We too, elect them into power.

There is occasionally talk about the Americanization of Australian politics. Which is of course the worst possible thing that could happen because who wants to end up that like third rate POS country.

Original merged post from @rob staszewski:

"G'day folks, I won't pretend to be other than from down under and it looks like we've been reasonably lucky so far. Thus I've no idea exactly how I'd be coping in the States or Europe, still a couple of thoughts. Our national government has formed a so called national cabinet with all the heads of our states and territories and it seems to be a considerable help in seeing things through. These leaders come from both major sides of our peculiar form of politics and indeed our, till now, very conservative national leadership have had no trouble working with our union leadership as well as business both large and small. I'm not sure but the Germans seem to have it reasonably together as well.

Now to the tricky part, I'm distressed about the current tragedy occurring throughout the disparate regions of the USA and dreading what the future may hold in store for the poorer regions of our world. Brazil already shows ominous signs (pardon me if I've just stood on sore toes), but here I go. Citizens of the States are you happy with your leadership? Both Trump and Biden appear not only unappealing from here, but close to disastrous. Is there a possibility that concerned folks could pressure the leadership of your nation to start working together? How about Congress dropping the Democrat/ Republican divide and getting the immense resources of your nation going? Your rich are incredibly so, yet your poor are dying, it really does not seem a good look from the outside. Britain does not seem much better, I just hope not too many people die.

I know Australia is small cheese, (is California's GDP larger than ours?), our manufacturing base is pretty much zilch these days, but what could the focused productivity of the States, China, Europe, Japan and India achieve, if quickly harnessed, to prevent tragedy in the poorer societies in the world? "

@rob staszewski

but what could the focused productivity of the States, China, Europe, Japan and India achieve, if quickly harnessed, to prevent tragedy in the poorer societies in the world? "

A lot. There would need to be a leader.

Tag rob!

Why do I feel like he left that little egg and won't be back?

We'll see how your eggdar is.

:lol:

What do Australians do about bad people? — tim wood

Can't say what the Aussies do, but what I do is disagree with you and then vote for them.

My point remains. It looks like the virus has been over estimated. — I like sushi

No.

I think that you are underestimating the lengths that societies will go to prevent deaths today. Death from pestilence like this pandemic simply isn't tolerated. It simply isn't acceptable. Not by the people and not by the politicians. People dying from cancer or heart disease is tolerated. We haven't gotten a cure for heart disease, it could be caused by a infectious disease and if it could be cured, we would only then in hindsight understand that an infectious disease has terrorized us, but now we don't know it. But this pandemic (like SARS and MERS etc) are preventable and people know that. They could be contained at start. Social distancing works. And people will want the pandemic to be prevented. The economy really doesn't matter.

This is the point you aren't getting. It doesn't matter if the number of deaths are low. The pandemic isn't "over estimated". The US deaths are will break twenty thousand soon and in my country likely we will have, oh my gosh, over 50 people killed likely today or tomorrow. That is not much in either country, yet both countries have now staggering amount of unemployed and both economies are in free fall for the time. That really doesn't matter so much to people. Unlike some people think, societies aren't as neoliberal as they seem and don't put money over human lives. There is social cohesion. I think it is a good thing.

Simply put it, societies will sacrifice their economies in the case of a threat...easily. In this pandemic this is a positive thing. In other crisis situations, it would be ugly. Trust me, if a conflict between China and US would erupt, Trump and even the Democrats would shatter all the prosperity built by the long period of globalization, the friendly ties and international cooperation IN AN HEARTBEAT.

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. — I like sushi

When have the leftist thought that capitalism wasn't crashing down?

I think they have believed always that the capitalist system is on the brink of total collapse and NOW is the time for change. And they will be again disappointed when the system makes it's rebound. And even if they get some things of their agenda through, they won't even be happy about it: It's always just a meager start to curtail the evils of capitalism, which doesn't go far enough.

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. — I like sushi

They didn't forget 9/11, and they will surely not forget this one. And likely the CDC among others will get more funding. A threat of a pandemic will be there up along with threat of terrorism and threat of war. And when people write the history of the 2020's, this won't be forgotten. It's only "forgotten" if a worse pandemic or disaster hits us, when it's considered a minor tragedy compared to the larger disaster. Do remember that after 1918 people referred the war that just had ended as "The Great War". Little did they know what was going to hit them then 21 years and that they were living the "interwar years".

Here are some more brief reports about less developed nations:

- This pretty much echos my voiced concerns: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H6iy9GVqs_c

- More on conditions in India: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uNd7KwFpW8A

This is the point you aren't getting. It doesn't matter if the number of deaths are low. The pandemic isn't "over estimated". — ssu

My point was that the mortality rate has been overestimated. It isn’t as high as first expected. That is not to say that most nations were almost completely unprepared.

Note: I did make a horrible error in saying 3-4 times worse as I meant for people below 60! Big mistake. The overall view is probably something like 10-12 times (very roughly!) worse than flu due to the combination of speed of spread and mortality rates.

There is social cohesion. I think it is a good thing.

Yes, but as ever there is the problem of extending natural human empathy further afield. This is a huge test for human empathy because it’s harder and harder not to look at what is happening elsewhere - if people are readily encouraged to seek out reports.

I’m actually optimistic. If I wasn’t I wouldn’t waste my time. The brief report above encapsulates the majority of my concerns.

I think they have believed always that the capitalist system is on the brink of total collapse and NOW is the time for change. And they will be again disappointed when the system makes it's rebound. And even if they get some things of their agenda through, they won't even be happy about it: It's always just a meager start to curtail the evils of capitalism, which doesn't go far enough. — ssu

The economic pack is going to be reshuffled. Economics isn’t something a paid much attention to until a few years ago. There is going to be a new world order, much like the aftermath of WWII, only we’re in a completely different world now - that’s gist of what I’ve heard from various projections (all of which amount to a shrug and best guesses).

To repeat (which I tend to have to do a lot because I’ve said as much several pages ago), I don’t believe there was an overreaction - but at first I thought it might have been like many did. Either way my concern was for how those living hand to mouth could possibly be expected to sit at home (if they had a home). I am not suggesting that everyone go back to work, but I do ask people to ask themselves horrible questions about trade offs today for tomorrow.

If there was a time for people to consider making a choice between two horrific outcomes it is now or never.

What do Australians do about bad people?
— tim wood
Can't say what the Aussies do, but what I do is disagree with you and then vote for them. — Hanover

You vote for bad people? A joke? A remarkably stupid joke.

You vote for bad people? A joke? A remarkably stupid joke. — tim wood

I said I disagreed with you, so bad to you, good to me.

I said I disagreed with you, so bad to you, good to me. — Hanover

Well, go the full monty. What did I write that you disagree with? Especially as grounds for self-harm?

I am not sure the US is wealthy. I think it appears wealthy because everyone uses credit cards and the government runs on credit. I think we are pretty scared of what increasing our debt will do to the country.

On the other hand, the US has used military spending to boost its economy since WWII and I don't understand why spending on health and education would not do the same.

One state governor seemed to suggest the high number of people of color dying from the virus is their fault for having bad health. I am wondering how many of those deaths were because the poor can not afford medical care, therefore, they died at home without medical care. I hope those deaths are well researched and my concern is proven unfounded.

You vote for bad people? A joke? A remarkably stupid joke. — tim wood

Not a joke but Wrestlemania mentality. Have you seen the video of Trump shaving a wrestler's head? He is the ring taking full part in the freak show of abusiveness. Who wants a president with no dignity and so ignorant of science his careless increased the spread of the virus? And his lies and womanizing, and his poor wife. Not in my time have we had such a pathetic first lady. She is no Elenor Roosevelt, but more like the victimized females of Wrestlemania.

At least Biden is speaking in favor of science. It would be nice if we realized what science has to do with democracy and why we are doing better than when religion, not science, ruled. The problem is not limited to Trump but includes our national opposition to science and my Christian friends make it obvious where that comes from. :mask:

It would be nice if we realized what science has to do with democracy — Athena

I think I'm failing to realize that. What's the connection?

And have you thought of returning to your motherland?

We should spare a thought or a prayer for the millions of unfortunate souls who will suffer at this unfortunate time.
1d — Punshhh

I will continue to pray for all the of Mother Nature's creatures both human and nonhuman.
My friend Scott Neeson is on the front lines in Cambodia and I try not to alarm him.

The latest Republican nut narrative can be summarized as follows: shutting down everything worked therefore it was a bad idea.

(So the coronavirus nut narrative mirrors the anti-vaccine nut narrative. "Why do we need all these vaccines? Hardly any one gets these diseases any more." Fucking. Dumb. Fucks.)

Not directed at anyone in this thread btw. Just looking at the media.

My point was that the mortality rate has been overestimated. — I like sushi

Isn't that something that we can say after the pandemic when we have a vaccine against it? Second wave was worse with the Spanish flu, you know.

Economics isn’t something a paid much attention to until a few years ago. — I like sushi

?

Either way my concern was for how those living hand to mouth could possibly be expected to sit at home (if they had a home). I am not suggesting that everyone go back to work, but I do ask people to ask themselves horrible questions about trade offs today for tomorrow. — I like sushi

People adapt. People survive war times too, which are even worse than now. And my point has been that actually there isn't much of a trade off as there aren't actually many options in our time. Without any strict lock downs social distancing would already hurt the economy a lot. Sweden is the best example of this: their economy is hurting too.

The latest Republican nut narrative can be summarized as follows: shutting down everything worked therefore it was a bad idea — Baden

:up:

Bloody hell rob from down under again, these different time zones can be a pain, why's the world bloody round?

Blimey, Tim Wood, Streetlight, Frank, my little post doesn't seem to have generated much in terms of new ideas, oh well, might as well have another go! Before I start though Streetlight, I might have wished you had left my post separate for a little longer from this overwhelming thread, just to see if some of us, other then me/I ( never could work that bit of grammar out.) picked up some threads and ran with them while I slept. Grre was the only one who had a chance to respond free of the cloud of conflicting invective on this thread that persuaded me to attempt to start another.

Tim I can't imagine how I 'd feel if I was a Yank, other than extremely unhappy! I also realise we managed to offload, due to his greed, little Rupert Murdoch which you almost certainly don't need! Perhaps that's one way to handle the objectionable amongst us? I'm afraid we don't seem, up till now any better at dealing with self serving individuals than you in the states, especially once they have achieved some clout it's just that their numbers pro rata have not reach those in the States. I used the term "States" deliberately. From here, it appears that from the Reagan years on, despite some long Democrat terms your national infrastructure has been crumbling. From out here you are no longer the States United rather a mismatched uncoordinated bunch of neighbours. Covid-19 don't care, it's just a bloody virus, kills off those of us in no great shape, but it can't and doesn't think or act purposely. We can and occasionally in the past have.

Your current crop of top dog leaders with a couple of honourable exceptions are either derisively incompetent, your politicos, or unaccountable for their power, our little Rupert for example. Treasure young Billy Gates and partner and your current governor of New York, a political hack who is, not just seems to be, rising to the Challenge. Forget Biden the bloke tells fairy tales none of us need that! Trump is a disgrace whose fault must be squarely shouldered by the middle class voters of America. Here's a thought, for reasons innumerable, start a mass campaign on all your congressmen. Ask the young amongst us to show in my case teach the rest of us how to IT the hell out of your representatives to declare a national state of emergency and take interum control of the reins of governance.

Tell them to bypass the White House, you really, in this day and age, don't need to elect a king for four years, your constitution is the oldest existing stab at democracy, over two hundred years old and almost that far out of date. Extend The social media (what ever you call it) campaign to your over politicised Supreme Court to oversee checks and balances, and fight to stop the idiots of all sides from stopping the responsible amongst the national electorate from controlling your nation's course. Should keep us busy for a while, you can't afford Trump and your major parties need to be completely overhauled, remember you've only got another six months there about's.

Remember we need to be in a position to aid the developing nations in this anti Covid-19 struggle asap. and the situation will not be helped if the USA is one of those who need rather than can give aid. Frank, your thoughts, some positive proposals perhaps?

Isn't that something that we can say after the pandemic when we have a vaccine against it? Second wave was worse with the Spanish flu, you know. — ssu

Of course. That doesn’t mean that the non-crude estimates have fallen as more testing has been done. To repeat, I am saying we’ve overestimated the effects of the virus on society (the opposite is clearly true). I am saying that the crude estimates don’t reflect the actual mortality rate - this is not something that has been widely disputed by the scientific community, but they’re being careful with their words.

I would also caution against direct comparisons to Spanish Influenza. This is a different beast, but still clearly dangerous. Spanish Flu hit younger people mainly - which is generally worse because social contact is much higher among younger people (hence previous the report I briefly mentioned regarding suboptimal use of vaccines in flu season - if you didn’t see the point was that elderly people taking shots for seasonal flu is not very effective at all because it is the younger folk who have more social contact and spread the virus more quickly: likely part of the initial ‘herd immunity’ thinking some countries took).

Note: I meant to type “I” not “a”. To highlight that I’m concerned about that area because it is not something I know a lot about.

And my point has been that actually there isn't much of a trade off as there aren't actually many options in our time. — ssu

It seems so. I’m just thinking ahead and trying to instill a sense of international unity. Like I said several pages back it’s basically a chance for humanity to step up and help the less developed countries. If they don’t then we deserve a second, third and fourth wave of this.

I don’t think a second wave would necessarily be as bad. The Spanish Flu was in a completely different time. That doesn’t mean I don’t think it could be the case, I just think we have enough information and communicative capacity to prepare for a second wave. In that respect helping less developed nations as much as we can would perhaps serve us better than preparing for a second wabe within our own borders whilst the rest of the world suffers.

There is no ‘better’ choice that I can see, only less ‘worse’ choices that are hard to differentiate.

Here’s a site whose articles I often find to be good avenues to start in terms of finding useful underlying information:

Zooming in

When it comes to different countries, those with higher incomes could face a higher death burden than those with lower incomes, the team found. That’s in part because their populations skew older. People above age 65 face a higher risk for severe COVID-19 symptoms, as do those with underlying health conditions like hypertension (SN: 3/20/20).

“Because populations in low-income settings tend to be younger, on average, it’s possible that there may be a lower impact in terms of mortality,” says Virginia Pitzer, an epidemiologist at Yale University who wasn’t involved in the work.

But the estimates don’t take underlying conditions, such as other infectious diseases, into account or lower health-care capacity in these regions, Pitzer says. So the true scope of the COVID-19 pandemic in places like Uganda or Kenya could be higher than projected.

...

But until there’s a vaccine or effective treatment, it may be necessary to keep suppression measures in place to prevent new cases from sparking another wave of infections. Kissler, for instance, led a study posted March 24 at the preprint server medRxiv.org, that found a one-time application of social distancing measures in the United States for four weeks up to 20 weeks may not be enough to slow the virus’ spread. So some form of social distancing strategies might be intermittently necessary into 2022, coupled with lots of diagnostic tests.

“This is not seasonal flu,” Kissler says. “This is sort of the perfect storm, where it has a low enough mortality that it can spread, but a high enough mortality that it causes huge societal disruption.”

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid19-control-measures-impact-global-death-toll?fbclid=IwAR33BF2oBiL-oCJUOqYYub0fTJ-Lqi5jnRnOVK8sqOv82KwQjppORg_1uF0

Remember we need to be in a position to aid the developing nations in this anti Covid-19 struggle asap. — rob staszewski

100%! There are things being done in a minimalistic fashion. It’s not all bad news. Some, repeat SOME, private companies have stepped up - yes, even the stereotypical self-interested business folk are not all emotionless robots. At the moment it appears the developed nations are mainly reaching out to each other right now, which is a promising sign. I hope the EU gets on track and sorts out the allocation of debt sooner rather than later (I think they will). China has actually stepped up too apparently? So I hear from an economists, in terms of stabilising the global economy (I don’t pretend to understand exactly how?).

Of course, they’ll still be political maneuvering but I’m inclined to think the bigger picture of ‘humanity’ has at least shuffled closer to the front of the line.

Before I start though Streetlight, I might have wished you had left my post separate for a little longer from this overwhelming thread, just to see if some of us, other then me/I ( never could work that bit of grammar out.) picked up some threads and ran with them while I slept — rob staszewski

Unfortunately coronavirus threads are as infectious as the disease itself. They need to be contained otherwise they spread through the forum and kill all the philosophy topics. Most will be quarantined here for the safety of others. It's the best option for the economy of threads on the front page too.

Ok sounds fair stay well

The latest Republican nut narrative can be summarized as follows: shutting down everything worked therefore it was a bad idea. — Baden

You're forgetting the key elements that the left is to blame for the shutdown (somehow the left is in charge and setting policy in the white house), that Trump has had essentially no agency through the entire ordeal, poor thing, while simultaneously believing Trump has done the best he could possibly do, but also believing that the obvious failings at every step represent unreasonable demands of perfection from someone who is literally God's emissary on earth and therefore beyond reproach.

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. — I like sushi

It seems that your making the point that considering how bad Iran turned out with unmitigated spread, that therefore more densely populated areas should be very proactive in mitigation.

I'm not seeing how you somehow arrive at other conclusions.

I'm not sure what your point is exactly. That social distancing will be difficult in highly dense places and so tragedies will unfold as we have already seen, despite social distancing doing what help it can? Or that, because these tragedies are inevitable the entire world should not social distance, or stop as soon as possible?

For the tragedy part, there is no disagreement; poor places hit hard by a disaster fair much, much, much worse than rich places, such as we see with hurricanes, earthquakes, droughts, the current locust plague.

Where I disagree is with your point that "booting back up" early, at the cost of western lives, is going to help these poor regions in some indirect way. We can help them, but it is through helping them, not helping ourselves get back to normal. Normal Western imperial capitalism wasn't really helping these people to begin with, that's why they're poor. We can and should send aid, some Western governments and UN agencies are talking about doing so as well as taking some steps (such as the EU helping Iran in contradiction to the US's sanctions). This is simply fantasy economics reasoning that people kept at a precarious state always close to death due to structural policies (kicking them off their land, forcing competition with subsidized foreign industries that can externalize their costs to a high degree, corruption enabled and usually encouraged by the west), can only be helped through more of the same: that the only way to help slaves in an economic downturn is to help the slave-master get back in profitable business.

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. — I like sushi

So you are abandoning your shower thought that booting backup early can somehow allow us to sacrifice 1 western life to save 1000 Indian lives due to starvation, through some mysterious economic working? You agree that that's a false dichotomy you presented?

If you are simply concerned about poor countries, then I share your concern.

The issue here is what policies would be effective in helping poor countries. You posited that the policy of getting back to economic normalcy as early as possible at the cost of lives will be effective at stopping an inevitable wave of starvation due to poor people losing their jobs. I argued against this, and you seem to not abandon, nor reformulate, nor defend your position but rather try to hide behind the idea that "you're at least concerned".

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). — I like sushi

This is a health crisis, and you're arguing that discussing institutions of care is out of focus?

Furthermore, you really believe that institutions in the US and UK are far superior to institutions in the rest of the developed world? Wouldn't we then expect the course of the disease in the US and UK to be far better managed? What's the evidence for this? Or are they "strong" but don't manifest that strength in competent management? What are you trying to say.

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. — I like sushi

So you posit that the economic normalcy will help all these starving people, and when someone points out that's a false dichotomy and that other institutions apart from the market can intervene to prevent starvation, you dismiss that criticism as "a political agenda". Look at your own free market political agenda and your crazy belief that that's not a political agenda and alternative view points are not by definition also an agenda. You're just a pot calling a kettle black in this situation, but thinking you're so high on the shelf as to be on another plane of existence.

All proposed responses to the crisis are inherently political projects to achieve ethical goals.

You're concern for poor people in other countries, which I share, is a political agenda, for instance, due to an ethic of caring about them and desiring to help them not starve if we can. Someone who doesn't mind that they starve, because they are "weak" and need to be naturally selected or then the earth is overpopulated or just no moral obligation to people in other countries, will not agree with the goal nor the political project.

So what you really mean to say is that you haven't thought about politics long enough to realize what your political agenda even is, nor the few seconds more to realize that every alternative to what you view as some sort of default non-agenda position is also a political agenda.

One of our "founding fathers" Thomas Jefferson famously made the following remark c. 1787. (Reference from wiki.) "“What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure,” Jefferson wrote in a letter to William S. Smith, a diplomatic official in London, on November 13, 1787. Jefferson was commenting on Shays” Rebellion, an armed uprising in Massachusetts that had been put down earlier that year by organized state militia forces. “God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion,” Jefferson remarked. “Let them take arms.”"

Rifles and law. It takes both though ideally the rifles are on permanent reserve and law suffices. But without practice.... — tim wood

I didn't forget your comment, but I'm honestly hard pressed to understand where these arguments are going.

Are you proposing an armed insurrection to depose Trump?

If not, it's not clear what these musings are supposed to mean. A symbolic frustration with the left's support for social distancing ... before republican politicians and news outlets also adopted the same policies because it's due to unavoidable facts?

You do realize "taking to arms" would immediately be a run in with the Feds (such as various "taking to arms" initiatives that ended violently opposing Obama's "rules") and that Trump is in charge of the Feds? How is this supposed to be somehow spinned against the left in this situation.

https://bylinetimes.com/2020/04/11/a-national-scandal-a-timeline-of-the-uk-governments-woeful-response-to-the-coronavirus-crisis/?fbclid=IwAR3DHK_OrBKw6z8KSxYPAi4EorwVeMgTRPeLxD_MwJyVMeJMOqiDw-DGoyc