Agreed. The capacity of WHO is very limited. Individual governments shouldn’t rely only on one source when it comes to such a crisis - and many didn’t.

Clearly you don’t know what I’m talking about given that the figures I’m referring to were only released a couple of days ago. Prior to that the number of deaths (all deaths from all causes) were nothing out if the ordinary. My point in posting this was to reveal the now official numbers rather than focus on rough estimates without any clear comparison.

There were huge civilizations across the americas. Disease wiped them off the face of the planet. I thought you were talking about the transition to sedentary life? Technology came hand in hand with changing to day-to-day living. Larger populations survived by storing information - hence the use of quippos in the Incan empire. In Australia and Africa there is some theories surrounding mnemonic techniques and ritual as means of passing information on.

Cannot for the life of me recall the name of the woman who makes a case for that - I’ll look it up tomorrow.

Neither conflict nor cooperation alone beget technological advancements. I cannot imagine a matriarchal society to have ever existed - in the sense of female domination - because men would just just say ‘no thanks’ when they disagreed and the women could do what? Nothing.

An egalitarian society in the past? Sure! There is evidence of this today in hunter gatherers and suggestions of large settlements in the Ukraine that were recently discovered where there doesn’t appear to be any tell tale signs of a ruling body.

I’d recommend looking at Renfrew. He’s a pretty solid source, but I’ve no idea if he’s focused on gender roles in any of his research papers.

I want to be sure you noticed I said there is a relationship between creation stories, gender dominance, and technological advancement or lack of it. — Athena

I don’t see any evidence - at least you haven’t presented any. If we’re talking purely about mythos there are enough instances of goddesses giving knowledge to humans to make your claim a questionable one.

If I were you I’d be saying ‘Oh no!’

Just wait 3 more days and look at the official figures:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=%2fpeoplepopulationandcommunity%2fbirthsdeathsandmarriages%2fdeaths%2fdatasets%2fweeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales%2f2020/referencetablesweek142020.xlsx

The last official figures show that there were 6000 deaths registered above average. That is around 50% above average so hard to ignore without a damn good explanation.

I forgot my main reason for arguing why I do not believe matriarchies would develop technology. When reading different creation stories it became evident that those with developed technology began with a creation story of male gods killing each other, and killing mankind, not a mother goddess who gives life and nurtures it. There appears to be a link between those creation stories war and technological advancement or living cooperatively and not developing technology. — Athena

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from mythological references. The big step was sedentary life.

Not really. I don’t know of any matriarchal societies full stop - at least not on a scale that would compare to a ‘civilization’.

Testosterone is apparently linked to an explorative function. There are more men with low IQ’s than women, and more men with higher IQ’s than women - it’s far from hard evidence though because it depends on interests and societal expectations and individual choices.

Hypothetically if women were physically stronger than men, but otherwise the same, I still think civilization would have advanced in pretty much the same manner it has (men and women are far more alike than different compared to literally every other primate).

The burden of pregnancy and child birth is by far the biggest difference. Other than that it’s just brute strength (which it not necessarily a tool of oppression or war; yet undeniably came into play during the birth of inequality).

Many, many people have written, studied and researched about how humans developed technologies. Technology accelerated as we found better means of storing and distributing knowledge.

Not unlike his move to blame the WHO for his own shitty job. — StreetlightX

To be fair the WHO fucked up in a huge way:

In this case, WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus specifically discouraged any such measures.

“The WHO doesn’t recommend and actually opposes any restrictions for travel and trade or other measures against China,” he said, while praising China’s response to the outbreak. “If anyone is thinking about taking measures, it’s going to be wrong.”

https://www.bangkokpost.com/world/1848369/china-travel-bans-spread-despite-who-advice

None of that is to say each government shouldn’t do their own investigations into the matter. That was the WHO’s position late Jan, early Feb - luckily many countries ignored them. I seem to remember China saying to Italy something along the lines of ‘Lockdown now. What you’re doing isn’t enough’.

That said, mistakes happen. When mistakes lead to tens of thousands of deaths then it seems tame to call it a ‘mistake’ given that the WHO should’ve been on top of this.

I think that’s sound enough. I wonder what @IvoryBlackBishop makes of this?

Destruction of agency is a nice way to put it. I’m certainly more inclined to go with virtue ethics than side with strong subjectivity (I by no means dismiss highly nuanced scenarios though).

This sums it up the nuance for me: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/63?fbclid=IwAR1Of9Panlkd4jPstu31iRYemGijUF1Goc--eFq6MVdE-a18HDO0upUIIfU

It would probably be helpful to distinguish between ‘bad’ and ‘evil’.

Replace the ‘why’ with ‘how’.

To focus in on a particular area I suggest this for reading:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/linguistics/

You’re asking too many big questions - meaning each require more than a brief response.

One more thought. It seems to me only male-dominated cultures developed technology. Ones with more female influence may have failed to develop technologically? — Athena

You’ll have to explain further where you’ve pulled that from?

I guess I don’t understand your point. Either way the next set of figures will give a clearer picture.

(1) No idea what that means or how it counters anything I said? The figures give are for week ending April 3. Clearly there is a spike in deaths.

(2) I know what ‘crude’ means. Look back several pages where I mentioned this. The figures for deaths (ALL deaths) are not ‘crude’. The deaths for last week ARE crude - meaning they are not official figures because it takes time to account for all deaths.

(3) No, it’s not. I said that we’ll have a better picture soon enough. An extra 500 cases is a significant rise though.

The data is there is black and white: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales

Maybe you’re comparing April to Dec and Jan. That is faulty because the death toll during the winter months in the UK is always significantly higher - there is certainly room to question the event of respiratory illness being particularly worse in April for some reason? Perhaps hay fever plays a role in this? Honestly, I’ve no idea. It seems like a reasonable thought to assume that people suffering with respiratory problems may be effected more in hay fever season (I guess looking up the pollen count would clear that up quickly enough - the season falls from March to May, so there may have been a spike in the pollen count that week?)

points (4) and (7). There stats are out for deaths in UK up until April 3rd - they are not crude estimates.

The death rate clearly spiked in the last reported week. I guess it could be argued that this is due to other causes but they’ve clearly marked respiratory problems and Covid.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=%2fpeoplepopulationandcommunity%2fbirthsdeathsandmarriages%2fdeaths%2fdatasets%2fweeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales%2f2020/referencetablesweek142020.xlsx

6000 deaths above usual rate PLUS above average deaths due to respiratory disease being the ‘underlying cause’. When the next set of figures are out the picture should be much clearer.

I am curious about how air quality plays into this. Not really spent much time looking into that. Anyone found info in that area?

There is some information in here explaining the difference between ‘relapse’ and ‘reinfection’ (from leading expert in South Korea):

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwoNP9QWr4Y

It’s about 45 mins long, but hopefully people here aren’t looking for soundbites.

This is false. They just didn’t take the risk seriously due to the previous scares of SARS and such - which were taken seriously in the East.

The only use in discussing this is to set up better systems to prevent this from happening again. And to repeat, this is a global issue not an east versus west issue. The better it is dealt with everywhere the better for everyone.

Note: Germany, China and other countries are providing assistance to other countries. The sooner developed countries get past the worst of this the sooner they can assist others and prevent a needlessly fatal cycle.

Nice trolling! Have fun :)

I missed out the ‘NOT’. Have edited that post.

I believe the subject matter of the thread is in the OP. I’m suggesting government policies don’t matter, only that the actual short and long term effects are of more importance on a global scale rather than a national one.

To repeat, my concern is with developing nations and how developed countries can help once they are able to.

My humblest apologies for NOT wishing to focus my attention on party-based political wrangling.

I’m just some duped nobody :)

Another brief report on the situation and struggles in India:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tpST8TNcAKI

I don’t agree. The world can act together. The quicker the developed countries get sorted out the sooner they can ship supplies and equipment to help out.

The whole reason I am posting anything anywhere is to keep this in the minds of those who are focused on what is happening in their own doorstep. The point being, once the restrictions start lifting and cases go down, there needs to be a public voice pushing to put a plan in place to help other countries.
That voice is already getting louder.

It simple terms, we have vague concepts because we have limited information. Our conscious recognition of ‘being wrong’ or ‘novel events’ allows us to adapt. Adaptation is only possible if some of the tools in use are capable of being repurposed.

Masculine qualities are pretty essential in terms of discussion and approaching uncomfortable ideas. There is a certain degree of combat when ideas are laid out. Feminine qualities are also essential in discussions, for remaining open minded and explorative.

One without the other is a disaster.

If women wish to compete with men then they either have to bring men to where they are or meet them head on. Either way, as above, one without the other is a disaster.

The major change for women came into play with family planning. Things have shifted.

Well, you’re missing the chaotic environment out. The world is part of how we think. GABA neurons inhibit, but if only some fire then they don’t impact the next neurons. The reasons they fire or not are due to ‘external’ conditions.

Thinking requires constant input. We’re not brains in vats. Also, what exactly do you mean by ‘thinking’? Some people regard thinking as ‘worded thought’ only. That could also be a confusion.

When it comes to words like ‘tall’ and ‘fat’ it probably helps if we assess the different types of antonyms involved.

Note: People can only come to disagree from some conscious point of agreement (eg. That we’re awake and conscious of each other as human beings with different views and beliefs).

Here’s some further reading:

https://www.iep.utm.edu/anci-mod/

Ethics is more rooted in the principles of a ‘natural law’ whereas morality is more rooted in choice rather than subscribing to there being an actual law - as far as I can tell.

In modern parse they are used interchangeably, and in philosophical discourse these terms have been used in different ways over the centuries.

Personally I find it most useful to view ‘ethics’ as more or less what is deemed lawful or abhorrent by most people, where morality is more about acting as you see fit regardless outside pressures. At the end of the day they are chained together because we cannot act against ethical ideologies without being influenced by them in the first place.

In this sense I view sticking to an ‘ethical’ position as being to adhere to what others deem fit, whereas to be truly ‘moralistic’ is to do something unethical and suffer the consequences knowingly because you have the conviction to see past the use of adhering to some ‘moral code’ that fits all.

There are other places where you can partake in serious discourse. This site certainly shouldn’t be your first choice.

Brief report on the situation in India: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JIhNKZOHJ74

Some hard figures (update coming today too) about the underlying causes of death for ALL deaths this year in the UK up to April 3:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=%2fpeoplepopulationandcommunity%2fbirthsdeathsandmarriages%2fdeaths%2fdatasets%2fweeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales%2f2020/referencetablesweek14202013042020165839.xlsx

Note: They’ve been careful to note death where Covid was mentioned AND where Covid corresponds to respiratory failure resulting in death (there is no attempt to exaggerate the figures).

What about Vietnam?

https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/3079598/coronavirus-whats-behind-vietnams-containment-success?fbclid=IwAR2irzKkJaJkaLgOSi9VU6UQ1nVajeyozkxtiHN5qf2GyfClHDAfENbXxY4

This is a tough post to answer because I’m unsure what you’re asking exactly. I can offer some information though.

The all or nothing nature of firing neurons has underlying analog features - the amount of neurochemicals trigger this effect. Then there is the recycling of neurochemicals for the synaptic clefts. Needless to say the threshold required to trigger a neuron firing is certainly not dictated purely by the amount of neurochemicals present in the synaptic cleft - Brownian motion plays a part.

Other than this if we look at GABA neurons (the most common neural inhibitors), they function by effectively stopping neurons from firing when they fire. In simplistic terms the cortex acts as an inhibitor to the midbrain (VERY simplistic, but generally what happens). You can think of this as pure animalistic reactions that are inhibited due to how sensory input is translated in the cortex - some sensory inputs bypass the brain completely (this is why paralysed people put on treadmills can ‘walk’).

Another thing I’d like to point out is the possible mistake of delineating the ‘brain’ from the ‘body’. The brain is a network that extends to your toes. A ‘brain’ without a body is just pink mush.

Lastly, the term ‘mind’ is dubious at best. The very term itself is ‘vague’. Without a ‘vague’ concept of something we’d have literally nothing to investigate, and if we had nothing to investigate we wouldn’t be conscious of anything. Essentially ‘knowing’ is ‘questioning/doubting’ that for navigational purposes is framed in the concept of ‘certainty’ in some instances so we have a sense of orientation in order to explore.

Here’s something else tangental to consider: https://smallcaps.com.au/coronavirus-could-speed-up-introduction-cashless-society/

I think I’ll post this again. Clearly some people missed it the first time around:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gxAaO2rsdIs

Note: Pay attention to the section that gets infected and the section that doesn’t get infected. Slowly the spread brings the virus to a halt. I think what some people are asking above is how low the number infected can be kept - last I heard Fauci said between 50-75% infected (which is better than 100%). Clearly the sooner preventative measures are put in place the less people get infected. ALSO if you watch the video all the way through you’ll see the chaotic nature of this and the risk of lifting measures too soon - which would basically make most of the lockdown measures a complete waste of time. It’s playing roulette to some degree, the best preventative measures are no guarantee when dealing with chaotic systems. The difficulty is in deciding where to draw the line given the huge margins of error involved (if anyone ‘gets it right’ it will be due, in part, to pure luck).

How large a gathering is too large during the coronavirus pandemic?
The math of social networks can create a roadmap to a group size that still curbs spread

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid19-social-gathering-size-math-pandemic?fbclid=IwAR3s-IrVETEIq6mBHCSXJJyO1OLg5FrZtHj_1rfmXLa1Wm8KBxnH5qeSjC8

It is not really surprising that there is a lack of face masks. The simple truth is the culture in western hospitals is not to wear masks. If any of you have visited a hospital in the far east you might have noticed that doctors and nurses wear face masks all the time - it is common practice, hence they have amply supplies (not to mention, you can buy face masks in many convenience stores too).

I imagine such equipment will become more common place in all hospitals now.

"In France, as in Europe, we don't have the tradition of wearing the mask. There is a tradition in Asia."

https://www.thelocal.com/20200405/coronavirus-and-face-masks-how-countries-have-changed-their-advice

Getting rid of certain views of the world requires attention to what we rarely question.

The process of looking at the most dull aspects of life (routines) would open up paths to questions never asked before.

Note: the term ‘Culture’ is a very diverse one. We don’t have to agree on what it means, but you may find fruit in expressing as carefully as possible what you mean by ‘Culture’.

It’s hard to say what a matriarchal society would look like today. It’s hard for me to imagine a strong patriarchal society - I’m European and I’ve grown up during the transition, so I know of a more equal society between the sexes than say more ‘traditional’ family units.

I’d be careful with the use of ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ because most people assume they equate to ‘female’ and ‘male’.

It’s an interesting subject. I’m not so sure that philosophical discourse helps cut right to the core issues though. Science can reveal certain truths, but when it comes to human behavior it’s a tricky thing to investigate as almost anyone can find ‘evidence’ to back up their own pet theories.

I’ve come to discussion late. What specifically is of interest to you in this area?

@boethius Paint me as you wish, it’s really not important. You can have your last word. Bye bye