or if we want to avoid pandemics we should take a cue from the Japanese and stop hugging, shaking hands and kiss for greetings. — Benkei

Not me, not ever. Human touch is necessary for life :sparkle:

In a few months this will still likely be doing the rounds in terms of political posturing and media hysteria, but things - other than a hard hit economy - will return to some degree of normality. If some idiots in governments prolong the lockdowns beyond 2-3 months some people around the world will be feeling the economic damage for a couple of decades. — I like sushi

In a few months the World will be surprisingly adapted to the pandemic. Just as now it starts to be obvious that the health care system of New York State will not crash and manages through this reasonably well. But digging mass graves in the US isn't ordinary, I think.

Who knows, but I don't think the lockdowns go beyond 2-3 months. What is likely that the restrictions will be lifted gradually with the restrictions on large public events being the last things they hold on to. And in many places the "lockdown" isn't the Chinese type where you have a curfew literally.

Happy Easter 2020!

Note: I’m still curious to see the figures for deaths in the UK these past two weeks (will be released on April 14).

The death rates of confirmed cases in hospital are published every day. Today (actually the 24hrs up to 5pm yesterday) are 980. The actual figure can only be estimated because all the death certificates won't be tallied until later, also many deaths will be put down to some other cause. But a rule of thumb is probably about double the hospital death rate. The total hospital death rate for the UK is approx 9,000 as of yesterday.

The daily death rate is still going up, but is beginning to level out. I doubt it is going to flatten because the lockdown is quite porous with many people still going to work and interacting on public transport etc. Also there are spikes happening currently in a few places in other parts of the country.

It will be interesting what policy changes there will be if the daily rate goes over a thousand, or fifteen hundred.


Going back to the less developed countries, I saw a scary report on UK Channel 4 tonight from Ecuador it has hit them big time with hospitals and morgues piled high with bodies. I expect to hear sporadic reports like this from many countries over the next few weeks.

It is a poignant thought that this weekend commemorates the crucifixion and the resurrection. In a cruel twist of fate nature is acting out this metaphor amongst Christian societies around the world now with the wave hitting many poorly prepared countries this weekend.

Going back to the less developed countries, I saw a scary report on UK Channel 4 tonight from Chile — Punshhh

That was from Ecuador

Not me, not ever. Human touch is necessary for life :sparkle:

We should spare a thought or a prayer for the millions of unfortunate souls who will suffer at this unfortunate time.

That was in Ecuador

Thanks for correcting me, I'll correct it.

Oh going back to the north folk and the south folk, it was to do with who lived to the north or south of the river Waveney.

If I understand you, you might want to use a term like forced austerity or minimalism rather than essentialism. — praxis

That's a good suggestion. Thanks. I had my doubts about using the term "essentialism" but in defense of my usage of the term, I'd say, for example, people viewing games on TV might've come to realize that it was as much fun as actually being there at the stadiums where the games were held. In other words, the appeal of games, their essence as it were, wasn't lost in the transition from an actual stadium to the idiot box.

The mortality rate is falling as more research is done. It looks like this is x3-4 more deadly than the flu. — I like sushi

At this stage it appears to have more like a 30-40 times greater fatality rate than seasonal flu, and that's not to factor in its much greater infectiousness.

An antidote to self-obsession...

Coronavirus threatens to upend a delicate balance of power in the Middle East

Pollution made COVID-19 worse. Now, lockdowns are clearing the air.
Beth Gardiner
National Geographic
Apr 2020

NO₂ down in various areas, in the range of 20%.

Nevertheless, air pollution still kills more than 100,000 Americans every year. — Gardiner

Sorry, I should’ve been clearer. I was talking about ALL deaths.

I know. That’s why I said ‘burden healthcare’.

My point remains. It looks like the virus has been over estimated. The only serious problem it poses is keeping the elderly safe and managing healthcare (not a serious issue for developed countries). Doctors and nurses working 12+ hour shifts isn’t exactly abnormal. Maybe it’s just that other people didn’t realise the hours they worked until now?

I don’t for a second think there are any easy decisions. The true test comes when poorer nations ask for support over the coming decade/s.

Politically I find it disconcerting that some people are treating it like boon for socialism and almost hoping for a huge prolonged economic down turn - showing no concern for the poorest people around the globe as their more interested in their ideological revolution.

Very little that I’ve seen suggests this has been handled well. A lot has been learned I hope. Next time something like this happens I imagine they’ll be vastly more prepared (akin to countries in Asia). The reaction in China was understandable but seemingly disproportionate, as they had little to no idea what they were up against. It also helps that the culture in asia is better suited to dealing with a national crisis like this.

Another worry is, humans being humans, in 5-6 months people will have pretty much forgotten about this, or that any mention of a possible reoccurrence will cause needless panic and disruption.

Why were these East Anglians not considering adjacent areas such as Lincolnshire and Essex? A tad... myopic don't you think?

One could say the virus has been overestimated, but such considerations are relative to the mood of the population, how much preserving life, or economic circumstances are valued by the population.

In our decadent Western countries as much as 10% of the population are in "vulnerable groups", the size of this group is larger in such places due to the success of modern medicine. In poorer parts of the world perhaps half or more of such a group would have died already, so the virus wouldn't have so much of an effect on their population.

In terms of an overreaction, I can only see this being the case from the perspective of the economy, as otherwise people are simply being asked to spend some time at home, not a bad thing. And in terms of public health it is a beneficial response. Surely economically, provided economies can be put into hibernation, on life support, temporarily, what harm is done? Economists keep saying it will bounce back afterwards.

Perhaps the vulnerability of our economies is a consequence of narrow minded human behaviour in large populations resulting in an economic house of cards( it certainly feels like this in the UK at the moment) which will collapse at the merest hint of a down turn and that exposing this weakness will be a good thing. Resulting in more robust systems developing. Although historically this sort of progress does not often happen in humanity.

I think the overestimated response was due to political expediency more than anything else, that in our decadent countries such loss of life, in an undignified way, is not to be tolerated.

It was following an occupation by the Angles in the 5th century, who invaded the parts of East Anglia. In their new land they decided to divide it into two areas, north folk and south folk. Even now, they are noticeably different.

I don't see the thread as derailed, it is rather a commentary on the progress of the pandemic as it happens. Welcome to the thread.

I don't see the thread as derailed, it is rather a commentary on the progress of the pandemic as it happens. Welcome to the thread. — Punshhh

:ok: :up:

One could say the virus has been overestimated, but such considerations are relative to the mood of the population, how much preserving life, or economic circumstances are valued by the population. — Punshhh

Again, my constant concern is precisely framing the situation as a money versus life choice. The simple fact is that economics is about the distribution of resources. Take away people’s ability to access resources and they will die.

Literally millions of people around the world living hand to mouth have lost all sources of income. This means they cannot afford to feed themselves or their children. This also means if they are lucky enough not to die of starvation, and remain healthy enough to work once restrictions are lifted, then the wealthy people lining in relative comfort will have less disposable income with which to pay them leaving them in a much worse position than they were already in.

If I sound callous sometimes, forgive me. I’m simply not inclined to think short term about these things. Such thinking can look like a lack of apathy, I’m just trying to approach this problem in as measured a manner as I can and highlight possible future traumas - foresight would’ve prevented a prolonged lockdown if the developed world had made relatively minimalistic preparation after all.

Let’s look at India as an example. Already, over 2.5 million people die of hunger in India every year. Let us say that at a 1% fatality rate and half the population infected we’ll see 6.5 million die on top of that. If we’re to imagine something like minimal lockdown then that would undoubtedly up the numbers to something like 10 million at 80% of population infected (rough total of virus deaths and hunger deaths at 12.5 million for the year and then a return to roughly 2.5 million deaths from hunger the follow year/s). The other, if we assume double the fatality due to hunger, would give us roughly 11.5 million deaths, and in the following years an almost certain increase in hunger deaths due to the economic downturn.

I am not saying one is better than the other, but I am worried about that people aren’t considering the long term fallout outside their own borders. It’s a horrible thing to say but saving 100,000 lives in one part of the world could lead to an extra 1,000,000 dying elsewhere.

I think it’s easy not to think about this as it serves us to only take limited responsibility. I’m just saying if an comprehensive analysis is done and turns out that different actions could’ve saved literally millions of lives we can say with false comfort ‘maybe’ because it would cover up the horror of understanding that maybe for every one of ‘our own people’ we saved it led to the deaths of one thousand ‘others’.

In developed countries there is little to nothing to complain about other than an instilled ignorance as to how other people around the globe struggle to live. The outrage of thousands of people dying to a force of nature as opposed to 9 million people starving to death every year around the world is something that it would pay us well as a community of creatures to pay more attention to - as hard as it is to look at let alone give serious thought to.

This is a time for humanity to look beyond their immediate neighborhood. Most of the reporting I’ve seen on this was self obsessed drivel to begin with. Thankfully many reports have now started to view this on a global scale rather than as a political agenda - some governments have reached out to each other and their is promise. Still many people are crying out about the rich from their homes like they are some destitute individual suffering under the burden of tyrannical oppression while others around the world haven’t eaten for days and have no idea how they can find food because there is literally no jobs, food or money available to them in the foreseeable future.

Anyway, got that off my chest! Haha!

If I sound callous sometimes, forgive me. I’m simply not inclined to think short term about these things. Such thinking can look like a lack of apathy — I like sushi

Don't be so hard on yourself, I think we're all here willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're extremely apathetic.

For instance, not bothering to read what's already been discussed here and address existing counter arguments to your position. A very time honored apathetic virtue found often in many schools of conservative thought.

The first problem in your analysis is that wage slavery (dying within a few weeks without a job) is not a necessary state of affairs.

The second problem in your analysis is that you're using numbers of deaths based on social distancing and economic shutdowns. If you want to "continue as normal" for the sake of the economy then you need to estimate deaths and casualties in that scenario. You can not take the benefits of social distancing and then compare that number to some number of knock-on deaths of economic shutdown.

An unmitigated spread of the virus in the US, for instance, would result, based on what we know so far, in millions of deaths based on case fatality rate so far and a health system so overwhelmed that essentially no one else can be treated for curable problems.

If your argument is "maybe the virus isn't so bad", which does have a very small but not entirely zero chance, then lock-down is still necessary to establish such a fact, as if it's wrong and current case infection fatality and hospitalization estimates are correct then the result is millions dead, a health system severely damaged and no one else getting adequate care for any other problem for a while.

I think it’s easy not to think about this as it serves us to only take limited responsibility. I’m just saying if an comprehensive analysis is done and turns out that different actions could’ve saved literally millions of lives we can say with false comfort ‘maybe’ because it would cover up the horror of understanding that maybe for every one of ‘our own people’ we saved it led to the deaths of one thousand ‘others’. — I like sushi

A valiant effort to string together a bunch of maybes to get to the conclusion that "we need to sacrifice people for the economy". If the numbers can't be lined up within the US, then maybe some imagined series of facts can make the numbers lined up elsewhere and every American that is sacrificed saves thousands of others in a far off land.

Again, deaths from joblessness in India is a resource allocation problem that can be solved outside the market. Not perfectly, there will be many knock-on economic casualties, but it is far easier to save people's lives by just getting people food by just transferring them money and then try to solve economic problems, than it is to save people's lives in an unmitigated spread of the virus.

The reality of the situation is that non-market-based distribution of resources can simply work, which is why each country where the virus outbreaks we find the leaders within all come to the same conclusion that the consequences of unmitigated spread of the virus has far, far more terrible consequences than trying to solve the economic problems by social collectivist actions. In countries that already have strong social collectivist institutions, these policies are fairly simple and easy to implement.

In countries that don't have such strong institutions, such as the US and the UK, there was much more delay as the conceptual and organizational cost is much higher and the practical results much less efficient, but the logic is inescapable which is why Trump and Boris Johnson have come to the same policies as elsewhere (and the delay and mixed-messages simply caused more damage and costs than was necessary).

However, the conclusion to draw is not that in some alternative fantasy based view of the world that this point of view is only "short term" and there is a more noble "long term" analysis available where saving people's lives now is a selfish thing and just letting the virus take it's course to maintain market based distribution of resources would be the altruistic thing ultimately saving more peoples lives. Rather, the conclusion to draw is that large systemic shocks is 1. just another in a long list of reasons to have institutions that care for all members of society insulating them from death due to market forces, 2. that neo-liberal arguments that free-trade and deregulation (that results in outsourcing critical production and not even stockpiling critical stuff but efficient "just in time" supply chains) is simply analytically wrong, 3. electing a corrupt narcissist with limited analytical abilities who then spent years purging the bureaucracy of people unwilling to lie and grift wherever they interfere with corrupt scheming results in a sub-optimal strategy and execution in the face of a real crisis, 4. electing someone incompetent enough to believe a preventative team, in this case to prevent a pandemic, is a waste of resources as those people can simply be re-hired in the event they are needed and will do just as good a job under such a management paradigm, again, has all the expected consequences.

I’ll move past the sarcasm ...

The first problem in your analysis is that wage slavery (dying within a few weeks without a job) is not a necessary state of affairs. — boethius

You’ll have to explain this further please.

The second problem in your analysis is that you're using numbers of deaths based on social distancing and economic shutdowns. If you want to "continue as normal" for the sake of the economy then you need to estimate deaths and casualties in that scenario. You can not take the benefits of social distancing and then compare that number to some number of knock-on deaths of economic shutdown. — boethius

That isn’t the case, but I can see why you’d think that. I didn’t work backwards with my numbers. I wouldn’t argue that letting the virus rampage across India would kill more if there were no lockdown measures in place. I was pointing out that the knock-on effects could cripple and lill many, many more. I’m well aware that diseases kill more humans than anything else, but many people already starve to death every year and many more will due to the lockdowns for years to come. I hope you agree that this is something that needs some serious consideration as it’s akin to climate change (slow creeping).

An unmitigated spread of the virus in the US, for instance, would result, based on what we know so far, in millions of deaths based on case fatality rate so far and a health system so overwhelmed that essentially no one else can be treated for curable problems.

Nowhere near ‘millions’ of people will die in the US without a lockdown. The mortality rate is now considered to be lower than 1% with current estimates of 0.3-0.4%. Call it 0.5 for the sake of argument and then extrapolate to the population of the US (1.6 million assuming literally everyone gets infected which is highly unlikely).

If your argument is "maybe the virus isn't so bad", which does have a very small but not entirely zero chance, then lock-down is still necessary to establish such a fact — boethius

That isn’t even an argument let alone an argument made by me. The mortality rate is now considered to be below 1% (rough estimates being 0.3-0.4%). The is still BAD because it spreads fast. From the outset a number of experts were saying this was about 10 times worse than the flu - and I agree that the ‘tsunami’ of cases, often reported, is no joke and that without stemming the flow in developed countries the death rate would mirror something like what we’ll see in less developed nations (because they don’t have anything near the kind of resources that North America, China and Europe have at their disposal).

A valiant effort to string together a bunch of maybes to get to the conclusion that "we need to sacrifice people for the economy". If the numbers can't be lined up within the US, then maybe some imagined series of facts can make the numbers lined up elsewhere and every American that is sacrificed saves thousands of others in a far off land. — boethius

If you’re using quotations make sure you refer directly to them. Also, I came to no conclusion and have repeated pretty much the same message - I am concerned that people are not considering the longterm fallout for quiet understandable reasons (if your house is on fire you ain’t gonna help your neighbor with their own personal inferno). I am worried more about once the fire has subsided people will be too preoccupied rebuilding than they will helping put out other fires.

There is no ‘social distancing’ in India among the poor and they have, like many, many less developed nations, a severe lack of beds equipment and facilities. They are more concerned about starving than the virus.

In countries that don't have such strong institutions, such as the US and the UK, there was much more delay as the conceptual and organizational cost is much higher and the practical results much less efficient, but the logic is inescapable which is why Trump and Boris Johnson have come to the same policies as elsewhere (and the delay and mixed-messages simply caused more damage and costs than was necessary). — boethius

The US and UK don’t have ‘strong institutions’. Compared to what countries? I have not said ANYWHERE that the UK or the US shouldn’t go into lockdown. One of my first posts on this thread was to state clearly that it is useful to look at the extremes to understand what options are available.

To repeat. I am not saying developed countries should or shouldn’t stop lockdown. I have said I am concerned that they will be far too cautious in lifting the lockdowns due to media pressures and scaremongering (maybe not in those words though). I’ve also stated that if there are few cases and it’s not dealt with elsewhere it will come back in waves unless strict measures are put in place to inhibit global movement (which will likely hurt the poorest even more).

There is no good option.

However, the conclusion to draw is not that in some alternative fantasy based view of the world that this point of view is only "short term" and there is a more noble "long term" analysis available where saving people's lives now is a selfish thing and just letting the virus take it's course to maintain market based distribution of resources would be the altruistic thing ultimately saving more peoples lives. — boethius

Again, never said this. Haven’t come to a steadfast conclusion. I was pointing out something horrible though so I perfectly understand the venom in your tone. I have dealt with such moral hypotheticals before and I am well aware that some people refuse to digest questions that put them in a position of two terrible choices (they tend to say it’s unrealistic or change the parameters so as not to have to deal with the horrific problem posed).

The mortality rate is now considered to be lower than 1% with current estimates of 0.3-0.4%. — I like sushi

Stop putting up unsourced data. Those of us who have bothered to source have already put up numbers that contradict yours.

It looks like the virus has been over estimated. The only serious problem it poses is keeping the elderly safe and managing healthcare (not a serious issue for developed countries). — I like sushi

So, countries are in lockdown, travel suspended, extreme measures of personal distancing in practise, and the virus is held to manageable levels as intended by these practises, and demonstrated by the models as what would be the case if these practises were implemented, yet you conclude that the virus has been over estimated?

E.g. from the lancet:

"Many cases of COVID-19 are acute and resolve quickly, but the disease can also be fatal, with a mortality rate of around 3%."

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=covid+mortality+rate&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DvPVpdSzOlWQJ

This figure may not be the final one either, but the idea there is a consensus that the mortality rate is 0.3-0.4% is rubbish. "Current estimates" vary widely.

You’ll have to explain this further please. — I like sushi

You're entire analysis is predicated on people dying shortly without a job and there's nothing that can be done about that.

You are quite explicit that saving 1 life in the US maybe at the cost of 1000 Indian lives. I took note that these are only "maybes" but for this maybe argument to work requires the presupposition that no policy exists to mitigate the consequences of wage slavery.

I am taking issue with your argument even in it's apathetic "maybe" form.

There is no ‘social distancing’ in India among the poor and they have, like many, many less developed nations, a severe lack of beds equipment and facilities. They are more concerned about starving than the virus. — I like sushi

You base this on what?

It is entirely possible to social distance among the poor as well as for the poor to benefit from social distancing among the well-to-do (such as travel restrictions etc.).

Iran is a poor country that ran the unmitigated spread experiment; there was no economic benefit for bold unmitigated spread and they went into lock-down.

I agree, starving is an issue. However, government policies that slow the spread of the virus and government policies that avoid starvation (as in avoid far more starvation than unmitigated spread of the virus) are not mutually exclusive. You are ignoring the fact governments can do something about starvation.

If Western government's are concerned about starvation in poor countries they too have policies available other than sacrificing their citizens to the virus to get economic growth rolling again. They can send food, funds and supply chain support.

You have setup a false dichotomy that leads to what you believe is a good point which is:

To repeat. I am not saying developed countries should or shouldn’t stop lockdown. I have said I am concerned that they will be far too cautious in lifting the lockdowns due to media pressures and scaremongering (maybe not in those words though). I’ve also stated that if there are few cases and it’s not dealt with elsewhere it will come back in waves unless strict measures are put in place to inhibit global movement (which will likely hurt the poorest even more). — I like sushi

Without your false dichotomy, being cautious is not a big problem that results in many poor dying.

When faced with an enormous risk, caution is advised. Keeping people alive and fed is not a very difficult policy task as supply chains and houses still exist.

Why the UK and US have been so desperate to avoid such policies is because it sets a bad precedent of market failure and the ease at which governments can intervene to correct such market failures; however, it's simply an unavoidable conclusion in this situation so even they are implementing such "people bailouts", just reactively and inefficiently while ensuring plenty of bailout money to the investor class is both more swift and more generous, instead of proactively and without large amounts of corruption.

To backtrack a bit:

The US and UK don’t have ‘strong institutions’. Compared to what countries? — I like sushi

I was very specific that the US and UK do not have strong social collectivist institutions to insulate people from dying due to market forces, compared to welfare state countries (i.e. continental Europe, Japan, South Korea, with a large variations in strength). In numerical terms, the life expectancy of poor people in the US and UK is significantly lower than the wealthy classes.

If you are talking about other institutions like the military, the US and UK do have these social collectivist institutions well funded, but they do not many insulate people from dying of market forces.

I don't think it's controversial that the US lacks such institutions.

It maybe more of interest the case of the UK, which has nominally welfare state institutions but has been mostly simply under-funding them since Thatcher in an attempt to get to the US system.

England has seen “significant widening” in life expectancy between rich and poor people, largely because of a fall in how long women in the most deprived parts of the country live, the latest figures show.1

The Office for National Statistics data show that life expectancy at birth of males living in England’s most deprived areas was 74.0 years in the years 2015 to 2017, whereas it was 83.3 years in the least deprived, a gap of 9.3 years. — British Medical Journal - though doesn't seem an academic paper, just reporting on such papers and is simply the first search engine hit I get

Why the lack of strong welfare state institutions, such as public healthcare, housing and money for the poor and infirm, paid sick leave, free education, strong union legal protections, minimum wage and worker and consumer protections, public transportation, is that both dealing with the virus itself as well as the economic consequences of the virus is far harder without these institutions already in place.

A few examples:

1. Without public health care and paid sick leave, people have the habit of simply working sick; this increases the spread of the virus and results in people only seeking care when it becomes an emergency or then just dying at home either actually preferring death to medical debt or then simply fearing it so much as to miscalculate when death is nearly inevitable without care.

2. Without welfare programs that keep the poor and infirm in good conditions, their conditions rapidly deteriorate with a disruption such as the lock-downs. Whatever they were depending on to manage to live is far more tenuous than well funded government institutions providing a better help. It also creates an additional problem to solve of housing homeless people compared to a system where homeless people are already housed.

3. Without strong worker protections and unions, then people simply live far more precarious lives (less wages and more predatory lending and unhealthy products) and are less able to deal with any disruption; and trying to "one-off" such institutional actions with one-time payments is far harder to implement. I.e. people need help sooner but will get it later due to this institutional setup.

4. Lives of students is far less disrupted if education is free and they already get a stipend and housing to live on.

5. Efficient public transport is highly correlated to working one's way out of poverty. Yes, gasoline prices have crashed, but if one can't repair one's car and there's no efficient public transportation option, one is already maxed out on predatory debt, then one is easily in the classed American catch-22 of needing a car to get a job but needing a job to afford to buy / repair one's car. Furthermore, well-kept public infrastructure in general means that faced with a large economic disruption these existing investments continue to payout massive public dividends, whereas a dealing with failing and inefficient public infrastructure becomes an additional problem.

The above is by no means an exhaustive list, but I hope gives some insight into why the poster-child case of welfare state institutions, Scandinavia, where I live precisely because of these institutions, people are annoyed by the lock-downs, and it's highly disruptive, but no one is fearing starting to death. People have already got bailout money, including gig economy workers due to a simple tweak in unemployment law.

Of course, not everyone in the world benefits from such an institutional framework and there will be many poor people dying from knock-on economic effects. Where my position differs from yours is that the lesson from the pandemic is to build such institutions wherever they are lacking, without delay, rather than try to "time it right" so as to be sure to start sacrificing people to the virus as soon as their sacrifice will help more wage slaves by getting back to normal and putting all the obvious and enormous examples of market failures behind us, never to speak of them again (like the media managed to do after the 2007-09 crisis).

Literally millions of people around the world living hand to mouth have lost all sources of income. This means they cannot afford to feed themselves or their children. This also means if they are lucky enough not to die of starvation, and remain healthy enough to work once restrictions are lifted, then the wealthy people lining in relative comfort will have less disposable income with which to pay them leaving them in a much worse position than they were already in. — I like sushi

True.

My mistake. I should’ve been clearer in what I was referring to. Made a mistake! Thanks for pointing this out (see below where I went awry - data is easily accessible)

I’ve seen less a less reason for other people (under 60’s) to be overly concerned as this has wore on. Of course, something that spreads faster than the flu and is 3-4 times more deadly is going to burden healthcare. In a few months this will still likely be doing the rounds in terms of political posturing and media hysteria, but things - other than a hard hit economy - will return to some degree of normality. If some idiots in governments prolong the lockdowns beyond 2-3 months some people around the world will be feeling the economic damage for a couple of decades. — I Like Sushi

It is estimated to be below 1% : https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/fauci-offers-more-conservative-death-rate-academic-article-public-virus

The 0.3-0.4 was for people below 60 yrs of age. Big mistake on my part there! My point in stating that was in line with the idea of funding for elderly whilst everyone else got on with their lives as best as possible - that said many experts believe that the elderly taking flu shots does little to help protect them and that it would be better for younger people to be vaccinated to stop the spread (as they spread it more readily).

As I said, 0.4% is no picnic anyway given the rate this virus spread at.

You base this on what?

It is entirely possible to social distance among the poor as well as for the poor to benefit from social distancing among the well-to-do (such as travel restrictions etc.).

Iran is a poor country that ran the unmitigated spread experiment; there was no economic benefit for bold unmitigated spread and they went into lock-down. — boethius

I base this on common knowledge, personal experience and, knowing that the population density of Iranian cities is minute in comparison to cities in India, Mexico and the Philippines for example.

You are ignoring the fact governments can do something about starvation. — boethius

Actually, that is precisely what I am trying to highlight here. I’m concerned, dare I repeat myself again, that there won’t be enough attention focused on developing countries due to nationalistic interests. Unity and cooperation is a potential path through this - at the moment the haranguing in the EU is the focus fro Europe at the moment. Once that’s sorted out - the quicker the better - then perhaps efforts will be focused elsewhere too.

Your other points about the lack of social institutes is a little out of focus within the scope I am talking about. The social care systems in place in India, the Philippines and Mexico do not come close to the institutions in place in the US and the UK (or anywhere else in the developed world).

You seem more interested in pushing a political agenda. Not really interested in that for this thread. I expect we’d agree and disagree in certain areas regarding how to implement better social institutes - but my focus is not really on any specific country’s internal system.

In my opinion the States should be considered one of the "poorer" countries in the world-the statistics of a few billionaires should not outweigh the masses of now unemployed people with no social benefits or healthcare to speak of-not to mention the illiteracy in some states is appalling. Remember also, that "guns are an essential" now...not sure how guns help with keeping protected from the virus...don't really want to think about that.
Five years ago Obama made a speech suggesting the Americans stock up on ventillators/masks for a type of health crisis that we are seeing today. Of course America did not. There are also rumours that Americans prevented a shipment of masks and ventilators from crossing to the Canadian border (my country). I also read somewhere (people can research this) that there is a hospital in San Franscisco that stands empty due to privatization...yet the STATE of New York alone has more cases than any other COUNTRY in the world.
America is, to put it nicely, in shambles. But it has been in shambles for a long time-and of course, other countries face similar problems but on a smaller scale. I think we'd need about ten other threads to properly discuss the failures of the American electoral system, democratic capitalism, the influence of big PHARMA and the NRA, their use of extremist christianity to pursue a xenophobic and homogenized populace ect. ect.
The Biden/Trump vote will go to Trump, I think anyone would have to be an idiot not to see that...the only advantage Biden has over the regressive right, MAGA idiots, and the moderate voters that think Biden is a creepy ineffective wimp (which he certainly is), is the die-hard democrats (that IMO do not constitute the real Left at all, there hasn't been a real Left in America since the early 1900s) that will try to convince previous Bernie voters not to waste their vote and still vote for Biden in a kind of "strategical" voting game with the end goal to defeat Trump (we see that in Canada a lot). I'm not going to pretend Bernie was perfect, I don't think a cult-of-personality helps anyone-but I think his politics were reasonable (radical to some) and well-founded. But I'm also not going to pretend that a Bernie win wouldn't mean a complete civil war for America...the MAGA and the regressive right have grown to strong in popular imagination to simply allow for such "radical" changes as free education, healthcare, medicaid, to occur; not to mention these rednecks would have the support of the billionaires who also don't want these changes...and since we live in a democratic capitalist society, thats even scarier than some illiterate idiots with their guns...If Biden wins, nothing will get better or really get worse. If Trump wins, we might see some rallying and rioting-but mostly we will watch the continued deterioration of America...

Congratulations on your country acting so efficiently, I'm not going to pretend I'm not jealous..I've always wanted to go to Australia/live there. I've always considered it to be like the "warm" version of Canada.
I live in the UK right now. I have to say, not much going on here. The British people are a pretty mild people, but they still have that old British "rallying" spirit so they're doing what they can to "protect the NHS (their healthcare system)" and most seem pretty rueful about this, but in good spirits. I get the sense that in other countries the general mood is much more desolate...

Nope. I have stated, and now presented data to back up what I have heard, that the mortality estimates have been said for a long time to be difficult to pin down and as time has gone on the mortality rates have been falling where mass testing has been done. The reaction was one of understandable caution because the mortality rates were extremely worrying.

The current 3.4% is almost certainly higher than the true figure. 3.4% - as of today - is NOT a complete picture by any stretch of the imagination. This is because on a global scale the vast majority of people tested are tested because they show symptoms and manage to get tested.

There are estimates and CRUDE estimates.

I’ve been looking at sites like this: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105088/south-korea-coronavirus-mortality-rate-by-age/

Looking at stats where mass testing has been done can help see through some of the uncertainty.

Regardless. My point remains that I am most concerned for developing nations - a vaccine isn’t going to come anywhere near in time to help anyone within the next 12 months at least. It seems reasonable to point out that many are going to suffer and to encourage active concern that extends beyond our own borders as much as possible.

There has been a shift in media attention toward a more global picture over the past month, but that doesn’t mean helping to keep the momentum going is a bad thing.

States, China, Europe, Japan and India achieve, if quickly harnessed, to prevent tragedy in the poorer societies in the world?

Sorry, didn't notice your last question. I mean, India has to figure out its own political workings...as India has been committing genocide against the Sikh people (ethnic minority in comparison to Hindus) for the last 40 years or so, and now in Pakistan the Muslims just recently murdered a bunch more Sikhs ect. ect. I know in Syria as well this crisis has really affected the country.

In other countries, I don't think they're so much affected by the virus as they are by the disruption to the economy. I mean second and third world "Developing" countries rely on a lot of the tourism/manufacturing industry from "Developed" nations, thats how global capitalism works-so the fact that no one is travelling, major corporations are seeing a decrease in sales (ie. clothing) ect. means that anything from resorts in Punta Cana to sweatshops in Korea are also suffering from this.

How about Congress dropping the Democrat/ Republican divide and getting the immense resources of your nation going? — rob staszewski

The problem is ass****s. Actually that's much too mild a term, and ultimately inaccurate. The problem is very bad people, much, much worse than mere ass***ery. And it's them, who suppress voting rights at the local level, racists, gun-nuts, up to state level officials who do and say outrageous things, to science deniers in the national government, to the Mitch McConnells and Donald Trumps who are so corrupt they corrupt corruption, ruining everything they touch. And the nausea inducing William Barr. What do Australians do about bad people?