Unless my numbers are wrong, CFR in South Korea is only about .7 % at the moment (over 5000 cases, 35 deaths). That suggests that, even if China is underreporting cases, there isn't any indication they have been underreporting deaths.

Unless my numbers are wrong, CFR in South Korea is only about .7 % at the moment (over 5000 cases, 35 deaths). — Echarmion

Yes, it does seem that with proper care most critical cases survive. Though we have seen deaths can jump very high in a single day, so deaths could jump in Korea. There is a long phase where a patient can be kept paralyzed on a respirator with a slight chance of recovery, but if that equipment is needed for someone with a higher chance then it's time to pull the plug.

What's so worrisome to the epidemiologists is that there's a large percentage of cases that require such care, so where we'll see a lot of deaths is when health systems are overloaded and forced into triage.

It is suspected that deaths are very under-reported in Iran for instance. China we may never know.

So, yes, on the one hand, South Korea has managed to slow the Virus spread, but on the other hand they have not succeeded in containment (no one has) and they have taken high-effort, highly-disruptively extreme measures that other countries simply don's have the resources to do and many may not be willing to do (if the cat is out of the bag and travel just makes clusters pop up somewhere else as one cluster is being dealt with).

I have no doubt that if extreme policies where done globally, then we would probably have a manageable spread of the virus that wouldn't overload most health systems. But quarantining whole cities, massive testing, self-isolation, travel restrictions, no open schools, no large events, etc. is really a very high economic cost. If such measures don't even succeed in containment, likely economists are telling the politicians that "the value of peoples lives we're talking about (especially retired people that actually cost the public purse) is far lower than the economic disruptions". Which is why we're hearing on the corporate news, like Bloomberg, that "the economic disease can be worse than the actual disease".

Of course, Bloomberg and the economists are right, but only because of the structural precarity that capitalism places people under. If you want to govern based on the value of the stock market, it's needed from time to time to sacrifice large amounts of people on that flashy altar.

Under such a decision making framework, the correct response is to make more-or-less token measures and plan out the blame-game phase (cough-cough, Pence).

Once "you got a cough, don't come to work, be responsible, stay isolated!" turns to "you're not that sick, you need to come to work, everyone needs to work, I'll find someone else!", is when the floodgates open so to speak. Since containment has failed globally, this switch-over in pubic attitude will happen in a two or three months in my estimation (of course, in the US there's no switch to make as that knob is placed permanently on 'you need to work to survive'); the US also uses a lot of take-away food, which is run by young people who may get sick "but need to work", and people simply need to eat, so I expect takeaway will become a main vector in the US.

Though all the numbers I've presented are at the upper bound (so, it could turn out to be not-so-bad), the main reason I conclude that it likely is that bad is the world-cases-map.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/world/coronavirus-maps.html

(Which you can see for free if you use firefox and turn off javascript)

With Sars, it would popup somewhere, containment would work really well, it would be hiding out and then popup somewhere else, containment would work. Whole process took months and months.

Whereas looking at this map, we went from "new disease in China, a lot of cases, some deaths, but containment is working" in January, to now cases all over the world and in the most advanced economies that have the best resources for containment.

It's like nothing that has ever been seen in the modern era; the virus has completely broken our containment policies, equipment, and practices. Once clusters start to overlap (spreading into each other), then even the "slow down" measures will no longer be effective (other than the "shutdown the global economy" option, which, from what I can see, the current policy is to not do that, just sit back and let it happen).

What's so worrisome to the epidemiologists is that there's a large percentage of cases that require such care, so where we'll see a lot of deaths is when health systems are overloaded and forced into triage. — boethius

It really is an odd case. The virus seems to be harmless enough that it's unnecessary to worry about it on an individual basis if you're otherwise healthy. But it's dangerous enough that on a large scale, it will not only kill a significant number of vulnerable people, but also have negative side effects by overburdening systems and displacing other patients.

That it seems to be just on the boundary makes deciding on policy even harder.

Of course, Bloomberg and the economists are right, but only because of the structural precarity that capitalism places people under. If you want to govern based on the value of the stock market, it's needed from time to time to sacrifice large amounts of people on that flashy altar. — boethius

Since we're unable to do anything about that short term, it does seem reasonable to not shut everything down. Especially since the symptoms are indistinguishable from a common cold, at least early on, so you really would have to shut down everything.

That it seems to be just on the boundary makes deciding on policy even harder. — Echarmion

Yes, it seems to be the mathematically perfect virus to break our systems.

With Sars, Mers, and Ebola, I was actually wondering if pandemic viruses simply couldn't compete with the information age. It seems we have the answer.

Of course, had the previous pandemic expert not quit due to funding cuts and his team disbanded (the main guy in charge of stopping Sars, Mers and Ebola) ... then maybe Coronavirus would be just another in the list. Since China is a corrupt and incompetent political system, it actually depends on less corrupt pressure from the West for making key decisions. For instance, without more accurate data and pressure from the West, unlikely China would have started any programs to reduce air pollution (so had the Pandemic prevention team had the same funding to be "on the ball" in China, may would have played out very differently; what's clear is the Chinese officials in charge didn't know what they were dealing with; I expect a few Western pandemic experts in the mix would have reacted much faster).

Since we're unable to do anything about that short term, it does seem reasonable to not shut everything down. Especially since the symptoms are indistinguishable from a common cold, at least early on, so you really would have to shut down everything. — Echarmion

Yes, it is the only choice in the current system, especially for the US that does not have social safety net policies and systems that can encourage more self-isolation for cough symptoms (such as the UK announcing today sick leave will be paid from day one; health care In Europe is free so few have the habit "of simply never going to the doctor" and few are in the position of "have to work, even to death, anyways, no choice" etc.). So, it will be a very interesting systems-analysis case to compare how things play out in Europe compared to the US after the pandemic (that one, among many, reasons to have a social safety net system is to have the institutions already in place to deal with these sorts of black-swan events).

Abandoning containment is now official.

The UK response to coronavirus was already moving into its second “delay” phase, rather than seeking to simply “contain” the disease, Prof Whitty told British MPs.

“We have moved from a situation where we are mainly in contain, with some delay built in, to we are now mainly delay,” said Britain’s chief medical officer, although elements of the contain process would remain in place. — Theguardian - 14 minutes ago

Diseases in general show how short-sighted people are when they are projecting how well-off their offspring will be. When people only think of the "good times" when projecting their child's life, they are miscalculating the horrible physical pain that can and does befall everyone. You want to prevent viruses from spreading? Prevent people who will get those viruses. If you say that is like cutting off your arm because of an itch, you are wrong. Any suffering is wrong to bestow if it can be prevented in fell swoop by simply doing the non-action of not procreating. Let this be a lesson to all. Do not have children. Over and out. But I'll be back shortly.

Do not have children. Over and out. But I'll be back shortly. — schopenhauer1

Enough with the spamming.

Enough trolling. Youre not as sophisticated with the unnecessary swearing. Say something or be silent.

So, it will be a very interesting systems-analysis case to compare how things play out in Europe compared to the US after the pandemic (that one, among many, reasons to have a social safety net system is to have the institutions already in place to deal with these sorts of black-swan events).

Yes interesting, with the UK transitioning form the high welfare provision of Europe to the low welfare provision of the US. The effects of the pandemic combined with the Brexit folly and a hard right populist government, the UK is going to go through a top to bottom crisis. The government are clowns with no grasp of what is going to happen over the next year. There will now be a succession of businesses going under, even today the Flybe airline went into administration. Also there are large numbers with no sickness provision living hand to mouth in what is known as the Gig economy. These people will have to keep working, often working with the public. Also there are large numbers of people who are two or three pay checks away from destitution.

The NHS is chronicly underfunded, in crisis and understaffed, with vacancies for 100,000 nurses. While the Prime minister says the health service is in great shape and ready for large numbers of poorly people if there is a pandemic. What a joke.

Look on the bright side: had China not had their one-child policy, there would be more Chinese people today and consequently, more individuals with the virus.

Look on the bright side: had China not had their one-child policy, there would be more Chinese people today and consequently, more individuals with the virus. — Relativist

Actually China would have less problems than now it is facing if it didn't have the one-child policy back in the day. One disasterous policy I would say.

Prosperity is the best way to curb population growth and China has succeeded in it.

India didn't have any one-child policy or similar drastic measures and look how fertility has gone there:


All because of economic growth, emerging prosperity and the ongoing successful eradication of povetry.

And to the population growth, a corona virus won't mean anything. Even if a million died of it, you wouldn't notice it in the statistics.

And to the population growth, a corona virus won't mean anything. Even if a million died of it, you wouldn't notice it in the statistics. — ssu

Well, if we assume the Covid 19 infects about 20% of the world population within the next 2 years, and the mortality rate is 1%, that'd be 15 Million deaths, 7.5 Million a year.

Though, admittedly, at this point this is pretty much just guessing, it shows how significant even a virus that is relatively harmless to each individual can be.

Who's actually promoting unlimited 3rd world immigration now? Where are your "globalist leaders" preaching that anymore, I just ask. Things can change in 5-6 years, you know. — ssu

Have you been living under a rock? Are you unaware of the ongoing mass migration, and the latest wave unleased by Erdogan just a few days ago? Greece has a nationalist government, so for now they are trying to hold the line. But Merkels and Macarons open invitation still stands. You probably did not notice that these globalist activists have also signed the "UN Compact for Migration" which fundamentally gives the whole 3rd world the unlimited right to migrate to the Western democracies.

:scream:

An axiom of existence: the unpreventable cannot be prevented.

:lol:

Any suffering is wrong to bestow if it can be prevented in fell swoop by simply doing the non-action of not procreating. — schopenhauer1

Since 'already born' procreators are also sufferers;

and (2) since for many sufferers - if not most - "not procreating" increases their suffering;

and (3) since species auto-extinction, like personal suicide, neither eliminates the conditions that make suffering possible nor undoes/ameliorates any suffering already endured - i.e. nothing is prevented ex post facto;

and (4) since there are many viable and effective ways taught by e.g. Laozi/Zhuangzi, Buddha, Epicurus/Lucretius, Seneca/Epictetus, Spinoza, Zapffe et al (with which CBT & studies in 'positive' psychology are consistent) to further mitigate, even minimize, current suffering as well as prevent as much prospective (i.e. foreseeable) suffering as possible;

antinatalism - merely, at best, an auto-da-fé - is an idle 'solution' to the wrong problem, or pseudo-problem (pace "Silenus", Schopenhauer, Cioran, Benatar, Ligotti ... )

:death: :flower:

You want to prevent viruses from spreading? Prevent people who will get those viruses.

Eliminate patients instead of the viruses (or conditions that make them contagious) ... à la 'destroy the village in order to save the village' (Bên Tre, 1968) :roll:

If you say that is like cutting off your arm because of an itch, you are wrong.

More like cutting-off heads to treat migraines. Suffering (e.g. sickness, morbidity), schop1, is the problem, not living (i.e. procreating).

:mask:

:up: "... bring out your dead ..."

Of course, Bloomberg and the economists are right, but only because of the structural precarity that capitalism places people under. If you want to govern based on the value of the stock market, it's needed from time to time to sacrifice large amounts of people on that flashy altar. — boethius

I agree with your analysis, and would only add that it is not only the volatility of the stock market but the complexity and fragile nature of global supply networks.

Right on! :strong:

Say something or be silent. — schopenhauer1

I say we should start the virus containment program by culling antinatalists. OK, it's not the most effective means to combat the epidemic, but it's something. And best of all, it will be easily the most welcome virus-containment measure of all. Since antinatalists' maxim is that living perpetuates suffering, they will all be in favor of their own extinction - not to mention everyone else around them. It's pure win!

I agree with your analysis, and would only add that it is not only the volatility of the stock market but the complexity and fragile nature of global supply networks. — Janus

Though my stockmarkatocracy mention was more aimed at how decisions are being made in the US (though also need to mention Trump has also worked out the essentials ... and, precociously, is already blaming Obama for the testing snafu), nevertheless the virus would not disrupt major supply chains ... of anything essential.

The virus doesn't destroy machinery and doesn't kill enough people that key skills would disappear. Most of what is produced is completely frivolous and not required in anyway, so maintaining critical production is not, from an engineering perspective, a big challenge.

Extreme measures to maintain containment, such as China has done definitely would slow the virus down; I don't believe their numbers but I do believe welding people into buildings and barricading streets and having the barest minimum outside interaction does slow the virus considerably.

Slowing the virus down means spreading cases over far more health care resources over time.

The reason things are being downplayed, and countries like the US and UK simply jumping from containment to "delay" (with token policies like banning large gatherings, which won't do much statistically) is, as far as I can see, is due to incompetence with the testing (total fiasco) as well as a reaction to the stock market crashes as well as a principled stand that the stock market index is more important than people's lives. What's best for the stock market is for everything to continue as usual and if 15% of old people die, tough luck for them.

However, the Western governments now, US in particular, really don't seem to understand how bad it's going to be. China also downplayed and lived in denial at first, but they did not then take extreme measures because denial turned out to be warranted and "it's not so bad". The only reasonable prediction to make is that Western governments doing exactly the same thing as happened in Wuhan (downplaying, keeping things "normal", until it's out of control) will result in the exact same outcome. There are tough decisions that could be made (and could have been made) that would slow the virus and make it easier for health care providers to deal with it, the fact of the matter is Western leaders, particularly the US, can stomach lot's of people dying unnecessarily more than they can stomach stock market index decreases. The interest rate changes happened very fast (no snafu's there), as that's where the priorities are. Trump is downplaying and saying it's just a mild flue and the numbers are wrong etc. in reaction to the stock market as if people believed it, even if it wasn't true, well then the stock market wouldn't mind a bunch of them dying if they kept calm and carried on; zero thoughts of the people that are and will be affected.

my call center job's requiring me to work from home for two weeks because my roommate came home from a vacation to Japan. This virus sucks, but that's my silver-lining. I'd never worked from home before - it's great.

There will likely already be supply chain disruptions in various industries and product lines, due to China being a major supplier. Add to that the likelihood that, if many people are infected, the workforce will be diminished, and also the economic effects on the retail, food and travel sectors, I think it's pretty clear that it's not all just about the stock market (although the latter is of course also very significant).

Since antinatalists' maxim is that living perpetuates suffering, they will all be in favor of their own extinction - not to mention everyone else around them. It's pure win! — SophistiCat

Bringing people out of existence through horrible disease is not part of the antinatalist agenda, sorry. Certainly being brought into existence exposes people all around the world to this though.

Since 'already born' procreators are also sufferers;

and (2) since for many sufferers - if not most - "not procreating" increases their suffering; — 180 Proof

This is a dubious argument. When your supposed "suffering" is contingent on not getting to seriously affect someone else, then that suffering is not even a factor. I can't say something like "Oh, I am suffering so much because I don't get to force other people to do this or that". Nope.

and (3) since species auto-extinction, like personal suicide, neither eliminates the conditions that make suffering possible nor undoes/ameliorates any suffering already endured - i.e. nothing is prevented ex post facto; — 180 Proof

That I agree with you, but going forward, a potential that could suffer prevented by someone who might have a child, is still prevented. It's not about the aggregate but the margins. One person not suffering that could have, is one person not suffering that could have.

and (4) since there are many viable and effective ways taught by e.g. Laozi/Zhuangzi, Buddha, Epicurus/Lucretius, Seneca/Epictetus, Spinoza, Zapffe et al (with which CBT & studies in 'positive' psychology are consistent) to further mitigate, even minimize, current suffering as well as prevent as much prospective (i.e. foreseeable) suffering as possible; — 180 Proof

If we need to mitigate, no reason to start the suffering. It's as simple as that. Let me provide you suffering on behalf/for you so you can deal with mitigating it later on is a non-starter in the realm of ethics.

antinatalism - merely, at best, an auto-da-fé - is an idle 'solution' to the wrong problem, or pseudo-problem (pace "Silenus", Schopenhauer, Cioran, Benatar, Ligotti ... ) — 180 Proof

What pseudo-problem? No new person, no new suffering. If Mary and Joe do not have a child, no suffering will befall a new child from that union. Simple as that. No coronavirus for them to deal with, to be concordant with this thread.

Eliminate patients instead of the viruses (or conditions that make them contagious) ... à la 'destroy the village in order to save the village' (Bên Tre, 1968) :roll: — 180 Proof

Eliminate the need to eliminate the virus by not having the patients in the first place. The patients already here have to deal with it (get the theme of "dealing with" here?).

More like cutting-off heads to treat migraines. Suffering (e.g. sickness, morbidity), schop1, is the problem, not living (i.e. procreating). — 180 Proof

It is indeed the problem. If we know it exists, do not put more people in harms way. Having children is its own ideology- that of assenting to the way things are, and wanting to put another person into that way (pace my thread on society being an ideology).

The Big Problem Of Suffering is just the town bully who messes with people who try to leave town, to attempt something better. That's a threat to him. His power only ranges over the small region he stalks.

You don't like him because he's the bully - but at least, in roughing you up, he throws you back into town, his town, where you can lick your wounds safely. You don't like him - but - he crystallizes everything perfectly. And that's a comfort.

It's a commensal , co-dependent relationship. And, like most abusive relationships, it repeats the same patterns, endlessly, while the participants speak endlessly about why it isn't abusive. It's actually so purely real, they say, you can't even understand.

Listen, I dated the same guy. It doesn't get better. Get out while you can. He's telling you what you want to hear, because it keeps you passive, and prevents you from developing an actual self. The more your autonomy wanes, the more you justify him to others. Eventually, it's compulsive. But you can still leave, any time.

The coronavirus isn't about The Big Problem of Suffering. Most things aren't!

You don't like him because he's the bully - but at least, in roughing you up, he throws you back into town, his town, where you can lick your wounds safely. You don't like him - but - he crystallizes everything perfectly. And that's a comfort.

It's a commensal , co-dependent relationship. And, like most abusive relationships, it repeats the same patterns, endlessly, while the participants speak endlessly about why it isn't abusive. It's actually so purely real, they say, you can't even understand.

Listen, I dated the same guy. It doesn't get better. Get out while you can. He's telling you what you want to hear, because it keeps you passive, and prevents you from developing an actual self. The more your autonomy wanes, the more you justify him to others. Eventually, it's compulsive. But you can still leave, any time. — csalisbury

This is a really good analogy. I interpret it this way:

People have become co-dependent with their suffering. It becomes necessary to living because if one cannot defeat it, or get away from it, the only thing people think they must do is embrace it and accept it. Thus, not only is suffering acceptable to oneself, but it is okay to create the (well known) conditions on someone else's behalf because somehow, they will (must) accept it too in order to deal with the mitigating circumstances of The Big Problem of Suffering.

The coronavirus isn't about The Big Problem of Suffering. Most things aren't! — csalisbury

But it is, and so are most things. Physical stress on your body is part of the abusive relationship. But one must accept it and continue it for others. No, we can break the habit of the abusive relationship and acceptance of it.

Bringing people out of existence through horrible disease is not part of the antinatalist agenda, sorry. Certainly being brought into existence exposes people all around the world to this though. — schopenhauer1

Which is why you should welcome the culling that I propose. I promise, it will be quick - not like dying from pneumonia. Or just kill yourself already and stop spamming the forum.

it's time to report you to moderators for the ban.

You fail to address the fundamental first point.

An axiom of existence: the unpreventable cannot be prevented. — 180 Proof

Benatar's ethics is consequentialism. If living entails suffering then living doesn't cause suffering. Much in the same way that me killing a person doesn't cause his death, killing entails death. Or if I enter a room at noon, I don't cause someone to enter the room at noon.

So if the position is, suffering is intrinsic to life then it must necessarily fail as a consequentialist argument because living then does not cause suffering.

If the argument is that it is not intrinsic to life, then it becomes necessary to examine the causal chain. And then you run into problems because living is never a sufficient condition for suffering, merely a necessary condition.

[ ... ]

So if the position is, suffering is intrinsic to life then it must necessarily fail as a consequentialist argument because living then does not cause suffering.

If the argument is that it is not intrinsic to life, then it becomes necessary to examine the causal chain. And then you run into problems because living is never a sufficient condition for suffering, merely a necessary condition. — Benkei

:up:

Again, unnecessary trolling.