Twelve medical experts whose opinions on the Coronavirus outbreak contradict the official narratives of the MSM...
12 Experts Questioning the Coronavirus Panic

“As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious diseases (HCID) in the UK.”
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid#status-of-covid-19

I'd tone it down a notch with the argument everything is happening because the evils of the neoliberal capitalist death cult. I would say that the dire situation in Italy has more to due with the fact that it was among the first places hit after China. — ssu

Yes and this would be an inadequate analysis, simplistic to the point of redundancy. If you're not talking healthcare and it's deliberate sabotage by the EU - in service, by the way, of tranferring public wealth into the hands of overseas private lenders with no democratic accountability - then you ought to simply stop talking altogether. Worth also mentioning that millions of Italian factory workers are still going to work, having been deemed 'essential services' despite being entirely unnecessary, hence the call going on over there, for a general strike:

https://www.leftvoice.org/italy-calls-general-strike-our-lives-are-worth-more-than-your-profits

I will never tone this shit down just so you can feel comfortable. I hope you squim.

Italy has a much higher population of elderly. Estimated 75-99% of cvid-19 deaths involved other pre-existing health problems.

Also, despite such a big aging population, Italy has for several years, been closing hospitals & therefore has been cutting back on hospital beds too.

“Between 2000 and 2017, the number of hospital beds in Italy considerably decreased, from 268,057 to 192,548 units. It comes as no surprise that the number of hospitals and more specifically the number of public hospitals in the country also declined during the same time range.”
https://www.statista.com/statistics/557293/hospital-beds-in-italy/

The US has also been decreasing health resources.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2016/089.pdf

there's one thing that really ought to change from this, it's the attitude against strategic reserves. — ssu

This is an argument in favor of the preppers it seems. Noah was a crazy old coot until the rain started to fall.

I would characterize your recent post history as something like : 1 won't happen. ok 1 happened, but 2, are you crazy? ok, 2 happened, but 3 would never happen, plus you're misreading 1. ok 3 happened, but 4 is crazy, and besides. Yes, of course 4, but that's to be expected, and you have to approach it in the right way, but 5?

can we just collectively let go with being more level-headed than the next guy and deal with what's happening right now?

your recent post history — csalisbury

:rofl:

So the subtext here is profits are not just more important than death. Profits are death, a truth of capitalism and imperialism that the pandemic displays in all its horror." — StreetlightX

You hit the nail with corporate/business culture. People are often deemed less important than the bottom line. Yet, it is the people who consume and contribute to the bottom line.

Worth also mentioning that millions of Italian factory workers are still going to work, having been deemed 'essenential services' despite being entirely unnecessary, hence the call going on over there, for a general strike: — StreetlightX

I actually agree with you, and them. But what this brings up is the whole point of the economic system. The "neoliberal" philosophy would say that profits, even for the very wealthy raises all boats (if we are assuming non-corrupt actors). Thus profits are the key to success for everyone, even (apparently?) in the midst of a pandemic.

So I guess, are you proposing that there is a balance between profit and non-profit incentives, or are you saying that profit should never even be in the equation? Damn the system, we need to be incentivized somewhere else.. Well if you say by love, and community, and respect for each other, great.. but I'd like to see that in practice.. Notice, people only use these ideals of self-sacrifice in times of crisis NOT in times of prosperity. Thus, it would seem these more "noble" incentives are only truly in place when there is perceived to be a major crisis, but not as typical modus operendi.

Further, the neoliberals would just say that the profits drive the ability to have things like ventilators in the first place. The self-sacrifice is a microcosm for how all this technology that we use in this crisis was created.. Limiting growth of profit-incentives/business culture would limit the ability to have all this technology that we now rely on in the crisis (and can maybe afford to use by government command when absolutely needed)..They would say for technology and prosperity to continue, it would need to keep moving forward, engines moving.

Please note, I personally do not have these sentiments, but giving the devil's advocate view here.

Well-being is not self-sacrificial, nor is it apparently an incentive that is ever in place in a capitalist society.

Well-being is not self-sacrificial, nor is it apparently an incentive that is ever in place in a capitalist society. — praxis

No, a capitalist would just say that profits bring well-being to all who participate and contribute to its growth. A rising tide lifts all boats and all that.

Right, a capitalists definition of well-being. What is that exactly?

Right, a capitalists definition of well-being. What is that exactly? — praxis

More ability to spend on goods and services. Health throws a wrench in their equation.. Somehow the American style of employer-based health care (otherwise you're screwed unless you're so poor as to possibly be eligible for Medicaid), is considered more efficient than a single-payer system.

I enjoyed that one analogy:

“Should it turn out that the epidemic wanes before long, there will be a queue of people wanting to take credit for this. And we can be damned sure draconian measures will be applied again next time. But remember the joke about tigers. “Why do you blow the horn?” “To keep the tigers away.” “But there are no tigers here.” “There you see!”.

It’s a good little racket they’ve set up for themselves. They are both the problem and the solution.

Honestly don't think we've seen such a deference to capital ever in the modern age?

patients.

That first link is definitely interesting. What I'm missing from it though, is the assessment of the people requiring intensive care but who aren't going to die. So they discuss the death rate as probably being in line with other existing respiratory diseases but this is new and infects more people than influenza can (due to full or partial immunity of most people). It's my understanding that if 1 in 5 requires care in a hospital, the hospitals can cope.

I do agree that we will see a lot of people hurt by the reaction too. This is all the more reason that we need to rethink how we react to crises. 2 trillion dollars without strings attached for the recipients seems to be the wrong way to go about it.

As disappointed as I am with the hundreds of billions being spent bailing out corporations, from what I've read of the hundreds of billions being spent on individuals that just got approved in the Senate tonight, I'm surprisingly pleased with the outcome.

I had hoped at best for $1000/mo to everyone for the duration of the quarantines, but what we've got now is $600/week ≈ $2400/mo for the unemployed (which, if that follows state qualifications for unemployment, includes those with reduced hours like me, at least here in California), plus the $1200 one-time payments for everyone.

Altogether that basically offsets my own losses from reduced hours for like four and a half months, and provides even greater benefits for all those making much less than me, who need it all the more. (I personally could coast for about three years at half-pay before I even needed to touch my IRA, so I was never the most hurt by this, but it's still really nice to not potentially erase years of hard-won progress toward eventual home-ownership).

And with this recession you won't go back to a hunter gatherer society. — ssu

I do not think so either, but that seemed to be what you wanted. All I was saying is that you can not separate the "economy" from the people. I have no problem with financial schemes collapsing, but a lockdown of a country effects the real world, the physical economy. You need things to be produced and delivered and basic services provided, For that you need people out there doing physical things and some sort monetary system to reward them for that. It sounded like you were trying to separate "the economy" from "the people". If that was not you meant, sorry.

Honestly don't think we've seen such a deference to capital ever in the modern age? — Maw

What does "deference to capital" mean?

actually agree with you, and them. But what this brings up is the whole point of the economic system. The "neoliberal" philosophy would say that profits, even for the very wealthy raises all boats (if we are assuming non-corrupt actors). Thus profits are the key to success for everyone, even (apparently?) in the midst of a pandemic.

This does work to a degree, but the greed of those who dwell near the top of the pyramid poisons the whole system eventually. This results in exploitative practices and systems and social norms designed to hold the people at the bottom (below that privelidged top layer) down and to remain subservient. This is followed by the development of decadence in the privelidged resulting in absurdities and arrogance from fools drunk on power and privelidge.

Numbers from Europe indicate that Germany, France and Italy are now out of the exponential growth phase. So the lockdowns appear to have the desired effect. Spain on the other hand still has rising per day infections.

There are reports of many hundreds requiring hospital treatment in London rising each day this week. The lockdown in London is much better now, but was introduced to late. It's only been effectively in place for 4 days.

This does work to a degree, but the greed of those who dwell near the top of the pyramid poisons the whole system eventually. This results in exploitative practices and systems and social norms designed to hold the people at the bottom (below that privelidged top layer) down and to remain subservient. This is followed by the development of decadence in the privelidged resulting in absurdities and arrogance from fools drunk on power and privelidge. — Punshhh

Any system (such as any political economic system) requiring survival, maintenance, and entertainment to be sustained and through enculturating more people into its ideology is already corrupt. You don't have to go any further. The goals of society are a repetitive absurdity (survival, maintenance, entertainment). The means of society's reproduction is through reproducing more people who will suffer and are used to keep it going. The best way to rebel against the system is to stop having children and stop thinking there is a better system, or even a way-of-life that is best. No, all of it is exposing new people to suffering and exploitation of the very system that they will need to sustain them. Just stop all systems in one generation..stop having kids.None of it needs to continue.. When people think of the economy in such utilitarian terms, I just think of how people are just points of data to be manipulated to keep the whole thing going. "A high tide raises all boats" is a laughable farce. Let us voluntarily give up this system that entraps all and tells them its for THEIR benefit. Let's come together to dissolve all future wants and needs by simply not having more people. You may be fooled into thinking your job is fun, useful, good, enriching..but its not. That is part of the whole f'rkn enculturated tall tale. Buy it. Drink the Kool-Aid, keep making more people to run the system and be data points and fooling them into thinking that they are being enriched by it.

My fault. It does look like I meant those stats were from US when it was only the first sentence.

Just a knee-jerk reaction brought on by discussions I’ve had here before where certain people assumed everything I stated was only in reference to the US.

As for the over/under reacting question. I think it’s extremely important to pay attention to the global implications of prolonged lockdown - especially for less developed countries who simply don’t have the economic fluidity to sustain the kind of blows nations like France, UK, Germany, South Korea and China can.

It’s a matter of picking the best of several bad choices - each one carries an element of randomness too.

At the extremes - which are useful to consider - letting the virus run rampant is estimated to cause 100 million deaths in the year (with a large margin of error). That would create herd immunity and things would stabilize at that terrible cost. The other extreme is almost continual lockdowns for 12-18 months to develop a vaccine and stave off the worst effects, which may cause so much damage to developing countries that the death toll may surpass 100 million in the long term.

I’ve been looking for papers/articles written by experts in BOTH economics and virology ... not much luck though. I guess they’re not exactly two fields of interested that dovetail too often except in terms of pharmacology and sales :(

Sky News has just reported that the epicentre in New York has overwhelmed the healthcare system and infections are increasing 5,000 per day. Meanwhile Trump's brain is self isolating.

Right.
There is no compelling medical case for taking extraordinary public measures.
So, what is the political agenda?

There is no compelling medical case for taking extraordinary public measures. — Galuchat

I know you're probably just a crazy person, but, a 10% fatality rate in Italy isn't a compelling medical reason?

At the extremes - which are useful to consider - letting the virus run rampant is estimated to cause 100 million deaths in the year (with a large margin of error). That would create herd immunity and things would stabilize at that terrible cost. The other extreme is almost continual lockdowns for 12-18 months to develop a vaccine and stave off the worst effects, which may cause so much damage to developing countries that the death toll may surpass 100 million in the long term. — I like sushi

What compounds the issue is that the social consequences are difficult to predict absent lockdown measures. Will people panic and self-quarantine? How many of the working population will fall significantly ill? How will your medical system and the people working in it react to constant overload?

Honestly don't think we've seen such a deference to capital ever in the modern age? — Maw

It's always been there, but this event exposes how shallow that deference is: the language of 'personal responsibility', which is the go-to strategy when allowing the poor to suffer and die despite structural inequality, is inadequate here. The new, developing language is instead that of 'necessary sacrifice', which is nowhere near as empowering and makes obvious just how much the rich and their unthinking shills are all too happy to trade people for money and its promise.

In a way yes.

But those emergency reserves are exactly for these kind of events: when there is an acute shortage because of a sudden crisis and you cannot wait for six months.

To anticipate possible crises is a thing what the government ought to do. Unfortunately this kind of thinking is usually confined to the armed forces, which optimally should be in peacetime preparing for war. Other sectors, like the health care sector typically understand the importance, but don't do anything to prepare for these kinds of events. Too expensive!

I am aware of your position and do agree in principle with some of what you say, but I don't want to get into a discussion about social planning around reproduction, aims, or demographics here.

It looks as though, as I said before, that nature is going to reduce the size of the population for us now. Also that this pandemic will shine a light on the corrupt practices hidden behind the cool aid.

As for the over/under reacting question. I think it’s extremely important to pay attention to the global implications of prolonged lockdown - especially for less developed countries who simply don’t have the economic fluidity to sustain the kind of blows nations like France, UK, Germany, South Korea and China can

I agree, the less developed countries are in for a rough ride for a few years. They are helpless and the West will not be in a position to help. Perhaps China will.

But in reality nothing anyone does is going to prevent this. Whether wealthy countries self isolate or not, it will not make any difference in the poorer countries, they are doomed regardless.

I don't see a problem with wealthy countries printing money, because this crisis will not result in uncontrollable inflation due to the way in which the economy is in life support. I can't comment on what will happen afterwards, hopefully people will realise that money is not the The be all and end all. The fact that real things and lives have been given a monetary value may have to change.