You genuinely think Trump's (and others) rhetoric will have an effect other than just keeping all commentators talking about their remarks?

Or you think that Trump will order the lifting the 'lock downs' or what? Perhaps the pandemic situation will have an effect on that in just a few weeks, as this macabre show has just only started...


...even if in the end it won't be so apocalyptic as during the time when Bernt Notke painted the painting above.

We’re talking about governance, which is inherently political. — NOS4A2

Yes, and at least you admit it.

The bliss of knowing the basics about the state of the Italian economy? And your alternative is... ignorance? — StreetlightX

I'd tone it down a notch with the argument everything is happening because the evils of the neoliberal capitalist death cult. I would say that the dire situation in Italy has more to due with the fact that it was among the first places hit after China.

Could a healthcare system every be universal if they cannot care for their patrons universally? Italy has universal coverage, or at least that’s what they sold the good people of Italy, but it turns out not to be the case. — NOS4A2

Worth noting that the failure of the Italian state has largely owed itself to the EU bureaucracy, which, thanks to a decade of imposed neoliberal austerity programs, have gutted the Italian public sector. Once again, capitalism fucks everything. — StreetlightX

Ah. The bliss of looking at everything from a distinct political view. :snicker:

Thank you for reading my response.

Well, as I and someone else already said, the governors are the de facto leaders in this case. And once the infection rate and the death start going up, everyone of them will go to the same kind of response. The medical community is quite clear on what to do here (and the pandemic came up so quickly that the lobby groups haven't been able to come with their own doctors and specialist spindoctors, literally).

Yet in every country they do have to think if they have gone to a lockdown and have quarantined areas (as they doing with the Capitol area here), then when to lift them? China gives an example already, but there's always the fear of new infections. Then the question will be (if the outcome is similar to China) when will those restaurants open and gatherings of people be allowed when there's no new deaths and tiny amount of infections?

Perhaps a real fear in my view will be if the numbers of deaths are simply withheld or marked as 'deaths to other causes'. Not now when the pandemic is spreading, but when the pandemic has passed. As ugly it may sound, it could happen especially in the US. So perhaps a decade from now a medical historian tells that actually far more were killed in the corona-virus pandemic.

How about this then, if you would mind to glance over before you answer.

First, I'm not remarking anything about Trump here:

And if we leave one Trump aside, in fact there is quite an uniform response to the pandemic. The US isn't going a different way from other countries when you look at the US as a combination of 50 states and what they are doing and compare that to for example EU countries. — ssu

Hence, we are making decisions about the future. The worst of a pandemic can last either 4-6 months or then come around next fall and winter 2020/2021. We are trying to anticipate the future here.

It seems you didn't even read further.

No, there isn't. Until the virus is under complete control, there is no question. It's that simple. Anything else is dissimulation and the effective murder of populations - primarily the poor, the old, and the sick. If you think differently you're objectively wrong. — StreetlightX

There is always that question when you are thinking about precautionary measures. Let's face it: curbing the corona virus infections spike is an anticipatory measure. With precautions you always have to make some decisions on what is enough. And if we leave one Trump aside, in fact there is quite an uniform response to the pandemic. The US isn't going a different way from other countries when you look at the US as a combination of 50 states and what they are doing and compare that to for example EU countries.

Are there any articles or philosophers who cover this topic? — Frank Baldwin

As a military historian I guess you know better these events than sociologists or philosophers. I've noticed that few philosophers understand war, especially if they haven't been in one or haven't served in the military. And military men aren't stupid, they can themselves think about these issues too.

E.g. there are taboos among most armed forces about suicide tactics or targeting a mixture of friend and foe. — Frank Baldwin

Actually notice the change in contemporary military history to the 20th Century.

It's been said for example that in the 2006 Israeli-Lebanon war the rather poor performance of the Israeli Army wasn't only because that Hezbollah had improved basic training of it's soldiers from the times of Operation Peace in Galilee, but also because the Israeli soldiers were more timid in the way that if a platoon suffered casualties, the platoon would rapidly start MEDEVAC procedures and concentrate on that. Bayonet charges don't happen, at least not with the whole unit standing up and charging the enemy. This is more than a matter of training: now as military medicine has improved our and there has been an emphasis on combat first response, there is also the attitude that huge casualties are simply not tolerated. Huge loss of life is a failure, even if the otherwise the objectives are met. The exception of this may be the Russian Army perhaps: the Russians have suffered large casualties in some units both in the Russo-Georgian war and in Ukraine too. And in a culture were the government oppresses mothers looking if their sons are dead or in hospital, there still isn't much regard for individual life. Earlier it wasn't just the Russians.

WW1 and WW2 form actually an one era as in fact the tactics & strategy continued in 2939 from where it had stopped in 1918, with only better equipment (and a lot of clear thinking by the Germans, but also like with the US Marines). Yet the attitudes were the same. Your own soldiers dying was simply part of war. Now it's different. If in the summer of 1944 when a Finnish general saw that part of his division is being overrun and out of ammo his soldiers were surrendering, he ordered the artillery to fire on the own lines. And there wasn't any outcry about it, not even after war. The general was well respected afterwards, especially as he lived quite long.

I am particularly interested in the extent to which morality and, or psychology of the trolley problem may help to understand historic events where a decision to avoid the risks of friendly fire (killing the one) resulted in heavy casualties from enemy fire (killing the five). — Frank Baldwin

I would say that we all are children of our times.

The military is always and integral part of the society: it has the same kind of morals and psychology as the society it was formed from. A lot of people sometimes ask if we are tough enough or if the earlier generations were tougher. I don't believe that is true. War is something that it's leaders and organizers approach very practically and logically. This has been the way since the dawn of history I would argue. Hence when the technology and the medicine is there, a practical leader will use that. When the only option is to confront the enemy in an asymmetric way, then things like suicide-attacks are on the table. How the society thinks about a suicide-mission is also important and defines if this is tolerated or not.

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.)

The virus is a red herring. — Metaphysician Undercover

Really?

Like Senator Burr after an closed door representation of the virus dumping ALL OF HIS STOCK PORTFOLIO?

If you think that is normal, you don't know anything about investing? Normal would have been to sell 20% or even 50%, if the economy is in high gear. Dumping everything is not normal, actually.

When the politician Burr was briefed by Fauci and others, it's obvious that the "lock down" option was explained. And this is where the inside information comes into existence: Burr as head of the Intelligence Committee (and others like Feinstein) had then a pretty clear idea what the US government / states has to and would do. Fauci and others could (and likely did) clearly say then what they know have said that the US isn't prepared. And when Burr himself behind closed doors talked to others, he compared the virus to the Spanish flu.

As I said to Benkei, there's a way to discipline members of the Congress and this case it should be looked at. Burr can explain his innocence. How it goes who knows. And will the voters notice? Unlikely.

Actually it's refreshing to put a clip from FOX NEWS to show that even they can a little bit of journalism sometimes, even if the tone isn't the best in my view:

It is just business as usual. Why fuss over it now? — Metaphysician Undercover

Many will agree with you that it's business as usual! But I don't know if that's sarcasm to you. Or just trolling.

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.

Price of gold is shooting up. That reflects the fact that the dollar is being destroyed. Mnuchin said the total bailouts are adding up to $6 trillion. There's no corresponding increase in productivity or actual wealth. The dollars in your pocket are simply worth less ... soon to be worthless. — fishfry

Or then the loonies of Modern Monetary Theory are correct and I and you are wrong.

What has to be understood that in the end this con game the end, a monetary crisis, is about the credibility of the currency and about inflation. Now if inflation would start picking up...that would be a sinister sign.

But I think it won't.

You see, the money goes only to the rich and connected. It goes to prop up corporations. That's the secret. But this can indeed change if or when those trillions start flooding the real economy. But that can take time as otherwise things are quite deflationary now.

I think there's a proper way to do it. Follow the protocol given in these kind of situations. The Congress has it's disciplinary system.

And in the end it ought to be the voters who decide what to do, if nothing is done and it's just business as usual. Unfortunately these kind of things will just die out because there is much bigger news. And the real corruption will happen when giving those trillions away of the freshly created money.

My argument is that I am suspicious of step 3 for the reasons I’ve already stated. — NOS4A2

You totally have the right to your opinion even if I'm not so suspicious as you are about it.

Then I think you should follow how the pandemic will be in 1) Sweden and especially B) Mexico. Swedes are taking social distancing seriously, but they haven't yet gone to lock down mode. Schools are still open. And Mexico? Well, they have been quite free of this pandemic for a long time and still take it lightly. At least the Mexican President doesn't worry so much about it. I think they assume that step 2) measures are enough.

If the object is to flatten the curve to keep total serious cases low enough so that there's adequate medical treatment, and then you spend a trillion dollars propping up the economy, wouldn't it make more sense to just increase the medical capacity with that trillion dollars? That's what I'd do. — Hanover

Great idea, except increasing medical capacity takes time. Not going to happen in weeks, Hanover. In 2021 the situation will be different for sure. But this would be a thing to do before a pandemic, you know.

Luckily my country has been so afraid of Russia that we have had these reserves of the "National Emergency Supply Agency", basically a remnant from the Cold War that for example still has grain reserves for 6 months and hospital equipment and those personal protective equipment stacked for wartime. They have now started sending these equipment for the first time to hospitals around the country.

It’s not wrong. South Korea didn’t need to put their economy on hold and to enact draconian measures. — NOS4A2

NOS4A2,

Have you picked up what people have said about the strategy of how to prevent pandemics?

Step 1) Nip them in the bud: Prevent local epidemics of new zoonotic diseases from being a threat by containing them where they emerge. That might be China, Africa or heck, just rural Arizona or Montana. That's the preventing stuff that CDC does in foreign countries, which Republicans hate.

Step 2) Trace the path and quarantine: In this case every new infection can be traced where it was gotten and all individual persons can quarantined. In this level nobody infected cannot simply walk into the hospital and there is no clue where the person got it. If this happens, then step 3.

Step 3) Containment & curbing the peak:: The epidemic/pandemic is here. You cannot anymore try to solve the path of the epidemic and contain individuals. Now it's social distancing and not having huge crowds at first, then lock down. Now the measures are taken only that the health care system doesn't crash and doctors don't have to choose which patient will live or not.

South Korea was quite successful in Step 2. The US wasn't at all. That's it. You have lost the tracing and putting people in quarantine step. Only thing to do is step 3.

Of course, if you want more people to die, then do what the officials in 1918 did: have censorship and prevent people knowing how the disease is spreading and have them notice it only when people they know start dying. Unfortunately that isn't an option anymore.

That is childish thinking. Without an economy, everybody dies. — Nobeernolife

Which is totally crazy. Economic recession isn't the same as an all out nuclear strike in the US. Recession is a time when wealth changes hands and people are unemployed. And economic growth starts when everybody is all doom and gloom.

I was just watching the debate in the German parliament where they are going to pass a comprehensive Corona emergency packet, and even the far out opposition parties (both left and right) agree that the restrictions on movement and the government support that is planned can only be maintained for a limited time. — Nobeernolife

Yes. That is the general consensus. Here it was for a month, not a year. Some talk of two months. Nobody is talking of a year or two long lockdown.

Trump is completely correct in saying that the cure must be worse than the disease, In a world without derangement syndrome, that would just be a common sense statement. — Nobeernolife

YES YES YES!!!!!

My forecast on another thread was proven right!

It took only 9 hours! :lol:

Meanwhile in Spain:

Spanish Defence Minister Margarita Robles told the private TV channel Telecinco that the government was "going to be strict and inflexible when dealing with the way older people are treated" in retirement homes.

"The army, during certain visits, found some older people completely abandoned, sometimes even dead in their beds," she said.

The defence ministry said that staff at some care homes had left after the coronavirus was detected.

Coronavirus: Spanish army finds care home residents 'dead and abandoned'

South Korea didn’t need to put their economy on hold and to enact draconian measures. — NOS4A2

Totally wrong. South Korea is in recession:

Nomura Securities estimated South Korea’s Q1 economic growth rate at negative 3.7 percent and Oxford Economics and Barclays estimated it at negative 1.4 percent and negative 1.3 percent, respectively.

Deputy Prime Minister Hong Nam-ki is admitting the possibility of a recession as well. He remarked on March 20 that the repercussions of the spread of the coronavirus would include a negative economic growth in the first quarter of this year. Likewise, the Bank of Korea mentioned that the Q1 economic growth rate would be less than that of the first quarter of 2019, negative 0.4 percent.

And it likely goes into longer recession when the Global economy tanks.

Secondly, because they simply were successful in contain the spread of the virus. They did a lot of testing. They could trace down the infections and apply proper quarantine. Yet they did have "Patient 31", who went on to spread the virus around.

And why was that testing so successful?

Under South Korea’s single-payer health care system, getting tested costs $134. But with a doctor’s referral or for those who’ve made contact with an infected person, testing is free. Even undocumented foreigners are urged to get tested and won’t face threats due to their status.

The US isn't anywhere there anymore. It's in all states already. Now it's only to curb the spike in infections so that the health care system won't collapse. That's why the lockdown.

Perhaps I'll clear myself.

1) Policy decisions taken by countries do effect the spread of the pandemic. Hence the what policies Trump or the Federal State implements has an effect, even if there are the States and their governors making decisions also. Hence policy has to be noticed in this thread also.

2) The President is worried about the economic recession and wants to loosen the "lock down".

3) My argument was that this isn't rational as loosening the precautions will worsen the epidemic and the emphasis should be now on stopping the spread of the virus too quickly. Besides, everybody will understand that this present economic downturn happened because of the pandemic.

Did you understand my comment?

Children are largely unlikely to be affected by the disease itself but we are going to hand them an economy that we’ve ruined. No amount of technocratic number-crunching and chart-viewing can avoid that. — NOS4A2

Nah.

The Global recession is already here, just like the pandemic. And your economy isn't ruined. It would be ruined if Russia fired all it's nukes at the US, but in reality those soviet nuclear warheads have only given you electricity to your cities. Besides, after a downturn, then there's a great opportunity for economic growth!

Trump doesn't understand it, but NOW the crash and dire economic situation is not going to be blamed on him. He won't have Joe Biden saying like Clinton to Bush "It's the economy, stupid!" Any idiot will understand that this recession has happened because we still put human life before money.

I'm giving it three days. — Andrew M

82 000 has already passed in reality.

Precisely. There is nothing conspiratorial about the observation that the State is opportunistic about extending its control — Pneumenon

Yep. There's actually no sarcasm in that, because when you have politicians who promise everything for everybody and portray themselves as quite omnipotent, then they simply will act so. Never mind the Republicans portraying themselves as being for "small government" is simply a sham.

ou can lead without looking like Superman. — frank

Well, you can be Trump and be the US President. And possibly be re-elected.

The facts remain: he can't attack Biden right now and the economy looks bad. — frank

Does anybody need to attack Biden now?

Isn't Joe doing it to himself?

And now for Trump the best thing is to appear in the television talking about the pandemic.

Despite 40 large planes being hijacked, we managed to not militarize airports. — Bitter Crank

Yep. This is the point I'm trying to make.

Somehow it was a danger that we could live with. Cartoonists could make fun of it:



I don't think there's this sinister plot to make our countries into police states. It's that politicians will act on our fears and when there's the technology and ability to do something, they will do it.

Hence prevention of pandemics will be one of those measures how our liberties could be de facto restricted to improve our safety. Never let a crisis go to waste, as Rahm Emanuel said of another event, as you said. I'm not saying that this is threat to our freedoms. I would say one can look at it from a different perspective: In the 21st Century we simply don't tolerate people dying from pandemics.

Now the terrorism is pretty much ignore by the politicians and media. Is that what you suggest for corona? — Nobeernolife

Other way around. Possible outbreaks, things that earlier would have been in regional news and medical newsoutlets or papers will be headline news. We'll learn from this.

It of course depends in the on the deaths. It's sounds callous, but the death toll will effect how we will remember this.

Deaths in the few thousands, it might be forgotten after some years. But I assume if around 100 000 people die of this pandemic in the US, it won't be something that would be forgotten from the history books or by people and the politicians. In 1968/69 the "Hong Kong"-flu pandemic killed roughly that number yet the pandemic is seldom remembered (my father remembers it, but he is a virologist). It was just a nastier flu season, basically. This time around it won't be.

Soap and running water didn't do much in terms of saving time. — Benkei

Really? I assume you haven't lived in a summer cottage where you have to haul the water from a well? It does take time. And soap?

Soap is those long duration things do have had quite an effect on our hygiene. Invented by the Babylonians and in the modern soap form during the golden age of Islam in Syria.

Since they had time to do other things than housekeeping they decided more power was due. It also increased productivity very significantly in ways that the internet certainly hasn't. Except for the distribution of porn I suppose. — Benkei

Says Benkei discussing the issue with strangers from another countries using the internet.

During this time of lockdown when both of my children aren't in school and talking to their teachers and doing their schoolwork using the internet and while I'm doing also my work (simultaneously as participating in this forum) through the net, it sounds a pretty dismissive if you see the only productivity increase in the ease to get porn. (But then again, Dutch have been very permissive with porn.)

Perhaps the importance of ought to be proven with a test. Let's say that for one month you would be banned to use following machines personally and you had to choose from the options: A) the internet, any computer and smartphone etc. couldn't be used B) no internet connection, but you could use a PC (and you could use a telephone line, but not connect it to the computer) would be allowed, C) you couldn't use washing machine

Which one would people opt out of? It's easy to guess the option is C. Oh! The time lost when taking dirty clothes to the cleaners and paying for it. What an ordeal.

I'm more interested in the social and economic changes in how political power is distributed, amplified or structured. — Benkei

I think that how people actually live is quite more important. How much time we hang in the net, for work or for leisure time is important. It does make this time different from early and mid 20th Century.

. He hasn't the capacity to be president. — fishfry

Lol. Well, when has that been a problem??? :grin:

While he was restricting Chinese immigration in January, the Dems were calling him a racist and impeaching him. — fishfry

Immigration??? I think it was travel and quarantines (tourists aren't immigrants). Anyway, that is now one of the good decisions that Trump has made. Especially when Trump doing this went against WHO, which at that time was against travel bans.

The World Health Organization, which declared the outbreak a global health emergency this week, has recommended against any travel or trade restrictions in response to the outbreak. Member countries, however, do not have to comply with that guidance.

“Although travel restrictions may intuitively seem like the right thing to do, this is not something that WHO usually recommends,” said Tarik Jašarević, a WHO spokesperson. “This is because of the social disruption they cause and the intensive use of resources required,” he added.

See (from that time) Health experts warn China travel ban will hinder coronavirus response

Yet now Trump is panicking about the prevailing economic depression and wanting to stop this "social distancing" and lock down for economic purposes. And knowing Trump's supporters and Fox News, they will reurgitate whatever this guy says. Yet I don't think the economic depression will be such a problem: people understand this happens because of the pandemic, which isn't in Trump's hands.

And you could go similarly saying that these aren't actually so important:

Light bulb: the invention of the oil lamp happened earlier and that gave light.
combustion engine: how much more important was the steam engine?
washing machine: how about soap, running water, the stove improve things and all those new inventions to help washing and cooking in the 19th Century? And even so, our food are quite the same actually, than it was in the 19th Century.

Hence this debate about "what long term effects" has something has to be put into some perspective. You can always widen the perspective and come to the conclusion that one thing was just a part of a longer development. If we define "long term" to let's say the decade of 2020's or two decades, then it's more interesting.

Fair enough. Didn't want to sound like Trump, but I guess it came out like that.

The intention was to say that they (the Chinese) have had to deal with these outbreaks and they have the resources to do that, hence they were more prepared than other countries.

Then you're like my economics history professor in the university: he thought (in the 90's) that the whole internet-thing was rubbish and the last truly radical innovation that has changed our lives is the personal automobile (which sounded scornful to the students).

(What hasn't gotten better in the last 4 000 years? Even philosophy has made progress in that time.)

They built a huge hospital in ten days. They staffed a ward with robots. They are way ahead of the game. — Baden

This is true (well, I cannot verify that particular case, but the response has been huge). And this is the reason why we shouldn't be calm that China with it's huge population has had officially just few thousand cases.

SARS, I grant, had its origin in China. — StreetlightX

Start with the Black Death. Plus the "Asian flu" Influenza A H2N2 of 1956-1958, the Hong Kong flu (even if back then it was British). Yes, epidemics and pandemics emerge from various places, but the history of having to tackle these diseases are the reason why China has had to take for example zoonotic diseases far more seriously than for example Italy.

there will never be a true "all clear sign" from the treat of some other threat without some miracle medicine coming out in the foreseeable future. — dclements

Sure, but the question is what measures do we make after this example. How do we respond to another outbreaks?

Let's say in Thailand there's an outbreak of a new zoonotic disease, an new strain of the corona-virus or a very potent flu-virus. Ten people have been hospitalized and two are in critical condition. What's going to be the response of your country? How will people react? How will the markets react? You see, SARS, MERS and Ebola went with a different kind of media scare than outbreaks will go after this.

This is my point. In the 1970's there was a lot of terrorism in Europe, yet the issue was treated more as a police matter. Now similar attacks would case a different reaction. And likely after this ordeal the way we respond to possible outbreaks is going to change.

The last meaningful change was the labour participation of women, which has caused significant changes to the social structure, changing gender roles and dynamics. The light bulb. Washing machine. Industrial revolution. Moving from feudalism to democracies. — Benkei

Well, that means that in our lifetime and our parents nothing remotely fundamental has happened.

How about this that you spend part of your daily time debating issues with Americans, Brits and a Finn etc. you've never met? A little different from what I recall from the 1980's. No PF back then with people still buying those large dictionary book sets. Or do you still buy phonebooks?

Plus his data is all sourced. He's just giving the most clear and sensible interpretation. — Baden

A fine article. I noted one example that he gave, which was surprising:

But China’s is good too. The lengths at which it went to contain the virus are mind-boggling. For example, they had up to 1,800 teams of 5 people each tracking every infected person, everybody they got interacted with, then everybody those people interacted with, and isolating the bunch. That’s how they were able to contain the virus across a billion-people country.

This is not what Western countries have done. And now it’s too late.

Sounds incredible that China can put 9 000 people to track infected persons, but I believe it. When you just think that nearly all dangerous epidemics and pandemics have come from China, perhaps they really have had training, they have learned something and have an incentive to do something about this... especially as the country has become wealthy.

How did terrorism change our lives? I haven't experienced any fundamental changes except air travel became more of a hassle. — Benkei

So, life as normal. These are changes in degree, not fundamental. The economic structure in society remains the same, the real politik approach remained the same and our solutions to the same problems remain the same (throw a bucket of cash at it). — Benkei

What then does constitutes a change fundamental change for you? Never is there that kind of fundamental change from one year to another.

I bet the Soviet Union collapsing and Germany unifying actually didn't change your life (if you were born) or the life of your family fundamentally either. But Cold War Europe was a bit different. And so if post 9/11 Europe and the US. Just ask any Muslim if they have noticed a difference in the prevailing attitudes. Perhaps only after some decades you really can have a different World: 1913 and 1946 are quite different, just like 1987 is from now (even if much less has changed from 1987 to today). Perhaps true changes happen only in a Century or two, but if those are fundamental, the those changes in degree are also important too.

Nobeernolife told some of the changes, but how about the train wreck that has happened in the Middle East? Invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan do have some effect on what has happened here later. Not just that some of my reservist friends have seen war in Afghanistan, which was quite different from the usual Blue Beret missions.

Hopefully higher living standards and reduction in poverty will go with it. I suspect that, if cheap labor ever runs out worldwide, it will become less centralized in this or that country. — NOS4A2

Something being "cheap" is quite relative. What has happened is that absolute povetry has truly been reduced. We in the West just whine about our economic recessions, but that (the reduction of absolute povetry) is the good thing that has happened in the World we usually haven't even noticed.

Just look when countries have had famines. My country had in the middle of 19th Century and with Ireland that's about the last great famine in Europe. Last time there's been famine in Europe is during and after WW2. China had it's last famine in 1959-1961, Bangladesh 1974,

I might just do that, thanks.

Schiphol has become quite familiar to me as that hub and Paris have been the way my family has gone to Mexico (as my wife is Mexican).

As to this thread. Nothing is going to change except some technocratic tweedling and fiddling to make sure the system continues to work with as little interruption as possible next time. — Benkei

I don't think so, especially if you look at this from a different point of view.

I think this will be one of those important collective experiences and a historical event IF there isn't a worse pandemic the next decade. Just as on successful terrorist attack changed things and attitudes, so will this too.