The Coronavirus

[Boges]

2 hours ago, Shady said:

The only cavalier attitude is the attitude from people that don't mind destroying the livelihoods of tens of millions of people.  Like has been said a million times.  High risk people should continue to quarantine.  The rest of us can practice mitigation and social distancing.  Why is this still so bloody hard for people to comprehend?

What about people who live and/or interact with high-risk people? 

How do you enforce a quarantine on High-Risk people? How do you establish who's high risk beyond age? Are you locked in your home if you have asthma? 

In this new world, you'll get carded for being too old, and not under age? 

Edited April 23, 2020 by Boges

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

What about people who live and/or interact with high-risk people? 

How do you enforce a quarantine on High-Risk people? How do you establish who's high risk beyond age? Are you locked in your home if you have asthma? 

In this new world, you'll get carded for being too old, and not under age? 

Just leaving the economy shut down isn't an option, just like going full bore through covid isn't an option.

At some point a change has to occur, because the shutdown can't go on indefinitely. Period.

The "not until there's a vaccine" option is incredibly stupid, and impossible. That could be 6 months. A year. And even at that point, it's not unheard of for there to be a problem with a vaccine that results in death. Remember how "HCQ IS THE DEVIL BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME SIDE EFFECTS!!!! KILL ANYONE WHO SAYS HCQ!!!!!! is totally a thing right now? Vaccines are no different. People actually die from them. 

This isn't a partisan issue, it's an adult issue. Opening the economy is something that just has to happen, and it's time to start planning to do it in the safest, most effective way possible. 

[Boges]

12 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Just leaving the economy shut down isn't an option, just like going full bore through covid isn't an option.

At some point a change has to occur, because the shutdown can't go on indefinitely. Period.

The "not until there's a vaccine" option is incredibly stupid, and impossible. That could be 6 months. A year. And even at that point, it's not unheard of for there to be a problem with a vaccine that results in death. Remember how "HCQ IS THE DEVIL BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME SIDE EFFECTS!!!! KILL ANYONE WHO SAYS HCQ!!!!!! is totally a thing right now? Vaccines are no different. People actually die from them. 

This isn't a partisan issue, it's an adult issue. Opening the economy is something that just has to happen, and it's time to start planning to do it in the safest, most effective way possible. 

I think most governments are planning what to do. 

But it should be done in a responsible and logical way. 

Not like in Georgia where the economy is opening when cases are actually spiking. 

[WestCanMan]

Just now, Boges said:

I think most governments are planning what to do. 

But it should be done in a responsible and logical way. 

Not like in Georgia where the economy is opening when cases are actually spiking. 

Following Georgia's lead is rarely the best option lol. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

Well, Holy God, that strange orange man is at it again. I think I’ll give the disinfectant injections a skip for now, thanks. 

Quote

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-suggests-injection-disinfectant-beat-coronavirus-clean-lungs-n1191216

 

Edited April 24, 2020 by SpankyMcFarland

[Zeitgeist]

7 hours ago, Boges said:

What about people who live and/or interact with high-risk people? 

How do you enforce a quarantine on High-Risk people? How do you establish who's high risk beyond age? Are you locked in your home if you have asthma? 

In this new world, you'll get carded for being too old, and not under age? 

It should be a personal choice.  If the vulnerable want to roll the dice on their health and get out there in the public sphere, that's a choice they can make.  Maybe that sounds radical, but is it any worse or even as sketchy as assisted suicide and right to die legislation?  I think we have to watch that this public health crisis doesn't become an excuse to keep everyone under house arrest in the name of safety.  That's slavery to a puritanical health code.  Within the next several weeks we will have to start lightening the restrictions.  Maybe it starts with the immune and those who test negative to carrying the virus who choose to participate.  The vulnerable stay at home by choice.  Those with the virus or who appear symptomatic are in quarantine.  When a new case emerges in the public sphere there is immediate self-isolation and contact tracing.  When the immune and those who test negative do return to work, there will be smaller groupings.  Restaurants, gyms, and just about everything else can come back with smaller capacities and stricter public hygiene.  At that point we monitor the system and manage the levels of new cases to ensure the health care system isn't overwhelmed until we find effective treatments or a vaccine. 

It's unhealthy for people to live in isolation like this.  It's also unsustainable for governments to backstop what is essentially economic inactivity.  We need to watch what happens in the jurisdictions that open up first in the coming weeks.  We already have some examples to consider, such as Sweden, Germany, and Denmark.  We have to be realistic about what our culture, medical system, and resources can handle, in terms of PPE, testing, surveillance, public spending, and other inputs.  It isn't a fair trade to indefinitely turn ourselves over to totalitarian surveillance and a small government funded paycheck in exchange for more health and safety, not if we can find a reasonable middle ground.  We can be careful and accept a certain amount of risk.  If some people choose not to take that risk who are able-bodied and don't fall into the elderly or vulnerable category, perhaps that is a choice those people can make, but the government funding of that option can only reach so far, in the end.  Otherwise we surrender a vast part of human agency and freedom for subsistence living in a lonely prison.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

If some people choose not to take that risk who are able-bodied and don't fall into the elderly or vulnerable category, perhaps that is a choice those people can make, but the government funding of that option can only reach so far, in the end.  Otherwise we surrender a vast part of human agency and freedom for subsistence living in a lonely prison.

What about those for whom it may take years to return to work if ever?  There is a real possibility that this crisis will trigger the emergence of more automation more online shopping far fewer brick and mortar stores offering goods and especially services. Between this and other industries that will likely be forever altered there could be millions of able bodied people for whom no work exists.

Volunteers contribute 2.6% to Canada's economic GDP, some $55 billion or the equivalent of Canada's education workforce per year (Source).  If society insists on maintaining a moral imperative that people earn their keep then it'll be a little unconscionable for that society to expect it can continue benefiting from so much free labour.  A system of accounting for the value of a volunteer's labour should form the basis of a decent guaranteed living wage for workers who can continue to add value to society in any way they can want to or is needed.

Another area in which the value of a 'volunteers' hard days work would be realized is to recognize the value and importance of natural capital to our economy and invest in provincial environmental work forces similar to infrastructure works departments.  These could perform all kinds of needed things such as restoring fish habitat and other ecosystems impacted by development and industry, silviculture, dealing with tons of plastics washing ashore and removing old derelict vessels. Something like Katimavik but more...industrial.  I worked for six years at restoring watersheds damaged by logging and take my word for it putting a watershed back together again was as hard a job as logging it was in the first place. Cleaning up old oil wells and restoring these sites back to nature is another.  Much of this sort of work depended on volunteers in the past but I doubt much of it's going to get done for free in the future.

I'm not just talking about workfare I'm talking about real labour that needs to be given its due.  The ROE will be a increase in the value of Canada's natural capital while maintaining the social capital of a nation that values self-esteem and recognizing that a hard's days work should still count for something. 

Edited April 24, 2020 by eyeball

[Zeitgeist]

29 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What about those for whom it may take years to return to work if ever?  There is a real possibility that this crisis will trigger the emergence of more automation more online shopping far fewer brick and mortar stores offering goods and especially services. Between this and other industries that will likely be forever altered there could be millions of able bodied people for whom no work exists.

Volunteers contribute 2.6% to Canada's economic GDP, some $55 billion or the equivalent of Canada's education workforce (Source).  If society insists on maintaining a moral imperative that people earn their keep then it'll be a a little unconscionable for that society to expect in can continue benefiting from so much free labour.  A system of accounting for the value of a volunteer's labour should form the basis of a decent guaranteed living wage for workers who can continue to add value to society in any way they can want to or is needed.

Another area in which the value of a 'volunteers' hard days work would be realized is to recognize the value and importance of natural capital to our economy and invest in provincial environmental work forces similar to infrastructure works departments.  These could perform all kinds of needed things such as restoring fish habitat and other ecosystems impacted by development and industry, silviculture, dealing with tons of plastics washing ashore and removing old derelict vessels. Something like Katimavik but more...industrial.  I worked for six years at restoring watersheds damaged by logging and take my word for it putting a watershed back together again was as hard a job as logging it was in the first place. Cleaning up old oil wells and restoring these sites back to nature is another.  Much of this sort of work depended on volunteers in the past but I doubt much of it's going to get done for free in the future.

I'm not just talking about workfare I'm talking about real labour that needs to be given its due.

Well you're talking about payment for labour, which isn't volunteer, obviously.  I'm not against Universal Basic Income, as long as it doesn't incentivize disengagement from work by leaving the burden of production on the shoulders of "essential workers".  We have to make sure that effort is rewarded.  Also, it's dangerous to the healthy competition of the marketplace that meets market demand by providing better and more varied goods and services, if the state becomes the provider of the marketplace through a kind of centrally-planned estimation of what people need and want.  Even Lenin understood that a communist society couldn't function without some capitalism at the local level.  Otherwise we end up with two or three types of candy, a few types of bread, a few types of automobile, etc.  All of it would be lackluster, which is pretty much the Soviet Union. 

We basically need capitalism with a floor that prevents the collapse of essential goods, services, supply chains, health, education, and all the basic institutions, so that if a pandemic, natural disaster, or some other cataclysm occurs, resilience is built into the system.  It will likely become a more local and self-sufficient economy, but that kind of society may not be as desirable as the one we had.  That's the scary part of what we're experiencing, the possibility that our new normal will be a downgrade in living standards, freedoms, and other desirable aspects of our previous way of life.  That's always been the problem with taking serious measures to fight climate change, that the cure is worse than the disease.

Edited April 24, 2020 by Zeitgeist

[eyeball]

22 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Well you're talking about payment for labour, which isn't volunteer, obviously. re 

Not anymore no.

Quote

We basically need capitalism with a floor that prevents the collapse of essential goods, services, supply chains, health, education, and all the basic institutions, so that if a pandemic, natural disaster, or some other cataclysm occurs, resilience is built into the system.

Of course we do but we also need natural and social capital just as much.

Quote

It will likely become a more local and self-sufficient economy, but that kind of society may not be as desirable as the one we had.

It'll be better than no society at all.

Quote

That's the scary part of what we're experiencing, the possibility that our new normal will be a downgrade in living standards, freedoms, and other desirable aspects of our previous standard of living.  That's always been the problem with taking serious measures to fight climate change, that the cure is worse than the disease.

I can see why some people regard the virus as the cure but seriously the climate action fearmongers of the church of economic doom imagned a lot worse than what we're seeing now don't you think?  They were preaching we'd be hunting and gathering for our livelihoods and old age would be around 33.  This is nothing but now that we're here the last thing we should be planning for is a return to life the way it was in the Before Times.  Those days are gone forever and trying to force a return to them will probably leave us hunting and gathering and living to the ripe old age of 33 even sooner.

Edited April 24, 2020 by eyeball

[New World Disorder]

22 hours ago, Shady said:

In 2000, traffic fatalities were 9.5 per 100,000.  Nobody cared, life went on.

Viruses are contagious. Car accidents are not. That is a difference I think people need to understand.

[Zeitgeist]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

Not anymore no.

Of course we do but we also need natural and social capital just as much.

It'll be better than no society at all.

I can see why some people regard the virus as the cure but seriously the climate action fearmongers of the church of economic doom imagned a lot worse than what we're seeing now don't you think?  They were preaching we'd be hunting and gathering for our livelihoods and old age would be around 33.  This is nothing but now that we're here the last thing we should be planning for is a return to life the way it was in the Before Times.  Those days are gone forever and trying to force a return to them will probably leave us hunting and gathering and living to the ripe old age of 33 even sooner.

Well it’s arguable that the real measures needed to fight climate change would have been hard to sustain.  A coordinated approach with other countries makes the burden easier to bear, which is why the response to the virus should be coordinated.  Sharing of solutions and resources for the things like developing a vaccine has never been so important.  

[Shady]

21 minutes ago, New World Disorder said:

Viruses are contagious. Car accidents are not. That is a difference I think people need to understand.

But casualties are almost as high.  Regardless, that's why mitigation and social distancing are still important when re-opening the economy.  High risk people can still remain in quarantine.

[Shady]

Judging by the latest anti-body tests, everything we've been told about models, infection rates, fatality rates and recovery has been completely inaccurate.  This inaccurate information was what was used to justify policy shutting down the economy.

[Shady]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

Not anymore no.

Of course we do but we also need natural and social capital just as much.

It'll be better than no society at all.

I can see why some people regard the virus as the cure but seriously the climate action fearmongers of the church of economic doom imagned a lot worse than what we're seeing now don't you think?  They were preaching we'd be hunting and gathering for our livelihoods and old age would be around 33.  This is nothing but now that we're here the last thing we should be planning for is a return to life the way it was in the Before Times.  Those days are gone forever and trying to force a return to them will probably leave us hunting and gathering and living to the ripe old age of 33 even sooner.

Complete and utter nonsense.  We haven't begun to feel the pain of this economic shut down.  We haven't seen anything, because everyone's been isolated in their homes.  You'll see what 40% unemployment looks like in a couple of more months if this continues, and it's not going to be very pretty at all.  Thankfully, it looks like things will return to relatively normal in a short period of time.  But with continued practicing of mitigation and some social distancing.

[eyeball]

46 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Well it’s arguable that the real measures needed to fight climate change would have been hard to sustain.  A coordinated approach with other countries makes the burden easier to bear, which is why the response to the virus should be coordinated.  Sharing of solutions and resources for the things like developing a vaccine has never been so important.  

The greatest difficulty being our willingness to coordinate and cooperate.  This virus has underscored how unimportantly we actually treat the need for sharing and it's probably also made it clear that climate action measures will likely be impossible without an application of some sort of force. Embargos, sanctions, tariffs and certainly a harder edge to activism.  I just don't see any other way around it.

[SpankyMcFarland]

1 hour ago, Shady said:

But casualties are almost as high.  Regardless, that's why mitigation and social distancing are still important when re-opening the economy.  High risk people can still remain in quarantine.

Car crash numbers are fairly static - far too high, given what we know about them already. They don’t threaten to overwhelm our hospitals and they don’t injure hospital staff. 

[Shady]

6 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Car crash numbers are fairly static - far too high, given what we know about them already. They don’t threaten to overwhelm our hospitals and they don’t injure hospital staff. 

Yes, that’s why I said mitigation and social distancing is important.

[SpankyMcFarland]

We’re going to come out of lockdown. The supporters for an immediate transition should at least acknowledge the potential risks to older people who live with younger working relatives. Let’s be honest here - physical separation in a household is rarely perfect. I see even Singapore is struggling with a second wave now:

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-singapore-lost-control-second-wave-2020-4#after-it-recorded-its-first-case-on-january-23-which-came-after-a-man-from-wuhan-traveled-to-singapore-the-country-reacted-quickly-and-aggressively-2

This seems to be coming from migrant worker dormitories. Any vulnerability will be found by the virus. There will be costs and benefits to opening up. 

Edited April 24, 2020 by SpankyMcFarland

[eyeball]

22 minutes ago, Shady said:

Complete and utter nonsense.  We haven't begun to feel the pain of this economic shut down.  We haven't seen anything, because everyone's been isolated in their homes.  You'll see what 40% unemployment looks like in a couple of more months if this continues, and it's not going to be very pretty at all. 

I've probably seen pretty close to 40% unemployment before right here in my home town and region and no it wasn't pretty at all.  We got over it though.

Quote

Thankfully, it looks like things will return to relatively normal in a short period of time.  But with continued practicing of mitigation and some social distancing.

No Shady things will not be going back to normal. They changed here forever too. The hardest thing was the existential angst makes you stronger though. Sharing the experience with others in the same boat makes it easier.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Shady said:

Yes, that’s why I said mitigation and social distancing is important.

They say keeping our distance from one another on the highway is important too but look at the carnage you pointed out.

There is a certain cavalier attitude towards death being rubbed in societies nose that is changing our natures.  People are being reminded why the phrase there's more to life than money is important and that's a process that will only be hastened with each utterance of the notion "it's just a flue" or "millions of people die all the time".  Sure, but people don't want to die alone suffocating and isolated from family members that are too afraid to even gather close enough to comfort them.

Its like the way a parade of body bags from a dubious war that pass by on TV day after week after month.  The doubt is what stands out most and makes people think.

Edited April 24, 2020 by eyeball

[Shady]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

They say keeping our distance from one another on the highway is important too but look at the carnage you pointed out.

There is a certain cavalier attitude towards death being rubbed in societies nose that is changing our natures.  People are being reminded why the phrase there's more to life than money is important and that's a process that will only be hastened with each utterance of the notion "it's just a flue" or "millions of people die all the time".  Sure, but people don't want to die alone suffocating and isolated from family members that are too afraid to even gather close enough to comfort them.

Its like the way body bags from a dubious war that pile up on TV day after week after month.  The dubiousness is what stands out and makes people think.

I agree that people don't want to die like that.  That's why high risk people should stay quarantined.  The rest of us can practice mitigation and social distancing.  Using masks, gloves, sanitizer, washing hands, etc.

[Boges]

1 minute ago, Shady said:

I agree that people don't want to die like that.  That's why high risk people should stay quarantined.  The rest of us can practice mitigation and social distancing.  Using masks, gloves, sanitizer, washing hands, etc.

You still haven't mentioned how quarantine "high risk" people will be enforced and who exactly counts as high risk. 

[bush_cheney2004]

26 minutes ago, Boges said:

You still haven't mentioned how quarantine "high risk" people will be enforced and who exactly counts as high risk. 

 

Some residents are at high risk just by virtue of being in understaffed and poor condition long term care facilities.    COVID19 has exposed all the dirty little secrets of these places that were there before, only worse now.   

[Boges]

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Some residents are at high risk just by virtue of being in understaffed and poor condition long term care facilities.    COVID19 has exposed all the dirty little secrets of these places that were there before, only worse now.   

It's assumed people in Homes are High Risk. They're literally going there to eventually die. 

[Shady]

30 minutes ago, Boges said:

You still haven't mentioned how quarantine "high risk" people will be enforced and who exactly counts as high risk. 

Who's enforcing quarantines now?  I'd expect anyone that's high risk, would want to self-quarantine.  If they won't, than they're risking their life.  I'd also expect there to be some kind of government policy directed towards nursing homes and retirement homes though.