"Getting over the hump" seems like it would take a good deal more than a year or two? — ZhouBoTong

From what I understand, China is already over the hump locally, and it's only been like three months, and they didn't take the drastic measures we are.

I am curious to hear what your reply to my earlier post was going to be, too.

Seems inevitable if the next 6 months is similar to the last 6 days. — ZhouBoTong

Blame the media for not shutting their materialist faces

From what I understand, China is already over the hump locally, and it's only been like three months, and they didn't take the drastic measures we are. — Pfhorrest

See, I am not sure I even understand what that means. Just because most people in one area have already had the disease, doesn't mean one person can't just start up a new epidemic in the next town.

Please fill me in on what I am missing, but logically, the disease is still super contagious, and it still exists in china, and over a billion chinese people still have not had the disease, so if we (they) stop the measures to reduce the spread, it will just explode again...right?

I really feel stupid on this topic, because each time I hear an explanation from a smart person (yes, you and most people on this site count), it seems incomplete or ignoring some elephant in the room.

Blame the media for not shutting their materialist faces — Gregory

Hahaha. Seems fair.

Suppose God says "i will give everyone a sickness, high chance you won't die. But if they want, they can keep the food". Why in heavens name would anyone riot when they have food and water. It doesn't make sense

Once enough people in an area have already had and recovered from the disease, then they have immunity to it, and can't catch it from or pass it on to other people anymore, so the space between infect-able people grows larger automatically (and so the rate of new infections grows slower in proportion), and people don't have to artificially spread out and avoid each other to slow the spread anymore.

You're right that a neighboring area that has had no exposure can still catch it, and that area is then at the start of their own hump and has to take measures to flatten it out, but the places that already had it spreading through their community before can go back to normal themselves once they've gotten over that hump locally.

So whatever your community is, it's pretty much inevitably that eventually most people there will have had COVID19 at some point or another, but once enough people have had it and gotten over it, and the number of new cases is declining instead of increasing, there's no more risk of having too many cases at once and so people can go back to normal and whoever's left can get it and get it over with.

I saw a pretty good video about it yesterday that you might like:

Well that all makes sense. but to flip perspectives, as someone who is often uncomfortable in social situations and definitely has some personal space issues, "social distancing" just means I am no longer rude when I step back from a close talker :smile: — ZhouBoTong

Well, social distancing is the trendy cordial thing to do.

For us Finns this is very easy to do. Our way to greet has only been a handshake before and at times like this it's normal and very easy to avoid that. Societies where cheek kissing is normal it would sad if the way fades away. Or in the Catholic Church in the sermon of shaking hands with people next to you. Asians do have the nice gesture of bowing, but that unlikely won't be used or become anytime popular (it would be that ugly cultural appropriation).

The likely outcome is that we are simply even more rude than now.

That missing handshake actual does make a difference. If every interaction with a service personnel, in a bank or office will be done with a person behind a glass window and speaking to microphone, at least I am usually not as friendly with those people and keep it to the bare minimum. Now it's the border guard or the public transport ticket seller who is confined like that and it's obvious that the situation isn't intended for any small talk, but rapid transfer of masses of people. I'd never have any tolerance to listen someone giving a sales pitch like that. And it's no surprise that one of the most hated and least respected jobs in the World is a telemarketer.

I would think that after a year, people will demand circuses even at the risk of half the world dying. What does everyone else think? — ZhouBoTong

Isn't it more likely that the population will develop natural resistance and immunity to coronavirus before we run out of new circuses?

Meanwhile, there are plenty of ways to produce content from home, not only alone but also in virtual teams. Like the team of chatterboxes cooperating in this circus.

My two cents: If Rome's survival depended so much on circuses, wouldn't that make the latter an essential for the former, a need as it were.

I remember a long time ago I was under the impression that health was simply an absence of disease. This negative definition of health became outmoded and a positive definition was formulated which, although retaining the essence of the earlier definition, included wellbeing, a significant aspect of which involves entertainment.

The cancellation of sports and other entertainment that require large gatherings of people are instances of needs being sacrificed and not, as you seem to be saying, forgoing luxuries that are "beyond physical needs".

How long will Rome survive?

Until the the day Romans realize that what was presented to them as a luxury item is actually an essential item.

From what I understand, it's not to stop the spread but to slow the spread. — Pfhorrest

If you slow the spread, the wait to reach the hump will be longer. They are inversely proportional:
Time to wait out the hump = 1/speed of spread.

This means that though the spread will be elongated, it can and will take a long time to reach the passing of the hump.

I think the quaranteening movement actually can stop the virus from spreading. If all people who have got it are quaranteened for three weeks, the virus will die in them. Some will die with the virus, but the virus in the survivors also will die.

If some of the carriers pass it on, in the next generation of virus infections there will be fewer people infected.

And in the next, even fewer.

Depending on how stringently we do the quaranteening, and the contact avoidance, thus the spread avoidance, the stoppage of the spread and the killling of all viruses will be inversely proportional in time and in number of generations with the stringency and success of quaranteening

Better quaranteening = fewer generations of infections, shorter diesease time before the virus dies out (becomes extinct.)

I saw a pretty good video about it yesterday that you might like: — Pfhorrest

Thanks for the info. I have read enough similar articles to mostly understand what you are saying. I am now totally fine with shutdowns lasting until August/September. However, if schools do not re-open then (implying that much of the economy is still shut down), I would bet that the massive economic impact is too much. We would be happy with only 10 million dead at that point. I think a 2-5 month shutdown could be survived with 4-10 trillion of created money injected into the economy to keep it alive. I don't see it surviving a year of shutdowns (none of the shutdowns are calling for that long...but they seem quite unsure of the end date).

Not to mention that after about 3 months, cabin fever could lead to some crazy ass behavior.

If Rome's survival depended so much on circuses, wouldn't that make the latter an essential for the former, a need as it were. — TheMadFool

Yes! that is actually part of my point (obviously not a very clear part, haha). I labelled food, shelter, etc as physical needs not to separate them from circuses as "needs", but to separate them as physical. Circuses satisfy emotional needs. But I agree with you that they are needs. And I worry about how people will begin to act when their emotional needs are neglected.

And I worry about how people will begin to act when their emotional needs are neglected. — ZhouBoTong

They'll start going into existential crisis and say "What's the point of anything?". A fish in a bowl swims around, eats, swims a bit more, checks out the castle, swims, swims through the plant, etc.

Yes! that is actually part of my point (obviously not a very clear part, haha). I labelled food, shelter, etc as physical needs not to separate them from circuses as "needs", but to separate them as physical. Circuses satisfy emotional needs. But I agree with you that they are needs. And I worry about how people will begin to act when their emotional needs are neglected. — ZhouBoTong

I recall hearing that, there's a difference between not dying and living and in the spirit of this sentence, the priority now is not living but not dying and given that this restructuring of our priorities is a global phenomenon, you're right in saying that entertainment (circuses) isn't really a need. In a sense then we were under the delusion that entertainment was/is a necessity insofar as not dying is our concern.

It just shows how powerful the coronavirus, and for that matter any infectious pathogen, is; it has literally, in the span of a mere two years, sent the so-called modern world of 21st century back to the stone age and we've become like our ancestors, primarily concerned with not dying.

They'll start going into existential crisis and say "What's the point of anything?" — schopenhauer1

Well we already know people start asking that question more when their basic physical needs no longer need much effort to take care of. I am suggesting that entertainment has eased this crisis, and a whole chunk of entertainment options has been removed...so how will people react?

A fish in a bowl swims around, eats, swims a bit more, checks out the castle, swims, swims through the plant, etc. — schopenhauer1

I believe the same thing that allows us to choose not to have kids (for example), causes us to be unsatisfied just swimming around the bowl...although I do largely agree, there isn't really more to life than that.

I recall hearing that, there's a difference between not dying and living and in the spirit of this sentence, the priority now is not living but not dying and given that this restructuring of our priorities is a global phenomenon, you're right in saying that entertainment (circuses) isn't really a need. In a sense then we were under the delusion that entertainment was/is a necessity insofar as not dying is our concern. — TheMadFool

First, I think you have pointed out an interesting and potentially important distinction between "living" and "not dying". I mostly agreed, but may have minor contentions...

When not dying is a challenge, circuses aren't needed. But if we look at the current crisis, no one is struggling to not die. It is constantly on the brain RIGHT NOW, so people are not yet bored. But this will not last. People will get bored. It is not like they have to do anything to not die...in fact, everyone needs to largely stop doing stuff. I think they will get bored eventually.

If schools are back in session in the fall, I think there will be no major problems. If they are not, implying that there is at least one more year of this stuff, I think we will see the results of people getting bored.

First, I think you have pointed out an interesting and potentially important distinction between "living" and "not dying". I mostly agreed, but may have minor contentions...

When not dying is a challenge, circuses aren't needed. But if we look at the current crisis, no one is struggling to not die. It is constantly on the brain RIGHT NOW, so people are not yet bored. But this will not last. People will get bored. It is not like they have to do anything to not die...in fact, everyone needs to largely stop doing stuff. I think they will get bored eventually.

If schools are back in session in the fall, I think there will be no major problems. If they are not, implying that there is at least one more year of this stuff, I think we will see the results of people getting bored. — ZhouBoTong

I wonder what could be more interesting than not dying? :chin: :mask:

I wonder what could be more interesting than not dying? :chin: :mask: — TheMadFool

You mean what is more interesting than doing nothing?

Not dying is not necessarily an action, is my point. In the jungle, not dying means running away from the tiger. For the coronavirus, not dying means sitting in my house.

You mean what is more interesting than doing nothing?

Not dying is not necessarily an action, is my point. In the jungle, not dying means running away from the tiger. For the coronavirus, not dying means sitting in my house. — ZhouBoTong

Just as running from the tiger is "interesting", so is sitting in the house, if your life is on the line.

Just as running from the tiger is "interesting", so is sitting in the house, if your life is on the line. — TheMadFool

I find that hard to believe (I know it is 100% false for me personally, but that says exactly nothing about the population as a whole). It is not like it is the zombie apocalypse out there. We will see in a few months I suppose.

I find that hard to believe (I know it is 100% false for me personally, but that says exactly nothing about the population as a whole). It is not like it is the zombie apocalypse out there. We will see in a few months I suppose — ZhouBoTong

:ok:

Well we already know people start asking that question more when their basic physical needs no longer need much effort to take care of. I am suggesting that entertainment has eased this crisis, and a whole chunk of entertainment options has been removed...so how will people react? — ZhouBoTong

I believe the same thing that allows us to choose not to have kids (for example), causes us to be unsatisfied just swimming around the bowl...although I do largely agree, there isn't really more to life than that. — ZhouBoTong

Yes, my point is maybe people will start realizing that there is really not much we are doing except trying to survive, maintain our comfort levels (cleaning, temperature adjustments, doing laundry, etc.), and then getting our brains "hooked" on something (I call it entertainment, but anything falls under entertainment such as religion, Netflix, board games, video games, reading, studying up on a topic you're interested in, taking care of a pet, tinkering with that old car, exercising for pleasure, knitting, thinking of a new business, inventing, etc. etc. etc.).

The existential crisis comes in when the brain is "unhooked", it doesn't have something that makes the time go by unto the next day. This is where "Existence" (with a capital E) is "felt". It is a profound boredom with EVERYTHING. This is akin to "the absurd" discussed so often. It is like walking past a house full of drama and yelling from the family inside.. It seems so trivial, yet it is very important to them. But it isn't in the grand scheme of Existence. We are all filling up our time and when we go long stretches with not much to make the time go by faster, THAT is what we should really capture as the essence of existence. THAT is what we should realize life is. It is simply surviving, maintaining (not getting sick, or getting better from illness falls under that), and entertainment, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat. This is absurd, yet we throw more people into the world to experience this anyways.