DavidJ wrote:
Why?The countries with some of the highest population densities in the world (Singapore, Hong Kong, S Korea) are clearly managing the crisis more successfully than low pop density countries (U.S., Spain, Australia).
And conversely the New York and New Jersey area with its subways etc and very restrictive government directives has half the cases in the US, and the lower population postal code where I live has two (2) cases at present. No people, no transmission.
Government is like the engine in a small plane: a small, slow factor of influence when you need it right now. Somewhat effective in influencing events when given a lot of time, although very expensive and unable to react to change. What works when you need something right now is organic action by millions of people making decisions for themselves. Screaming that you need more powerful government for this issue is a dead end street, just like saying you’d like your Cherokee to climb at 4000 fpm, and then level off to burn 5 GPH.
I think regardless that a lot of people are actually inclined to prefer economic suicide because emotionally they prefer a feeling of certainty (which is all it is) over the less certain probability of better outcome for coming generations and so on, if you let things work themselves out in a more rational way. The same phenomenon that made some people in the DDR prefer that life. I’m just hoping very much that in the US that government doesn’t in actuality do much but talk, can’t spend the two trillion (in the US) fast enough, and doesn’t burden future generations with still more debt in yet another selfish transfer of wealth from tomorrow to the present.
There is certainly some truth in that there is an irrational risk aversion going on.
I can’t help but think that the machinery we set in motion is more appropriate for something with 10 times the death rate, so we have a disease which is too problematic to be ignored (10-100 percent increase in death rate), so we use a fire engine to extinguish a smoking candle and flood the house in the process.
Absolutely not. Cats are the superior beings, dogs have no free will of their own, they follow only commands like some mediocre KI. Why anyone would favour them over feline deities remains a mystery.
Thanks Medewok and Silvaire, I feel less confined now. In any event, in an attempt to couple this topic to aviation, I fail to understand how pilots can be dog lovers. I mean the word ‘aircraft’ and ‘dog’ almost go as well together as ‘cat’ and ‘dog’, right? 
In contrast, consider all these magnificent aircraft like the Wildcat, Hellcat, Bearcat etc!
OK, over and out, back on topic, sorry..
EDIT. Yes I admit there is the Cessna Bird Dog..
aart wrote:
I fail to understand how pilots can be dog lovers.
Dogs are the much easier passengers as cats, at least that is what I’m told…
This is interesting
Goes onto suggest the phone contract difference could be due to it being common for multiple sim ownership.
I think the Aviat Husky is a perfectly reasonable name :)
Then there’s the bulldog, beagle.
Hmm I get your point, more practical than dangerous..
Dogs are the much easier passengers as cats, at least that is what I’m told…
When I was training someone told a tale of a sedated Cheetah waking up whilst being taken to see the vet in a Cub. Sadly it didn’t end well for the Cheetah.
There is certainly some truth in that there is an irrational risk aversion going on.
I did a long drive today (to renew my medicals, so definitely “essential”) and saw very few cars, and lots and lots of trucks, and I am glad the economy is still basically running, deliveries of everything (especially food – essential to prevent a civil war) are still happening and obviously fairly safely since the drivers are not “mixing”. The countries which shut down the productive parts of their economies will pay a heavy price at the end.
I also heard an account of doctors who have died due to inadequate PPE, which is really tragic since this should be relatively easily rectified, and no doubt will be before the next “present from China” comes along.
This is not good. Indicators from Italy were a lot more than 2/3 were not surviving.
Note the above is much worse than numbers from a few weeks ago which showed a 5% chance of death for “not old” people who end up in hospital. Here it is more like 20%.
Re the discussions about masks… essential reading for anyone who’s interested:
Silvaire wrote:
And conversely the New York and New Jersey area with its subways etc and very restrictive government directives has half the cases in the US, and the lower population postal code where I live has two (2) cases at present. No people, no transmission.
In NY it’s a case of ideology contravening common sense. When you have political idiots overseeing our lives, only when a crises emerges that pulls back the vail of competence, do you realize just how big these scam artists really are. But they say, “the ideology was the correct one”… at all costs. Reminds me of the Nazis and Communists.
Not all patients who end up in hospital will end up on a ventilator. Many will just need some oxygen or we are starting to think about CPAP machines which are a sort of half-way point that will be much easier to oversee.
Figures about who survives being on a ventilator differ hugely from one country to another. I expect a lot of it depends whom you try to ventilate in the first place.
