Some hard figures (update coming today too) about the underlying causes of death for ALL deaths this year in the UK up to April 3:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=%2fpeoplepopulationandcommunity%2fbirthsdeathsandmarriages%2fdeaths%2fdatasets%2fweeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales%2f2020/referencetablesweek14202013042020165839.xlsx

Note: They’ve been careful to note death where Covid was mentioned AND where Covid corresponds to respiratory failure resulting in death (there is no attempt to exaggerate the figures).

What about Vietnam?

https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/3079598/coronavirus-whats-behind-vietnams-containment-success?fbclid=IwAR2irzKkJaJkaLgOSi9VU6UQ1nVajeyozkxtiHN5qf2GyfClHDAfENbXxY4

This is a tough post to answer because I’m unsure what you’re asking exactly. I can offer some information though.

The all or nothing nature of firing neurons has underlying analog features - the amount of neurochemicals trigger this effect. Then there is the recycling of neurochemicals for the synaptic clefts. Needless to say the threshold required to trigger a neuron firing is certainly not dictated purely by the amount of neurochemicals present in the synaptic cleft - Brownian motion plays a part.

Other than this if we look at GABA neurons (the most common neural inhibitors), they function by effectively stopping neurons from firing when they fire. In simplistic terms the cortex acts as an inhibitor to the midbrain (VERY simplistic, but generally what happens). You can think of this as pure animalistic reactions that are inhibited due to how sensory input is translated in the cortex - some sensory inputs bypass the brain completely (this is why paralysed people put on treadmills can ‘walk’).

Another thing I’d like to point out is the possible mistake of delineating the ‘brain’ from the ‘body’. The brain is a network that extends to your toes. A ‘brain’ without a body is just pink mush.

Lastly, the term ‘mind’ is dubious at best. The very term itself is ‘vague’. Without a ‘vague’ concept of something we’d have literally nothing to investigate, and if we had nothing to investigate we wouldn’t be conscious of anything. Essentially ‘knowing’ is ‘questioning/doubting’ that for navigational purposes is framed in the concept of ‘certainty’ in some instances so we have a sense of orientation in order to explore.

Here’s something else tangental to consider: https://smallcaps.com.au/coronavirus-could-speed-up-introduction-cashless-society/

I think I’ll post this again. Clearly some people missed it the first time around:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gxAaO2rsdIs

Note: Pay attention to the section that gets infected and the section that doesn’t get infected. Slowly the spread brings the virus to a halt. I think what some people are asking above is how low the number infected can be kept - last I heard Fauci said between 50-75% infected (which is better than 100%). Clearly the sooner preventative measures are put in place the less people get infected. ALSO if you watch the video all the way through you’ll see the chaotic nature of this and the risk of lifting measures too soon - which would basically make most of the lockdown measures a complete waste of time. It’s playing roulette to some degree, the best preventative measures are no guarantee when dealing with chaotic systems. The difficulty is in deciding where to draw the line given the huge margins of error involved (if anyone ‘gets it right’ it will be due, in part, to pure luck).

How large a gathering is too large during the coronavirus pandemic?
The math of social networks can create a roadmap to a group size that still curbs spread

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid19-social-gathering-size-math-pandemic?fbclid=IwAR3s-IrVETEIq6mBHCSXJJyO1OLg5FrZtHj_1rfmXLa1Wm8KBxnH5qeSjC8

It is not really surprising that there is a lack of face masks. The simple truth is the culture in western hospitals is not to wear masks. If any of you have visited a hospital in the far east you might have noticed that doctors and nurses wear face masks all the time - it is common practice, hence they have amply supplies (not to mention, you can buy face masks in many convenience stores too).

I imagine such equipment will become more common place in all hospitals now.

"In France, as in Europe, we don't have the tradition of wearing the mask. There is a tradition in Asia."

https://www.thelocal.com/20200405/coronavirus-and-face-masks-how-countries-have-changed-their-advice

Getting rid of certain views of the world requires attention to what we rarely question.

The process of looking at the most dull aspects of life (routines) would open up paths to questions never asked before.

Note: the term ‘Culture’ is a very diverse one. We don’t have to agree on what it means, but you may find fruit in expressing as carefully as possible what you mean by ‘Culture’.

It’s hard to say what a matriarchal society would look like today. It’s hard for me to imagine a strong patriarchal society - I’m European and I’ve grown up during the transition, so I know of a more equal society between the sexes than say more ‘traditional’ family units.

I’d be careful with the use of ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ because most people assume they equate to ‘female’ and ‘male’.

It’s an interesting subject. I’m not so sure that philosophical discourse helps cut right to the core issues though. Science can reveal certain truths, but when it comes to human behavior it’s a tricky thing to investigate as almost anyone can find ‘evidence’ to back up their own pet theories.

I’ve come to discussion late. What specifically is of interest to you in this area?

@boethius Paint me as you wish, it’s really not important. You can have your last word. Bye bye

Remember we need to be in a position to aid the developing nations in this anti Covid-19 struggle asap. — rob staszewski

100%! There are things being done in a minimalistic fashion. It’s not all bad news. Some, repeat SOME, private companies have stepped up - yes, even the stereotypical self-interested business folk are not all emotionless robots. At the moment it appears the developed nations are mainly reaching out to each other right now, which is a promising sign. I hope the EU gets on track and sorts out the allocation of debt sooner rather than later (I think they will). China has actually stepped up too apparently? So I hear from an economists, in terms of stabilising the global economy (I don’t pretend to understand exactly how?).

Of course, they’ll still be political maneuvering but I’m inclined to think the bigger picture of ‘humanity’ has at least shuffled closer to the front of the line.

Isn't that something that we can say after the pandemic when we have a vaccine against it? Second wave was worse with the Spanish flu, you know. — ssu

Of course. That doesn’t mean that the non-crude estimates have fallen as more testing has been done. To repeat, I am saying we’ve overestimated the effects of the virus on society (the opposite is clearly true). I am saying that the crude estimates don’t reflect the actual mortality rate - this is not something that has been widely disputed by the scientific community, but they’re being careful with their words.

I would also caution against direct comparisons to Spanish Influenza. This is a different beast, but still clearly dangerous. Spanish Flu hit younger people mainly - which is generally worse because social contact is much higher among younger people (hence previous the report I briefly mentioned regarding suboptimal use of vaccines in flu season - if you didn’t see the point was that elderly people taking shots for seasonal flu is not very effective at all because it is the younger folk who have more social contact and spread the virus more quickly: likely part of the initial ‘herd immunity’ thinking some countries took).

Note: I meant to type “I” not “a”. To highlight that I’m concerned about that area because it is not something I know a lot about.

And my point has been that actually there isn't much of a trade off as there aren't actually many options in our time. — ssu

It seems so. I’m just thinking ahead and trying to instill a sense of international unity. Like I said several pages back it’s basically a chance for humanity to step up and help the less developed countries. If they don’t then we deserve a second, third and fourth wave of this.

I don’t think a second wave would necessarily be as bad. The Spanish Flu was in a completely different time. That doesn’t mean I don’t think it could be the case, I just think we have enough information and communicative capacity to prepare for a second wave. In that respect helping less developed nations as much as we can would perhaps serve us better than preparing for a second wabe within our own borders whilst the rest of the world suffers.

There is no ‘better’ choice that I can see, only less ‘worse’ choices that are hard to differentiate.

Here’s a site whose articles I often find to be good avenues to start in terms of finding useful underlying information:

Zooming in

When it comes to different countries, those with higher incomes could face a higher death burden than those with lower incomes, the team found. That’s in part because their populations skew older. People above age 65 face a higher risk for severe COVID-19 symptoms, as do those with underlying health conditions like hypertension (SN: 3/20/20).

“Because populations in low-income settings tend to be younger, on average, it’s possible that there may be a lower impact in terms of mortality,” says Virginia Pitzer, an epidemiologist at Yale University who wasn’t involved in the work.

But the estimates don’t take underlying conditions, such as other infectious diseases, into account or lower health-care capacity in these regions, Pitzer says. So the true scope of the COVID-19 pandemic in places like Uganda or Kenya could be higher than projected.

...

But until there’s a vaccine or effective treatment, it may be necessary to keep suppression measures in place to prevent new cases from sparking another wave of infections. Kissler, for instance, led a study posted March 24 at the preprint server medRxiv.org, that found a one-time application of social distancing measures in the United States for four weeks up to 20 weeks may not be enough to slow the virus’ spread. So some form of social distancing strategies might be intermittently necessary into 2022, coupled with lots of diagnostic tests.

“This is not seasonal flu,” Kissler says. “This is sort of the perfect storm, where it has a low enough mortality that it can spread, but a high enough mortality that it causes huge societal disruption.”

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid19-control-measures-impact-global-death-toll?fbclid=IwAR33BF2oBiL-oCJUOqYYub0fTJ-Lqi5jnRnOVK8sqOv82KwQjppORg_1uF0

This is the point you aren't getting. It doesn't matter if the number of deaths are low. The pandemic isn't "over estimated". — ssu

My point was that the mortality rate has been overestimated. It isn’t as high as first expected. That is not to say that most nations were almost completely unprepared.

Note: I did make a horrible error in saying 3-4 times worse as I meant for people below 60! Big mistake. The overall view is probably something like 10-12 times (very roughly!) worse than flu due to the combination of speed of spread and mortality rates.

There is social cohesion. I think it is a good thing.

Yes, but as ever there is the problem of extending natural human empathy further afield. This is a huge test for human empathy because it’s harder and harder not to look at what is happening elsewhere - if people are readily encouraged to seek out reports.

I’m actually optimistic. If I wasn’t I wouldn’t waste my time. The brief report above encapsulates the majority of my concerns.

I think they have believed always that the capitalist system is on the brink of total collapse and NOW is the time for change. And they will be again disappointed when the system makes it's rebound. And even if they get some things of their agenda through, they won't even be happy about it: It's always just a meager start to curtail the evils of capitalism, which doesn't go far enough. — ssu

The economic pack is going to be reshuffled. Economics isn’t something a paid much attention to until a few years ago. There is going to be a new world order, much like the aftermath of WWII, only we’re in a completely different world now - that’s gist of what I’ve heard from various projections (all of which amount to a shrug and best guesses).

To repeat (which I tend to have to do a lot because I’ve said as much several pages ago), I don’t believe there was an overreaction - but at first I thought it might have been like many did. Either way my concern was for how those living hand to mouth could possibly be expected to sit at home (if they had a home). I am not suggesting that everyone go back to work, but I do ask people to ask themselves horrible questions about trade offs today for tomorrow.

If there was a time for people to consider making a choice between two horrific outcomes it is now or never.

Here are some more brief reports about less developed nations:

- This pretty much echos my voiced concerns: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H6iy9GVqs_c

- More on conditions in India: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uNd7KwFpW8A

Nope. I have stated, and now presented data to back up what I have heard, that the mortality estimates have been said for a long time to be difficult to pin down and as time has gone on the mortality rates have been falling where mass testing has been done. The reaction was one of understandable caution because the mortality rates were extremely worrying.

The current 3.4% is almost certainly higher than the true figure. 3.4% - as of today - is NOT a complete picture by any stretch of the imagination. This is because on a global scale the vast majority of people tested are tested because they show symptoms and manage to get tested.

There are estimates and CRUDE estimates.

I’ve been looking at sites like this: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105088/south-korea-coronavirus-mortality-rate-by-age/

Looking at stats where mass testing has been done can help see through some of the uncertainty.

Regardless. My point remains that I am most concerned for developing nations - a vaccine isn’t going to come anywhere near in time to help anyone within the next 12 months at least. It seems reasonable to point out that many are going to suffer and to encourage active concern that extends beyond our own borders as much as possible.

There has been a shift in media attention toward a more global picture over the past month, but that doesn’t mean helping to keep the momentum going is a bad thing.

My mistake. I should’ve been clearer in what I was referring to. Made a mistake! Thanks for pointing this out (see below where I went awry - data is easily accessible)

I’ve seen less a less reason for other people (under 60’s) to be overly concerned as this has wore on. Of course, something that spreads faster than the flu and is 3-4 times more deadly is going to burden healthcare. In a few months this will still likely be doing the rounds in terms of political posturing and media hysteria, but things - other than a hard hit economy - will return to some degree of normality. If some idiots in governments prolong the lockdowns beyond 2-3 months some people around the world will be feeling the economic damage for a couple of decades. — I Like Sushi

It is estimated to be below 1% : https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/fauci-offers-more-conservative-death-rate-academic-article-public-virus

The 0.3-0.4 was for people below 60 yrs of age. Big mistake on my part there! My point in stating that was in line with the idea of funding for elderly whilst everyone else got on with their lives as best as possible - that said many experts believe that the elderly taking flu shots does little to help protect them and that it would be better for younger people to be vaccinated to stop the spread (as they spread it more readily).

As I said, 0.4% is no picnic anyway given the rate this virus spread at.

You base this on what?

It is entirely possible to social distance among the poor as well as for the poor to benefit from social distancing among the well-to-do (such as travel restrictions etc.).

Iran is a poor country that ran the unmitigated spread experiment; there was no economic benefit for bold unmitigated spread and they went into lock-down. — boethius

I base this on common knowledge, personal experience and, knowing that the population density of Iranian cities is minute in comparison to cities in India, Mexico and the Philippines for example.

You are ignoring the fact governments can do something about starvation. — boethius

Actually, that is precisely what I am trying to highlight here. I’m concerned, dare I repeat myself again, that there won’t be enough attention focused on developing countries due to nationalistic interests. Unity and cooperation is a potential path through this - at the moment the haranguing in the EU is the focus fro Europe at the moment. Once that’s sorted out - the quicker the better - then perhaps efforts will be focused elsewhere too.

Your other points about the lack of social institutes is a little out of focus within the scope I am talking about. The social care systems in place in India, the Philippines and Mexico do not come close to the institutions in place in the US and the UK (or anywhere else in the developed world).

You seem more interested in pushing a political agenda. Not really interested in that for this thread. I expect we’d agree and disagree in certain areas regarding how to implement better social institutes - but my focus is not really on any specific country’s internal system.

I’ll move past the sarcasm ...

The first problem in your analysis is that wage slavery (dying within a few weeks without a job) is not a necessary state of affairs. — boethius

You’ll have to explain this further please.

The second problem in your analysis is that you're using numbers of deaths based on social distancing and economic shutdowns. If you want to "continue as normal" for the sake of the economy then you need to estimate deaths and casualties in that scenario. You can not take the benefits of social distancing and then compare that number to some number of knock-on deaths of economic shutdown. — boethius

That isn’t the case, but I can see why you’d think that. I didn’t work backwards with my numbers. I wouldn’t argue that letting the virus rampage across India would kill more if there were no lockdown measures in place. I was pointing out that the knock-on effects could cripple and lill many, many more. I’m well aware that diseases kill more humans than anything else, but many people already starve to death every year and many more will due to the lockdowns for years to come. I hope you agree that this is something that needs some serious consideration as it’s akin to climate change (slow creeping).

An unmitigated spread of the virus in the US, for instance, would result, based on what we know so far, in millions of deaths based on case fatality rate so far and a health system so overwhelmed that essentially no one else can be treated for curable problems.

Nowhere near ‘millions’ of people will die in the US without a lockdown. The mortality rate is now considered to be lower than 1% with current estimates of 0.3-0.4%. Call it 0.5 for the sake of argument and then extrapolate to the population of the US (1.6 million assuming literally everyone gets infected which is highly unlikely).

If your argument is "maybe the virus isn't so bad", which does have a very small but not entirely zero chance, then lock-down is still necessary to establish such a fact — boethius

That isn’t even an argument let alone an argument made by me. The mortality rate is now considered to be below 1% (rough estimates being 0.3-0.4%). The is still BAD because it spreads fast. From the outset a number of experts were saying this was about 10 times worse than the flu - and I agree that the ‘tsunami’ of cases, often reported, is no joke and that without stemming the flow in developed countries the death rate would mirror something like what we’ll see in less developed nations (because they don’t have anything near the kind of resources that North America, China and Europe have at their disposal).

A valiant effort to string together a bunch of maybes to get to the conclusion that "we need to sacrifice people for the economy". If the numbers can't be lined up within the US, then maybe some imagined series of facts can make the numbers lined up elsewhere and every American that is sacrificed saves thousands of others in a far off land. — boethius

If you’re using quotations make sure you refer directly to them. Also, I came to no conclusion and have repeated pretty much the same message - I am concerned that people are not considering the longterm fallout for quiet understandable reasons (if your house is on fire you ain’t gonna help your neighbor with their own personal inferno). I am worried more about once the fire has subsided people will be too preoccupied rebuilding than they will helping put out other fires.

There is no ‘social distancing’ in India among the poor and they have, like many, many less developed nations, a severe lack of beds equipment and facilities. They are more concerned about starving than the virus.

In countries that don't have such strong institutions, such as the US and the UK, there was much more delay as the conceptual and organizational cost is much higher and the practical results much less efficient, but the logic is inescapable which is why Trump and Boris Johnson have come to the same policies as elsewhere (and the delay and mixed-messages simply caused more damage and costs than was necessary). — boethius

The US and UK don’t have ‘strong institutions’. Compared to what countries? I have not said ANYWHERE that the UK or the US shouldn’t go into lockdown. One of my first posts on this thread was to state clearly that it is useful to look at the extremes to understand what options are available.

To repeat. I am not saying developed countries should or shouldn’t stop lockdown. I have said I am concerned that they will be far too cautious in lifting the lockdowns due to media pressures and scaremongering (maybe not in those words though). I’ve also stated that if there are few cases and it’s not dealt with elsewhere it will come back in waves unless strict measures are put in place to inhibit global movement (which will likely hurt the poorest even more).

There is no good option.

However, the conclusion to draw is not that in some alternative fantasy based view of the world that this point of view is only "short term" and there is a more noble "long term" analysis available where saving people's lives now is a selfish thing and just letting the virus take it's course to maintain market based distribution of resources would be the altruistic thing ultimately saving more peoples lives. — boethius

Again, never said this. Haven’t come to a steadfast conclusion. I was pointing out something horrible though so I perfectly understand the venom in your tone. I have dealt with such moral hypotheticals before and I am well aware that some people refuse to digest questions that put them in a position of two terrible choices (they tend to say it’s unrealistic or change the parameters so as not to have to deal with the horrific problem posed).

One could say the virus has been overestimated, but such considerations are relative to the mood of the population, how much preserving life, or economic circumstances are valued by the population. — Punshhh

Again, my constant concern is precisely framing the situation as a money versus life choice. The simple fact is that economics is about the distribution of resources. Take away people’s ability to access resources and they will die.

Literally millions of people around the world living hand to mouth have lost all sources of income. This means they cannot afford to feed themselves or their children. This also means if they are lucky enough not to die of starvation, and remain healthy enough to work once restrictions are lifted, then the wealthy people lining in relative comfort will have less disposable income with which to pay them leaving them in a much worse position than they were already in.

If I sound callous sometimes, forgive me. I’m simply not inclined to think short term about these things. Such thinking can look like a lack of apathy, I’m just trying to approach this problem in as measured a manner as I can and highlight possible future traumas - foresight would’ve prevented a prolonged lockdown if the developed world had made relatively minimalistic preparation after all.

Let’s look at India as an example. Already, over 2.5 million people die of hunger in India every year. Let us say that at a 1% fatality rate and half the population infected we’ll see 6.5 million die on top of that. If we’re to imagine something like minimal lockdown then that would undoubtedly up the numbers to something like 10 million at 80% of population infected (rough total of virus deaths and hunger deaths at 12.5 million for the year and then a return to roughly 2.5 million deaths from hunger the follow year/s). The other, if we assume double the fatality due to hunger, would give us roughly 11.5 million deaths, and in the following years an almost certain increase in hunger deaths due to the economic downturn.

I am not saying one is better than the other, but I am worried about that people aren’t considering the long term fallout outside their own borders. It’s a horrible thing to say but saving 100,000 lives in one part of the world could lead to an extra 1,000,000 dying elsewhere.

I think it’s easy not to think about this as it serves us to only take limited responsibility. I’m just saying if an comprehensive analysis is done and turns out that different actions could’ve saved literally millions of lives we can say with false comfort ‘maybe’ because it would cover up the horror of understanding that maybe for every one of ‘our own people’ we saved it led to the deaths of one thousand ‘others’.

In developed countries there is little to nothing to complain about other than an instilled ignorance as to how other people around the globe struggle to live. The outrage of thousands of people dying to a force of nature as opposed to 9 million people starving to death every year around the world is something that it would pay us well as a community of creatures to pay more attention to - as hard as it is to look at let alone give serious thought to.

This is a time for humanity to look beyond their immediate neighborhood. Most of the reporting I’ve seen on this was self obsessed drivel to begin with. Thankfully many reports have now started to view this on a global scale rather than as a political agenda - some governments have reached out to each other and their is promise. Still many people are crying out about the rich from their homes like they are some destitute individual suffering under the burden of tyrannical oppression while others around the world haven’t eaten for days and have no idea how they can find food because there is literally no jobs, food or money available to them in the foreseeable future.

Anyway, got that off my chest! Haha!

Sorry, I should’ve been clearer. I was talking about ALL deaths.

I know. That’s why I said ‘burden healthcare’.

My point remains. It looks like the virus has been over estimated. The only serious problem it poses is keeping the elderly safe and managing healthcare (not a serious issue for developed countries). Doctors and nurses working 12+ hour shifts isn’t exactly abnormal. Maybe it’s just that other people didn’t realise the hours they worked until now?

I don’t for a second think there are any easy decisions. The true test comes when poorer nations ask for support over the coming decade/s.

Politically I find it disconcerting that some people are treating it like boon for socialism and almost hoping for a huge prolonged economic down turn - showing no concern for the poorest people around the globe as their more interested in their ideological revolution.

Very little that I’ve seen suggests this has been handled well. A lot has been learned I hope. Next time something like this happens I imagine they’ll be vastly more prepared (akin to countries in Asia). The reaction in China was understandable but seemingly disproportionate, as they had little to no idea what they were up against. It also helps that the culture in asia is better suited to dealing with a national crisis like this.

Another worry is, humans being humans, in 5-6 months people will have pretty much forgotten about this, or that any mention of a possible reoccurrence will cause needless panic and disruption.

The mortality rate is falling as more research is done. It looks like this is x3-4 more deadly than the flu. The major concern is keeping the elderly protected.

I’ve seen less a less reason for other people (under 60’s) to be overly concerned as this has wore on. Of course, something that spreads faster than the flu and is 3-4 times more deadly is going to burden healthcare. In a few months this will still likely be doing the rounds in terms of political posturing and media hysteria, but things - other than a hard hit economy - will return to some degree of normality. If some idiots in governments prolong the lockdowns beyond 2-3 months some people around the world will be feeling the economic damage for a couple of decades.

That’s my current view of the situation. Any new outbreaks of this strain will be more readily dealt with two, but there could be glitches as a worldwide vaccine won’t likely cone into play for 2 yrs.

Note: I’m still curious to see the figures for deaths in the UK these past two weeks (will be released on April 14).

It doesn’t matter what I have in mind. The issue is that countries are interconnected economically. Once the bigger players lockdown the rest of the world has little to no choice in the matter - even if the fallout for them is potentially more damaging and long lasting.

I’m saying anything conclusively. My concern is about focusing on the short term (months) compared to long term effects (years, perhaps even decades).

Some countries surely will have accurate statistics. Others not. And what's the time frame? Viruses have all the time in the World. If someone dies of Covid-19 in 2023, will that person count? — ssu

Hyperbolic statements don’t really help. To imply I don’t care about people dying, subtle or otherwise, is unhelpful if you wish to discuss this subject in a balanced manner.

Sometimes death rates vary +/- 5000 from month to month. I don’t see a huge outpouring of national mourning when this happens - perhaps because it isn’t reported. Yes, there are more disease related deaths than usual due to covid. I’m questioning whether or not the reaction to this event is proportionate to the problem.

I’m inclined to er on the side of caution, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to put aside all doubt and just listen to what suits my sense of personal responsibility.

The point remains. They do have a pretty good understanding of flu outbreaks - that was not meant to undermine whatever your original point was. It was just a little nudge to prevent opinion over ruling facts. I have opinions about this subject and I’m sure I’ll say things that are less than accurate. I hope others will point out when I do so, and/or question what I say rather than guess why I’m saying it.

Note: It isn’t unusual for deaths to vary by a few thousand a month - in December and January the difference can be as much as 10,000 from one year to the next.

The ‘conservative’ reactions may have just caused disruption that will linger for decades in developing countries increasing infant mortality, malnutrition, unemployment and homelessness.

This has been my concern since the beginning and the longer this ‘lockdown’ continuing the worse things will be. The mortality rate of covid is pretty much seen as being under 1% now. I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out it is as low as 0.3%.

A degree of uncertainty is not the same as saying there is no accuracy. That is what I was pointing out.

I’m still waiting on the figures for deaths in UK from all causes to compare to last year.

That the numbers are estimates is quite common in the cases epidemics and pandemic. The number of soldiers killed in a small war can be far more accurate, in epidemics it never has been. — ssu

Not actually true: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/annual-flu-reports

That is a pretty comprehensive report.

I’m still not convinced shutting down the world’s economy is a reasonable response (at least not for developing countries).

Camus’ ‘The Plague’ may be of interest here.

In brief : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vSYPwX4NPg4

No.

They can act in a manner that would allow them the option to change their view on their own. No one, and I mean NO ONE, is willing to change their mind unless they feel they made the choice.

People can be manipulated though, but I assumed you wasn’t talking about that.

Bye

If you haven’t got the intelligence to figure out that calling Covid the ‘Chinese Virus’ is less than acceptable so be it. I assumed you just slipped up and wasn’t thinking, maybe you’re just idiot. Nothing wrong with that, everyone’s an idiot sometimes.

I just looked back to page 75 and see nothing (other than the crass ‘China virus’ comment) that warrants this vitriolic attack.

I did see Baden being Baden - avoiding answering questions, trying to befuddle and doing their best to infuriate others in order to turn around and accuse them of childish behavior.

Note: Someone mocking Trump’s ability to count probably isn’t all that enamored by him. Did you spot Nobeer making that remark?

Frankly I find it appalling that a number of people stuck at home may actually think ‘maybe a philosophy forum could inform me a little - instead they find the usual Trumpfest (be it pro or con). Guys! The world doesn’t really give a fuck at the moment so take it to the dedicated Trump thread perhaps?

Yeah, ‘China virus’ doesn’t really help the discussion. Especially when discussing with some of the folks in this forum.

I’ve no idea why you’re being treated like a villain either (other than the above ‘China virus’ remark - kind of silly in hindsight I’m sure you’ll admit?).

I assume they think you’re an easy target. It’s up to you to show otherwise.

Tip: If you see emotions spilling over the best advice I can give to you is go silent and ignore the bait - people don’t like being wrong and to others it is quite clear what is over emotional drivel and ranting.

Note: Mods here are certainly not all cut from the same cloth! Some are more belligerent than other though depending on how the wind blows - but hey, who isn’t? :)

The harder the lesson the better the chance of using these mistakes to stop worse things from happening.

You can guarantee governments are mostly guessing and relying on experts in the field. The end result will be the best experts in the field/s will hopefully shine through and help governments decide how best to mitigate the problem/s.

International communication is an essential part fo this as far as I can see. Luckily scientists are very much about the science more than the politics so are more likely to show no concern for political/geographical boundaries.

Note: y’know, silver linings and all that :)

I don’t think a lot of people understand that exactly the same situations in two different countries can have almost polar outcomes. This is the nature of nature. We can at least push and pull the curves around to a certain degree, but there is quite a large element of chance involved

See here (again): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gxAaO2rsdIs

50,000 a year die like that in the US; the ‘most advanced’ country in the world. Admittedly, that figure tripling is no joke. Neither is 9 million people a year starving to death, but that is a much better figure than several years ago.

We’re in danger of seeing the developing world falling even further behind the rest of the world. A single country’s concerns right now isn’t my primary focus. If it’s yours, that’s great! I’m saying it should or shouldn’t be. Just explaining where my words are coming from.

You really should be entertaining hypotheticals. If there was a time it’s now.

100,000 is an extremely low figure for a country like the US whose medical system is extremely disjointed and given the freedom of movement people have.

I imagine NOS is crying out about governmental control inhibiting citizen rights? It’s good to have someone reminding us of this. For the developing world it is certainly something worth keeping an eye on - see Hungary.

Overall I think the situation looks under control at present, but we shouldn’t just let new laws and legislation creep in without questioning and combatting them to some degree. This point might grow more relevant as the strain shows over the coming months.

The choice between stopping the virus or protecting the economy is a false choice. If the virus is not stopped, then health systems will be overwhelmed, the dead bodies will pile up, and economies will be devastated anyway. — Andrew M

For the US, yes. For less developed countries? I’m far from convinced because they lack the basic infrastructures to police this or the beds, staff and equipment to treat the waves of patients.

I have no serious concerns for developed countries other than the possibility of slow creeping authoritarianism - Hungary being the first real flash of that.

It seems to me the very same people who bemoan the effects of western nations on poorer nation turn out to be the very same folks who, when it cones down to it, care only for their own national interests.

Some basics stats and estimates recently.

It’s about x10 as contagious with an incubation period that is around x5-10 as long AND there is no immunity.

When they say 1-3% they tend to expect 2%, and when they say 20-50% they tend to mean 35%. You can go and do the math for 2% mortality rate with 35% infected.

There is certainly a degree of hysteria. Such is the internet!

It’s a serious condition though, and not to be take lightly. I think lockdown policies for some countries could be far more damaging than letting the virus do its thing - see above.

What bothers me is how developing countries are attempting to react like other developed nations when they quite clearly don’t have the economic clout to do so and run the horrible risk of taking on two terrible paths at once instead of one.

Chaos? It’s insignificant compared to what is happening, and is going to happen, elsewhere in the world.

A few hundred thousand, perhaps a couple of million, dying in the developed world is barely worth mentioning when we dare turn our eyes to the ensuing horror of the situation in India.

A rough estimate of 50% of the population infected and a 2% mortality rate would mean 10-15 million dead. Considering they don’t have the facilities or infrastructure to control anything much pretty much everyone is likely to be infected and mortality rate at least double that. But that is not all, when it comes to income and starvation we’re essentially witnessing what could be the most horrific loss of life unless the developed world does step in now (would still likely be horrific, but maybe they could reduce the toll).

Without any serious aid or help it’s likely we could see 30+ million dying in India due to a combination of starvation and a lack of means to stop the disease ripping through the country like wildfire.

Look at this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fgYxy3Py6V0

Modern mythos has moved to the silver screen from comics. Marvel is basically a modern mash up of long running representations of the human psyche.