Do you wonder? Or do you just believe what you're told? — Merkwurdichliebe

What I wonder is just your irrationality. So just because Californians are whiners seems enough of a reason for you to doubt the pandemic or the statistics. Let's take for example excess mortality. The is a thing of a natural mortality rate at a national level. And that something did hit us can be seen from the statistical difference: the mortality rate doesn't normally vary to nearly twice the number as in the earlier month on a national level.


Figure 1: Excess mortality. Percentage differences between 2020 weekly mortality and average weekly mortality from 2016 – 2019. The month labels indicate the start of every month. The x-axis indicates the average mortality 2016 – 2019.

Source: Eurostat

From a study in Nature:

From mid-February through May 2020, 206,000 (95% credible interval, 178,100–231,000) more people died in these countries than would have had the pandemic not occurred. The number of excess deaths, excess deaths per 100,000 people and relative increase in deaths were similar between men and women in most countries. England and Wales and Spain experienced the largest effect: ~100 excess deaths per 100,000 people, equivalent to a 37% (30–44%) relative increase in England and Wales and 38% (31–45%) in Spain. Bulgaria, New Zealand, Slovakia, Australia, Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Norway, Denmark and Finland experienced mortality changes that ranged from possible small declines to increases of 5% or less in either sex. The heterogeneous mortality effects of the COVID-19 pandemic reflect differences in how well countries have managed the pandemic and the resilience and preparedness of the health and social care system.

The fact is that health care, as every emergency service starting from the fire department, have usually been trimmed down to meet the ordinary challenges. Hence once something out of the ordinary happens the system is in trouble. If there is a large scale accident, it's typical that resources are hurled to the area even from very distant places. Yet in a pandemic situation, that simply isn't the option.

Hence obviously something has happened, but I guess with Merky's reasoning is that Californians are just whiners.... and that others here talking about a Covid-19 pandemic are victims of big-government propaganda: perhaps done thanks to a sinister plot of the powers in be to take our freedoms away and not to fight a pandemic. But you just tell us how it is, Merky.

If I think about my own thread, I think I was aware of some aspects of the debate you raise, but probably thinking more in terms of the economic collapse being primary to the collapse of culture. — Jack Cummins

Notice how there is a division between what is basically economic history and the classical history. Today it's harder to make the point of something being a result of economic factors, not societal factors. Even more hard is to refer to factors in culture. Yet these factors do seem very important to people even in this Milennium.

I have to admit that sometimes I wonder if we are at the end of human civilisation. — Jack Cummins

Many have had that feeling since Antiquity I guess. And this one interesting thing we have with "the present": as we live in the present, we always insist that just now is the absolutely crucial time of humanity. Yet that's just our point of view. Not likely for history: not every decade is a huge turning point.

The times when our culture was on the verge of destruction might have been those few times during the Cold War that one or the other side contemplated that the other side was implementing an out of the blue nuclear strike.

Sometimes we learn only later what have been the very dramatic times:

I think that there are some major nuclear risks in the world presently, especially given tensions such as between the US and China. — Jack Cummins

Compared the time above in 1983, it isn't so bad. First, the number of nuclear weapons have dramatically decreased since the 1980's (when basically the Soviet Union finally countered the US dominance in nuclear deterrence as the "missile gap" had been in favor of the US before). And China has a "rational" nuclear deterrent as it basically has under 100 ICBMs or so. Rational in that sense, that it didn't opt for the thinking of either US or Russia and would have multiplied it's arsenal.



Just how vulnerable our society is to collapse in tragedies like war or pandemics is also a very important question. In Antiquity and later written texts were few and far between, educated people rare. Romans burning the library of Alexandria or the Mongols ravaging Baghdad amounted to a huge loss a knowledge. Now we aren't dependent on one physical place were our valued books are stored in as then. In all cases, even if we downplay the past, it is very likely that it was only a minority of who were literate in Antiquity.

One factor that makes us less vulnerable for societal collapse:

, there is the thread by called Are we on the verge of a cultural collapse?, where this is discussed. Have we been in decline since the 19th Century would perhaps be a view you should explain more.

My question was more about the essential link of language to culture, so I'll comment this part.

Language maybe will survive but civilization may collapse. When summerian civilization was only history, in Mesopotamia their language still existed 2000 years after! (higher culture). Civilizations falls but languages have chances to survive. — HangingBishop

It does beg the question just how "dead" that culture is if the language is alive.

For example, We do have still Latin, which just in the last Century was a very popular language to be studied (and obviously differs from modern Italian language). The last bastion of the Roman Empire, the Catholic and also the Orthodox churches are still quite alive and kicking, even if religiousness isn't so prevalent as earlier. Above all, we do see an inherent link from Roman and Greek culture to our present Western Culture.

Just think, even if the present nation states wouldn't be around in a thousand years, yet students in the Universities (or similar higher levels of education) would still study English, would read about the history of the United States and would claim that their culture, one thousand years into the future from us, is a direct descendant of the democratic experiment of the United States and the French Revolution and still would read what the "Founding Fathers" wrote, how dead would American or Western culture be? How extinct would that make our culture, really?

(Buildings that Ancient Romans and Greeks could relate to in present day Washington DC)


The important question here is if evolution of a culture really means the same thing as the collapse of a culture. I don't think that it's the case at all. A collapse means the end of the culture, literally. It's the example where you have to have an archeologist to dig pieces from the ground to make some hypothesis about what happened when the local people don't know who built the ruins in the area. That isn't evolution, but an observable cut off with the past.

If a country like Japan can justifiably claim that it has had an emperor from the 7th Century AD, it also is totally natural for the Japanese culture to have evolved and changed. The might be a heated discussion in Japan about Japanese identity and culture, yet it is hard to argue that there has been a collapse of the Japanese culture, even if Japan lost WW2 and was occupied. And obviously, the Japanese language is still the same language. That language of an ancient culture is spoken is in my view proof that something even from ancient culture is still quite living among us.

Now Trump's farce is starting to reach the insanity which it deserves, I think. The just pardoned Michael Flynn, promoted the idea that Trump ought to use the military to "rerun" the elections in key states.

"He could order the, within the swing states, if he wanted to, he could take military capabilities, and he could place those in states and basically rerun an election in each of those states," Flynn told Newsmax. "I mean, it's not unprecedented. These people are out there talking about martial law like it's something that we've never done. Martial law has been instituted 64 times."

Such delirious comments from the disgraced and short lived Trump National Security Adviser made actually even the military respond to such insanity with the Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy and Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville saying in a joint statement that there “is no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of an American election.”

Off course what the armed forces will do, or not do in this case, doesn't matter. The only objective with floating these kind of absurd ideas was to get Donald Trump's attention, just as it was with lawyer turned conspiracy buff Sidney Powell, who has made such a splash that Trump floated the idea of her being a special counsel to investigate the "rigged" elections. Doesn't matter that under federal law, special counsels are appointed by the U.S. attorney general, not the President. That Powell was earlier declared to be off the Trump team after wild conspiracy theories just fits to the logical picture, if there is any logic, how Trump picks those who he listens to. Somebody explaining to Trump that he can easily turn the elections and get reinstated as President in January because pigs fly, will get Trump's ear and attention. Because, who could have known that pigs don't fly? It was a great idea and the person suggesting it had balls.

Trump's actions are now equivalent to a certain German leader in his bunker in April of 1945. And similar behind the scenes struggle for power is going on in the Trump administration.

I can imagine that the Trump team meeting with Powell and Flynn alongside others in this boat ended in a shouting match. This is what the end of the Trump administration looks like.

Definitely not covid statistics...its complete bullshit — Merkwurdichliebe

How about the stats that there is a shortage of ICU beds in states like California?

(All quite normal?)


Or the stats that funeral homes and morgues are full thanks to Covid-19?

Those also bullshit stats / fake news, Merky?

(Acela Truck Co. has already sold hundreds of pull-behind refrigerated morgues created in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Yet is that for a need or just a consequence of the covid-scare?)

That surprises me. How are Finns thinking about the vaccine? — frank

The Finnish government firmly believes in the EU, and thus is waiting patiently for the EU to decide, or more specifically the European Medicines Agency EMA to decide which vaccines are accepted for distribution. No hurry, I guess.

Larger scale vaccinations are expected to start in the beginning of 2021 with only a symbolic small amount of vaccinations (perhaps 5000) starting from 27th of December with Biontech-Pfizer vaccine, if it is approved. Vaccinations will be free of charge, voluntary and available to everybody. The primary focus groups are similar to other countries: a) medical personnel, b) older age groups and c) other risk groups.

EU has made the following orders for vaccines:

AstraZeneca (300 million doses)
Sanofi-GSK (300 million doses)
Johnson & Johnson (200 million doses)
Biontech-Pfizer (200 million doses)
Curevac (225 million doses)
Moderna (80 million doses)

Of course, as Finns basically trust their government and don't have a similar culture of criticism of the public sector as the US has, there is hardly any discussion about the vaccinations. Naturally there are some commentators who largely mimic the US debate.

Now the debate is about the UK corona scare and the discussion is if the example of the Netherlands should be followed and flights from the UK should be canceled.

I don't trust the statistics at all, there is absolutely no way that covid is as fatal as it is being portrayed.

I have a friend whose wife just died of pneumonia.
Her death was officially attributed to covid. I know someone else that died of heart failure whose death was also attributed to covid. — Merkwurdichliebe

Yeah. Statistics isn't your thing, obviously.

People are getting tired of it. Especially Americans. Hardly noticing that they lose daily same number of people as in 9/11 in the pandemic.

I guess I'm just waiting for the things to normalize next autumn. People assume here the spring is already lost and the same thing will go on for a half year at least.

About European quarantine, travel limitations and The Holidays:

My Mother-in-Law came to visit us from Mexico. After reading just how "forbidden" and "only in special cases" it was allowed to come to the EU from outside, especially from North America, I didn't know how it would go. The papers have told here how much effort has been put especially to surveillance of international flights at the airports. I told my wife to check and double check the procedures with the officials, the flights, ask if my mother-in-law had to quarantine in a hotel before and check that she had that Covid-19 test before leaving. We were prepared to pick her up from a hotel and feared what a hassle it all would be. She came and nothing... No Covid-19 test on arrival at the airport, no covid dogs on stand by. Just like ordinary times: only a Dutch border guard checked his passport in Amsterdam and then for the connecting flight. Here the airport was empty without any officials in sight, as usual for a 11:00 PM flight, just pick your luggage and a cab here to our place. The only thing was that my mother-in-law used a face mask even at home before she noticed that Finns basically use them only at shopping malls and stores.

So no hassle to come to Finland from Mexico, I guess.

The critical ingredient missing from utopian schemes is a population of utopians. Lacking an appropriate population, utopias remain unoccupied. — Bitter Crank

I guess if we redefine the population requirements for a "society" to some odd little cabal of people, give them lots of resources, then I guess extremely bizarre utopias can exist.

The only agency is keeping out third parties. And that is all you need.

This idea seems very popular in America where there seems to be little knowledge about the historical wedge between communists and social democrats experienced in the West, which started well in the 19th Century. But as there hasn't been in the US such a leftist party as the Labour Party of the UK or anything similar, just a few leftists called progressives in the Democratic Party that basically haven't got their say, the American narrative totally disregards this very important political movement.

Hence there is now this narrative of the ominous Frankfurter School who then spread their ideology in the academic circles. This is story for example Jordan Peterson tells and while he has a point, there is obviously a huge part that is missing from the story and what he or many other North American conservatives don't talk about at all: social democracy.

All important European countries have all had social democrats in power: The UK (Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson, James Callaghan, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown), Germany (Wliiy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt, Gerhard Schröder), France (Francois Miterrand, Francois Holland), Italy (Bettino Craxi, Giuliano Amato, Romano Prodi) or Spain (Felipe Gonzales, Jose Rodriguez-Zapatero, Pedro Sanchez). Basically Sweden has been dominated totally by the Social Democratic Party since the start of the 20th Century.

Such grasp on power has had a huge effect and just to talk about some eccentric academic communists or leftist intelligentsia rearranging the image of the left after Marxism-Leninism collapsed with the Soviet experiment is simply quite irrelevant compared to what an extremely popular and successful leftist movement has done to change the World. These political parties are so entrenched into the system that in many countries they are seen as part the power elite alongside their conservative peers with trendy leftists choosing some more radical image (even if the actual policies favoured are quite in line with social democracy).




However these countries are surely not communist or socialist countries. This is no machinations of few communist professors in their ivory towers spoiling the next generation of students, this is the consequence of actual rule in the countries where the objective surely hasn't been some crazy communist utopia. Social Democrats are just fine with capitalism. They just want to "control the excesses", do wealth distribution, create a welfare state and have the government have an active role in the economy, yet have absolutely no intensions of demolishing capitalism as some fervent communist wants. Why kill the goose that lays the golden egg?

The third made the left-wing world the unconscious or undeclared handmaiden of global capitalism — Rafaella Leon

If you are interested about those who hold power, you should look at those in the left that actually have been in power. One has to separate the public discourse from actual implemented policies and political rule.

Far better would be make the separation of communism/marxism/marxism-leninism with social democracy (or democratic socialism) and the New Left here. Leaders like Tony Blair or Francois Miterrand were not surely communists, but were leftist leaders of our time.

(Just like that one shouldn't put absolutely everybody in the right-wing/conservative camp as being alt-right / fascists, which is the typical case.)

This scenario looks like a ship sailing across the ocean with a different party grabbing the bridge and setting course for a different destination each time. — FreeEmotion

Well, my point above is that it's the exact same two parties, same two cabals, which just rotate from one to the another. In a democracy it would be healthy to get new people with new ideas to power every once in a while. Not exactly the same people from four or eight years ago.

I am not sure if democracy is a good thing for the United States of America. — FreeEmotion

Still best option, if it only would work.

It is too late to go back. It is nice to know that China has a one party system, and has done quite well with it. — FreeEmotion

The real problem with a one party system is that once things go really bad, there is nothing to replace those in power. There is no way to know just how bad things are and if the system is a totalitarian one, it will exist in place so long as there is nothing to do and the whole system collapses.

China just shows that with economic growth, people accept any kind of system.

By contrast, little or almost nothing is known about the deep sources of power in Russia, China, and the Islamic countries. Even the descriptions we have of the visible ruling class in these regions of the globe are schematic and superficial, without comparison to the meticulous Who’s Who of the western elite. — Rafaella Leon

I'm not so sure about this that there is little or almost nothing known even about the deep sources of power in these countries. Authoritarian countries are more simple to reason about just who has the power. Besides, these regimes leave a ton of documents in their wake as they are quite bureaucratic. Above all, there is much interest in them.

Perhaps it's the third World where we have the real problems as there simply isn't those similar archives and even larger events can simply happen without historical data being gathered (as little if any data is gathered). For example, we have little accurate knowledge about just how many people were killed because of the First and Second Congo War as the estimated differ in the millions. And who knows about the African equivalent of a World War here in the West?

I really don't think there's anybody out there planning this stuff. Representation of the monied interests is in place, regardless of who sits in what office. No need for the elite to have a special plan. — Benkei

What special plan do you need? It's simply to a) not have a valid third party emerge to ruin the show and b) keep the people polarized as then they will vote against the party they hate? I think it's pretty clear that the whole system is based on minimizing the role of possible other political parties starting from the electoral college system. The creaming on the top is the "primaries" as this way "for people to have a say" in the system. And Americans will now surely believe in the "primaries"-system as it gave them Trump, which obviously the GOP elite didn't want and then Trump got the grip of the whole party.

You see, this kind of "deal" doesn't need any kind of written or oral agreement, it is basically like the "way of the land" as the saying goes.

There's no silent or gentleman's agreement between GOP and Democrats to share power by alternating each other. — Benkei

Who needs that, because NATURALLY people will get enough of one side at least after 8 years or 12 years. If you are given two political choices, the natural outcome is that enough people will be disappointed in one party to give the another a chance. Hence just look at how the administrations change.

Again don't think that this is implemented by an mutual open agreement. I doesn't have to.

Could you give me examples? I agree that they exist, I'm honestly just curious as to how many there are and whether they all have the same goals. — BitconnectCarlos

Naturally we are interested here in the Biden administration, as obviously it's now very current:

Kamala Harris: I'll leave this one as there are obvious reasons for her pick.

1) Secretary of State designee: Anthony Blinken


Blinken was the deputy Secretary of State in the Obama administration and before that in Joe Biden's National Security Advisor (to the Vice President of the United States). Blinken was then before in the Clinton administration in the National Security Council and speechwriter and assistant to Joe Biden. Blinken comes from a career diplomat family as his father was an US ambassador as was his uncle.

So this guy is working on his third Democrat administration.

2) Secretary of Treasury designee: Janet Yellen


Fed Chairwoman. Bill Clinton appointed her as a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, where she served from August 12, 1994 to February 17, 1997. Yellen then became Chair of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) from February 18, 1997 to August 3, 1999. Later Barack Obama appointed her as a replacement to Bernanke. After Trump appointed a replacement for the Fed Chairperson, Yellen went to work to the Brookings Institution think tank before now picked by Joe Biden.

This woman is has been basically working along all administration since Clinton, even if the Federal Reserve isn't part of the administration, naturally.

3) Secretary of Agriculture designee: Tom Vilsack


Governor of Iowa from 1999 to 2007. Then from start of the Obama administration worked as the Secretary of Agriculture until the end of Obama's second term.

Need to say anything? This guy has worked at the same job under the last Democratic administration and earlier was a governor from a state where agriculture is rather important.

4) Chief of Staff designee: Ron Klain


Biden's campaign advisor. Also Clinton-Gore campaigns advisor and Gore's campaign advisor. Served as chief of staff to Vice President's Al Gore and, of course, Joe Biden.

Again a person that has served in all three Democratic administrations, basically in the same position. Now just the President's Chief of Staff, not the VP's.

Do you notice my point here? Of course there are those politicians from the House of Representatives who are picked for cabinet posts etc. but that is very normal for political careers everywhere. But when you look at the next lower level, the story is similar. And naturally those that have worked in the Carter administration are now quite old! But they would be there, if they would be younger.

Even if we had this outrageous Trump administration and it had it's infusion of career military generals, which hadn't been the usual choice, and the odd multimillionaires, it is hardly a surprise that people like John Bolton waltzed into the White House... and waltzed out.

So please understand just how tiny these circles are in a country with 330 million people when the position are filled by only two political parties.

I don't think so.

I think the "polarization" is a means to keep the present system up. The worse the situation is for more Americans, the more polarized and poisoned the atmosphere has to be. The objective for those in power is that the power perpetually changes from one to the another in four to eight years. You see, the candidate who is depicted as "ultra-right" or "ultra-progressive" doesn't rock the boat as there will be enough of Americans who reject them on the other side.

It's interesting you say that. When I think "ruling elite" the group that comes to mind would be people like Bezos, Musk, Gates, Buffet, the Waltons... I keep a loose attention to these people but unless I'm missing something I don't see them as having one common interest in keeping the country divided, but who knows I may be missing something. I view them more as unique individuals with their own plans and goals. — BitconnectCarlos

You should perhaps look at those people that man the various administrations: there is a small group of people (let's remember that the US has 330 million people) that get a position in the administration after their party has gotten into power again. Or how many of them are multimillionaires (when it came to the Trump administration).

It's simply is very lucrative as a career choice to be in either of the two parties, as they are in power in a very normal manner. You can have that lucrative board room / think tank place in the private sector when you party is out of power.

My conclusion is that ruling elite in the US wants the country to be divided.

And the elite is extremely successful in this.

Many people go along with this, thinking that they can simply win the other side as they are right and the others are wrong.

Hence nothing changes and the elite prevails.

The medical and technological issue is that the vaccine has not been tested for efficacy at reducing either transmission or hospitalisation, nor has it been tested for safety on key demographics. — Isaac

Which key demographics are you referring to?

And more importantly, I think one should refer here to distinct vaccines, or is it really alleged that all various vaccines now studied have been dealt in similar way? That's what the Lancet article says? (I guess you had a link)

And if you think policy makers aren't disastrously idiotic and corrupt, just look at the pandemic up until this point in the places rushing to be first to deploy the vaccine. Although past stupidity and corruption doesn't guarantee future stupidity and corruption, I wouldn't personally bet against it. — boethius

Well, looking at just my country, I don't really feel that they have been disastrously idiotic and corrupt when the country is among the least effected countries in the EU. If you want to paint every leadership in such gloom, that's your problem. I don't know then were you draw the line of what then would be an adequate, OK response to a pandemic.

As now the election results are official, Barr steps out.

Now Trump is truly in La-la-land, if it comes to the elections.

How many days is it? Still over a month to go with Trump. That's not much.

Good that you referred yourself to a political opinion here.

Being against the political decisions is different to being against the technological or medical aspects here.

My question is: does the triangle I mentioned cover 100% of the possibilities or will the biological and technological evolution bring you to something totally new in terms of coexistence? If we could observe a civilization 1 million years more advanced, could we find striking resemblances to what we have had so far in history? — Eugen

What you stated are the theoretical extremes, which basically cannot happen.

Furthermore, when asking about the civilization in 1 million years, do notice that human beings haven't been around for 1 million years, let alone "civilization". 100 000 years ago Homo Sapiens was migrating from Africa to other continents. So take some zeroes off, better scope would be 10 000 years. Lucky if we get anything right (which we naturally won't know) about 1 000 years. With 100 years we can say a lot and the World is quite the same as with 10 years from now not much has changed.

In a World where there are flat-Earthers and all kind of truthers around, this surely will continue. Trump needs his hardcore followers and this is the time when he is still in the White House to get the cult going.

Isn't the formal process coming also to an end as the electoral college is meeting on Monday?

Surely fitting that the cases have been solved.

Ah yes, I cited that most famous of conspiracy theory publishers, the British Medical Journal. Not to mention that hotbed of zealotry that is The Lancet. — Isaac

And what you are talking about, just like above "But fuck, I don't think Pfizer have quite enough money yet. Perhaps we could shut a few more clinics and rustle up a couple of million more for them." and earlier has absolutely nothing to do with any article in the Lancet or the British Medical Journal.

Oh yes. That's the real issue here as you said.

The recent SpaceX landing is similar to the Texas lawsuit challenging election results? — praxis

That SpaceX first flight actually went awesome.

Yeah, in the end one of the Raptor engines didn't work. Still...way to go!!! :up:

A nice debrief of what actually happened! :razz:

You'd both have some evidence to back up these claims I presume? — Isaac

Why don't you listen to Faucci?

Or you assume he is a corporate hack? Wearing your tinfoil hat are you, Isaac?



Oh but they didn't have pregnant mothers in the group and children! Do you know just who basically are killed by Covid-19? I think the worst group being killed by Covid-19 aren't actually children and pregnant women. I think that the way the US, the UK, the EU or heck, even Russia are handling this issue with starting the vaccinations is correct. Yes, get those vaccinations out there: you have a system of approving vaccinations so follow it... as has been done.

Sorry, but I'll leave now my tinfoil hat in the cupboard this time. Call me a sheeple or something if you want.

How does the number of Covid deaths impact on the likely efficacy of the vaccine as a means of reducing them (together with collateral deaths from pandemic-related impacts)? Is there some threshold of deaths at which a previously inefficient approach to reducing them suddenly becomes efficient?

It seems to me the number of deaths only serves to make it all the more urgent that we work out some effective course of action. So an argument about the negative effects of any strategy is not to be 'weighed against' the death rates, it's fully about the death rate. — Isaac

First of all, Isaac.

Where the corners have been cut in the "race to a vaccine" is that before the approval was gotten, the large scale production of the vaccine was started. This is the multi-million dollar risk here, what was deemed OK. And I guess big Pharma was given a assurances that they wouldn't have to cover the risk all by themselves if the vaccine is a bummer. That's were the millions poured into this come out. In any other situation only now would large scale production of the vaccine would have started, not that the vaccine would be ready for shipping. Hence part reason was what said earlier.

Seriously. Would we trust a massive multinational business to act in the interests of the wider community under any other circumstances? Do we need to go through the track record of giant multinationals with social welfare? — Isaac

This is YOUR punchline. Multinationational corporations are evil.

Your point has been heard.

Dogs bark and the caravan goes on...

The entire argument I've been presenting is about the negative effects it will have, for goodness' sake. — Isaac

Well, good to weigh those negative effects. Yet do weigh then them on the fact that now the US has lost daily the equivalent of those lost in 9/11 to Covid-19 and the pandemic has killed more than heart disease kills annually. So what does 9 months compare to two years?

At what point did I say that the level of investment would not produce a vaccine more quickly? — Isaac

At least you said so:

You think those billions now poured into various vaccine programs by major countries won't have an effect? — ssu

Yes, absolutely I think that — Isaac

That's the spirit! :up:

Oooh, frank, that's too positive. Especially being positive about technological innovation and that it will improve things in the future.

People don't like that. Far more trendy and smart looking to be doom and gloom. We're on the Titanic and people are just rearranging the deck chairs. That stuff.

First ask yourselves, how much investment and focus is put into vaccine research generally? Compare that with what is now happening with Covid-19. You think those billions now poured into various vaccine programs by major countries won't have an effect? — ssu

Yes, absolutely I think that (or at least not the scale of effect relied on). Developing a vaccine involves a very great number of resources and those resources are spread sufficiently thinly such that it takes a considerable amount of time to complete all the stages. Not all of those resources can simply be bought by throwing money at them. How is money going to increase the number of trained staff? How is money going to increase the supply of minority condition groups to test against? How is money going to speed up the long-term monitoring period?

It's lunacy to invest this amount of money in a medicine which might not even work when there's absolutely proven interventions which we know will save tens of thousands of lives not only now but in the next one, and the next one... — Isaac

Well, coming back to the discussion above with Isaac just two months ago: I think we can say that indeed yes, when there is an urge to do something, a concentrated effort to do it and far more resources are put on something than normally, it does have an effect on the timetable:

The vaccine development took nine months, not two to five years. Something worth noting.

The initial wave culled the most vulnerable portion of the population both from the point of view of first quickly finding those who were open to getting infected and those with the highest mortality rate by age and sex. The nursing home patients. — magritte

So you assume it went through all the nursing homes? It's not like the pandemic has gone through the population, which is obvious when you look at the debate around herd immunity and the Swedish-model (or the first adopted UK-policy).

Is the government going to ship Viagra to us now?

I think the whole discussion of anti-natalism is a symptom of a larger problem.

Jack Cummins makes an important point about anti-natalism:

It tends to make sweeping emotional appeals about suffering, leading to the belief that it would be better to not having been born at all, with an overriding conclusion that it is wrong morally to bring children into the world. — Jack Cummins

I see that here lies the motive for all the anti-natalist nonsense as it's a way to give for some a moral reasoning for not having offspring and to get a chance to have a whack at those institutions promoting natalism, starting from ones like the Catholic church. Perhaps it's like a response of a perceived hostility of the traditional society which universally and even quite logically values children, does see in positive light that people have children, especially at an age when birthrates are universally going down. For those who cannot or do not want children, other's emphasis on children and stories just how wonderful and important they are seems in our highly sensitive age as a veiled hostility against those without children, especially if they could have them.

I haven't followed the topic, but I guess there might be a proponent or two of anti-natalism, but likely it's debated just as an interesting philosophical argument.

Of course, one reason might be is just to annoy conservatives and those holding traditional views. At least looking at the length of the discussion of this bizarre concept, they have succeeded in their trolling.

You cannot proceed logically from the premise of a lack of information, to your conclusion of a similar or larger amount of infections. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yet you say...

What's different in the April-June time frame is a higher proportion of deaths per infections. That's probably due to a combination of the reasons you stated (insufficient testing), and the reasons I stated (rapid infection in the most vulnerable population). — Metaphysician Undercover

Which I agree.

And we can still assume that there are many infected today who do not test. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yet highly less than earlier.

Are you serious? What do you base that on, the death rate? The first wave swept through the most vulnerable, and exposed, the nursing homes, where the numbers of vulnerable are concentrated and the virus spread easily. — Metaphysician Undercover

Based on what it says there on the chart: "Limited testing meant that most infections were not confirmed during this wave". I get your point, that partly might be an issue to be noted, but notice that the statistical difference is huge: from April to June there is hardly any correlation, while starting from July the correlation between deaths and infections is obvious.

Then there is the way how pandemics spread: it doesn't come as a rain and influence all parts of the country in a similar way from the start. It might be the deaths in nursing homes in Washington state that are here apart from let's say the nursing homes in South Dakota: the pandemic spread to Washington first when there was non-existent measures taken in nursing homes.

How it looked at the start:

The third biggest porblem of science is philosophy forums on the Internet. — god must be atheist

How important we must be!