Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[brieverton]

People who discuss politics with me know I'm as statist. I think that the state should be involved more not less in people's lives. I believe it's the only way of tethering the excesses of the so called "free' market, which, untethered, can destroy people and their communities through naked self interest.

Here's my question: under these extraordinary circumstances, wouldn't you rather we had a strong state laying down some potentially unpopular decisions as a precaution to save lives than what we have right now: a government trying to stand back from making serious decisions?

One thing that should already be in place, for example, is a ban on large gatherings / assemblies. Yes, and that means football matches too. We need to see a 3 day week announced to cut down on contact at all larger units of production - with full pay. We need to see an end to people hoarding food and hygienic products and medicines (we all know that's going on).

To my mind, we have a government failing to take command. 'Wash your hands to the tune of 'God Save the Queen'" is no replacement for a sensible policy on public assembly, employment practices and commercial activity.

So, more intervention and control - thoughts?

I am not statist to the same degree but agree wholeheartedly that a centralised approach that is even dictatorial in some aspects is better suited to the management of a situation as potentially serious as this may turn out to be.

I heard a debate on the radio this morning between one advocate of such an approach and another who was saying it's unnecessary and much too early to be imposing limitations and controls on large public gatherings and events. The whole "containment" vs "mitigation" argument. Prevention and limitation seem not to be at the forefront of policy currently which I find utterly astonishing.

Individuals, communities, and organisations being left to their own devices with pithy "advice" is not near enough with the stage this is now at. There is also the psychological aspect to consider, I believe the majority of people would be more re-assured if stringent measures were being taken, which would help to limit growing levels of unease and anxiety, and this is whilst confimed cases are still miniscule.

 

[-Rob-]

.,. and it’s 3.2% worldwide

So where did the 10% come from? Are we making up facts to prove a point?

 

[LinekersLegs]

So where did the 10% come from? Are we making up facts to prove a point?

At the bottom of Page 12

https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-china-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf

 

[-Rob-]

At the bottom of Page 12

https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-china-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf

Ahhhh what a shock, people over 80 and people that already have life threatening illnesses are more likely to die.

It still doesn't make the overall mortality rate anywhere near 10%

 

[tsubaki]

So where did the 10% come from? Are we making up facts to prove a point?

er - you said "This isn't the plague, it's a relatively minor illness for 99% of the people that catch it", so please lets not start with the claims about people making up facts

Ahhhh what a shock, people over 80 and people that already have life threatening illnesses are more likely to die.

... I know, hence why I said "depending on underlying health the death rate can be above 10% with severe illness being at least as likely"

 

[LinekersLegs]

9 New Cases of Coronavirus in N.Y., All Connected to Westchester Man (Published 2020)

New Jersey announces its first case, and officials in both states scramble to trace the spread of the virus.

www.nytimes.com

You kinda expect the family transmission but truly sucks for that helpful neighbor.

 

[roydo]

You kinda expect the family transmission but truly sucks for that helpful neighbor.

It is, and I have been musing this today. Like, if I was still working, its not inconceivable that my first customer had recently returned from Italy after the half term. Uses my gizmo to sign for their parcel, and bingo, I now have an infected gizmo. Possibly anyrate.

4 hours later and about 80 deliveries later, who knows who I could have passed it on to. You just take human interaction totally for granted.

 

[davek]

Were getting mired in the political nit picking here.
I've already stated that there is no one size fits all correct response and that I wouldnt trust Any Govt to get it right

It's not nitpicking, these are crucial distinctions that dictate how a threat is faced.

 

[roydo]

It's not nitpicking, these are crucial distinctions that dictate how a threat is faced.

I think bringing up the 1939 government in a thread about a virus could be considered nit picking. I get your central point, but we aint having an election any time soon, so we have what we have.

 

[tsubaki]

I am not statist to the same degree but agree wholeheartedly that a centralised approach that is even dictatorial in some aspects is better suited to the management of a situation as potentially serious as this may turn out to be.

I heard a debate on the radio this morning between one advocate of such an approach and another who was saying it's unnecessary and much too early to be imposing limitations and controls on large public gatherings and events. The whole "containment" vs "mitigation" argument. Prevention and limitation seem not to be at the forefront of policy currently which I find utterly astonishing.

Individuals, communities, and organisations being left to their own devices with pithy "advice" is not near enough with the stage this is now at. There is also the psychological aspect to consider, I believe the majority of people would be more re-assured if stringent measures were being taken, which would help to limit growing levels of unease and anxiety, and this is whilst confimed cases are still miniscule.

It can be, but it all depends on the quality of the statist approach - when they get it wrong, it tends to be very wrong and for a very large number of people.

Since Dave mentioned the National Government its perhaps worth pointing out that whilst it worked in some areas, in others it was absolutely terrible and ended up costing vast sums of money, tens of thousands of lives and put us at greater risk of losing the war. Look at what Bomber Command was made to do between 1939 and early 1942, for example

 

[LinekersLegs]

It is, and I have been musing this today. Like, if I was still working, its not inconceivable that my first customer had recently returned from Italy after the half term. Uses my gizmo to sign for their parcel, and bingo, I now have an infected gizmo. Possibly anyrate.

4 hours later and about 80 deliveries later, who knows who I could have passed it on to. You just take human interaction totally for granted.

The weird thing (to me at any rate, perhaps to those with more knowledge it is standard) is the transmission seems to vary a lot - most of the China cases even in healthcare workers the WHO said were from infection in v close family settings. Yet you get this poor neighbor or ones like the S Korean church whose source seems to be a single woman yet which account for a huge percentage of their cases.

 

[davek]

I think bringing up the 1939 government in a thread about a virus could be considered nit picking. I get your central point, but we aint having an election any time soon, so we have what we have.

The 1939 government is by way of an example of different approaches to governing a crisis. How can that be nitpicking?

There's only two ways of dealing with a threat: head on and with co-ordination from a centralised locus of power; or an ad hoc approach that allows the government to suggest ways forward that may or may not be adhered to. One subsumes the interests of the individual for a greater common good, the other stands up for the right of the individual to do their own thing.

I know what one I think is the best option.

 

[davek]

It can be, but it all depends on the quality of the statist approach - when they get it wrong, it tends to be very wrong and for a very large number of people.

Since Dave mentioned the National Government its perhaps worth pointing out that whilst it worked in some areas, in others it was absolutely terrible and ended up costing vast sums of money, tens of thousands of lives and put us at greater risk of losing the war. Look at what Bomber Command was made to do between 1939 and early 1942, for example

...but what was the outcome? Success or failure?

 

[Goat]

This does now indeed seem a little more dangerous than the flu.

 

[davek]

I am not statist to the same degree but agree wholeheartedly that a centralised approach that is even dictatorial in some aspects is better suited to the management of a situation as potentially serious as this may turn out to be.

I heard a debate on the radio this morning between one advocate of such an approach and another who was saying it's unnecessary and much too early to be imposing limitations and controls on large public gatherings and events. The whole "containment" vs "mitigation" argument. Prevention and limitation seem not to be at the forefront of policy currently which I find utterly astonishing.

Individuals, communities, and organisations being left to their own devices with pithy "advice" is not near enough with the stage this is now at. There is also the psychological aspect to consider, I believe the majority of people would be more re-assured if stringent measures were being taken, which would help to limit growing levels of unease and anxiety, and this is whilst confimed cases are still miniscule.

Exactly mate.

Look what we have in the place where we should have a centralised command looking to get on top of the situation: a government that tells people to whistle the national anthem while washing their hands...if they wish to wash their hands...and a declaration that the criminal class in this country can go out and batter and murder people if or when the excrement hits the fan with this virus.

THAT is a disgraceful way to face up to this.