Coronavirus

[Larry B.]

I really, really doubt he would attack corporations. They own him (and any president in a capitalist country). He’d rather let people die.

[Hype]

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.

[Pandemonium]

You are seeing the growing (US) government "commandeering" of major US corporations that was seen in WWII, which considering the circumstances and behavior of some noted major companies like GM, is frankly necessary right now. I also believe that a US company serves the US and it's citizens first in times of National crisis, the rest of the world comes second. The same I'd think of any company based in Canada, Mexico, the UK or where ever. The downside is when resources become scarce in one country or region, that's how wars start.

Also, for better or worse, we are definitely going to see a big pullback from the Globalism trend of the past quarter century. When the dust settles, a lot of countries are going to want to be more self-reliant and self contained to better prepare for the next major crisis.

[Larry B.]

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.

The government will ‘ask’ for things, maybe. And they might even ‘push’ for some things. But taking them over? I don’t know. I really doubt it.

[Hype]

Yeah. That sounds about right. Things are more or less reasonable until there's a breaking point / crisis point, and then it's not clear what the reaction will be. Trump is oddly non-ideological in some ways. His recent talk of the number of uninsured people being "unfair" so maybe they should increase medicare/medicaid enrollment (i.e., create something closer to a universal public insurance scheme) is surprising, since it doesn't fit with anything else he's said (but it seems like it's a calculation based on the fact that his voter base is the most affected by this crisis, so throwing them a lifeline like this is a way to win the election...).

The nationalistic/"America First" rhetoric plays into this as well. Americans tend to be ignorant and blinkered when it comes to their reliance on the rest of the world. And it's easy to see why: The United States has for 100 years been really well-positioned to do things on its own, and provide aid to the rest of the world. But given modern supply-chains and interconnected economies, it's idiotic for them to try to restrict the actions of American multinational corporations. Still, they might try, because they're trying to make up for how poorly they've dealt with things up to this point.

[Hokahey]

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."

16K hospitalized so far in NY. 11K have been discharged. Hopefully 4-8 days until peak.

NY is roughly half of all US infections.

[Hype]

NY is roughly half of all US infections.

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.

[Hokahey]

NY is roughly half of all US infections.

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.

Look 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.

[Matz]

I 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.

[mockbee]

I 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.

Yeah.....it'll be around a while relatively, but you answer your own question.
There will be a peak time of infections/deaths based on how quickly it spreads...then there will be fewer and fewer new cases.

And probably/likely pockets it never got to, and if it eventually did it wouldn't be a wave of infections.

[Larry B.]

I 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?

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.

Look 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.

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]

I 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?

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.

Look 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.

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?

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.

And why are you going on about 55% of ICU beds needed? That's a wonderful number considering we've been told every area would see capacity overwhelmed. If we hit (roughly) half utilization of resources during this I think we'll be thrilled.

[Matz]

This 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.

[Mescal]

This 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.

Yes, this. This is pretty much my point of view.

I think we should have controlled the instream a bit better, and not lock everything down.

Like, everyone over 50 should stay home and be careful but other than that life goes on ....

[mockbee]

This is certainly strange times.......

Can't decide whether the world is living out a King or Kafka novel, my impressions are a sprinkle of King and a whollop of Kakfa, while I'm living out my own personal Walden.....

[Hype]

Like, everyone over 50 should stay home and be careful but other than that life goes on ....

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.

Life doesn't go on for those people. They get viral pneumonia, maybe get hooked up to a respirator if there even is one, and then they have a maybe 1 in 5 to 1 in 10 chance of surviving -- and if they do survive, they may have long-lasting detrimental effects.

Just to be clearer: for those people, it doesn't matter if *they* don't go outside for the duration of this crisis if their spouses, children, loved ones, friends, etc., go on as if everything is fine for them, are asymptomatic for two weeks while carrying it, and infect these vulnerable people.

Sweden has 40 coronavirus deaths per million population right now. Do you know how many Canada has? 6. SIX. So Sweden's death rate is nearly 7 times higher than Canada's. That is ridiculous. (It's 254 / million in Italy, which is an indicator of just how bad things get when the system gets overwhelmed.)

This is why ordinary people aren't in charge of public health. Jeeeeez.

[Larry B.]

I think it boils down to the question of how many lives os the country’s economy worth. As a country, are you willing to sacrifice 1% of your population in order to keep your economy more or less as it was in Dec 2019?

[Hype]

It’s not just lives. It’s the healthcare system, and the effect of system failure there on everything else. The effect on nurses, doctors, maintenance workers... unchecked, allowing this to just run away would cause more than just Coronavirus deaths.

Look at state and national healthcare budgets. It’s a massive proportion of government expenditure. If governments fail, it’s a lot worse than a temporary economic depression.

Decades of idiotic anti-tax lobbying around the world means that there’s no real leeway here. Governments may need to start thinking about how to claw billions from the multinationals to pay for all of this.

[kv]

[SR]

I can't think of a better anti-globalist lesson than cv. We won't learn from it though

[Hype]

I can't think of a better anti-globalist lesson than cv. We won't learn from it though

I think it depends on what you think is included under the header of 'globalism'.

Many years ago, the husband of a former Governor General (Queen's Representative) of Canada, wrote this book: https://www.johnralstonsaul.com/non-fic ... _bastards/

I read it back then, and saw him give a talk on it. 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.

[mockbee]

.......
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.

This.

The problem moving forward is that I see absolutely no alternative politically in the US....

Both "sides" (Dems/Repubs) are mind-bogglingly "stupid" and the rest of us don't care........


Maybe COVID-19 will wake people up.....

[Hype]

Besides the obvious tragedy of the US handling of COVID-19, it would compound the shit out of it if Trump is reelected and the Republicans keep control of the Senate. The old saying that Americans can be counted on to do the right thing after they've exhausted all other options first seems apt here. God, I hope as a country something cracks and y'all can knock some sense into government at all levels after this. Sort of like rejecting Hoover for FDR. Unfortunately neither Biden nor Sanders are FDR-like.

[Hokahey]

New York state has seen its first drop in daily coronavirus deaths, Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced Sunday -- as the U.S. Northern Command said it would deploy a combined total of 1,000 Air Force and Navy medical providers to the New York City area to support relief efforts in the next three days.

Cuomo said New York also experienced a slight drop in intensive care admissions and the number of patients who need breathing tubes inserted. The hospital discharge rate is "way up" he said, calling it "great news."

[Bandit72]

Our Prime Minister is in hospital now as a "precautionary measure"....I know he is in government but how many people are admitted because of this? Zero. Something's not right.