Post Corona...

[Smurf1976]

You don't seem to want to acknowledge my point though, which is that we are actively causing a massive problem which we didn't have to. That problem has only just started and is definitely going to get worse. I have friends who have had their families broken up (both due to travel restrictions and due to domestic violence) and in the usually quiet neighbourhood I'm currently trapped in I have been hearing an increased number of arguments from nearby homes.

There was a point where we didn't have to, agreed there, but we let that slip away. It was an option then, once China locked down Wuhan we should have taken aggressive action there and then. We failed to do so, that option is now gone.

On the issue of violence etc I don't disagree, it's likely going to result in significant harm, but I'll argue that someone being locked down with their partner, kids or whoever does not cause them to become violent. If it comes to that point then there's more to it than just the virus situation. I agree it will cause a rise in problems but realistically it's likely to be bringing them forward far more than it's actually causing them. If a relationship falls apart or turns to violence because of an external situation then it wasn't too sound to start with.

 

[qldfrog]

@Sdajii first sorry to hear about your personal position.i get your feelings, i will most probably never ever see any of my Chinese colleagues,friends again
As explained in the past, i am part of a start-up 8n Shenzhen mainland China.Income this financial year: 0,, future...probably company bankrupted
Own finances: i saw this coming..due to the Chinese link so i am back to 01/07/2019.great but. Unable to sell investment industrial property or find a tenant, airbnb with no income anymore and my ppor for sale currently will be hit
Just the RE part of it, i assume a minimum 20pc hit so: Easiiy 10 to 15pc of our whole life saving in smoke with no time to rebuild
I am angry against the initial absence of proper reaction but done is done, I'm also angry against corrupt organisation like WHO, the way the EU so blatantly reveal its disdain of its own citizen with countries left to fight on their own.
UK is lucky
Here overall compared to the rest of the west we did not too badly but what is coming will stun Australia in term of economic hit.many still in denial
But i see this crisis as exposing what was there already
An economy and financial world which was sick already: domestic violence appearing now, mental issues,suicides which are pushed and triggered all in one go.
A big wash
Many many innocent bystanders wiped too.
The real issue is how to quickly restart..when i saw that we still have recommendation against the use of mask, i am doubtful of any great story here , and the fact after more than a month, we still have no mask making factory restarted here

 

[SirRumpole]

Suicides have already started, lives have already been ruined, and we're still planting the seeds of a forest which is going to be growing for a long time.

Large amounts of money have been set aside for mental health programs and for helping people cope with isolation.

Maybe this situation is also a "test of strength" which you seem to advocate. There is physical strength and there is mental strength. They are both equally important imv. In these situations those with mental strength do what they can to help others in the same situation. That's how societies show what they are made of. You don't throw people on the scrapheap for physical 'weakness'. As others said before, mental capability is just as important.

Coming through adversity makes people and societies stronger, improves their capabilities and resolve, forces them to do things that they haven't done before and find ways around it. Ignoring adversity does none of these things it just makes people lazy and complacent.

Of course we all wish this virus never happened, but just maybe it will make us think about our own place in the world and why we shouldn't rely on others for some of our basic needs.

 

[qldfrog]

it will make us think about our own place in the world and why we shouldn't rely on others for some of our basic needs.

Fully agree, but obviously if it applies to nation, you also agree it applies to individuals?
I was initially puzzled to read this from you @SirRumpole as i read it that second way

The universal way it goes in the west is quite puzzling.
would it be too far to go to conspiracy theories and think the West is actually creating purposely a government recession?
.is that what had to be done to create inflation after 13 y of failing to do so?and reset the system?
Or is it the master plan revenge from China?

 

[SirRumpole]

Fully agree, but obviously if it applies to nation, you also agree it applies to individuals?
I was initially puzzled to read this from you @SirRumpole as i read it that second way

The universal way it goes in the west is quite puzzling.
would it be too far to go to conspiracy theories and think the West is actually creating purposely a government recession?
.is that what had to be done to create inflation after 13 y of failing to do so?and reset the system?
Or is it the master plan revenge from China?

I think it may be used by some to push for "world government" and "common currency" both socialist type systems which undermine national interests. I hope we and other western democracies don't fall for that, because it will be dominated by countries that don't have our values.

As for western governments deliberately creating the situation, they would have rocks in their heads if that was the case, too politically and economically risky so no way imv. As for a master plan by China, they will take advantage of the situation for sure, but I don't believe they deliberately engineered it.

I would say individual self reliance is good as far as it goes, but really can households produce all the food they need from a window box or in their back garden ? We need to rely on the food production and distribution systems and that means reliance on other people. So self reliance is probably better carried out on a national scale.

 

[basilio]

I would say individual self reliance is good as far as it goes, but really can households produce all the food they need from a window box or in their back garden ? We need to rely on the food production and distribution systems and that means reliance on other people. So self reliance is probably better carried out on a national scale.

Perhaps on a more local level ? The conversation about what world we re construct when ( if.. ) we get out of this mess has started. I suggest elements of simplicity, local self reliance and greater national self reliance will be high on the agenda.

The current economic model is about creating endless increasing demand for product, finding the cheapest way of making it and then selling it to make the highest profit. It also ignores all externalities ( pollution, health risks, sovereign risks) and takes no responsibility for anything that can go wrong ie another epidemic. I don't believe it can stand up to the post COVID 19 reality.

 

[qldfrog]

Perhaps on a more local level ? The conversation about what world we re construct when ( if.. ) we get out of this mess has started. I suggest elements of simplicity, local self reliance and greater national self reliance will be high on the agenda.

The current economic model is about creating endless increasing demand for product, finding the cheapest way of making it and then selling it to make the highest profit. It also ignores all externalities ( pollution, health risks, sovereign risks) and takes no responsibility for anything that can go wrong ie another epidemic. I don't believe it can stand up to the post COVID 19 reality.

Wish too but I am afraid we will be back within 3y to get more money, open "refugee doors" to ensure cheap labor and outsourcing to the cheapest etc all in front of the allmighty dollars while taxing home small business and individuals..captive target..to the hilt

 

[basilio]

Wish too but I am afraid we will be back within 3y to get more money, open "refugee doors" to ensure cheap labor and outsourcing to the cheapest etc all in front of the allmighty dollars while taxing home small business and individuals..captive target..to the hilt

Perhaps... The fact is there are big conversations on what the new society will look like. This government, UK, Europe have all decided that keeping people fed and housed is now a priority - even if they have to open the purse strings.
They have also appreciated the critical importance of a public health system that cares for peoples health as priority rather than simply a way of making bucket loads of cash. I think it will be very hard to just ignore these learnings. For example can this government go back to paying unemployed people the pittance they were on a month ago ?

When we pass through this crisis we will have far higher unemployment simply becasue many businesses will not recover. If a government attempted to reintroduce the strictures it had last year the ramifications for banks and the housing market alone would be horrendous.

There are some conversations on this topic already.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...e-coronavirus-if-were-willing-to-fight-for-it

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...n-its-back-to-tax-cuts-and-smaller-government

 

[basilio]

While we are looking at what a post corona society looks like consider how this direction would help the environment as well as jobs and industry.

Australia’s path to net-zero emissions lies in rapid, stimulus-friendly steps
The opportunity to meet the target by 2035 is within our grasp – thanks to much cheaper technology – but we must be ready

Nearly two years ago, ClimateWorks Australia set out to test whether the implied goal agreed by world leaders at the Paris climate conference – cutting greenhouse gas emissions to “net zero” by 2050 – was still possible in Australia. They weren’t certain it would be. They were pleasantly surprised by the result.

“We found not only is it not yet out of reach in Australia, but it can be achieved using technologies that are mostly already mature and available,” says Anna Skarbek, the chief executive of the not-for-profit that was established in 2009 to fill a gap between climate research and action.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...issions-lies-in-small-stimulus-friendly-steps

 

[basilio]

Everyone is wondering where we go next

It's time to challenge everything, so what will we create from this savage lesson?
We are learning new ways to live, to be, to think. Maybe that’s the gift as well as the challenge
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...o-what-will-we-create-from-this-savage-lesson

 

[Smurf1976]

While we are looking at what a post corona society looks like consider how this direction would help the environment as well as jobs and industry.

The technical aspect is somewhat complex but very doable.

It’s our self-inflicted need to compete on price with third and especially second world countries which has thus far been the stumbling block. Remove that problem and the rest is very doable.

If one piece of good comes out of this it’ll be the end of the so-called “level playing field” and acceptance of the reality that just about everyone tilts it in their favour which is what we need to do also.

 

[SirRumpole]

When we pass through this crisis we will have far higher unemployment simply becasue many businesses will not recover. If a government attempted to reintroduce the strictures it had last year the ramifications for banks and the housing market alone would be horrendous.

I doubt if the Coalition will do it, but they should be thinking of a permanent 20% wage subsidy financed by taxes on computers, machines and software.

The economy needs consumers that spend, we also need machines and software but they don't currently pay tax, maybe it's time they did.

 

[Sdajii]

Large amounts of money have been set aside for mental health programs and for helping people cope with isolation.

Maybe this situation is also a "test of strength" which you seem to advocate. There is physical strength and there is mental strength. They are both equally important imv. In these situations those with mental strength do what they can to help others in the same situation. That's how societies show what they are made of. You don't throw people on the scrapheap for physical 'weakness'. As others said before, mental capability is just as important.

Coming through adversity makes people and societies stronger, improves their capabilities and resolve, forces them to do things that they haven't done before and find ways around it. Ignoring adversity does none of these things it just makes people lazy and complacent.

Of course we all wish this virus never happened, but just maybe it will make us think about our own place in the world and why we shouldn't rely on others for some of our basic needs.

So if someone kills themself because they've lost everything, they failed the stoicism test so that's okay. If some woman gets bashed up because her partner is in a difficult situation and is unable to go blow off some steam with his mates or at the pub, well, she failed the 'how to deal with it' mental test, so she deserves it too, I guess. If the economy is ruined and our schools and roads and hospitals aren't up to scratch, well, as a community I suppose we deserve is because we failed the... however Sir Rumpole wanted to spin it. But if a virus kills you, well, that's something we can't accept.

You make a good point, we should probably have destroyed the economy and imposed all these measures years ago. Psychological torture and economic distress is going to bring overdue benefits to our community.

 

[SirRumpole]

If some woman gets bashed up because her partner is in a difficult situation and is unable to go blow off some steam with his mates or at the pub, well, she failed the 'how to deal with it' mental test

No, he failed the human being test.

 

[Smurf1976]

So if someone kills themself because they've lost everything, they failed the stoicism test so that's okay.

I thought you were the one arguing "survival of the fittest"?

If some woman gets bashed up because her partner is in a difficult situation and is unable to go blow off some steam with his mates or at the pub

If someone of either gender decides to bash someone else up because they can't go to a pub well then at most the lockdown has brought forward the inevitable but that person was always going to pose a danger to their victim.

A pandemic is not an excuse for violence against anyone or anything.

 

[Sdajii]

No, he failed the human being test.

So you're saying that makes the innocent woman an appropriate victim??? If not, what is your point? You are for some reason downplaying the human suffering being caused by these deliberately enforced measures.

 

[Sdajii]

I thought you were the one arguing "survival of the fittest"?

The you believe it despite the fact that I've never said anything along those lines and indeed have been making entirely the opposite point!

If someone of either gender decides to bash someone else up because they can't go to a pub well then at most the lockdown has brought forward the inevitable but that person was always going to pose a danger to their victim.

Absolute nonsense. We have a background rate of domestic violence, and that rate increases or decreases according to many external variables. Poverty is one. Tick (loss of jobs and business). Loneliness/frustration is another (big tick). Being cooped up together is another (I think you can see the pattern here). This is not just bringing forward the inevitable, and your assertion of such suggests that you believe all domestic violence is inevitable and unavoidable. This is nothing like reality.

A pandemic is not an excuse for violence against anyone or anything.

I agree 100% which is why it's a huge problem that we are taking measures to induce it! And this is by no means one of the biggest problems caused by these ridiculous measures we're having imposed on us, it's just one of a great many.

 

[barney]

I think it would be counterproductive if this thread ended up being a slagging match when it doesn’t need to be.

In the end I’m pretty sure most of us have a similar agenda on what path we would prefer the current scenario to follow.

ie. For the Country/communities to get back to as close to ‘normality’ as soon as is possible/practical for the benefit of the majority of people.

1) The suggestion that ‘locking down’ a high proportion of regular people’s ability to generate a livelihood will cause dire follow on effects to society is valid and probable. (ie. Increased suicide rates, criminal activity and family breakdowns)


2) The suggestion that ‘locking down’ as above will also cause a more manageable spread of the Virus over a longer time period is also valid. (Health care system remains effective. Higher survival rates. Financial assistance can be targeted to the needy in an orderly fashion)


Assuming that the above are not mutually exclusive, my question would be …

Can an effective balance of both be achieved?

ie. Can we get people back to work yet still keep the infection rate (3-10% death rate) under control??

Rather than beating each other up over unknown potential statistics … Is it possible we can offer suggestions in how to achieve a balance which is socially acceptable to the majority?

Cheers.

 

[Sdajii]

I think it would be counterproductive if this thread ended up being a slagging match when it doesn’t need to be.

In the end I’m pretty sure most of us have a similar agenda on what path we would prefer the current scenario to follow.

ie. For the Country/communities to get back to as close to ‘normality’ as soon as is possible/practical for the benefit of the majority of people.

Indeed, and if this is our objective then it's very clearly obvious that literally no restrictions at all would be better than the current situation. Life would go back to normal for most people relatively quickly. In the current arrangement we are being locked down indefinitely! Waiting for a vaccine or treatment the likes of which the world has literally never seen, and for all we know are theoretically impossible.

1) The suggestion that ‘locking down’ a high proportion of regular people’s ability to generate a livelihood will cause dire follow on effects to society is valid and probable. (ie. Increased suicide rates, criminal activity and family breakdowns)


2) The suggestion that ‘locking down’ as above will also cause a more manageable spread of the Virus over a longer time period is also valid. (Health care system remains effective. Higher survival rates. Financial assistance can be targeted to the needy in an orderly fashion)


Assuming that the above are not mutually exclusive, my question would be …


Can an effective balance of both be achieved?

The short answer is no. An attempted balance gives you most of the bad from both sides and little of the benefits of either side. A lockdown is only going to be effective if it is highly destructive to the economy and long term. Doing so short term (as is being proposed) will destroy the economy (the longer we wait the worst it'll get and it's already extreme) and as soon as you try to go back to normal it's as though you never did anything, the virus will spread... like... a highly contagious virus. If you're not going to do the lockdown properly there's no point doing it, and if there's no end goal (a tangible vaccine or cure with a tangible completion date, neither of which is the case) there is no point.

ie. Can we get people back to work yet still keep the infection rate (3-10% death rate) under control??

10% would be far worse than worst case scenario predictions with zero measures taken!

Rather than beating each other up over unknown potential statistics … Is it possible we can offer suggestions in how to achieve a balance which is socially acceptable to the majority?

Cheers.

No hand shaking, encourage personal hygeine etc, public education about transfer of viruses, put laws in place forbidding the approach of non consenting people, encourage social distancing etc, but put no restrictions on business or freedom of movement or consenting socialisation. Accept it as the worst cold/flu season of our lives and carry on. This will allow the least economic destruction, the least death and the least human suffering. It does not preclude any search for a vaccine or cure (a stronger economy will assist in finding one if it is even possible).

 

[basilio]

I agree 100% which is why it's a huge problem that we are taking measures to induce it! And this is by no means one of the biggest problems caused by these ridiculous measures we're having imposed on us, it's just one of a great many.

Sdajii I can appreciate the awful stress the COVID 19 shutdown has had on you, your family and of course the millions of other people who lost their jobs and businesses. You accurately point out that this problem is far starker in Asia than Australia.

Your argument is that you see the economic and personal freedom consequences far outweighing the risk to human life. You suggest this is a serious problem but not serious enough to warrant the current response.

The trouble is no one yet knows what the final consequences of letting COVID 19 rip will be. They Chinese made a grave mistake in allowing it to get out control in Wuhan province. They finally had to lock down the entire province as well as the remainder of China to bring it under control. During that time the hospitals were overwhelmed, people died in their homes on the streets in hospital waiting rooms. It was bedlam.

Overall there were 80,000 reported infections (probably many more unreported) in a population of 1.5 Billion. What would have happened if they had let it rip ?

Well we might have the opportunity to see that play out in the US. Currently 320,000 infections with a rocket and multiple infection sites. I can see the following consequences of letting it rip.

1) A complete collapse of the health system. It will be unable to cope with the millions of seriously ill people
2) Widespread deaths in the community that create terror and disease as bodies are not cleared quickly enough and create biological hazards.
3) A breakdown of all industry and commerce as these effects continue unchecked.
4) The spread of secondary diseases associated with breakdowns in systems like water, power, sewerage and health. Cholera, hepatitis,
5) The risk of total breakdown of civil society in some areas. Add in multi million assault rifles in the hands of very angry people and it all goes up in smoke.

The projected direct consequences of letting COVID 19 rip unabated is around 3 million direct deaths. Think 1% of 300 million people.
But in fact the 1% death rate is dependent on a functioning health system that can effectively treat the 20% who fall seriously ill and save basically 95% of them. If it all goes to hell then we would see this figure escalate to a 3-5% mortality - 9-15million people.

Is this the risk we want to take?