You already seem to know how the pandemic will play out, so I have nothing to add to that then. — ssu
Lamenting the cultural infantilization of Americans. - It appears to me we become merely annoying, but have lost the mantle of dangerousness that might have been our greatest protection. The spirit of the 2d amendment as that a citizenry could at need defend itself, the capacity alone usually sufficient, and the fact and practice when it wasn't. Now it's just deluded individuals who "need" their guns to "protect themselves and their families." So much for arms. — tim wood
That is, a corruption of our national character and loss of moral compass. Trump, I think we shall find, is a no one, a nothing-at-all, the evil of him being that he occupies places where there needs to be a something/someone. And as a nothing he's undeposable. — tim wood
The cartoonist creator of Pogo, Al Capp, is the author of he quote, "We have met the enemy and he is us." Turns out he knew a thing or two. And the founding fathers knew we might make a mistake - it's not well understood that the electoral college was supposed to be a protection against such mistakes - and argued that the election was the curative. And now we have the 25th amendment, but without the common sense to use it. — tim wood
Trump beating Bernie (because Bernie can't even get to the general, the system works so well) is demonstration of the system working exactly as intended. What the founding fathers didn't consider seriously enough is that the wealthy class, having such an electoral advantage, can systemically corrupt the whole system. In other words, the American system is simply "Aristocracy light" — boethius
In other words, the American system is simply "Aristocracy light" and the time frame from going to a "true educated and courageous elite" of the founding fathers to what we see now, is not even a good performance for an aristocratic systems. — boethius
Yes, and this is one reason a Dem probably wouldn't have done things hugely differently in the current crisis. It would still have been a case of putting "the economy", i.e. the interests of the aristocracy, first too. — Baden
I'd be glad to blame 1%'s for thousands of deaths, I'm just not seeing it. — frank
Of course the fine details of the computer models do not match the actual events, but everything in general about this was predicted and all the possible responses pre-evaluated. — unenlightened
The end of work has been predicted before, and it hasn't happened yet. But what might be starting to happen is the devaluation of work, which means the devaluation of the human being.
The value of a human being is the product of his labour; such has been the orthodoxy of economics, and it follows that an increase of productivity results in an increase in the value of labour, but the production singularity, whereby not only automation is automated but progress itself is mechanised, mean that already, manufacturing is taking second place to services. Unskilled labour is already valueless; the human body costs more in resources than it can produce.
Economic logic therefore dictates the scrapping of this uneconomic unit. Your country no longer needs you. Fuck off and die. To object is to make an extinction rebellion. — unenlightened
Of course the fine details of the computer models do not match the actual events, but everything in general about this was predicted and all the possible responses pre-evaluated. — unenlightened
We're accusing them if putting money ahead if lives. So why did they allow the economy to shut down? — frank
So what happened? How did NYC end up locking down and weathering the crisis fairly well in the face of no cure and no vaccine? — frank
Many elderly or terminally ill people won't go to the hospital at all. Hospice comes to them at home. Medicaid pays again.
You seem to be concerned with all the young healthy people. Most of them will either have no symptoms, mild symptoms, or they'll feel like shit for a couple of weeks. They won't burden the system too much more than all the other viruses are already doing.
I'd be happy to join you in talking about triaging hundreds of people in one day, rounding them up in convention centers, etc. That's almost a philosophical issue (not quite.) There just isn't any reason at all to think that we'll need to do that. None. — frank
It's going to be just like Mad Max. I'm telling you. Total disaster.
— frank
I've already explained it cannot get to a madmax outcome since 85-90% of cases recover easily. So letting it just go out of control and killing whomever it can as quickly as possible, wouldn't collapse society. The 90 - 95% (as not all people become cases) of people that survive can easily just carry on.
So, even if society chose to maximize deaths by doing absolutely nothing to slow infection, it's still not a mad max scenario.
Stop wagging your finger at that straw man.
However, just straight up letting 5% of people die without any attempt to help them is obviously not politically feasible.
Even 5000 isn't politically desirable as ssu notes. — boethius
A second wave might hit in the fall and basically the corona-virus might stay with us just like the common flu. — ssu
Talk with your neighbourhood to form a local consensus and then challenge your local republican and democrat representatives to be seen to be working together too forward your views. — rob staszewski
It's not exactly Mad Max, but we are getting more young ones than I expected. — frank
Yes, I do care about the old and would rather anyone, old or young, get the care appropriate to the disease.
The disease affects young people less, yes, but many still need critical care and some still die, all at once it is not logistically possible to provide that care. — boethius
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.