Yes a good read and I don't reject any of the theory. But I was listening to a virologist yesterday who said that Covid19 matches to a remarkable degree a virus found in Pangolins. He was suggesting that this virus may have combined with a similar coronavirus found in bats. This points in the direction of Chinese medicine, or bush meat trade. There have been many reports over the last few years of the very high price of Mandolin scales on the black market, most going to markets in China. This has become such a lucrative trade that Pangolins in the wild are in danger of extinction.

corporations are dependent on the work of human beings

They are dependent on wage slaves, a large class of subservient, pliant, people.

Sure there could be such adverse effects, but they are not necessary concomitants of civilizational collapse. The one worry would be decommissioning of nuclear facilities.

I think the unpredictable effects would be due to the degree of chaos and the efforts of vigilante groups to survive. So a large degree of chaos might make any attempts to contain or decommission nuclear facilities impossible. Also vigilante groups could ravage our remaining ecosystems for short term gains, or survival.

I do agree with your suggestion that air travel would have to be stopped for an extended period. Indeed, if one area has endemic virus and another has managed to eradicated it. Then there can be no air travel between them for the foreseeable, and strict controls on other forms of travel. The implication being that for business to continue as usual to any degree, all countries will have to allow the virus in and manage it as best they can.

Notwithstanding the long term affects will depend on efforts to come up with an effective vaccine.

Ugh, terrible place.

I know, I'm closer to Norwich fortunately.

It is remarkable how quickly it has spread across the world. My nearest documented case is in Ipswich about 30 miles away, but I expect there are people infected without knowing closer than that already. We only have about 400 cases in the UK as of today, but they are evenly spread out across the whole country. Once those have had time to incubate, there will be a rapid increase. I see reports that our health minister tested positive yesterday.

Injecting more money into the system will cause inflation, particularly if there is a shortage of available goods in the market.

They will go to a war footing, prices would be fixed to a degree and there would be some means of rationing.
For example in Italy yesterday, there were reports of people queuing outside supermarkets, at least one metre apart, to buy food. They weren't allowed into the shop, the attendants would bring out the food individually and some items were restricted, or rationed.

The idea that reducing the human population would collapse the ecosystem is also absurd; as I see it the real situation is precisely the opposite. (Collapse the present economic system (if reduced radically over a short period) yes).

I can't speak for Boethius, but if there is a collapse of civilisation, there could be some quite adverse effects in the short term, like mass fires, nuclear explosions, wreckless destruction of ecosystems.

I agree with this, I don't think that western governments were prepared for such an outbreak. Appropriate contingency plans had not been developed and so were not going to be imposed. Also I suspect that the virus was spread beyond China to a number of locations before western governments knew about it. Where were the CIA, or MI6 when the first cases were emerging in China? It required strict limits on travel from that early stage.

Hopefully this pandemic will be a wake up call for the future, as worse virus's may come along in the future.

How will the airlines, who, I often hear, are already struggling, fare?

I know, there are many businesses which are already on the edge, prior to the effect of the virus. I don't expect economic collapse though, governments will just print money and bail critical businesses and services out.

financial experts are saying that if there are economic effects, they will bounce back after the epidemic, as the crisis is not a structural one within the economy, but an external source. Provided an effective vaccine is found everything will be back to normal in around 18 months.

What does "step up to the plate" mean? What exactly do you want him to do that he has not done?

All he needs to do as President is show leadership, hold press conferences in which he spells out the situation, the risks and what needs to be done, pulling the people together in a spirit of cooperation and unity in fighting the threat. It's not difficult. But instead, I just heard him muttering something about flu and how great he is.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

Spot on.

The government has a critical negotiation to complete in record time with both the EU and the US, as the UK will leave the EU transition period in December, deal, or no deal. They don't want to take their eye off the ball with this, their own survival as a government is critical to this, because if they are voted out of office by a no confidence vote, the opposition could get into power and rejoin the EU. This is what is most important to the government.

The pandemic is a detail, which will only clear out about 1% of the dead wood. It's of little concern, just like, the floods and climate change.

And everything I've described is basically admitted. Boris Johnson just came out and said "well, it's going to spread anyways". Yes, it will spread anyways, but there are massive difference in outcome depending on if something is done to slow it down or not. By saying "it's going to spread anyways", implying "so let's get it over with", he is thinking about the stocks and not the people; he is saying in no uncertain terms, "it's better to sacrifice a lot of people so global business can get back to normal as quickly as possible".

Johnson (Cummings) is like a rabbit caught in the headlights, as is Trump. The experts are telling him that we can't stop it, I expect they are saying that we should stop air travel, as well. It looks like the government is not stopping air travel, or other measures because they don't want to damage the economy. They don't seem to be taking the delay strategies seriously, I agree, they are thinking about the stocks and the money.

Also they have probably calculated that the virus will kill off a lot of older, ill people, which will solve the bed blocking problem in the NHS and save money. They are a hard right populist government which is only looking to the moneyed benefactors and friends. They don't want to jeopardise the Brexit project and will happily loose a few hundred thousand citizens and get it over with quickly, while safeguarding their ideological project.

I am hearing now that there is a military type triage operation in Italy brutally dividing the patients into those seriously at risk, from those with a good chance of survival. They prioritise respiratory equipment for the category with a good chance of survival and affectively let the serious cases die. They have got to this stage with only around 7,000 cases so far.

Whoossh, the sound of the stock market this morning. The recession is upon us already. Let's see how bad it is a week from now, or a month.

@fishfry suffers from a particularly virulent form of LDS (left derangement syndrome). Red man = bad. Reading his posts at least gives an insight into how the powered and privileged have convinced much of the country that everything not in the interests of a tiny wealthy elite is "socialism" Mao! Stalin! Castro! :scream: There is no vaccine for that except the ability to think.

Sounds like the UK these days.

"Downplaying" is a loaded word. The president is supposed to be optimistic; if he was not, you would bash him for spreading panic.

Optimism is probably the wrong approach too. My point is he's going to have to step up to the plate now.

I agree this is the Corona virus thread. So take your antitrump cackling to the TDS thread, where it belongs

This wasn't supposed to happen, Trump was going to secure his place in history as a successful president. But now we have a global crisis greater than the financial crisis of 2008, perhaps as serious as the Second World War. Now as president it is his duty to step up to the plate and show presidential leadership. Will he perform, or will he shy away and attempt to downplay the seriousness of the situation, out of fear?

I don't see why you think governments are "in no way equipped" to handle it. What do you think will happen?

I agree with dclements, for example the Italian health service is already struggling and they only have about 6,000 cases so far. It has become such a crisis that they have quarantined about 16,000,000 people and closed many institutions.

Which situation? The ME or Corona? His natural reflex is to to be optimistic. And he gets bashed for that. But the "mainstream media" would bash him even more if is sounded alarmist. Damned if he does, damned if he does not.

This is the Coronavirus thread.
Trump should do the right thing, not worry about his image, or the election.

Punshhh And you.

I don't think I've got it, although I have had a tickly throat and a sore nose. I live in isolation already, well except when I go to Morrisons. So I am planning to wear my beekeeping costume and surgical gloves to go shopping.

So will Trump do the right thing and bring all his troops in Asia home, before they get infected?
Or will he bottle out and start denying the seriousness of the situation?

the corrupt warmongering hag

Oh, those emails, scary stuff.

So Trump's Middle East policy has lead to a good place?

It won't matter soon once the virus becomes endemic in the Middle East. Smart move, Trump should pull out all US Troops from the region, including Afghanistan and Pakistan pronto, or they will either get stuck in endemic hells holes, or they will bring it back with them when they return.

device

Now we're getting somewhere, I new if I hung in there a pearl of wisdom would emerge.

I don’t call people names and compare them to cartoon characters. That’s the bag of you and your fellow travellers, who opine about character and divisiveness out of one side of the mouth while engaging in snark and ridicule out the other. Politics is all about division. If you cannot handle an opposing opinion it’s probably not for you.

I'm a political cartoonist, or hadn't you noticed? This is the only time I have used satire in referring to you.

Politics is not about division, it's about running the country in a way which avoids corruption and despotism. The fact that politics in the US has become about division is a failure of politics in the US.

Looks like being poor is a lifestyle choice, one that holds back the rich from even greater success.

Or bad luck. For having Trump as president I suppose.

It doesn't surprise me, as the US has a disjointed healthcare system. Boethius gave an exemplary explanation a couple of pages back.
I don't follow US news, but from the dribs and drabs I do hear I gathered it had already gained a foothold before anyone had noticed. Trump is a rabbit caught in the headlights, this was not supposed to happen while he was grooming his place in history. He will be nothing more than a bystander I expect, while the national security and healthcare organisations sort it out.

All you and your fellow travellers can do is imply that the people who reported on these questions are lying. But perhaps their claims are sincere while yours are mistaken.

Why don't you agree with folk on occasion and discuss the issues themselves, rather than this false them and us reactionary rhetoric?
You remind me of Dick Dastardly in The whacky Races.
Or is this all part of the Trumpian divide and rule rhetoric?

I already offered an extreme example of predatory lending, that of payday loans.

Apologies, looks like I was arguing with the wrong person.

My point was only that accepting that money lending isn't necessarily exploitative doesn't get us far in understanding the way it is used to exploited vulnerable people. The adding of value to the capital borrowed only really happens in business borrowing, in which a sober financial calculation is made. Whereas personal borrowing tends to be more to do with a remedy for poor financial planning, or issues around poverty.

I am in line generally with Kant's idea that people should not be used as a means if you can help it. Well, having children in order for them to take care of the elderly or having children to outpopulate your enemy is using children for a means. What is the cost of using people like this? The suffering person that will be born. Think of the suffering not how they can be used, or how much YOU think THEY should enjoy this or that part of life.

I agree with the notion that people should not be used as a means, but again it is not that simple because the species has developed in a way in which parents are used at times by their offspring and offspring are used by their parents. Reducing natural human societal behaviour into idealological arguments is not of great value. Likewise it is not helpful to view procreation as the fault of the parents. It is a natural human state for babies to be born, the parents are merely continuing the processes of human life when they procreate. It is actually more helpful to look at humanity as a whole. Indeed I am very much of the opinion that humanity is one organism, one animal, which has divided into individual beings so as to take advantage of its situation.

The point is that if there is something like Ebola in the world and physical diseases of all sorts known and as of yet unknown, who are we to throw more humans into that and cause more suffering?

Some of us see the possibility of a bright future for humanity and indeed the world. Admittedly it's not looking very rosy at the moment. But it is not necessarily the prerogative of any individual to decide the fate of future generations, in the light of current conditions.

Many lenders aim at borrowers who are not adding value to the capital. They know how many people find it easier to spend money than make it. Those who borrow for other reasons than to add value to the capital, are often short of funds for one or more of a myriad of reasons and become exploited by the lender to varying degrees. Often the people who are the least able to repay are leant at the highest interest rates. There is a lot of money to be made from " chuggers ", people who only make the minimum payment on their credit card each month, for example.

People are just a helpless bunch, aren't they?

And what if they are born with flat feet, so the army doesn't want them?

I was watching a documentary last night about a specialist children's hospital. There was a child born helpless with numerous serious health conditions. The specialist team had worked tirelessly for a number of years to keep her alive, with a good quality of life. This must have cost millions, her parents where poor. They didn't have to pay anything towards her care. Everyone there was working and living in a nurturing loving lifestyle, in which money didn't figure.

Will she find a proper job when she grows up, to pay the healthcare bill? And what if she is too lazy to do the work?

You are mistakenly assuming that the destitute have the money, the knowledge, the method, the ability to implement, and the time it takes in order to do all these things...

Here in the UK the privelidged classes are of the opinion that the poor choose to be poor, it's a lifestyle choice. If they don't like it well they can get one of their rich daddy's friends to give them a job, or set up a business making face masks for example. It must be their choice, or they would do something about it.
Now we have a rip roaring right wing Tory government, they say it out loud. It's time to punish the poor, for holding us back.

So, it will be a very interesting systems-analysis case to compare how things play out in Europe compared to the US after the pandemic (that one, among many, reasons to have a social safety net system is to have the institutions already in place to deal with these sorts of black-swan events).

Yes interesting, with the UK transitioning form the high welfare provision of Europe to the low welfare provision of the US. The effects of the pandemic combined with the Brexit folly and a hard right populist government, the UK is going to go through a top to bottom crisis. The government are clowns with no grasp of what is going to happen over the next year. There will now be a succession of businesses going under, even today the Flybe airline went into administration. Also there are large numbers with no sickness provision living hand to mouth in what is known as the Gig economy. These people will have to keep working, often working with the public. Also there are large numbers of people who are two or three pay checks away from destitution.

The NHS is chronicly underfunded, in crisis and understaffed, with vacancies for 100,000 nurses. While the Prime minister says the health service is in great shape and ready for large numbers of poorly people if there is a pandemic. What a joke.

Better buy more toilet paper...

You must have been reading my mind. You are not usually this illuminating.