I’m almost certain that antinatalist rationalization is merely excuse-making for those too scared to have children. Don’t have children, sure, but don’t pretend you’re saving the soul of a child who will never exist anyways. — NOS4A2

You didn't even directly answer the charge against ideologies, ego-stroking and all of that. And yes, a potential to have a child is one that could exist. This lateral move into trying to question the idea of potential realities from happening, is simply bad philosophy. If outcomes don't happen from previous actions, step in front of a fast moving car and see what happens.. I mean, we can't predict what could happen, right? You are sparing someone from life by not having something that can potentially be had. No, you are saving someone from existing, not saving a particular already existing person. But you know that and now you want to change the argument.. The argument is that progressives and cons want to perpetuate their demented ideologies into yet a new generation.. Again, you're both wrong.

I'll repeat the charges:
If you think "liberal innovations" are bad.. So are "free-market capitalism". Antinatalism scoffs at both of these as FORCING more people into the world in the first place by having more children. A pox on both your houses. Both liberals and conservatives feel entitled to force their ideologies on yet another generation to live out their demented ideas about ways-of-life.. Oh but great, if the child doesn't like it they can just go kill themselves! What a foolish unsettling system all ideologies are and people who thus create more progeny to have to live out their ideological abstractions. Its all using people for an ideology. Its all ego-stroking thinking YOUR child MUST be created to experience life. All of you can go bugger off with your ideologies and forcing others to live them, honestly.

He Has 17,700 Bottles of Hand Sanitizer and Nowhere to Sell Them
Jack Nicas
The New York Times
Mar 2020

You didn't even directly answer the charge against ideologies, ego-stroking and all of that. And yes, a potential to have a child is one that could exist. This lateral move into trying to question the idea of potential realities from happening, is simply bad philosophy. If outcomes don't happen from previous actions, step in front of a fast moving car and see what happens.. I mean, we can't predict what could happen, right? You are sparing someone from life by not having something that can potentially be had. No, you are saving someone from existing, not saving a particular already existing person. But you know that and now you want to change the argument.. The argument is that progressives and cons want to perpetuate their demented ideologies into yet a new generation.. Again, you're both wrong.

Sorry for being dismissive but it is somewhat off-topic. But No, you’re not sparing anyone because there is no one to spare. You’re speaking about protecting figments of your imagination and pretending you’re being good for doing so. That’s demented.

You’re speaking about protecting figments of your imagination and pretending you’re being good for doing so. That’s demented. — NOS4A2

You are questioning that people can make decisions that have future outcomes? And you are questioning that by preventing something now, you can prevent a future outcome? Please. This is Sophistic bullshit. And you still sidestepped the actual topic at hand that cons and libs just want to procreate their ideologies on behalf of other people, for them.

You are questioning that people can make decisions that have future outcomes? And you are questioning that by preventing something now, you can prevent a future outcome? Please. This is Sophistic bullshit. And you still sidestepped the actual topic at hand that cons and libs just want to procreate their ideologies on behalf of other people, for them.

No, I’m questioning the absurdity that you have in mind some person that you’re protecting. No need to twist what I say, especially while accusing someone of sophistry. There are plenty of reasons to not have children that need not involve some fake ethical principle.

It goes without saying that people tend to pass their ideologies to their children. So what? The topic is coronavirus.

No, I’m questioning the absurdity that you have in mind some person that you’re protecting. No need to twist what I say, especially while accusing someone of sophistry. There are plenty of reasons to not have children that need not involve some fake ethical principle. — NOS4A2

Yes plenty of reason, that go into the principle. I did not say I had someone in mind that I was protecting. You ignored what I said and made your own (what a sophist does):

ou are sparing someone from life by not having something that can potentially be had. No, you are saving someone from existing, not saving a particular already existing person. But you know that and now you want to change the argument.. — schopenhauer1

It goes without saying that people tend to pass their ideologies to their children. So what? The topic is coronavirus. — NOS4A2

Yes indeed, but you seemed to be off topic too ranting about your anti-liberal/ pro whatever brand of conservatism. I'm leaving this conversation now.. but if you want to discuss how your sophistry is bullshit, we can continue on my ideology thread.. I'll leave it to you.. Whatever troll thing you answer to this, I will not respond on this thread.

So based on the vague figure of 80% infection to provide herd immunity. and the 20% hospitalisation and 6% needing ventilation, (see my previous) I get, for the UK an overall eventual 48m infections of which something like 9m hospitalised, and nearly 3m needing ventilation. I can see why the government wants to buy more ventilators - there's probably not enough in the country for the cabinet, never mind all their banking pals.

Yes plenty of reason, that go into the principle. I did not say I had someone in mind that I was protecting. You ignored what I said and made your own (what a sophist does):

“ you are saving someone from existing”. No, you are not saving anyone from anything. It’s a lie. You have saved exactly zero people. Your imaginary “someone” is a no one. It’s nothing.

Yes indeed, but you seemed to be off topic too ranting about your anti-liberal/ pro whatever brand of conservatism. I'm leaving this conversation now.. but if you want to discuss how your sophistry is bullshit, we can continue on my ideology thread.. I'll leave it to you.. Whatever troll thing you answer to this, I will not respond on this thread.

Good.

It seems that Trump has succeeded in getting into every socialist-in-liberal-clothes' heads. — Harry Hindu

The notion that liberals are closeted socialists is another sticky idea, apparently.

I found some toilet paper online with a delivery date in one month. i've never scheduled a shit out that far, but that's the new reality.

In all seriousness, there are expectations that the death toll in my home state of Georgia will double at some point. It's currently at 1 but on the verge of chaos.

The US is at 41. That's 41/50ths a person per state we've lost. Do you know what it's like to lose just over 80% of a person? It's not pretty I tell you.

In all seriousness, there are expectations that the death toll in my home state of Georgia will double at some point. It's currently at 1 but on the verge of chaos.

The US is at 41. That's 41/50ths a person per state we've lost. Do you know what it's like to lose just over 80% of a person? It's not pretty I tell you. — Hanover

Let me introduce you to a little concept called "exponential growth", or if you insist on technical mathematical speak, the acceleration phase of a logistics curve of total cases, active and resolved.

Since you're about to get a live demonstration, just circle back if you have any questions once we pass the inflection point and things start to calm down.

You're at least a month behind peak. Italy's infection total was doubling daily for a while (not sure of today's figures). Anyway, take 1 and double it thirty times (sorry, I mean get someone who knows math to do it for you) and all the toilet paper in the world won't save you.

*Cross posted.

Well in the UK, the govt is now saying that the over 70's might all have to go into forced self-isolation in a few weeks. Judging by past timetabling that means they're preparing the ground for the announcement being made this week (or if they're not, they'll soon realise they'll have to make it this week), and the restriction coming into effect say 72 hours thereafter. So by next weekend I'm guessing we'll all be shopping for our parents/grandparents - or having our children shop for us. Then there's the collection of medical prescriptions too...

@Hanover



You're at about Feb 15th Italian time.

You're at about Feb 15th Italian time. — Baden

This would be the case if there wasn't a quick corporate gift to make a quick buck producing some easy-smeazy test kits. That socialist institution the WHO did it! How hard could it possibly be.

US could be as little as 8 days behind Italy, but actually worse than that because, again without testing, measures are lagging behind and additionally, with the president downplaying, lot's of republicans and other fools felt the need to virtue signal that they didn't fear this "just the flu" by participating in activities and gestures that actually increase the chance of spreading the disease, as well as everyone scrumpling together to panic buy as the free market gracefully responds efficiently to the situation, and to make matters even worse, without sick leave, many just have to work even if they know they're sick. Therefore, more doubling times will be locked in before there is a lock down, resulting in significantly, significantly more problems.

Thanks to testing, Italy did put in place regional travel restrictions and quarantine pretty quick, that those measures weren't good enough to significantly slow the virus should absolutely terrify anyone in the US a saturation is reached without even the benefit of those inadequate measures.

You're at about Feb 15th Italian time. — Baden

I was talking about deaths, not every Corona induced sneeze. 6455/worldwide population is the current number.

I was talking about deaths, not every Corona induced sneeze. 6455/worldwide population is the current number. — Hanover

We're also talking about deaths, but also those in the future which, with foresight, is possible for people to do something about now.

If you want to only talk about current deaths and a hypothetical world where only those matter, you should say so, so that we can dismiss such a topic as irrelevant and not waste our time.

The unenlightened rough and ready calculator predicts about 10 to 15 million deaths in the US. I am of course a scaremongering idiot that takes no account of Trumps leaderships skills and the imminent rollout of an effective vaccine.

Or that could all be bullshit, but you heard it here first!
— unenlightened
Now that's a catchy phrase!

Brilliant! I missed that one.

See where this is going?

This would be the case if there wasn't a quick corporate gift to make a quick buck producing some easy-smeazy test kits. That socialist institution the WHO did it! How hard could it possibly be.

Good things socialist; bad things corporate! Typical socialists, stealing and living off the innovations of others.

I think you need to stop circling Trump and go dig a weed or something. Breathe some fresh air.

I suggested alcoholic mouthwash, I don't know how well it went down.

I suggested alcoholic mouthwash, I don't know how well it went down. — Punshhh

Went down a treat, thanks. I'll stop teasing Grump as soon as he gets out of my newsfeed. Boris, unfortunately is so blatantly "2or3 million dead pensioners is a price well worth paying", he is beyond even my dark humour.

See where this is going? — Baden

Actually no, and neither do you, as there's no way to extrapolate based on that graph, unless you're suggesting that y is approaching infinity based upon a current death count of 40.

If the y axis were marked in units of 1 million, the death toll would be imperceptible without a microscope on that graph and you'd be making toilet paper jokes like me.

OK, stupidly I'm just presuming Alex Jones's anti-coronavirus toothpaste doesn't really work and the spread in the U.S. will be similar to other countries who failed to take the virus seriously enough when they had time.

I'm not going to respond to someone taking words out of their arse and putting them in my mouth. Take your shrill hysteria somewhere else, fuckwit.

You're at about Feb 15th Italian time. — Baden

Except now the awareness and the precautions of the virus are totally on a different planet than a month ago. This should be taken into account. With schools closing down, all public events canceled, with a national emergency and a lot of countries in total lock down mode, that will likely result that it won't be like in Italy from Feb 15th onward. Now it starts to be so that you simply cannot be without have heard of the virus.

Looks like reality to me. 2 weeks ago, Minnesota had 1, then two cases. Then 3, then 5, then 11, then 18, now... 35. At first all of the cases were travel related. Now 3 cases of community transmission have shown up. This is exactly what one would expect to happen.

Granted, the number of cases has increased as a result of increased surveillance testing -- which is the whole point of surveillance testing, to detect otherwise invisible transmission.

Hanover may be dismissive because the numbers are quite small in most US states, BUT all epidemics and pandemics start out with small numbers. The 1918 influenza epidemic didn't begin with 100,000 cases; it began with a very small number. Same for Covid-19 in Huwei, same for SARS, same for MERS, same for Ebola, same for... most readily communicable diseases.

Hanover is overlooking an important point: US (and many developed countries') hospitals do not have lots of reserved empty beds and critical care equipment, like respirators, nor reserves of doctors, skilled nurses and allied professions. 50 critical care cases might well swamp a metropolitan areas critical care resources, because most of those ICU beds are already in use. Why don't they have more resources? Because they can no longer afford to maintain these reserves. Consolidation, closure of obsolete hospitals (too old to rehabilitate) closure of small financially precarious hospitals, etc. left us with fewer, but financially stable, hospitals operating at close to full capacity. THEREFORE

it is essential to do what we can do to "flatten the curve" of new cases. That's what social distancing (something I've been doing for a decade, at least), voluntary self-storage, and so on is for: keeping as many people as possible out of harms way.