Informative posts by you in this thread. Thanks. — Benkei

You're welcome.

Watching coronovirus unfold is like watching a dozen nuclear bombs go off in slow motion around the world. So slow compared to a nuclear weapon that it was extremely easy for policy makers to walk over and turn them off.

The habit of disregarding human life in favour of fantastical neoliberal reasoning to do what big business wants (... or then a dictatorial communist country that has a lot of money), in this case not shut down air travel, is so strong with the political class that it overrides everything else.

They are not even able to to think things through to the obvious conclusion that the inaction on this issue is A. political suicide and B. will affect them personally as well.

It went from "calm down, calm down, think of the stock-market, no one panic" to "we need a plan to protect congress from coronavirus" headspinningly fast.

Neoliberal zombie-think at it's finest.

It's also interesting that the private calculus about the disease can run against what is socially advised. My dad is in a higher risk category, he's 70 years old and has chronic respiratory problems. If he develops corona now he's still assured to get the best health care the Dutch system can provide. If he gets it during the peak, this is not likely. — Benkei

The only viable plan is trying to maintain essentially complete isolation of elders for as long as possible.

Though this is hypothetically possible, at the moment the disease is in the exponential phase. Due to the incubation period there is no way to pull off such a plan. Italy went from first confirmed cases to being overwhelmed and triaging in a span of 2 weeks with a paltry 6000 cases. Sine our leaders did nothing substantitive to slow the virus (such as stopping all international air traffic to give containment and contact tracing a viable chance to significantly slow the virus, if not stop it) and continue to do nothing substantive, we will have millions of cases within a few weeks.

The "incompetence" is so great that when the dust settles, the reasonable conclusion to make is that China knowingly played down the virus to maintain air travel (while understanding internally what they were dealing with) in order to ensure a global pandemic as an act of biological warfare against every other country (as if they succeeded in containment to China, only their own economy would be significantly impacted; instead, they let the virus loose globally and then succeeded in containment within China, which was certainly a deliberate act, by pretending "everything was fine" for as long as possible; it's of course easy to cooperate and be transparent with data after this policy objective was achieved and global containment failed), and, second, that Western governments decided to do nothing to slow the virus after China let it loose as an act of biological warfare against their own populations.

I'm quite optimistic about the approach so far in the Netherlands. Less cases today (which are results from testing on Sunday) than the day before, peaking for now at 77 new cases on Saturday. No exponential growth so far unless they're not taking testing seriously. I was actually expecting triple digits in new cases by now.

I'm quite optimistic about the approach so far in the Netherlands. Less cases today (which are results from testing on Sunday) than the day before, peaking for now at 77 new cases on Saturday. No exponential growth so far unless they're not taking testing seriously. I was actually expecting triple digits in new cases by now. — Benkei

Yes we'll see if "containment light" is going to be effective.

The problem from a mathematical perspective is that, without intense travel restrictions and automatic quarantine of travelers and mass testing, new transmission chains just get imported in.

At the moment I find it fairly likely that growth rate is simply tracking the growth rate in ability to test, as you mention.

The pattern so far is that cases start, then there is a couple weeks without too many cases nor too many deaths, but this is simply due to the disease taking a fairly long time to kill, especially with good care which is available at the start; the deaths then jump suddenly when triage begins, followed by extreme measures when the health system is overloaded a week later. The danger with this "we're paid to be passive idiots approach, and our tradition is only to act in the public interest when our hands are absolutely forced by years and years of campaigning and protests and overwhelming evidence, as we protect business as usual" strategy is that by the time deaths start to be overwhelming there maybe x10 the cases already in the pipeline. The doubling every six days should be a conservative estimate, so if you wait until the medical system is overwhelmed before taking action, you've likely already locked in a few doubling times of critical cases already ongoing (i.e. people already sick developing towards critical) not to mention the new cases that will still emerge even with intense measures.

Only South Korea seems to have managed effectively so far with a statistically significant amount of cases, so we should just repeat their policies: everyone has a mask outside the home all the time, very widespread testing to catch new transmission lines followed by aggressive contact tracing, maximizing self-isolation and social distancing; government taking control of the production and distribution of masks. And this was put into place very rapidly after the first cases.

The Italy approach of diddle-daddle spectacularly failed within 3 weeks. Any policy maker should view that as "wait-and-see" is not an effective attitude right now.

I saw someone being interviewed in South Korea today, who had been told by doctors who are treating infected people, that there are some people who carry the virus with no symptoms, including no increase in temperature.

some people who carry the virus with no symptoms, including no increase in temperature. — Punshhh

Yes, that it can transmit easily in networks of young people (without anyone getting serious) and it can transmit from people without symptoms, is why measures need to be super extreme to lower the growth rate. Extreme measures is bad for business though, and (usually) facts can simply be ignored without any short-term consequences (for our politicians); that approach to epistemology obviously shouldn't be applied to things with short term consequences like a pandemic, but unfortunately it seems you can't have your useful-idiots on idiot mode only some of the time, it's an all or nothing epistemic posture.

It also should be noted that this uncontrolled pandemic is worse for business than had the virus been contained competently. "Get it over quickly" makes sense only in the useful-idiot framework of reasoning; there's many second order consequences that make the uncontrolled pandemic worse. Unfortunately, pandemic experts had not investigated this approach, they assume the goal would be to save people's lives and so have not developed the models needed to estimate all the economic dislocations caused by essentially welcoming the pandemic. Propagandists charged with maintaining the status quo have also not investigated the possibility that a global unmitigated pandemic is a very effective way to change the status quo, a much bigger change than is achieved by making sure planes fly as long as possible.

this is true - we’re told that 80% of victims have mild symptoms and quite a few are a-symptomatic. That’s one of the factors that makes it so prone to contagion - when you got SARS, there was never any doubt, whereas you can have COVID-19 and not even be aware. But, a small percentage get quite ill, and amongst those there are some deaths.

The market reaction to this disease is disproportionate...

"Get it over quickly" makes sense only in the useful-idiot framework of reasoning

Agreed, but the issue then becomes how does a country remain free of the virus when other countries have pandemics, or it is endemic? Surely there would have to be multiple travel bans. I realise that this might not be so much of an issue once a good vaccine has been produced, but there is no certainty that this will save the day.

Going back to the apparent welcoming of the pandemic, this is also evidenced in the lack of provision for asymptomatic subjects and the spread via them. It seems that it had been accepted from an early stage that the pandemic can't be avoided and that it is better to preserve economies than fight its spread dramatically.

It was explained today by the UKs chief medical officer that the greatest risk in the UK is if the health service becomes overwhelmed. So the strategy is to ensure that the peak infection occurs during the summer when the health service is best placed to cope ( as there is usually a seasonal flu epidemic in the winter months, which puts an added strain on the health service). This is a risky strategy, but they don't see any alternative, either that prevents an epidemic, or that prevents a winter peak in infection, which is regarded as catastrophic.

What you say here might seem reasonable, but thinking it through it is the result of confusing two kinds definitions of the economy. — boethius

I'm not confusing anything. On the contrary you seem to be completely discounting the real negative effects, leaving entirely aside considerations of the share markets, that curtailing all international travel would have on economies. Effects which would arguably be so great that governments would have no hope of propping up all those who would otherwise become bankrupt. You seem to be blithely ignoring the inter-connectedness and fragility of the global economic system.

The basic problem, that which is creating the conditions for runaway capitalism, industrial farming practices, resource depletion, soil, land and ocean degradation and pollution, is overpopulation. It is the continuing growth of the human population that necessitates endless growth economies. It is also arguable that such a growth would never have been possible without fossil fuels, the supply of which has already peaked.

The market reaction to this disease is disproportionate...

I thought that the market volatility today was due to a row between Saudi and Russia over oil prices. Which in turn was symptomatic of increasing uncertainty and volatility in economies around the world.

There are two horns to the dilemma we are facing. One, we should make every effort, or there is a moral imperative, to prevent large numbers of deaths. Two, we should protect economies, from damage, or collapse. Which entails letting those people die.
So which is it, save lives, or save economies? I think we know the answer to this choice.

So which is it, save lives, or save economies? — Punshhh

Both quite obviously. Since the economy entails pretty much every event that happens, then the imperative is to save lives.

And, it's not like every country in the world is not working on a vaccine. Ya?

that curtailing all international travel would have on economies. Effects which would arguably be so great that governments would have no hope of propping up all those who would otherwise become bankrupt. You seem to be blithely ignoring the inter-connectedness and fragility of the global economic system.

I agree, but I expect this will happen anyway in a couple of months from now. The UK government is already preparing financial help including grants to prop up such companies when they become unviable. It is going to be a Herculean effort,a war footing if we are to pull through without economic collapse.

Addressing population levels, I agree and I think we have reached a point of vulnerability to pandemics, economic instability, climate and ecosystem instability. It looks like nature will provide a correction.

And, it's not like every country in the world is not working on a vaccine. Ya?

Most predictions are that it will be at least 18 months before a vaccine is being administered. The tsunami will have come and gone well before that. Also, if the virus is related to the Cold, there might not be an effective vaccine.

You don't need to eliminate the cold to reduce the lethality of Coronovirus, do you?

And, here's a tip... Take a vacation after the dust settles to some Indonesian Havana...

It's real insanity how a price war compounded by some really fucking irrational fear caused some hundreds of billions in losses for the whole world.

*Scratches head.*

So which is it, save lives, or save economies? I think we know the answer to this choice. — Punshhh

I don't think there is a choice, because there is no one making the decision. The invisible hand has decided that human lives, and particularly the elderly in this case are not worth saving; economic necessity dictates the demise of most of humanity, because mass production and mass consumption is outdated. Capitalism no longer needs the working class. Corona virus, hostile environment, North African wars, refugee rejection etc all head in the same direction. And even the best democrat knows that dead men don't vote.

Totally normal with these kind of viruses.

I mentioned the common cold because an effective vaccine has not be found to prevent it. So the it might be the same for Coronavirus.

I'll be fine by the way, I live in a remote place, with some land and a secure income. I'm just holding on for the ride.

I wish I could say the same. But, all I'm saying is that the fear and paranoia are unjustified...

Yes, I sort of agree, but should we just accept a few million deaths? And then get back to life as normal?

It is going to be a Herculean effort,a war footing if we are to pull through without economic collapse. — Punshhh

I doubt the resources are there to prop everyone up, but I do agree that international travel may be greatly curtailed if not altogether stopped. How will the airlines, who, I often hear, are already struggling, fare?

I agree that nature will provide a correction; whether this will turn out to be it remains to be seen.

"Save lives or save economies" is not a clear pair of alternatives. If economies crash countless lives will be lost that otherwise would not have been.

Not to come off as a totally psychopathic dick asshole, but millions of people will simply not die from Coronovirus. I believe the death toll is 3.5k, and as far as I know, new cases aren't dying from it anymore.

and as far as I know, new cases aren't dying from it anymore. — Shawn

This is a ridiculous, completely unfounded, statement.

Yes, it is wrong. I stand corrected, people still die from this disease...

Yet, the point still remains, is the market reaction rational or irrational? I stand by the latter.

The markets are driven by greed and fear of loss; whether expectations of gains or losses are based on plausible considerations is a different question. Those who play the markets must also take into account the emotionally driven actions and reactions of their compatriots.

You'd think we'd get over our animalistic tendencies, ya?

Why is it taking so long?

Why is it taking so long? — Shawn

Because we actually are animals?

Not really. We can learn from past mistakes. And, Coronovirus ain't the Spanish flu or the plague.

We are animals, Shawn. Animals can learn from their mistakes, just as, individually, we sometimes can, but collectively? What makes you think that, if Coronavirus becomes ubiquitous, it will not kill more people than the Spanish Flu? If it's mortality rate is 3%, then it is 30 times more lethal than the seasonal flu. It also seems that it may be more infectious.

We are animals, Shawn. — Janus

That doesn't make us condemned or dammed into some self created place of suffering. You don't like Coronovirus? I say move to some Island State, like Bermuda.

I say move to some Island State, like Bermuda. — Shawn

Yeah, if you can afford it...