to have a massive amount of deaths. This will leave a scar. My point is, whether you practice social distancing or not, the economy is already ruined. Even if we isolate the vulnerable, the health system still won't be able to cope with the number of 'young' people who are going to getting sick. When that happens, it will decimate about 10% of the 'young' population. Some might sustain permanent damage to their lung capacity -- now what will that do, permanently, to their lives? No matter what we do, there is no 'saving the economy'. The only way to save the economy is to save the people first.

You make a lot of good points, especially about how interconnected and fragile the economy is- like an ecosystem. Something to keep in mind though is that it is the same ecosystem from which government draws its funds- so if the solution is to freeze rent (property taxes stop, ecosystem loses nourishment), hire people (drain from ecosystem without replenishing), give people money (more drain), launch a government program (more drain), it becomes unsustainable. That's the conundrum. The best solutions we can come up with self defeat, so some kind of compromise needs to be had.

 

[21%]

This is basically what I said in detail. Either you are trading in economy or your are trading in economy and people. This is why countries have to hibernate since that for the most part is freezing income and costs. Airline that doesn't have to pay the bills and it is not flying basically only has to give some small amounts of money to the employees, so that they have something to eat at home. Since their expenses are frozen as well. Especially if you have socialized healthcare (or socialized utilities like me). While the longer you wait the harder it will get, since even quarantines can spill if there is enough infected around.

Yeah. A lot of things need to be done now, because of exponential growth, which some people in power still fail to grasp, even now. So I'm watching in horror as the US lets day after day go by without any 'national-level' action. If people ask themselves "at which point does the number of deaths become unacceptable?" -- and if there is a threshold for that at all, the time to do something drastic is today, because if you don't do it now, you're going to have to do it at some point in the future, when things are much worse.

You make a lot of good points, especially about how interconnected and fragile the economy is- like an ecosystem. Something to keep in mind though is that it is the same ecosystem from which government draws its funds- so if the solution is to freeze rent (property taxes stop, ecosystem loses nourishment), hire people (drain from ecosystem without replenishing), give people money (more drain), launch a government program (more drain), it becomes unsustainable. That's the conundrum. The best solutions we can come up with self defeat, so some kind of compromise needs to be had.

I think the idea is you freeze things for the shortest amount of time possible. I think one month is already pushing it (for a complete lockdown). But then that's only effective if you do it at the same time everywhere, and if you do it early, which is probably never gonna happen in the US.

TBH, I don't know how any government is going to solve this. Even if you manage to save a lot of lives, there will be so much crap to solve later on and I have a feeling that many countries are going to have a total breakdown.

 

[Jaguar]

Life goes back to normal.

There is no going back, only forward. Structural change is taking place and there will be a new 'normal'.

 

[Virtual ghost]

You make a lot of good points, especially about how interconnected and fragile the economy is- like an ecosystem. Something to keep in mind though is that it is the same ecosystem from which government draws its funds- so if the solution is to freeze rent (property taxes stop, ecosystem loses nourishment), hire people (drain from ecosystem without replenishing), give people money (more drain), launch a government program (more drain), it becomes unsustainable. That's the conundrum. The best solutions we can come up with self defeat, so some kind of compromise needs to be had.

This is a measure for a few months at most and by then the virus should be under control. Only if that fails we can start to talk about alternatives, but in China at least towards the formal data it worked.
However you are constantly a slave to the idea that economy has to rotate money in large amounts. Take a look at my airline example, the cost should be minimal and the money will only go to food and other basic stuff (and related taxation). For this you don't even need a bailout if your system is structured well. Plus not all governments out there are swarmed with debt.


However for this you have to free yourself from "time is money" doctrine. Since the point is exactly that the financial time basically stops until the pandemic pass over.
You are free to accuse me of "forcing cultural differences on you".