Is there an equivalent to going afk from existence? Can I do that for a few years?

Apparently, the HLA-DQA2 gene might give natural immunity, at least it seems common to people less (or not) affected by the virus.

Human SARS-CoV-2 challenge uncovers local and systemic response dynamics
^{— Christopher Chiu et al · Nature · Jun 19, 2024}

Some people never get COVID-19: researchers say a specific gene could be why
^{— Christine Birak (Akiko Iwasaki, Dawn Bowdish, Donald Vinh) · CBC · Jun 27, 2024 · 2m:1s}

That's interesting. I've never had it (knock on wood) in spite of being exposed to it quite a few times. Maybe I have that gene!

Jesus. How callous and depraved. It directly targets civilians and disproportionality affects the weak. Horrible.

Vicious and awful. Though sadly unsurprising.

Pentagon ran secret anti-vax campaign to undermine China during pandemic

And somehow it just keeps getting worse. :lol: — Tzeentch

The US was responsible for why the Covid pandemic IN THE US happened

Oh yeah, that too. :sad:

Pentagon ran secret anti-vax campaign to undermine China during pandemic — Tzeentch

Just thegreatsatanthings :sparkle: :hearts:

Officials confirm human case of plague in Colorado (— Maya Davis · CNN · Jul 9, 2024)

I'm ba-ack

Anyway, are we (people, societies) ready for the next one?

Anyway, are we (people, societies) ready for the next one? — jorndoe

No. The next one might be a variation of Ebola. We'll see.

Very spooky. Maybe we should stop producing them then, eh?

No. The next one might be a variation of Ebola. We'll see. — frank

The "problem" with Covid-19 was that it wasn't deadly enough. It ended up in this middle ground in which people could just brush it off as "just another cold" while others got seriously ill and died or contracted long covid symptoms.

And since the public operates on whatever bubble of convictions that each individual lives within, the seriousness of the pandemic were never truly taken seriously.

But a larger and more deadly pandemic would drive the point home and get people to demand their governments to do precautions for it to never happen again. It's unfortunate that the only way society can truly change is if it gets hammered to inches of death, otherwise it would just create a polarized white noise that erodes any intellectually sound and proper precautionary practices to prevent a new outbreak.

It's the same for nuclear annihilation. People think that governments will press a button and send everything they got, but it would be more likely that a tactical nuke is set off on the battlefield or an already destroyed city (that's occupied) and the act would be so shocking that it would shake the world into reducing nukes.

The problem is that everyone rationalize based on hypotheticals that are filtered through fictional narratives all the time. And the subsequent hyperreality it creates makes progress slow down and precautionary and constructive actions and plans to be reduced over time.

In Sweden during the 90s, the fall of the wall made our governments think that we don't have to be ready for war anymore and the cost of having a big military defense was irrational seen as we could use those funds to fund necessary things in society instead. We didn't need Nato, we didn't need much of our own defense etc. And nothing happened when Russia first invaded and annexed part of Ukraine in 2014 because it seemed (in the public) as some minor shenanigans by that Putin clown.

But with a pandemic and a full blown invasion that shook the world, all of a sudden, seemingly out of the blue, the public supported a massive increase in rebuilding our defenses and joining Nato.

What changed was the perception, the narrative, being hit by actual reality. It's only this sledgehammer that moves a society to take action, nothing else is as effective.

So, whenever something more serious than the recent pandemic happens, it would quickly reprogram the population into supporting actions to mitigate, fight back and create precautions for future risks. But Covid-19 wasn't enough, so we will probably be unprepared for something more deadly and only after something like a billion deaths will people create demands that can move elections.

Just think of all the elections going on this year. Has any politician, anywhere, had any election point around preventing new pandemics? No? Or course not. Covid-19 is treated like it's over and that it "wasn't that bad". So there's no interest from the public, they just want to move on to other stuff. But if something really deadly starts a new pandemic, it would be at the top of the list for elections and push politicians who speak of necessary changes to global society.

So there's no interest from the public, they just want to move on to other stuff. — Christoffer

I hear you. I recently spoke with a doctor in private practice and he expressed the opinion that all the hype was for nothing, that we damaged our economy out of hysteria. The problem he has is widespread: nobody saw what was happening inside hospitals, so they don't understand how close we were to losing control and having people dying in their front yards like in 1918. We limited the effect with lockdowns, drugs, and vaccines (and huge amounts of oxygen).

The thing about a more severe pandemic is that it might shake the foundations of society so that what comes out the other side is not the same entity that went in, you know? Like the Bubonic plague created a middleclass because of labor shortages.

I think the US is tipping toward authoritarianism, so another pandemic might be the final ingredient.

In principle, it comes down to doctors·nurses·researchers·specialists to figure out what (not) to do, while learning/improving along the way.
It starts as a medical problem that would inform subsequent political decisions, etc.
Too bad that the implementation of the whole process has proven fragile/vulnerable; pathogens don't care about human crap.

Too bad that the implementation of the whole process has proven fragile/vulnerable; — jorndoe

But another thing people forget is that the vaccine was revolutionary. The massive pile of cash coming in to fund it from governments and rich guys was amazing. I really wonder what a socialist world would have done. I'd like to think the freedom to go with a crazy solution would exist there, but I don't know.

A socialist world wouldn't try to weaponise viruses for profit. It wouldn't have a shortage in PPE because getting your dick up wouldn't be favoured over pandemic preparedness because the first is profitable and the other just a cost. The first policy wouldn't be to save the economy but to save people.

History’s Seven Deadliest Plagues
^{— Maya Prabhu, Jessica Gergen · Nov 15, 2021}

They should have used a color to indicate lethality (risk after infection), perhaps some indicator of how easily the malady spread.

But another thing people forget is that the vaccine was revolutionary. The massive pile of cash coming in to fund it from governments and rich guys was amazing. I really wonder what a socialist world would have done. I'd like to think the freedom to go with a crazy solution would exist there, but I don't know.

The AstraZeneca vaccine was funded by the U.K. government and charitable organisations. This would have been the same under a socialist government.
It’s true that research into RNA vaccines has been funded by investment capital around the world for decades. But that is just how the pharmaceutical systems we have, have developed. In a socialist world, there might have been more money invested in more cost effective ways rather than as a means to generate vast profits for shareholders etc.

In a socialist world, there might have been more money invested in more cost effective ways rather than as a means to generate vast profits for shareholders etc. — Punshhh

I live in a socialist country, and the government is not investing in the most cost effective ways. It collects a lot of taxes, but a big percentage goes to reduce the big external debt with the European Union. When we were in the coronavirus pandemic, it was a total chaos by the public administration to provide sanitary products (such as masks or COVID tests, for instance). The central government had to sign agreements with pharmaceutical enterprises to reinforce the supply.

I personally don't get upset if a company and its shareholders get rich because sanitary products are providing them benefits. The same happens with Nordesk and Saxenda (Orzanpic) products. They put assets in a long-term project, and now they are experiencing good dividends.

, Spain, right? (Portugal?)
, aren't both the UK and Spain labeled "socialist democracies"?
Some funding came in via the EU.
Pfizer and BioNTech received a good lot from the US, the EU, Germany, Canada, ... (From memory, the Gates Foundation and others also tossed a fair bit in.)
In retrospect, the project was quite something. So was the noise, by the way. Yet, the cooperation/collaboration and (prior) mRNA/protein technology came together nicely.

A socialist world wouldn't try to weaponise viruses for profit — Benkei

Well, maybe not a socialist world, or better an ethical world.

Spain, right? — jorndoe

Sí.

The AstraZeneca vaccine was funded by the U.K. government and charitable organisations. This would have been the same under a socialist government. — Punshhh

The UK had the funds because they draw off of a capitalist economy that expands and contracts. During expansion, there is an abundance of virtual capital that funds things like R&D. How would a socialist economy do that?

It’s true that research into RNA vaccines has been funded by investment capital around the world for decades. But that is just how the pharmaceutical systems we have, have developed. In a socialist world, there might have been more money invested in more cost effective ways rather than as a means to generate vast profits for shareholders etc. — Punshhh

I'm not saying you're wrong. I just don't know how a socialism would handle a pandemic. Socialist economies don't expand and contract. They're stagnant. That makes me think they would be less financially flexible compared to capitalism. Actually, much less flexible.

Socialist countries have capitalism and investment capital too. Or are you thinking of Communism?
Anyway I’m just saying they can do it too, just in a different way.

Yes southern European countries are in a bind right now, I don’t think left, or right governments make much difference to be fair.

If Thatcherism is socialist, then yes. But that’s not my reading.

Socialist countries have capitalism and investment capital too. Or are you thinking of Communism?
Anyway I’m just saying they can do it too, just in a different way. — Punshhh

Ah. We weren't thinking of the same thing. Where there's capitalism, that's actually the foundation of the society's wealth. The kind of socialist economy I was thinking of operates by central planning. I don't think there are any economies of that kind anymore.

As a tidbit, the mRNA vaccine was originated by a woman who found it difficult to find funding because all except one of her peers scoffed at the idea. Capitalism just does better with innovation because stray, crazy ideas have better survival chances. Central planners tend to be thud-heads who resist change due to the risks involved. Usually.

Yes, I see where you’re coming from now. However if you take a look at France, one of the most socialist Western countries. There are maverick’s studying and developing their own unique ideas everywhere. One only needs to look at their culinary diversity. Chefs strive to come up with new novel recipes, breaking the mould, pushing boundaries to win their Michelin star. Also in the arts, artists are given a stipend by the government allowing them to experiment and diversify to their hearts content. I travel around France a lot (I’m going there on Saturday, can’t wait), there are institutions, societies, venues, creative people everywhere. Often supported in their endeavours by the state.

Yes, I see where you’re coming from now. However if you take a look at France, one of the most socialist Western countries. There are maverick’s studying and developing their own unique ideas everywhere. One only needs to look at their culinary diversity. Chefs strive to come up with new novel recipes, breaking the mould, pushing boundaries to win their Michelin star. Also in the arts, artists are given a stipend by the government allowing them to experiment and diversify to their hearts content. I travel around France a lot (I’m going there on Saturday, can’t wait), there are institutions, societies, venues, creative people everywhere. Often supported in their endeavours by the state. — Punshhh

I agree. You definitely don't need capitalism for innovation. I just think it helps. But there's an example from France about how authoritarianism can work out: an invasive plant was released into the Mediterranean from an aquarium in France. One guy noticed that it was an ecosystem destroyer and notified the brass at the aquarium. He was told that it's natural and don't worry about it. It turns out he was right. The plant crowds out other plants and it doesn't provide food for sea animals, and it's naturalized all over the Mediterranean now. In other places in the world where it appeared, it was eradicated before it could do any damage. That's just the kind of thing I've come to expect from authoritarian situations. Inevitably the decision maker has to be an idiot. Where there's more of an open forum for ideas, there's a greater chance that the puny, but correct opinion can make a difference.

Yes, the French bureaucracy, painfully slow. Whereas on the other side of the spectrum there are corporate giants like DuPont and Boeing over the pond.

on the other side of the spectrum there are corporate giants like DuPont and Boeing over the pond. — Punshhh

True