Re: Coronavirus
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2020 5:44 pm
I really, really doubt he would attack corporations. They own him (and any president in a capitalist country). He’d rather let people die.
In this case, it looks like 3M wins because Canada is the source for the raw materials for the masks (but not the respirators?). But don't underestimate the degree to which this isn't business as usual. Corporations don't have as much power as national governments when there is no economy.
In severely capitalists countries (like Chile and the US), governments don’t have much. Corporations have everyone on their payrolls. I understand that it’s most definitely NOT business as usual, but capitalist governments will shed a lot of working class blood before attacking corporations.Hype wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 6:42 pmIn this case, it looks like 3M wins because Canada is the source for the raw materials for the masks (but not the respirators?). But don't underestimate the degree to which this isn't business as usual. Corporations don't have as much power as national governments when there is no economy.
16K hospitalized so far in NY. 11K have been discharged. Hopefully 4-8 days until peak.
Phil McCausland
3h ago / 10:47 AM CDT
New York has 10,841 new cases in one day, a record high
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Saturday the state has 10,841 new coronavirus cases since Friday, a record, bringing the total to 113,704.
The number of deaths since Friday is 640, which puts the total deaths from the virus in New York at 3,565.
The total number of people hospitalized is 15,905. But, Cuomo said, two-thirds of all people who have been hospitalized have been discharged.
The governor said the state is probably four to eight days from a peak in coronavirus cases and is doing as much as it can to prepare.
"In some ways, I want to get to that apex, get to the other side of that apex and slide down that mountain," the governor said. "On the other hand, we have to be ready for that fight and we have to handle that fight."
Half of all confirmed infections. That's important, because NY recently ramped up their testing way more than most other US states. The other thing to consider is that this is going to hit the middle of the country *way* harder than NY. NY has world-class healthcare and loads of doctors and nurses. Rural areas with aging populations are going to be in a lot of trouble in a few weeks if governors and mayors don't get their acts together.
There is zero chance this hits the middle of the country harder than NY. It's impossible. You know better than that. Comparing NYC in terms of density and geography to almost any other city in America is apples to oranges. And there are wonderful medical centers and world class hospitals in mid America as well. Less density, better preparedness for the peak, and great hospitals.Hype wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 12:23 pmHalf of all confirmed infections. That's important, because NY recently ramped up their testing way more than most other US states. The other thing to consider is that this is going to hit the middle of the country *way* harder than NY. NY has world-class healthcare and loads of doctors and nurses. Rural areas with aging populations are going to be in a lot of trouble in a few weeks if governors and mayors don't get their acts together.
Matz wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:24 pmI don't understand the whole "peaking thing". Why do people think its going to peak? You'd think it would be here as long as there are people to infect. As far as I know the Spanish flu didn't "peak", it was here for a year or something and died off only because everybody were either dead or had become immune to it.
I'd assume it could be explained like this: at some point, there should be so many people infected, that the rate at which they become 'healthy' (e.g., 2,000 per day) is higher than the rate at which non-infected people become infected (e.g., 1,400 per day). I've no idea about the mathematics or modelling for this shit, but that seems reasonable enough, doesn't it?Matz wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:24 pmI don't understand the whole "peaking thing". Why do people think its going to peak? You'd think it would be here as long as there are people to infect. As far as I know the Spanish flu didn't "peak", it was here for a year or something and died off only because everybody were either dead or had become immune to it.
A bit funny that these projections, you like. And you still failed to mention that per that projection, about 55% of all ICU beds in the state would be needed. And in that state, apparently there haven't been any orders to stay at home, to avoid traveling, etc. If there had been, instead of 1,290 deaths you could've easily be looking at around 300 or 400 deaths, if that. But apparently, that doesn't matter?Hokahey wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 12:57 pmLook at this link:
https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections
These data projections are from the University of Washington.
Total Covid-19 deaths projected for the entire state of Missouri is 1,290 with no more than 30% of hospital beds utilized at peak.
The state has now issued a blanket stay at home order, but the major metropolitan areas have had them for some time. People outside of the US don't tend to understand how state/city/county levels of law and authority work. I've been under lockdown for weeks now in the biggest city in Missouri with an order lasting until at least 4/22. We good.Larry B. wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 5:28 pmI'd assume it could be explained like this: at some point, there should be so many people infected, that the rate at which they become 'healthy' (e.g., 2,000 per day) is higher than the rate at which non-infected people become infected (e.g., 1,400 per day). I've no idea about the mathematics or modelling for this shit, but that seems reasonable enough, doesn't it?Matz wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:24 pmI don't understand the whole "peaking thing". Why do people think its going to peak? You'd think it would be here as long as there are people to infect. As far as I know the Spanish flu didn't "peak", it was here for a year or something and died off only because everybody were either dead or had become immune to it.
From the beginning, the most immediate goal has been to control the spread, because we just can't produce a vaccine quickly enough. Beyond that, it's up to each person to risk it or not, but if everyone got infected at the same time, loads of people would die due to medical equipment and personnel not being enough. But if the virus spreads slowly, it'd contribute towards the scenario I described in my paragraph above.
A bit funny that these projections, you like. And you still failed to mention that per that projection, about 55% of all ICU beds in the state would be needed. And in that state, apparently there haven't been any orders to stay at home, to avoid traveling, etc. If there had been, instead of 1,290 deaths you could've easily be looking at around 300 or 400 deaths, if that. But apparently, that doesn't matter?Hokahey wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 12:57 pmLook at this link:
https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections
These data projections are from the University of Washington.
Total Covid-19 deaths projected for the entire state of Missouri is 1,290 with no more than 30% of hospital beds utilized at peak.
Right now, I think many people look astonished at Sweden. The country of prohibition is open, the children go to school, while we, the Latinos of Scandinavia, the wild, open and naughty, are completely shut down. In Malmö they drink cafe latte in the sun on Stortorget, while in Copenhagen we sneak around each other in large circles for fear of being infected.
Both Sweden and Denmark are led by social democrats, but they obviously look quite differently at how we best get through the corona crisis.
The death stall in Sweden is approx. twice as high as in Denmark. This could indicate that Mette Frederiksen is the wisest. But that would be a hasty conclusion.
We must all have corona at some point and therefore nothing is left until we have all been through the disease or a vaccine has been found. In Sweden, the corona thus rages harder than in Denmark. Can one thus conclude that they come through faster? Maybe maybe not.
In fact, the score can only be settled in a few years. And included in that calculation is how the economy has developed in the meantime. Right now we have almost 50,000 new unemployed with the coronan closure. We have seen entire industries laid waste and a beginning wave of bankruptcies that even the government's well-meaning support packages cannot prevent.
The negative spiral is underway. Will it stop once we re-open? We don't know that either.
In Sweden, society is less affected, and the frightening scenario for me is that in two years the Swedes prove to have slipped through the corona crisis in health relatively graciously and without having done lasting damage to the economy, while we are hopelessly lagging behind because of the total stop .
No doubt that we Danes are with Mette Frederiksen right now. She has shown acting power. But was it too much?
There are clear cracks in the arguments for the rock hard line, where all the forces are focused on fighting the corona.
The hospitals are not overloaded. Right now, personnel are being sent home, which seems absurd because thousands of operations have been canceled. Everything is switched to corona epidemic, but the patients failed.
And the economy has been sent out on the edge of the abyss. As I wrote last week: I hope the hell the government knows what they are doing - and is smarter than the Swedes.
Yes, this. This is pretty much my point of view.Matz wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 1:06 amThis is written by the Editor in chief of a big newspaper here. It's the first time I've heard this point of view. Maybe we, and many other countries, are handling this the wrong way completely
Right now, I think many people look astonished at Sweden. The country of prohibition is open, the children go to school, while we, the Latinos of Scandinavia, the wild, open and naughty, are completely shut down. In Malmö they drink cafe latte in the sun on Stortorget, while in Copenhagen we sneak around each other in large circles for fear of being infected.
Both Sweden and Denmark are led by social democrats, but they obviously look quite differently at how we best get through the corona crisis.
The death stall in Sweden is approx. twice as high as in Denmark. This could indicate that Mette Frederiksen is the wisest. But that would be a hasty conclusion.
We must all have corona at some point and therefore nothing is left until we have all been through the disease or a vaccine has been found. In Sweden, the corona thus rages harder than in Denmark. Can one thus conclude that they come through faster? Maybe maybe not.
In fact, the score can only be settled in a few years. And included in that calculation is how the economy has developed in the meantime. Right now we have almost 50,000 new unemployed with the coronan closure. We have seen entire industries laid waste and a beginning wave of bankruptcies that even the government's well-meaning support packages cannot prevent.
The negative spiral is underway. Will it stop once we re-open? We don't know that either.
In Sweden, society is less affected, and the frightening scenario for me is that in two years the Swedes prove to have slipped through the corona crisis in health relatively graciously and without having done lasting damage to the economy, while we are hopelessly lagging behind because of the total stop .
No doubt that we Danes are with Mette Frederiksen right now. She has shown acting power. But was it too much?
There are clear cracks in the arguments for the rock hard line, where all the forces are focused on fighting the corona.
The hospitals are not overloaded. Right now, personnel are being sent home, which seems absurd because thousands of operations have been canceled. Everything is switched to corona epidemic, but the patients failed.
And the economy has been sent out on the edge of the abyss. As I wrote last week: I hope the hell the government knows what they are doing - and is smarter than the Swedes.
This would have been a terrible idea. Do you know how many immunocompromised people and people with underlying conditions are under 50? A huge number. That's everyone with diabetes, heart disease, cancer, MS, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, HIV infection, and craziest of all: fucking asthma. People are dying of COVID-19 because they caught it and had asthma.Like, everyone over 50 should stay home and be careful but other than that life goes on ....
I think it depends on what you think is included under the header of 'globalism'.
Hype wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 11:06 am.......
The gist was that the West has perverted the notion of 'reason' and confused it with 'efficiency' in markets, leading to effectively a "new mercantilism", where global multinationals take on much of the role formerly played by national governments. That is, we had entered an era basically copying the 17th century rise of massive "companies" like the East India Company, which functioned effectively like governments in the regions of the world they were sent to enslave and pillage.
There's a lot to this. But I'm not so sure that the lesson is strictly anti-globalist. Rather, I think it can be anti-monopolistic, anti-trust, anti-tax-evasion, and so forth, while retaining a strong sense of global economic and social cooperation.
I'm concerned that people are now going to confuse the fact that China has a stranglehold on production of certain goods, or the United States has a stranglehold on multinational corporate interests (see: 3M) with the fact that cooperation between China and the United States and Canada and the EU is one of the things that prevented us from going to war in anything other than periodic proxy-wars in developing nations that were being used as fronts for regional power-struggles. Breaking up agreements like NAFTA, the TPP, the EU, and so on is not going to go well. National self-sufficiency is not the ideal we should hold ourselves to. There is no such thing as a nation that can be entirely self-sufficient. If there were, the Soviet Union would have been it by sheer geographic size (and sufficient population) alone. But the lesson of the Soviet Union is that international isolation is deadly.