It's my understanding that if 1 in 5 requires care in a hospital, the hospitals can cope. — Benkei

Do you think that if 1 in every 5 people in the general population requires hospital care, all at the same time, the hospitals can cope? That is not a realistic number. What kind of a time span do you spread that projection over?

Sorry, that comment wasn't very clear. Of those infected about 20% require some kind of hospital care. And a percentage of that intensive care.

The "neoliberal" philosophy would say that profits, even for the very wealthy raises all boats (if we are assuming non-corrupt actors) — schopenhauer1

The whole point is that CV brings into sharp relief for anyone with a pulse how utterly vacuous this is. Profits won't help us here. Profits were the first thing to go, recognized by everyone to be the most useless, superfluous foam atop the real wave that is society. Everyone who spouted the propaganda that value is generated from the top (therefore we can't tax them!), saw the aristocrats in their naked parasitism as soon as the bottom fell away. In fact it's worse than this - it was the profit drive that enabled this catastrophe to be as catastrophic as it has been, insofar as it has utterly diminished the capacities of societies to respond in ways that did not multiply its effects and impact the poor, old, and sick the hardest. There's no need to play devil's advocate. One just has to have a set of lungs and a pair of eyes.

Edit: actually, it gets even worse than this. Even if, against all credulity, profit could be said to be beneficial, the question that ought to be ringing in everyone's ears is: where the fuck is it? Boeing made billions in profits in the years leading up to this (last year excepted, thanks to their disastrous 737 MAX debacles, itself a result of capitalism working as expected), yet barely a few weeks in they're getting bailed out by public funds to the tune of even more billions. Maybe Boeing should just get another fucking job, as everyone tells the poor. But of course the profits are in the hands of shareholders, who, having stashed them in the Caymans, couldn't give less fucks if they tried. Nationalize Boeing, now.

That's a significant percentage, are you sure it's that high? Many don't even suffer symptoms, and of those, most do not require hospitalization. But the hospitals can only handle a very small portion of the overall population at a time. What is there, one hospital with several hundred beds for every couple million people?

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. — StreetlightX

The language is of wartime; 'frontline' 'volunteers', factories being 'turned over' to 'new essential uses' 'brave sacrifice'... and specifically, the language of WW1.

The language is of wartime; 'frontline' 'volunteers', factories being 'turned over' to 'new essential uses' 'brave sacrifice'... and specifically, the language of WW1. — unenlightened

'Blitz spirit!'
Here in la France 'nous sommes en guerre', as macron has repeatedly stated.

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. — Punshhh

I do. It can be lessened by loosening the constriction on the global economy sooner rather than later. Meaning don’t ‘play safe’ to save our own consider the world at large.

I gave too extreme examples. There should be an area where both extremes are mitigated for everyone’s benefit. The issue still remains how to judge the limits of that area and make reasonable predictions.

Maybe a mere a 3-4 million will die this year of the virus due to extreme measures taken. Then ... the economic down turn causes massive worldwide poverty which essentially kills hundreds of millions over the following year. That simply doesn’t seem like either a morally or logically robust stance to take.

I really want to see virologists and world economists bringing this to the forefront of public discussion more quickly or we could inflict a greater loss of human life than is necessary. Whatever happens it’s a tough thing and I hope we don’t avoid measuring the value of individual human lives against each other on such a scale in favour of avoiding the burden for doctors and nurses on a potentially much smaller scale.

The concern I have being the locality of the problem both temporally and physically. We don’t want doctors and nurses to decide who lives and who dies at all ... but if they are forced into such decisions and down the line save many many more lives by allowing countries to run moe smoothly it would be an unfortunate burden I’m sure they’d be willing to carry.

Let’s just not merely ‘hope’ about this. Hard decisions shouldn’t be avoided regardless of how awful they are. Avoiding such things will only cause more harm down the line. I guess that is the ultimate test for humanity today more than ever in our minuscule history on this Earth.

Maybe a mere a 3-4 million will die this year of the virus due to extreme measures taken. Then ... the economic down turn causes massive worldwide poverty which essentially kills hundreds of millions over the following year. That simply doesn’t seem like either a morally or logically robust stance to take. — I like sushi

Not sure how one or the other is more logical. As to the moral question: how certain so the negative consequences in the future have to be to justify having more people die right now? Wouldn't the moral choice be to save as many as you can now and then also save as many as you can later?

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! — ssu

I don't know if it has as much to do with expense as it does the inability to accurately predict the type of crisis that might arise. It would have taken a crystal ball for someone to have predicted we'd need 1000s of respirators and whoever predicted it would never have been able to convince Congress to actually make the purchase and then store the respirators in a warehouse somewhere for decades until some novel virus emerged. In fact, if someone had made that prediction, I wouldn't think of them as much a prophet as I would think they were a suspect.

At any rate, for things somewhat predictable, like a sudden need for additional petroleum, the US does have a storage of it: https://www.energy.gov/fe/services/petroleum-reserves/strategic-petroleum-reserve/releasing-oil-spr . I remember during Hurricane Katrina when it knocked out the main refinery in New Orleans, amounts were released.

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. — StreetlightX

So now we're back to class warfare? The old standby to politicize the situation and polarize it. Maybe it'll work in shutting people up who might wish to argue that we have to look at the economic consequences to decisions we make regarding dictating public safety. As I've noted, we consistently make similar decisions in all other types of contexts, which include whether we wish to dig underground tunnels at every intersection to allow pedestrians to safely pass under or whether we just paint some warning lines on the road to let folks know a pedestrian might be walking in front of a car.

The universal protection is that which you afford yourself, meaning the person who chooses not to cross the road won't get hit by a car. Fortunately we have a government that is not willing to just allow folks to get run over and continuously blame the pedestrians, so they paint the lines and try to warn motorists, but they don't dig tunnels and pedestrian bridges except in the most unusual circumstances, and they don't simply shut down the intersection. I'd suggest the decisions they make are based upon the cost of interfering with commerce and the cost of being able to have sufficient money to build roads, with an actuary being able to tell you how many lives each safety option will likely cause you. We paint lines for $500 and 5 lives will be lost. We dig a tunnel for $500,000 and 0 lives will be lost. Must we now dig tunnels at every intersection?

And this is not the rich versus the poor. It's the young versus the old. The economic cost of the shut down, whether you agree with it or not, will affect everyone who works and now doesn't. The idea that the rich are the most fidgety ones during this crisis because they see their portfolios taking a hit ignores where the real pain is being felt, and that is by those who can't pay their rent. The economy will rebound, and I think most investors know that, but that's much harder to explain to someone who can't pay his basic sustenance bills right now.

So what I'm suggesting isn't just to let the old folks die, but it's to place a higher burden on the old to protect themselves, and it's to temper their protection by governmental mandates and expenditures in the same way we do it in other contexts. That's not cold hearted. It's just reality.

Wouldn't the moral choice be to save as many as you can now and then also save as many as you can later?

This goes right back to the moral hypotheticals I’ve asked before. The issue is do you think it worthy saving one person today causing one million to die tomorrow, or saving one million today so that only one dies tomorrow.

Of course reality is FAR more complicated and unpredictable than that. Morally it is my position not to shirk away from uncomfortable questions and resolve problems based on one particular universal rule.

Where is the line between willful negligence and ‘crossing that bridge when we come to it’? I don’t know. I think it’s worth asking that question for obvious reasons though.

@Maw, @unenlightened: it turns out I was wrong. Even now people - barely people - can play the personal responsibility card with a straight face:

place a higher burden on the old to protect themselves — Hanover

I'll let this abyss of moral excreta speak for itself.

And no Hano, it's not 'back to' class warfare. It's never been anything but class warfare.

where the real pain is being felt, and that is by those who can't pay their rent. — Hanover

I think, and my son, who has the virus tells me, that the real real pain is being felt by those who struggle to breathe. But fuck you too.

This goes right back to the moral hypotheticals I’ve asked before. The issue is do you think it worthy saving one person today causing one million to die tomorrow, or saving one million today so that only one dies tomorrow.

Of course reality is FAR more complicated and unpredictable than that. Morally it is my position not to shirk away from uncomfortable questions and resolve problems based on one particular universal rule.

Where is the line between willful negligence and ‘crossing that bridge when we come to it’? I don’t know. I think it’s worth asking that question for obvious reasons though. — I like sushi

I made a thread about the moral standing of future people a while ago, but unfortunately (for me) it didn't get any traction. I think that, as our capabilities and the complexity of our societies increase, we need to increasingly think about how the moral value of a person, or possible person, changes the farther away in time from us they are.

By the by, it seems to me that it would make good sense while the economy is in shut down and the society in lock down, that interest and rent for everything should also be suspended.

Beyond that - abolish all debt:

"if the U.S. government can finance $4.5 trillion in quantitative easing, it can absorb the cost of forgoing student and other debt. And for private lenders, only bad loans need be wiped out. Much of what would be written off are accruals, late charges and penalties on loans gone bad. It actually subsidizes bad lending to leave them in place. In the past, the politically powerful financial sector has blocked a write-down. Until now, the basic ethic of most of us has been that debts must be repaid. But it is time to recognize that most debts now cannot be paid — through no real fault of the debtors in the face of today’s economic disaster."

Coronavirus mortality raise has risen since I last checked. 4.5%.

I think, and my son, who has the virus tells me, that the real real pain is being felt by those who struggle to breathe. But fuck you too. — unenlightened

I'm sorry to hear about your son. I truly am. Whether he is in need of a respirator and cannot get one or whether he isn't in need at all, I don't know, but such questions are relevant, as the suggestion is that if we were to allow a greater spread of the disease, he would be without due to lack of resources.

Whether the ultimate consequence of someone being unable to pay rent will be greater than the ultimate consequence to your son, I don't know. I do know I have no desire to discuss the personal healthcare of your family member, but we certainly can if you want to, but expect the conversation to be objective, regardless of what outbursts you wish to make. It would sort of like me telling you, or anyone, to fuck off for the death of my loved one who was struck by a car because I objected to some reasonable limitation to the amount of money the government was willing to spend on pedestrian tunnels.

Coronavirus mortality raise has risen since I last checked. 4.5%. — Michael

Probably because Italy has about a third of all deaths with a CFR of over 10%, followed by Spain, where it is about 9%

Good analogy. Right on!

Probably because Italy has about a third of all deaths with a CFR of over 10%, followed by Spain, where it is about 9% — Echarmion

And 4.9% here in the UK, where a 21 year old with no apparent health issues died.

Why have so many coronavirus patients died in Italy?

“The age of our patients in hospitals is substantially older - the median is 67, while in China it was 46,” Prof Ricciardi says. “So essentially the age distribution of our patients is squeezed to an older age and this is substantial in increasing the lethality.”

This might explain why some countries have much higher mortality rates. A greater proportion of those who are infected are older.

This might explain why some countries have much higher mortality rates. A greater proportion of those who are infected are older. — Michael

That, or testing is more limited, only discovering the more severe cases, which are usually older patients.

We won't really know until the data has been thoroughly analyzed in a few years.

I agree about there needing to be more consideration & responsibility in regards to government money in responding to this.

Each year are new viruses that nobody has built immunity to yet. And each year the vast majority survive, though unfortunately some - especially those with pre-existing health problems - die. It’s not all that different. They keep saying it’s more contagious but the numbers don’t add up.
In the US:
+59,000 died from flu
-560 from COVID-19

place a higher burden on the old to protect themselves
— Hanover

I'll let this abyss of moral excreta speak for itself. — StreetlightX

Not really. You've taken it out of context and ignored just basic common sense. As I noted:

The universal protection is that which you afford yourself, meaning the person who chooses not to cross the road won't get hit by a car. Fortunately we have a government that is not willing to just allow folks to get run over and continuously blame the pedestrians, so they paint the lines and try to warn motorists — Hanover

I've clearly indicated the societal duty to protect others, but that doesn't absolve your duty to care for yourself. Are you suggesting that those in greater danger should not take greater precautions, or have you just assumed the tact of others here in thinking that your indignation has persuasive power or, as seems more likely, it will allow you to just recite your position in the echo chamber you're trying to create?

Taking a step back here, I really don't want to just exchange barbs. It'll just predictably result in our just ignoring each other. I fully appreciate this is real and there is emotion here, and maybe we disagree over whether it's even appropriate to consider this in the abstract. I really do believe we make public safety decisions based upon amount of resources every day in all sorts of contexts. If what you're saying is that my analogies to other contexts aren't applicable, I'm open to reconsidering what I've said as it applies to the coronavirus context. But, if what you're saying is that you reject outright the concept that safety measures can ever be limited by preservation of resources issues, then I just think you're wrong, and I can't just accept your comments in an effort to play nice and get along well with others.

I've mentioned this before but it's not just about old people dying from the disease. It's also about the health service being overburdened. There are lots of people (young and old) who require hospitalization but don't die. That's why there's all this talk about "flattening the curve" which I believe is the prime motivation behind the quarantines.

Part of the agenda for the overreaction may be financial & partly to see how far people will let go of their constitutional rights - like right to assembly, right to not be spied on, right to not be killed - stuff like that.

President Obama gives himself permission to kill. ... to all persons and kill them without any due process whatsoever... using drones
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/president-obama-gives-himself-permission-to-kill

California cops are now using drones to enforce coronavirus lockdown March 22, 2020
https://thedronegirl.com/2020/03/22/coronavirus-lockdown/

I don't know if it has as much to do with expense as it does the inability to accurately predict the type of crisis that might arise. It would have taken a crystal ball for someone to have predicted we'd need 1000s of respirators — Hanover

That's simply wrong. We knew a pandemic would hit us sometime. What medical equipment would be needed was easy to see for the professionals.

The medical community was for a very long time saying over and over again that a pandemic was going to happen. Just check yourself (if you bother) how many have said "It's not about if, but when. Heck, I've heard it all my life as my father is a professor of virology, so the argument of nobody could have predicted this is utterly false and nonsense!

make the purchase and then store the respirators in a warehouse somewhere for decades until some novel virus emerged. — Hanover

Sorry, but this just shows your ignorance about how strategic reserves work.

They are NOT storaged into a bunker dig into a mountain and stacked there not to be touched until a crisis happens and then opened. It's not that way. First of all, things like grain and even those protection gear couldn't be storaged for decades as they do have a limited shelf life. Everything has a limited shelf life. No, the way you do it is to have your ordinary warehouses store the grain / oil whatever and basically keep the reserves always on their books whereas the actual resources and equipment is sold normally. It's basically an agreement with the government with the logistics companies that this amount of this and that will always be in storage.

Michael, how is your mother? Hope she's good.

I've mentioned this before but it's not just about old people dying from the disease. It's also about the health service being overburdened. There are lots of people (young and old) who require hospitalization but don't die. That's why there's all this talk about "flattening the curve" which I believe is the prime motivation behind the quarantines. — Michael

I think that is the prime motivation as well.

The question I'm asking is what is the cost burden of a complete lock down versus other lesser forms of quarantine and then seeing what the loss of life is based upon each of those options and from there deciding which option to choose.

To do otherwise would demand no one can leave their homes and all deliveries be made by guys in hazmat suits. If we're serious about this thing and we really had this absolutist view that human life be preserved regardless of cost, we'd do that, and it'd all be done. Maybe doing nothing makes sense as well. I'm willing to look at the numbers.

Sure, it feels disgusting, but we do it all the time in other contexts and it's part of reality. We send kids off to war with an understanding that x number of deaths will result in preferred outcome y.