I think I'll invest in Charmin and Cottonelle while I'm at it. The socialists are going to be so stressed out over the next 5 years, they'll have constant bouts of diarrhea thanks to Trump, the anti-christ.

So this might be the new normal if and when there are pandemics, even less dangerous ones

I am sure we can learn to adapt and prepair for such epidemics, but as yet we are sorely ill prepared. Hopefully there will be much more effort put in to epidemiology now with real data to work with.

P&G

The thing is, you cannot argue with counter-factuals of "What if nothing would be done, then how many would die". — ssu

Obviously you can argue with the counter factual of "What if nothing would be done, then how many would die" by having some basis to estimate the deaths will be low if action isn't taken.

Your whole previous point of drawing a comparison to previous pandemics that didn't have these extreme policy reactions is proof that you can go forward without the measures we're seeing today ... if the deaths really are low enough that "the economic disease" of extreme measures would be worse than "the actual disease" then yes, it's unfortunate it will kill people but it's impossible to shut down society to just delay the inevitable spread of the disease.

In those previous cases where the world reaction wasn't so intense, health systems weren't completely overloaded. That's the difference with this disease, and it's not based on "aha, you can't argue with the counter-factual! now bow to the liberal hysteria!" it's based on the experience that unfolded in Wuhan, Italy, South Korea. The disease explodes in number of cases and is overwhelming until measures are taken to reduce rate of transmission.

If numbers of deaths aren't crazy high, it's because measures were taken. This simple fact should be very obvious by now. If more people aren't already dead in Italy, it's because they've been progressively making more and more intense measures until the infection rate goes below the threshold of what's manageable. That it has not been achieved yet should be extremely worrying of just how dangerous this disease is to enough people that it quickly overwhelms the health system (3 weeks from "we have an outbreak" to shutting down the entire country).

Now, yes, you could just let everyone who can't survive without treatment die and everyone else carry on as normal. The fact is, people don't accept that policy. So, you can argue for a change in values and subsequent change in policy, but the facts simply happen to be this disease is way more deadly than the flu, both seasonal and previous flu pandemics up until the Spanish flu (and the Spanish flu was very disruptive to society and economies; some places avoided the disease for quite some time through extreme measures like quarantines and travel restrictions like we're seeing today; the reason we remember the Spanish flue of 1918 is precisely because it was so disruptive; without treatment Corona virus could easily kill 10% of cases, that's a deadliness on par or higher than the Spanish flu. The difference today is that we have way better treatment for pneumonia and so societies want to save people that can be saved, which requires lowering the infection rate to a level where doctors can treat everyone).

I said socialist-in-liberal-clothes', as in a wolf-in-sheep-clothes, as in knowing you're a socialist, but trying top pass yourself off as a libertarian (the only true liberal), in order for you ideas to sound more reasonable to others. — Harry Hindu

I think that a true libertarian’s ideas might sound more reasonable if they pretended to be a conservative or liberal. Anyway, a ‘socialist’ could stand for a wide range of things. An American liberal is much more specific.

I don't understand. What do you mean? — Shawn

If money isn't your motivation, why would observations of the stock market have any affect on you?

Yeah, as if the economy weren't relevant towards prosperity and personal leisure.

Anyway, I'm done, as this is getting funny.

Nothing illustrates the fundamental interconnectedness of all mankind more vividly than a pandemic.

Obviously you can argue with the counter factual of "What if nothing would be done, then how many would die" by having some basis to estimate the deaths will be low if action isn't taken. — boethius

If no action would be taken to fight the disease, there would have already been a lot of pandemics in our lifetime causing similar havoc as the black death or the Spanish flu. In the case of the Spanish flu antibiotics have gone a long way from 1918. After all, let's not forget that the modern influenza A has derived from it.

Your whole previous point of drawing a comparison to previous pandemics that didn't have these extreme policy reactions is proof that you can go forward without the measures we're seeing today ... if the deaths really are low enough that "the economic disease" of extreme measures would be worse than "the actual disease" then yes, it's unfortunate it will kill people but it's impossible to shut down society to just delay the inevitable spread of the disease. - Now, yes, you could just let everyone who can't survive without treatment die and everyone else carry on as normal. The fact is, people don't accept that policy. — boethius

And this is my point: we simply don't tolerate the idea of many thousands dying in an epidemic as we earlier did.

The lessons learned have improved our responses in fighting epidemics. That itself has changed how countries respond to outbreaks. Politicians, even if they wouldn't care so much (as Trump at first), simply have to react. That now a multitude of European countries are shutting down their borders and my country is serious contemplating emergency laws that have never been implemented since WW2 tells the playing field for politicians has changed.

For example, assume if we could forecast earthquakes in a similar way we can forecast volcano eruptions. That would totally change everything. US politicians simply couldn't disregard alarm bells from the scientific community of an impeding strong earth quake in the San Andreas fault let's say in the next two weeks. How many fatalities would we accept if we had prior knowledge of an earthquake that would be estimated to be 7 to 9 on the richter scale?

If no action would be taken to fight the disease, there would have already been a lot of pandemics in our lifetime causing similar havoc as the black death or the Spanish flu. — ssu

And this is my point: we simply don't tolerate the idea of many thousands dying in an epidemic as we earlier did. — ssu

Both these statements assume you can make a comparison between "action" and "no action" by estimating the likely outcome of each course of action.

However, I disagree that "we tolerated the idea of many thousands dying in an epidemic as we earlier did". We didn't "tolerate the idea" of, for instance, the Spanish flu; it wasn't just accepted as "that's life", lot's of actions were done from trying to cover it up where it emerged so as not to invite a German attack at a time of weakness, to wide spread fear and disruptions, and a large effort to treat people as best as could be done.

The whole idea of policy measured to reduce rate of infection to something doctors could deal with was discovered in the Spanish flu and from which the classic comparative cases are drawn as the empirical basis for the policy.

The phenomena is very similar to what we are seeing today for a pandemic of comparable mortality.

The case fatality rate was 2.5% for Spanish flu, "not so much", "nothing close to the black death" and yet society remembers this event.

Our coronavirus pandemic today could easily be worse, as we've spread the disease around the globe even more quickly and efficiently and despite our science improvements we have places with a official case fatality rate of between 3 and 5 %, and we do not know what the future holds. It was a second mutated strain making a second wave in the fall that was the most lethal episode of the Spanish flu.

Treatment for critical coronavirus patients is possible, but highly labour and equipment intensive for medical facilities. This is a massive disadvantage compared to Spanish flu.

Making a precise comparison is very tricky (we can for instance count not only deaths but "quality years lost" in which case Spanish flu is weighted much worse; but only so far in this pandemic; if it causes a lot of long term complications the weight may swing back on such a scale), but they are clearly comparable events and the fear is rational now, as it was rational back then. It wasn't just "a tolerated idea" that a disease would come through and kill a bunch of people; people feared such events, and rightly so.

Given the increasing amounts lock-downs and closures and quarantines, I believe it is only a matter of time before the rules are defied and as a response a police-state or martial law is implemented. If that happens, a virus will not be our only concern.

It was a second mutated strain making a second wave in the fall that was the most lethal episode of the Spanish flu. — boethius

That's true. It started as an "ordinary flu". The second time around was worse.

Well, we live in interesting times.

I believe it is only a matter of time before the rules are defied and as a response a police-state or martial law is implemented. — NOS4A2

You think so?

I disagree. Even the libertarian people of the US will adhere to the instructions of the CDC and their local health services.

That's true. It started as an "ordinary flu". The second time around was worse. — ssu

Yes, so if this is starting already at "really bad" our last experience with sort of major pandemic is we can expect it to get even worse.

It is a truly plausible and quite simply terrifying possibility.

When a person is sick with two bad viruses at the same time, genetic material gets mixed and matched and there is quite high probability of a new viable virus ... that maybe solve the weaknesses of one with the strengths of the other.

This is a quite rare occurrence, but in a pandemic so many people are getting a dangerous pathogen that these recombination events become essentially inevitable. We now have more people on the planet, and thus more absolute numbers for such possibilities to occur (there are other factors at play, but they could easily give us worse odds too, I don't think it's possible to know ... ahead of time).

It is a biological weapon/mistake. I sense it's shape is unnatural. I'm yet to figure it's target.

The governor of California hinted as much in a news conference today.

“If you want to set up a framework of Martial Law ... we have the capacity to do that,” he said. “But we are not in that moment feeling like that is a necessity.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/15/california-governor-directs-all-bars-nightclubs-wineries-close-coronavirus

Luckily, as of now, the people are compliant. But given sufficient time that might all change.

I disagree. Even the libertarian people of the US will adhere to the instructions of the CDC and their local health services. — ssu

Although I agree US libertarians will be fully engaged in the collectivist organization, funding and even proud of their own little personal sacrifices for the common good, I actually agree with .

The institutions needed to keep things stable in the US don't exist as they do here in Europe, and there's no way to create them on short notice.

People are going to get really, really angry for many, many reasons.

There's also a massive organized crime problem in the US due to decades of pursuing a policy to create prison labour and disenfranchise African American voters; a very different situation to the Nordic's where organized crime does exist, but is not a rampant one nor is gun violence the norm within the organized crime community. Thanks to investments in education, social security and a rehabilitation based justice system, so all members of society can "see" the social contract working if they look, which avoids fueling a vast criminal underworld of, essentially, outcasts. Crime gets worse, not better, when the system destabilizes.

It could be managed, but it's a tinderbox.

Luckily, as of now, the people are compliant. But given sufficient time that might all change. — NOS4A2

The pandemic likely will take more time than people will think. It may take a year. But I don't think people will revolt, they will more likely adapt to a 'new normal'. Likely people will start using more face masks than before, start using that elbow bump and not tolerate people coughing or sneezing as before. I don't see any reason for people revolting.

(Perhaps when Trump cancels/postpones the elections because of pandemic or something.)

(Perhaps when Trump cancels/postpones the elections because of pandemic or something.) — ssu

That would not surprise me. Especially given all the 'jokes' he's made about being president for life...

In a national state of emergency...

...nearly anything goes. It is a representative republic after-all... replete with the noble lie.

No, the panic-snowball will be melted by summer. This virus will take its place with H1N1 and all the others that continue to kill the elderly.

All the wackos will completely forget that they have a tendency to over-react and they'll do it again for whatever reason. Eventually they'll accidently panic for something panic-worthy.

I don't see any reason for people revolting. — ssu

I'm not sure NOS4A2 is talking about a revolt.

For me, however, it's not that people revolt, Marshal law would be needed in the event of "crazy people" vs the police or just your normal gangs vs the police.

Marshal law may also be needed if (due to inaction in slowing the infection rate until now) it's simply way more out of control than even Italy as a base case.

It's like Mad Max.

The pandemic likely will take more time than people will think. It may take a year. But I don't think people will revolt, they will more likely adapt to a 'new normal'. Likely people will start using more face masks than before, start using that elbow bump and not tolerate people coughing or sneezing as before. I don't see any reason for people revolting.

(Perhaps when Trump cancels/postpones the elections because of pandemic or something.)

I think a “new normal” is definitely more likely than a police-state. But there are types of people in the US (militia-types and preppers) who will not take kindly to drastic state actions that might infringe on their rights.

The institutions needed to keep things stable in the US don't exist as they do here in Europe, and there's no way to create them on short notice. — boethius

That was already seen when one of the nightmare-disaster scenarios happened with hurricane Katrina with the levies being breached. It can be totally true what Chris Kyle (depicted in American Sniper) bragged about doing in New Orleans.

Yet hardly a pandemic makes these things happen. It doesn't happen with lightning speed. And this is the time we are at peak hype about it. So... toilet paper riots? Has anyone noticed those?

No, the panic-snowball will be melted by summer. This virus will take its place with H1N1 and all the others that continue to kill the elderly. — frank

Yeah, this pandemic will be old news come winter 2020-2021 when the actual spike will happen. And only later will they start putting higher the numbers of deaths that likely will emerge in historical accounts in the 2030's. Then we'll be surprised that so many actually died.

It's like Mad Max. — frank

Marshal law isn't a mad max scenario. Most people would just be sitting at home.

But if the administration loses it's grip even more of the situation (they're trying to catchup now, have serious press conferences, take everything "really seriously", listen to the experts and build some sort of collectivist spirit of "all America"), then soldiers in the streets will be needed to fix things.

Marshal law will just symbolize how incompetently the whole thing has been managed.

If the virus stays the same, hospitals will be overwhelmed and lot's of people will die in bad conditions, but the virus will end up going through the population and achieve the "herd immunity" strategy all by itself (no government intervention is needed to achieve this goal).

However, what the situation will be like then socially, economically, politically, is hard to predict for the US.

Yep.

What will the profit margin be on the test kits? Which private companies will supply them? Have these corporations supported Trump as far as supporting RNC or other political 'donations'? Were they(CEO's; COO's) on stage with him at his press conference?

If you have a real anxiety disorder, you should ignore me. Do you want to know what happens when they intubate you (to put you on mechanical ventilation)? If you're more informed, maybe you'll be calmer.

Yet hardly a pandemic makes these things happen. It doesn't happen with lightning speed. And this is the time we are at peak hype about it. So... toilet paper riots? — ssu

You are using your European experience as a basis. There are some key differences.

The US does not have paid sick leave, nor quick and easy "keep me alive money" like your infamous Kela (Finnish bureaucrats solve your personal problems on behalf of the government). As soon as people have no money, can't eat, and get violent on, not necessary big scale, just impressive for the news cycle: Marshal law.

The US does not have universal health care, so it's going to be chaos people, government, hospitals, trying to resolve who pays for what. Obviously, the simple solution is for the government to say "ok, we'll pay for all health care" and poor in what money's needed and people just get whatever treatment they need (if they survive the government death panels: i.e. triage), as that's a sensible policy, but the Republicans will have a very difficult time psychologically coming to such a realization, in particular before the chaos begins. As soon as someone attacks a hospital with a gun and succeeds a bit: Marshal law. Such a person may feel cheated of treatment for themselves (for instance, a different chronic disease that can no longer be treated properly), may be aggrieved for lost loved ones that got triaged unjustly in their view, or some other chain of reasoning to violence. Marshal law.

The US does not have free education and rehabilitation based justice system; this fosters a large criminal underclass. These people do crime, it's how they survive. They won't stop because of a pandemic. They see new opportunities and (thanks to poor planning due to a low education quality that is funded to proportional to the value of houses in the neighborhood) get into too many gun battles with the police: Marshal law.

Measures without Marshal law are just not getting the virus under control and the pressure is immense to do so: well, Marshal law.

It's the only institution Trump will have available to deal with any of these problems, and so it is the institution Trump will use.

My theory is that coronavirus has a phase where it becomes airbourne, it is a biological weapon invented by the Chinese with half-life. It inflates, becomes lighter and boom were losing the trade war.

This is that 5 finger death punch China was on about. Perhaps isolation on home soil is bad.



Look at it's shape. If

A. It doesn't look man-made.
B. That it can take a finite amount of punches.

You had over nine coronas.