Covid-19 Thread

[SAU3R]

Angela Merkel said that scientists expect 70% of the German population to get coronavirus 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/world/europe/coronavirus-merkel-germany.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Chancellor Merkel is also a scientist. She holds a PhD in quantum chemistry and worked as a research scientist until 1989. She correctly recognizes this as a factual and scientific issue and not a political one. 

[SoulMonster]

40 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The fact that he has applied it to Schengen is the obvious answer. 

Again, there is no epidemiological reason to focus only on Schengen. If he really wants to avoid "importing" infected people to the USA, which he claims it the rationale, then he should prohibit people from all the countries with the highest rates of infected, regardless of where they are.

26 minutes ago, jamillos said:

Then again, the ban only concerns people, not goods. Import goes on. 

Yes, Trump was quick to emphasize that it is business as usual

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Again, there is no epidemiological reason to focus only on Schengen. If he really wants to avoid "importing" infected people to the USA, which he claims it the rationale, then he should prohibit people from all the countries with the highest rates of infected, regardless of where they are.

If you want to prohibit Italy, you must prohibit Schengen. The UK having a similar open customs arrangement as that between Schengen countries is a myth. Also, the United Kingdom, as with Eire, has a natural geographic defense against the infection which the continent does not share - we would have to assume the closure of Eurostrar if a travel ban occurred in the United Kingdom. 

But, I am not one to analyse Trump's head. Maybe it is all about ''Brexit, Boris's hair and Scottish golf courses''. Trump after all seems to conflate ''EU'' and ''Europe'' as frequently as Guy Verhofstadt. 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

If you want to prohibit Italy, you must prohibit Schengen. 

If you want to avoid importing infected people, you should close down the borders to people from infected countries. Stopping import from some Europeans countries and not the UK, makes no epidemiological sense. Granted, you have a low number of infected people per capita in the UK, but like with every other country in Europe now, the number of actual infected is much, much higher than the number of confirmed infected. It is unavoidable.

I am sure the reason Trump made this exception was in the hope that it would grant him some goodwill in coming negotiations. When it comes to Trump, it is all about optics and business.

The irony is of course that it is to no avail. He has done such a poor job at testing and identifying infected in his own country that in a couple of weeks it will be crazy there. And then he will just appear like a fool from trying to prevent the inevitable while refusing to take measures that we know can actually slow down the tide. Or his voters will remember what a tough guy he was by closing down the borders and elect him based on that.

[DieselDaisy]

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

If you want to avoid importing infected people, you should close down the borders to people from infected countries. Stopping import from some Europeans countries and not the UK, makes no epidemiological sense. Granted, you have a low number of infected people per capita in the UK, but like with every other country in Europe now, the number of actual infected is much, much higher than the number of confirmed infected. It is unavoidable.

I am sure the reason Trump made this exception was in the hope that it would grant him some goodwill in coming negotiations. When it comes to Trump, it is all about optics and business.

The irony is of course that it is to no avail. He has done such a poor job at testing and identifying infected in his own country that in a couple of weeks it will be crazy there. And then he will just appear like a fool from trying to prevent the inevitable while refusing to take measures that we know can actually slow down the tide. Or his voters will remember what a tough guy he was by closing down the borders and elect him based on that.

But Trump has not made an exception for the United Kingdom. He has made an exception to all non-Schengen countries. Are there coming trade negotiations between the United States and the Republic of Ireland? Croatia? Romania?

Edited March 12, 2020 by DieselDaisy

[DieselDaisy]

The countries in this map amazingly can all still run flights to the United States; they also coincidentally are all European non-Schengen states,

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

But Trump has not made an exception for the United Kingdom. He has made an exception to all non-Schengen countries. Are there coming trade negotiations between the United States and the Republic of Ireland? Croatia? Romania?

Again, he should stop people based on whether their countries have a large of infected people, not based on whether they are part of Schengen or not. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/europe-travel-ban-coronavirus-trump-reactions-us-uk-twitter-a9396146.html

"Amanda Sloat, senior fellow at Brookings, questioned why Britain was exempted from the travel ban. 

“Trump’s ‘Europe but not Britain’ ban is illogical. UK has more coronavirus cases than some EU states — British Health Minister just tested positive. UK still has open borders with EU. Viruses don’t respect borders.”"

The fact that he didn't ban UK is likely because he wants to gain some leverage in future negotiations.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

Again, he should stop people based on whether their countries have a large of infected people, not based on whether they are part of Schengen or not. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/europe-travel-ban-coronavirus-trump-reactions-us-uk-twitter-a9396146.html

"Amanda Sloat, senior fellow at Brookings, questioned why Britain was exempted from the travel ban. 

“Trump’s ‘Europe but not Britain’ ban is illogical. UK has more coronavirus cases than some EU states — British Health Minister just tested positive. UK still has open borders with EU. Viruses don’t respect borders.”"

The fact that he didn't ban UK is likely because he wants to gain some leverage in future negotiations.

Why didn't he ban Albania, Andora, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Belarus, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, Georgia, Ireland, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Turkey and the Ukraine then? 

[Len Cnut]

Well, this is it folks, the end of the days, the first biblical plague has arrived, we're being fuckin' smote by the Lord for our gluttony and avarice and capitalism and consumerism.  We're all gonna die, he who is on the lords side, join me in a chorus of 'oh come all ye faithful'.  Lets start sacrificing people in his good name, that'll appease him, lets start with the scientists, those reasoning atheist motherfuckers are the reason for all of this  

[Len Cnut]

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Why didn't he ban Albania, Andora, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Belarus, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, Georgia, Ireland, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Turkey and the Ukraine then? 

Cuz he's never heard of em except for Ireland and Turkey...and the last one is only because its a type of sandwich

[action]

I wouldn't argue that governments are doing "too little" in a sense as in, they are slacking off. I think, everything they do is well considered, even the decisions to not act.

don't forget, closing schools and companies will result in massive financial damage. They don't say this, but this is an important factor in their decision process. Somewhere on the bottom of their worries lays national health. Well below national economy. Don't blame them, they are only enacting our capitalist social model. It's their job to favour the economy, that's capitalism for you. It's an illusion, that state has the task to protect their citizens. they should act in our best interests, but that's another discussion. that's not how our government is wired.

[SoulMonster]

11 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Why didn't he ban Albania, Andora, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Belarus, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, Georgia, Ireland, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Turkey and the Ukraine then? 

Because he is a moron, and so are his voters, and parts of his narrative is that the pandemic now spreads from the EU. As I said, this is about optics not actually stopping the disease. He is just doing stuff his moronic voters will believe is the right thing.

Edited March 12, 2020 by SoulMonster

[Dazey]

1 hour ago, Lio said:

Confirmed infection is pointless, as we know many many people are infected with mild symptoms and will not be tested.

At the moment we've been told to call an NHS helpline and self isolate if we display any symptoms. The advice that is being given by this helpline is that we will only be tested if we've travelled to one of the worst affected countries or if we can prove that we've been in close contact with a confirmed case of Covid 19. So basically the vast majority of cases here are likely to go un-diagnosed at the moment.

[Len Cnut]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

Because he is a moron, and so are his voters, and parts of his narrative is that the pandemic now spreads from the EU. 

*grabs him by the lapels and shakes him* YOU DID THIS TO US! YOU!

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, Dazey said:

At the moment we've been told to call an NHS helpline and self isolate if we display any symptoms. The advice that is being given by this helpline is that we will only be tested if we've travelled to one of the worst affected countries or if we can prove that we've been in close contact with a confirmed case of Covid 19. So basically the vast majority of cases here are likely to go un-diagnosed at the moment.

Here we still test everybody, including those in self-imposed isolation. Our worry now is that we are getting cases of people being infected where we don't know from where, indicating that we have infected people here that we haven't found. 

[Dazey]

13 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Cuz he's never heard of em except for Ireland and Turkey...and the last one is only because its a type of sandwich

He's only heard of the first one because it's the name of Alec Baldwin's teenage daughter.  

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Here we still test everybody, including those in self-imposed isolation. Our worry now is that we are getting cases of people being infected where we don't know from where, indicating that we have infected people here that we haven't found. 

I was listening to the radio yesterday and two or three people were on various shows saying that they couldn't get a test unless they could prove they had been in close contact with somebody they knew to be infected. I mean think about that for a second. How the fuck would they know?  

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Because he is a moron, and so are his voters, and parts of his narrative is that the pandemic now spreads from the EU. 

He has not included four EU states in his ban, whilst included four non-EU states (including your country) in his ban. But I digress as you are correct in that he does blame the EU.

You are artificially inflating United Kingdom exceptionalism to fit your argument. In reality the United Kingdom is merely one of over 21 European/quasi-European countries who are not included in Trump's travel ban. To assume that Trump is using the United Kingdom's exception because he wants to spread goodwill during Anglo-American trade negotiations, is to assume that Trump is using North Macedonia's exception because he wants to spread goodwill during Macedonian-American trade negotiations. It is a nonsense of an argument! The common denominator is of course Schengen.

A strictly epidemiological prohibition? China, Italy, South Korea, Iran... - including and according to how cautious you want be (this could include up to 124 countries and territories according to latest statistics)? I suspect Trump would have been criticised no matter what decision he implemented. If he grounded all European flights, his critics would inherently be pointing out that he is ''so dumb he is penalising the wrong countries'' (''surely China, South Korea and the Iranians?'').

[Dazey]

37 minutes ago, action said:

I wouldn't argue that governments are doing "too little" in a sense as in, they are slacking off. I think, everything they do is well considered, even the decisions to not act.

don't forget, closing schools and companies will result in massive financial damage. They don't say this, but this is an important factor in their decision process. Somewhere on the bottom of their worries lays national health. Well below national economy. Don't blame them, they are only enacting our capitalist social model. It's their job to favour the economy, that's capitalism for you. It's an illusion, that state has the task to protect their citizens. they should act in our best interests, but that's another discussion. that's not how our government is wired.

Unfortunately in the real world you simply can't just shut a country down. The financial impact of this is likely to far exceed the health impact by the time this is all over. You're painting this as nothing but a big capitalist plot to keep big businesses going and fuck the rest of us when it's in no way that simple. If you crash the economy then the people at the top of the pile are likely to be the least affected in the long run but you're going to have millions of families who can't put food on the table.

Consider this scenario if you will. So you close all the schools to stop kids getting infected but parents can't afford to stay at home and lose a paycheck so they have to drop the kids off with grandparents. Kids are pretty much unaffected by the virus but Granny and Grandad are more likely to suffer serious illness. This whole situation is incredibly complex and you can't simply stop all life as we know it and hope for the best.    

Edited March 12, 2020 by Dazey

[Lio]

17 minutes ago, Dazey said:

At the moment we've been told to call an NHS helpline and self isolate if we display any symptoms. The advice that is being given by this helpline is that we will only be tested if we've travelled to one of the worst affected countries or if we can prove that we've been in close contact with a confirmed case of Covid 19. So basically the vast majority of cases here are likely to go un-diagnosed at the moment.

Yeah, same here then. In Holland they tested some people in a hotspot who had only a cough or something and many had the virus too. Which leads to belief that many more are infected, but only show mild or no symptoms. If up to 70% of Germany could be infected (I see no reason why other countries would be any different?), it seems key to try and slow the whole thing down so as not to have our health systems implode.

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You are artificially inflating United Kingdom exceptionalism to fit your argument.

Again, this is about optics. He is restricting travel from the EU because his dumb voters will think this is an efficient policy in stopping the spread. If he did this for epidemiological reasons, UK would be included too, and possibly Macedonia. The fact that UK isn't included, suggest an ulterior motive. And I suspect this could be upcoming US-UK business negotiations. 

 

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

A strictly epidemiological prohibition? China, Italy, South Korea, Iran... - including and according to how cautious you want be (this could include up to 124 countries and territories according to latest statistics)? I suspect Trump would have been criticised no matter what decision he implemented. If he grounded all European flights, his critics would inherently be pointing out that he is ''so dumb he is penalising the wrong countries'' (''surely China, South Korea and the Iranians?'').

He did impose ban from Iran already back in February. Again, this is about optics and business, not preventing the import of corona virus to the US.

[Dazey]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

The fact that UK isn't included, suggest an ulterior motive. And I suspect this could be upcoming US-UK business negotiations. 

I wouldn't be too sure about that to be honest. The UK is holding very few cards in the post Brexit US trade negotiation so Trump can pretty much do anything he wants and it would make little difference.

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I wouldn't be too sure about that to be honest. The UK is holding very few cards in the post Brexit US trade negotiation so Trump can pretty much do anything he wants and it would make little difference.

Shiiiit.

[action]

15 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Unfortunately in the real world you simply can't just shut a country down. The financial impact of this is likely to far exceed the health impact by the time this is all over. You're painting this as nothing but a big capitalist plot to keep big businesses going and fuck the rest of us when it's in no way that simple. If you crash the economy then the people at the top of the pile are likely to be the least affected in the long run but you're going to have millions of families who can't put food on the table.

Consider this scenario if you will. So you close all the schools to stop kids catching this but parents can't afford to stay at home and lose a paycheck so they have to drop the kids off with grandparents. Kids are pretty much unaffected by the virus but Granny and Grandad are more likely to suffer serious illness. This whole situation is incredibly complex and you can't simply stop all life as we know it and hope for the best.    

the fact that we need paychecks to live, is also a result of a capitalist social model. the fact that people work, children go to school... all aspects of a social model starting with the renaissance. In the middle ages, there were no schools, there were no jobs, there were no capitalists. just farmers and kings sucking them dry for no other reason than that they could.

There are other societies thinkable (I'm not saying: realistic). Such as the native americans who live off the land, with respect to nature. Did they lead unhappy lives? Hardly.

We invaded their land, and basically destroyed their social model. Is, what came in it's place, a better social model? that's your own preference, that's not up for debate.

Edited March 12, 2020 by action

[Dazey]

3 minutes ago, action said:

the fact that we need paychecks to live, is also a result of a capitalist social model. the fact that people work, children go to school... all aspects of a social model starting with the renaissance. In the middle ages, there were no schools, there were no jobs, there were no capitalists. just farmers and kings sucking them dry for no other reason than that they could.

There are other societies thinkable (I'm not saying: realistic). Such as the native americans who live off the land, with respect to nature. Did they lead unhappy lives? Hardly.

We invaded their land, and basically destroyed their social model. Is, what came in it's place, a better social model? that's your own preference, that's not up for debate.

It doesn't necessarily matter what is or isn't the best social model. The issue is that we have what we have at this point in time and the impact that we will see on our lives as a result of this will be severe. Personally I'm really still not concerned personally about the health implications of this but I'm sure starting to worry about the potential financial impact.

[Dazey]

8 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Shiiiit.

If you actually look at all the conflicting interests of a potential US trade deal I think we're fucked anyway.  Basically everything that would be of benefit to us in negotiating a deal with the US will cause us pain with any future deal with the EU and vice versa. Agriculture for one thing would be a big part of any deal with the US but the resultant lowering of standards would result in massive EU tariffs.