People should stop the wishful thinking about Covid. It has shown clearly that if it is ignored and measures shunned, then the consequences are brutal. We are basically back to March and April figures now but no country has the balls to take the required action, which would be total lockdown in the affected areas. They claim they can’t afford it due to economic reasons, the same b.s. as in spring. The 2nd wave is in full rage and will now hit even more mercilessly than the 1st one did, primarily because people think they know better and can’t be bothered to stay home or at least do what they are told in terms of protection. Well, if this is going where I think it is going, then it is quite probable that the economy will collapse not because of measures but because of lack of customers. Once the death toll reaches Spanish Flu figures, maybe they will realize what is going on, but too late. The world may well face another disaster of the dimensions of the Plague in the middle ages, which killed off almost half the population. Well, the Greta ecologists should be happy… or maybe a bit too happy? Maybe it works better than their wildest dreams?
@Mooney_Driver wrote:
Well, the Greta ecologists should be happy… or maybe a bit too happy? Maybe it works better than their wildest dreams?
Really now. Maybe you should take deep breath and edit your post?
Mooney_Driver wrote:
The world may well face another disaster of the dimensions of the Plague in the middle ages, which killed off almost half the population
That does sound a bit like hyperbole when it’s pretty well established at this point the actual worst case fatal rate for COVID19 is somewhere well below 1%.
Current flu and pneumonia deaths are running at 10 times CV19 deaths.
The whole gross over reaction by the government needs shutting down immediately to prevent any further trashing of the economy and untold extra deaths from the effects of unemployment, poverty and the effective shutdown of the health services.
I just cannot believe people think that the following is the case:
People should stop the wishful thinking about Covid. It has shown clearly that if it is ignored and measures shunned, then the consequences are brutal. We are basically back to March and April figures now but no country has the balls to take the required action, which would be total lockdown in the affected areas. They claim they can’t afford it due to economic reasons, the same b.s. as in spring. The 2nd wave is in full rage and will now hit even more mercilessly than the 1st one did, primarily because people think they know better and can’t be bothered to stay home or at least do what they are told in terms of protection. Well, if this is going where I think it is going, then it is quite probable that the economy will collapse not because of measures but because of lack of customers. Once the death toll reaches Spanish Flu figures, maybe they will realize what is going on, but too late. The world may well face another disaster of the dimensions of the Plague in the middle ages, which killed off almost half the population. Well, the Greta ecologists should be happy… or maybe a bit too happy? Maybe it works better than their wildest dreams?
The economy will certainly collapse if we keep up this ridiculous overreaction, and the lunacy of the situation is illustrated no better than by the worst results In Europe of the Spanish lockdown (the most stringent lockdown in Europe) compared to the best results from Sweden with virtually no lockdown at all.
Come out of your caves, take off your masks, and ignore project fear before we end up in a worse police stasi state than Victoria.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
People should stop the wishful thinking about Covid. It has shown clearly that if it is ignored and measures shunned, then the consequences are brutal. We are basically back to March and April figures now but no country has the balls to take the required action, which would be total lockdown in the affected areas. They claim they can’t afford it due to economic reasons, the same b.s. as in spring. The 2nd wave is in full rage and will now hit even more mercilessly than the 1st one did, primarily because people think they know better and can’t be bothered to stay home or at least do what they are told in terms of protection. Well, if this is going where I think it is going, then it is quite probable that the economy will collapse not because of measures but because of lack of customers. Once the death toll reaches Spanish Flu figures, maybe they will realize what is going on, but too late. The world may well face another disaster of the dimensions of the Plague in the middle ages, which killed off almost half the population. Well, the Greta ecologists should be happy… or maybe a bit too happy? Maybe it works better than their wildest dreams?
After careful thought and sole searching I cant agree. It is an entirely fair and reasonable point of view but;
It would seem true that the mortality rate in any developed Western society is likely to settle at no more than 1% even if COVID was allowed to run. I subscribe to the view that it cant be allowed to run its course because I accept that the health services would probably be unable to cope. It is morally wrong to allow people to die because they cant source adequate health care.
I think we have established that even a complete lock down will not eliminate the virus. Inevitably when the lock down is released the cases gradually increase, even with tight social rules, because people get bored with them.
Pragmatically, the course is somewhere in the middle of these tow alternatives. Quite where the middle is I accept is the current debate.
The only caveat is if we knew for certain there will be a vaccine. In that scenario I think there is an argument for NZ’s course. As substantial as the impact a very fierce policy would only be required until a vaccine became available and then, countries such as NZ would be entitled to the high ground. They would have protected their citizens until the vaccine became available and prevented the death of many of their citizen. Unfortunately, the vaccine is not certain and NZ is in any event a special case where the virus could be eliminated, I doubt this was even possible in any of the larger Western nations where total elimination was all but impossible without enormous cost, impact, and the absence of systems which are non existent.
Spock said something like the needs of the many outweigh the one. No unnecessary loss of life is consionable, and it seems to me, the more developed a nation believes it is, the more this becomes true (with some exception, the USA comes to mind). In poor countries, as is often said, so far as the State is concerned, life is cheap. The reality is we play this game every second, week and month. Any country could spend more on health care and there would be less unnecessary death. However, there isnt a country that doesnt accept resources are limited and not everyone can receive the best possible health care. Some countries do this by estricting the best health care to those who can pay the most, and some by providing resources which while free at the point of delivery arent necessarily the very best that could be made available.
Sadly, COVID is no difference, and I dont believe for these reasons, there is any other solution at the moment.
Our salvation remains with a vaccine. Our future salvation is to committ far more resources to developing vaccines ever more quickly, to developing protocols to contain future outbreaks, to reducing the risk of zonnosis by regulating the interaction between animals and humans and to see if it is possible to develop effective antivirals.
In all this Sweden is an interesting case. I dont think it is right to argue it is the model we should have all adopted. Sweden rather like NZ is unique so far as many Western democracies are concerned. My understading is they have a very low population density, few large cities, a very sophisticated and well funded health service, and in fact a majority of people who have infact followed their Government’s recommendation. These fact or combine to enable them more latitude. On all counts the UK for example is very different.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
No unnecessary loss of life is consionable, and it seems to me, the more developed a nation believes it is, the more this becomes true (with some exception, the USA comes to mind)
You paradigm seems to be that government is responsible for saving lives, and in control. That is not reality. In reality the government function in any country is to collect and spend money, without much control of the outcome. How much they take out the economy and what they spend it on is the only issue.
My expectation for government is that it provide basic infrastructure in exchange for my tax payments, with scope Constitutionally compliant and limited. I do not want government to run my life, present me with lifestyle options or manage my relationship with nature, nor to manage my exposure to disease, nor to “provide” for maintenance of my body. I don’t myself want to get involved in managing others lives in that way either directly or through government, unless they are destitute. I run my own life and interests through mutually respectful business and personal arrangements that I redirect at any time, at my discretion. Government’s role in this is to provide a disciplined legal framework and promote commerce, not to direct my life or provide for it.
Silvaire wrote:
You paradigm seems to be that government is responsible for saving lives, and in control. That is not reality. In reality the government function in any country is to collect and spend money, without much control of the outcome. How much they take out the economy and what they spend it on is the only issue.
That is an interesting perspective. Country by country the control Government’s excercise obvioulsy vary. However, to take my own country as an example, the national health service is run by the country and funded by the tax payer. You can chose to be treated privately, but taking the example of the current virus, you will find it all but impossible to receive treatment in a private hosipital. The treatment therefore dished out by the Government in Covid critical cases in terms of how effective that treatment is, is very much in the grant of the Government albeit you might argue indirectly, but ulitmately it is the Governemnt that funds the NHS and all that flows. It follows that if the Governemnt did not adequately resource the NHS, there would be insufficient critical care beds and people would die who would have lived. It doesnt get much more immedaite than that.
Of course I accept that every Government has sought to devolve power, so ministers and party members will claim the fault is not ours, it is the fault of the agency to which we have devolved power, be it the police or the health service, or whatever other agency fits the bill, neatly side stepping that ulitmately each of the agencies excercies its duties at the behest of Government who dictate funding and policy.
I fully appreciate that many US citizens take your stance, which in many respects I applaud and respect. However, the US is perhaps one of the most liberal democracies in this respect. Balancing freedoms with a Government’s right to interfere is tough. in reality I suspect, like it or not, how the money is spent impacts on people’s lives even in the States unless you accept that a minority can behave in any way it choses, even if it is to the detriment of the majority.
Silvaire wrote:
My expectation for government is that it provide basic infrastructure in exchange for my tax payments, with scope Constitutionally compliant and limited. I do not want government to run my life, present me with lifestyle options or manage my relationship with nature, nor to manage my exposure to disease, nor to “provide” for maintenance of my body. I don’t myself want to get involved in managing others lives in that way either directly or through government, unless they are destitute. I run my own life and interests through mutually respectful business and personal arrangements that I redirect at any time, at my discretion. Government’s role in this is to provide a disciplined legal framework and promote commerce, not to direct my life or provide for it.
That is a point of view, sure, and it is well known (on here) as yours and well known (in general) as that of many in the US.
In Europe that is very much a fringe or even radical viewpoint, though interestingly enough what you have written happens to be a fairly accurate description of British government in the 18th and early-to-mid 19th centuries.
Europeans these days are more likely to take the view that as society has evolved and developed, more consensus on ‘the way things should be’ has been achieved and these things are commonly incorporated into the state and society as a whole. These include provision of healthcare, greater support to those in need, etc.
There are no self-evident truths on the proper role of government. It depends on your philosophy and your politics.
I tend to disagree with the idea of a government-led fight against Covid-19 not because I don’t see the health of the population as a government matter (I do) but because it’s becoming increasingly evident that nothing much really works. Deaths among the vulnerable can be reduced through lockdown and distancing, but only at so great an economic cost that the action would never pass the first cost/benefit hurdle were it a medical intervention.
Graham wrote:
In Europe that is very much a fringe or even radical viewpoint, though interestingly enough what you have written happens to be a fairly accurate description of British government in the 18th and early-to-mid 19th centuries.
It was a radical viewpoint in the late 18th century, but actually as you may recall it was in direct opposition to British government ‘policy’ of centralized control of that time, and still now. The British and their values were driven out at that time, and success ensued with a very diverse population. Those that didn’t like it retreated to Canada, to play second fiddle ever since.
Graham wrote:
Europeans these days are more likely to take the view that as society has evolved and developed, more consensus on ‘the way things should be’ has been achieved and these things are commonly incorporated into the state and society as a whole.
Really? How does Switzerland compare with Italy on ‘the way things should be’ in society? The philosophy you describe is why European politics as a whole (as a single unit) does not function well. Cooperation between countries is a problem because national governments are intertwined with their monolithic cultures. Managing real diversity in a single system works better with an approach based on common interests versus common cultural values, which is BTW why business in Europe functions much better than government and why European business plays a much larger role on the world stage.
Locking down national borders within Europe in the current situation is a symptom of the political dysfunction that comes along with the pursuit of government based on cultural consensus.
Graham wrote:
I tend to disagree with the idea of a government-led fight against Covid-19 not because I don’t see the health of the population as a government matter (I do) but because it’s becoming increasingly evident that nothing much really works.
What a surprise the latter must be 
Or not, as the case may be.
Graham wrote:
I tend to disagree with the idea of a government-led fight against Covid-19 not because I don’t see the health of the population as a government matter (I do) but because it’s becoming increasingly evident that nothing much really works.
I dont follow your line of discussion.
The Government(s) have made enormous strides that no single individual or group of individuals could have done. Government(s) have ploughed enormous sums into public health videos, funding research projects and developing new drugs, setting in place protocols, mapping infection spread, etc. The list is long. I accept in many instances their response has not been adequate or sufficient BUT very little of this activity would have taken place were it not for central Government’s involvement. I cant see any group of individuals, private business or the press fronting any of these activities in the absence of the Government, and it seems to me beyond doubt without these initiatives there would have been significantly greater loss of life. So I dont believe nothing much works, I think rather we wish the measures so far could have been even more effective, but I would suggest they are a lot better than nothing.
