Politicise this forever.

Agreed

When profit is the sole motive, it comes at the direct expense of everything else.

I hope this government gets it right this time around...

What would Bernie do?

I trust him.

:wink:

Trump says by Easter, he hopes to have all the churches open and everything going again...

His expert said he came from a perspective of hope... then went on to explain how the scientific perspective was different...

Have not seen the foremost expert on infectious diseases since!

:zip:

#Nodissidentsallowed

Why would people listen to Trump here?

Already the leadership in this crisis has been taken by the governors.

That's the truth. Trump just mumbles his thing. He's just at the level of importance as Joe Biden.

Have you been waiting to listen what Joe Biden has to say about this? I don't think so.

Universal healthcare should have been obvious given that most of Europe has it.

Politicise this forever. — StreetlightX

One additional one:

Never forget that activists and politicians will capitalize on any tragedy for political gain.

As of now, Australia's government is blissfully going down the US/Europe route.

A key member of an expert panel advising the Government's response to COVID-19 has voiced her frustrations at Australia's staged shutdown approach, warning the death toll could potentially rise if the Government did not take a "go hard, go now approach".

Raina MacIntyre from the UNSW's Biosecurity Program is part of an expert panel from Australia's leading universities, which recommended an immediate but short lockdown to curb cases, an approach the Government did not take.

"I was hoping we'd see a more comprehensive lockdown for a short period of time, but that is not the approach we're taking," Professor MacIntyre said.

"It's more a trickle sort of approach, a little bit by bit, which won't be as effective at stopping the transmission in the community."
...
"If you don't control the disease, your economic losses are going to be far greater and the recovery time is going to be a lot longer."
...
Professor MacIntrye said Australia would be naive to "assume we have everything under control", and that there was still time to bring the situation under control.

"It's not too late. China was having thousands and thousands of cases a day at the time when they implemented the lockdown. But they brought it under control, so it is possible," she said.

"And unless you stop 70 to 80 per cent of people contacting each other, you're not going to stop the transmission." — Coronavirus expert advisory panel member calls on Federal Government to lock Australia down

Apply the hammer, folks, before more people unnecessarily die.

--

University of Sydney modelling showing that the virus can only be controlled if 8 out of 10 Australians stay home.

As far as moral questions go, the "general economic consequences" Vs "individual lifes" conflict is a lot more interesting, I think. — Echarmion

Yes and no. Even the framing of this question is open - or ought to be open - to radical revision: what is traditionally called 'the economy' is largely an abstraction that excludes large swathes of society as among the 'extra-economic', even as it relies on those areas for its very lifeblood. It's only when set against this abstraction does individual life become potentially set in conflict with this chimera. The issue is that the chimera is as real as it is illusory: it is real insofar as it is created, forged by power and political will, one happy to countenance the literal deaths of millions in order to sustain it for the benefit of a few.

If the trolly problem is an obvious liminal situation, a situation that exists only in the midst of tragedy and utter despair (and thus an ethical aberration), COVID's larger significance is its exposure of 'the economy' - the one in always potential 'conflict' with the individual - as equally aberrant and exceptional. An abberence so normalized that it takes the utter disruption of global life for people to even catch a glimpse of just how fucked up it is. It's less a question of 'the economy' vs individual lives as it is this economy vs. Individual lives.

But in the case of doctors deciding who gets access to medical equipment, a "trolley problem" only comes up when the same equipment could either treat one very sick person or several slightly less sick persons. — Echarmion

Don't underestimate the abundance of such cases. Recovery can be long and drawn out, or it can be relatively quick. If a person is on a slow path, not showing immediate signs of recovery, and the equipment is needed elsewhere, then there is the need for that decision you describe. The problem is that the need for a decision is a heavy burden which doesn't go away until the person on the slow path is either unplugged or starts to recover, or if there are no new cases of illness. So the people forced with making that decision will rapidly get calloused into the quick and easy decision...unplug and get it over with. Then comes the second level of callousness, decide not to even give a particular person the equipment in the first place. If you are that particular person, you wouldn't want a conflict of interest ('that one's ugly', 'that one's fat', or 'he was rude to me when he came in', or whatever).

One additional one:

Never forget that activists and politicians will capitalize on any tragedy for political gain. — Hanover

During/soon after tragedy = now isn’t the time
Long after tragedy = this isn’t needed

I see it said about gun control too. So when is the right time?

Never forget that activists and politicians will capitalize on any tragedy for political gain. — Hanover

Tragedy - especially this tragedy - is already political. Anyone who says otherwise is being - political.

So, the US today* had almost twice as many new Covid cases as anywhere else in the world. Sounds like a good time to stop social distancing and open everything up. :vomit: — Baden

In Trump's mind, a deadline for returning to work provides business certainty which will be the basis for "resurrecting" the economy.

In reality, there will be no certainty until the virus is stopped.

Well, I have refrained from mentioning that Mitch there's-no-money-for-crazy-Dem-spending-on-social-programs McConnell took barely a nanosecond to pull 2 trillion dollars out his ass when his donors needed a bailout, so you can't be referring to me. :halo:

The issue is that the chimera is as real as it is illusory: it is real insofar as it is created, forged by power and political will, one happy to countenance the literal deaths of millions in order to sustain it for the benefit of a few.

If the trolly problem is an obvious liminal situation, a situation that exists only in the midst of tragedy and utter despair (and thus an ethical aberration), COVID's larger significance is its exposure of 'the economy' - the one in always potential 'conflict' with the individual - as equally aberrant and exceptional. An abberence so normalized that it takes the utter disruption of global life for people to even catch a glimpse of just how fucked up it is. It's less a question of 'the economy' vs individual lives as it is this economy vs. Individual lives. — StreetlightX

This seems like a odd line of reasoning. 'This economy' is the one we have after all, meaning that insofar an economy serves a function in society, it seems to me that we should look at the effects actions will have on the one that is realized rather than hypothetical economies that we maybe could or could not have.

Something that is created is not illusory, nor does the fact that it is created automatically imply that anything is possible. Things are created in concert with the world, not in some boundless vacuum, there are limits to what you can do with it. But sure, we probably can create other possible configuration of the economy that are more fair, more sustainable, more etc... within those limitation. But that doesn't mean that the one we have should not be a consideration in deciding how to act. We put human lives in the balance with economy every day, otherwise all traffic should be banned immediately for example. Discussion about most policies would be literally impossible if human lives were a hard boundary that should never be crossed.

And one more thing, you are probably perfectly well aware that the the phrase 'literal deaths of millions in order to sustain the economy for the benefit of a few' is highly contentious and politicized. This is ideology, not philosophy... because it's not that simple.

'This economy' is the one we have after all, meaning that insofar an economy serves a function in society, it seems to me that we should look at the effects actions will have on the one that is realized rather than hypothetical economies that we maybe could or could not have.

Something that is created is not illusory, nor does the fact that it is created automatically imply that anything is possible. Things are created in concert with the world, not in some boundless vacuum, there are limits to what you can do with it. But sure, we probably can create other possible configuration of the economy that are more fair, more sustainable, more etc... within those limitation. But that doesn't mean that the one we have should not be a consideration in deciding how to act. We put human lives in the balance with economy every day, otherwise all traffic should be banned immediately for example. Discussion about most policies would be literally impossible if human lives were a hard boundary that should never be crossed. — ChatteringMonkey

This is not a response to what I wrote. It's hard to see, in fact, what it is at all. Did I argue that we shouldn't 'take into consideration the economy we have' when 'deciding how to act'? Arguably this is the only thing I have done, insofar as everything I've written is nothing but a critique and 'consideration' of exactly the misery wrought by 'this economy', and which threatens to deepen given the the instincts of certain well-placed individuals in response to CV. So one is hard pressed to know what in the world you think you're responding to.

And one more thing, you are probably perfectly well aware that the the phrase 'literal deaths of millions in order to sustain the economy for the benefit of a few' is highly contentious and politicized. This is ideology, not philosophy... because it's not that simple. — ChatteringMonkey

The only ideology is that which remains blind to both history and ongoing ecological devastation wrought by capitalism, including the ecologies of human populations all over the earth (witness, incidentally, the flourishing of ecosystems and sky around the world in the wake of the shutdown of capitalist production). It takes a wilful ignorance or unquestioned indoctrination to think that statements of reality are 'contentious'. When your leaders have the open audacity and shamelessness to argue that gramps probably ought to be written-off and you call critics of this 'contentious' then your scale of what is and is not contentious is so far off median that you've lost the capacity to pronounce judgement on anything whatsoever.

Already the leadership in this crisis has been taken by the governors. — ssu

Governors are responsible for public health issues. They're at their maximum authority now. The president's role is supportive, to address problems that all the states face, and to be a figurehead. If the US has to go to war right now, then the president would be at maxed out authority as well.

When your leaders have the open audacity and shamelessness to argue that gramps probably ought to be written-off and you call critics of this 'contentious' then your scale of what is and is not contentious is so far off median that you've lost the capacity to pronounce judgement on anything whatsoever. — StreetlightX

Regardless of ideology, there is the reality that resources are scare and there is the reality that the availability of resources is directly related to their collection and creation. If we were to institute worldwide universal healthcare, there would be a decline in healthcare for many currently receiving better healthcare than the median (you, for instance), and decisions would have to be made regarding how much healthcare we could allot anyone, including gramps who probably would benefit less from the limited treatment than someone else, and so decisions would be made that, well, he just has to die now.

We also realize every day that vehicles must drive down the road to get workers to work and assembly lines must run to bring products, including healthcare, to the marketplace. We have in fact decided that a certain number of deaths are appropriate because, as every actuary can show you, we should expect x number of workers not to make it work because of a collision in their cars, and a certain number will get caught up on the conveyor belt at work and not see another day of productivity.

You can couch this as heartless, as we are making decisions where we know a certain number of people will predictably die in order to feed the machine of productivity. I think we all also realize that the alternative of having everyone stay in their bed to shelter them from the reality of life is ultimately not better.

And despite what you might say of capitalism, the world becomes safer everyday. Cars are much safer than before and there are guardrails, signs, and all sorts of protective devices everywhere. In fact, American roads are so safe, they become more dangerous because people feel safe driving at much higher speeds and expose themselves to risk.

ncidentally, the flourishing of ecosystems and sky around the world in the wake of the shutdown of capitalist production). — StreetlightX

Why is this a good thing? Under what value system must I adhere to believe that flourishing ecosystems are a good thing to the extent they don't in some way benefit humankind? As my ideology links a positive outcome only to the extent humankind benefits, I would have to weigh the value of these now thriving ecosystems against the prior state of affairs where people had jobs and were supporting themselves versus whatever benefit I now get from enjoying the returned natural scenery.

Already the leadership in this crisis has been taken by the governors. — ssu

Echoing what Frank said, this is by design and is consistent with the federalist notion of states having certain authority. This is really just a quibble about delegation of power, regarding how the public health crisis is to be responded to with a nation so large. To give perspective on this, Finland, your home country, has 5 million people. My home state of Georgia has 10.5 million. The threats in Georgia are no where near the threats in New York, and much less so than in say Wyoming.

The threats in Georgia are no where near the threats in New York, and much less so than in say Wyoming — Hanover

Yep. I heard a pundit say that it might be hard to get the governors to relinquish power now that they have it.

Well, I have refrained from mentioning that Mitch there's-no-money-for-crazy-Dem-spending-on-social-programs McConnell took barely a nanosecond to pull 2 trillion dollars out his ass when his donors needed a bailout, so you can't be referring to me. :halo: — Baden

I really don't view the coronavirus crisis as evidence that capitalism is a failed enterprise. Whatever bailout money is available, we must remember, was collected in a capitalistic system. Without getting overly ideological, I think we can all agree that regardless of economic system, from laissez faire capitalism to totalitarian communism, nothing can survive or provide any social security if no one goes to work. I have no reason to expect the economic rebound will be less in America than in Europe.

I see it said about gun control too. So when is the right time? — Michael

I don't know, but not while everyone is panicked.

Interesting spellcheck aside: Panic takes on a k when you have to write panicked. Know any other words that end in c that do that? Magicked is one. This game is more fun. I found this too: colicky, havocker, picnicky, plasticky, panicking, picnicking, panicky, magicked, colicking, picnicked, bivouacking, colicked, mimicked, frolicked, picnicker, demosaicked, garlicky, mimicker, havocking, bivouacked, demosaicker, havocked, panicked, mimicking, frolicking, demosaicking.

I feel like I've left the topic. My apologies. ADD much?

This is not a response to what I wrote. It's hard to see, in fact, what it is at all. Did I argue that we shouldn't 'take into consideration the economy we have' when 'deciding how to act'? Arguably this is the only thing I have done, insofar as everything I've written is nothing but a critique and 'consideration' of exactly the misery wrought by 'this economy', and which threatens to deepen given the the instincts of certain well-placed individuals in response to CV. So one is hard pressed to know what in the world you think you're responding to. — StreetlightX

Is all this hyperbolic disdain really necessary?

If all you did was write a critique of this economy, then you are the one answering besides the point because the issue you were responding to was about the moral considerations in weighing the economy against individual lives :

As far as moral questions go, the "general economic consequences" Vs "individual lifes" conflict is a lot more interesting, I think.
— Echarmion — Echarmion

If you point was that 'this economy' is the cause of the fact these moral questions need to be formulated in this way to begin with, then I have answered exactly to the point.

The only ideology is that which remains blind to both history and ongoing ecological devastation wrought by capitalism, including the ecologies of human populations all over the earth (witness, incidentally, the flourishing of ecosystems and sky around the world in the wake of the shutdown of capitalist production). It takes a wilful ignorance or unquestioned indoctrination to think that statements of reality are 'contentious'. When your leaders have the open audacity and shamelessness to argue that gramps probably ought to be written-off and you call critics of this 'contentious' then your scale of what is and is not contentious is so far off median that you've lost the capacity to pronounce judgement on anything. — StreetlightX

Statements of reality? Please. There's numerous ways in which you could frame and describe that. You choose to use those words and choose to omit a whole lot more, because you clearly have a political agenda. That's fine, but it's not philosophy.

I don't like Trump, but he does have a point - it's not his point per se anyway - that people will die from an economic crisis too. It's not only about not writing off gramps, it's about not writing off gramps without plunging the US and the world into a giant crisis. And yes the fact that the corona-outbreak exposes yet again that we are too dependant on an economy that seems very fragile, should be a major concern in the future (aside from questions about ecology and social justice), but that doesn't diminish the fact that there is - now - a legitimate question as to how long and how far we can and should go in closing down everything.

And seriously, moral indignation is a poor substitute for good arguments.

I really don't view the coronavirus crisis as evidence that capitalism is a failed enterprise. Whatever bailout money is available, we must remember, was collected in a capitalistic system. Without getting overly ideological, I think we can all agree that regardless of economic system, from laissez faire capitalism to totalitarian communism, nothing can survive or provide any social security if no one goes to work. I have no reason to expect the economic rebound will be less in America than in Europe.

It’s not a bailout. They’re loans. As far as I am aware the only part that is being forgiven is the wages.

there is - now - a legitimate question as to how long and how far we can and should go in closing down everything. — ChatteringMonkey

:up: The number of infections will start going up again when the lockdown ends. If we do it in steps, there's going to be frustration. The people making these decisions are flying blind. We've never dealt with an organism like this before.

:up: The number of infections will start going up again when the lockdown ends. If we do it in steps, there's going to be frustration. The people making these decisions are flying blind. We've never dealt with an organism like this before. — frank

Yeah it really is unprecedented. In the short term lots of testing is going to be vital, so we don't need to keep flying blind. And in the mid to long term, there will very likely be a vaccin.... and more knowledge, better measures and infrastructure in case of new outbreaks.

All true. :up:

This is really just a quibble about delegation of power, regarding how the public health crisis is to be responded to with a nation so large. To give perspective on this, Finland, your home country, has 5 million people. My home state of Georgia has 10.5 million. The threats in Georgia are no where near the threats in New York, and much less so than in say Wyoming. — Hanover

(I've always said to Americans that Finland is like Minnesota. It's quite the same even in the climate.)

Well, I was talking about leadership. The Federal Government can coordinate, give general decrees and lead the effort. Or then it can choose not to, which in that case it's left to the next level. We could see it even here earlier: before the the administration decided to introduce state of emergency laws and shut the schools, communal leaders, mayors and individual schools were starting to make these decisions themselves. Once the administration introduced country-wide regulations, then it was clear who called the shots.

If Trump would have asked the states lock down and do similar things, I would guess that in this case the states would have obliged. Yes, he did call a state of emergency, but didn't ask for more drastic measures than just to have social distancing. And now it seems like he's whining about the measures taken.

My home state of Georgia has 10.5 million. The threats in Georgia are no where near the threats in New York, and much less so than in say Wyoming. — Hanover

You still have more infections more deaths than we do (and yes, nearly twice many people), but we are roughly in the same ballpark when it comes to the infection. I think your governor Kemp has done now pretty much the same things now as the Finnish leaders. Here they are likely putting the capital and it's region under quarantine next weekend, so no going to one's summer cabin. (There's one district in the Northern Finland without any infections at all.)

Prince Charles tests positive For Novel Coronavirus. I really hope the queen is safe.