Chinese "Devil Virus" - anyone worried?
- Thread starter manwithnoname
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
But the general public doesn't have any wealth.
If we stay in lockdown for a year or 18 months you're looking at a shortfall of hundreds of billions.
Even if you could just nick loads of money off the super rich - far from certain given people like that can just float off anywhere they want on a yacht - there isn't nearly enough of it anyway.
It'll be the ordinary man who ends up paying, in tax, inflation, and much-reduced services.
A small correction: the common cold is a related coronavirus, flu isn’t. And we don’t have a vaccine nor “herd immunity” to the common cold.
Well that’s the question isn’t it - if the world doesn’t go back to the way it was before and social distancing, etc become the new norm - why do things have to revert to the old ways for the “super rich” - maybe they shouldn’t be allowed to “just nick off” somewhere.
I dunno - I don’t want to sound all comrade revolutionary - but it seems the way the world is or was doesn’t work well for this.
Trump et al will peddle how important it is for lots of us to die in order for the economy to restart the way it was and maintain the previous course - which seemed to be creating greater divisions in society between have and have not with each passing year.
Politics is fucked because money gets you access and influence - voting doesn’t give you influence.
We know what the general population will have to give up to get the economy working- their lives in many cases and accepting less opportunity, reduced services, etc.
What do the “super rich” contribute our lose out on in this scenario - what’s their responsibility to society?
I think you're overreacting to what is essentially some accelerated deaths of very old people.
At the moment there's no evidence to suggest the impact need be any worse than that. We certainly shouldn't be chucking any chance of future prosperity away on the assumption that there's going to be such a revolution that we hardly need to think of things in normal terms.
At the moment there's no evidence to suggest the impact need be any worse than that. We certainly shouldn't be chucking any chance of future prosperity away on the assumption that there's going to be such a revolution that we hardly need to think of things in normal terms.
This future prosperity you speak of was already chucked away thirty years ago. The only way for the people of the west to get a piece of that prosperity pie now is to buy financial assets. At least it used to be. Alas their central banks have betrayed them, got completely drunk on corona and bought assets up for fun, convincing us that is the way to keep the economy (code for stock market which is not the same thing) ticking over, because reasons. That does two things, (a) makes the value of those assets a total fantasy concept, and (b) makes your share of those assets ever smaller, because you don't have the luxury of printing money and buying as much as you like. So that wasn't the way to prosperity. The true way to prosperity lay with Big D importing real growth from asia back to the west, but despite my best efforts, the people have chosen death instead.
Firstly, that opening sentence is fucking horrific.
I assume you don't anyone who has died from this, I do, so I feel very different about it. FWIW, he's was in his 40's, with no underlying health conditions, so I struggle to see how it fits with that ultra cynical narrative you lay out.
A friend of Bex is a nurse, she's lost her mum, her father in law, brother in law, & an aunt to covid-19, do you think she'd agree with it?
Secondly, UBI is one of two options for the next five to ten years, the alternative is to watch a massive part of Western society turn into ghettos with no jobs, due to automation, AI & the massive shrinking of the retail sector, which this has only exacerbated, as well as removing a fair proportion of the service jobs that some would migrate to.
Even if you don't agree with wealth distribution (I get that my brand of politics isn't popular in this country, I'm not naive, even though I'll never be able to truly understand why it isn't), then the medium to long term benefits of UBI on the wider economy are massive, akin to a huge infrastructure project, only arguably more so, as some will simply spend the cash, cash injection for the economy, some will save it, less pension to pay out, increased house ownership over the long term, some will use it to offset further education, increasing the nations skills set, others may help their communities.
I see no downside whatsoever, esp if you compare it to the 'benefits' of an over budget vanity project like HS2.
Bringing in UBI now would be even more beneficial, as it would help many cash strapped businesses stay open, so I'd argue bringing the inevitable timeline a few years forward makes perfect sense.
Quite right ! Sorry - brainfart ! Amended.
I'm talking aggregates.
The statistics say it's essentially deaths of old people. Note, essentially. I don't think it does any good to counter with anecdotes about tiny numbers of young people being affected.
Political decisions have to be made at the macro level. I get that that's brutal, but we'd never make any decisions about anything otherwise.
I'm not sure I really follow why UBI is part of this equation. It may well be the correct policy response to automation etc, but it doesn't solve the deaths vs prosperity dilemma posed by coronavirus. It still requires a healthy economy to be viable.
The statistics say it's essentially deaths of old people. Note, essentially. I don't think it does any good to counter with anecdotes about tiny numbers of young people being affected.
Political decisions have to be made at the macro level. I get that that's brutal, but we'd never make any decisions about anything otherwise.
I'm not sure I really follow why UBI is part of this equation. It may well be the correct policy response to automation etc, but it doesn't solve the deaths vs prosperity dilemma posed by coronavirus. It still requires a healthy economy to be viable.
Although I agree that they've not done their homework and it's bitten them on the arse, they are getting stiffed by apple and google in a time of crisis. If I was the government, I wouldn't forget that fact too soon, what goes around comes around.
I don't think apple and google care what the UK government think or do.
Paging Dantes!!!!
I might very well be over-reacting- but I’m late 40’s, much fatter than Boris and have high blood pressure - so I’m a prime candidate for sacrificing myself for the economy’s sake.
I get that “difficult decisions” etc - but why do the difficult decisions always have to be made about the vulnerable or those that are considered less important.
Are shareholders and corporations willing to forgo or divert dividends and profits to protecting society as a hole - or will we continue to coalesce resources around those that have the most and expect the likes of you and me to foot the bill and accept diminished service and protection at the same time.
I beg to differ, we're a massive market for both.
Corporations are never willing to do anything other than maximise their profits/wealth.
Shareholders? I think that's too diverse a group to analyse. It's essentially the same as asking if the people in general are willing to accept large losses. They may be, I'm not sure.
Pretty sure most people aren’t willing to die either - but apparently not getting the choice.
If the climate changes and wipes out crops, releases unimaginable horror infections from the melting ice, floods cities, hurricanes, disaster. There is only one solution. Technology which we don't yet have. There are four ways to get it.
(1) The smart choice is to rely upon capitalism to drive growth and innovation in the private sector.
(2) Or if you choose death and give everyone UBI, elect the likes of creepy joe biden and comrade corbyn, well there is still hope in the aristocracy spending their wealth upon scientific research like in the old days of Newton and Galileo. That might also be a way to develop new technology. Of course they will probably spend it on islands to smuggle kids for bumming. Least they'll be the first to die in the floods.
(3) The third way is if I disclose what I know about the universe to the rest of the scientific community and kick off a quantum leap in advancement of our understanding, but come on, after the hot spanish/colombian girl fiascos nobody in science gets nothing from me except a bullet to the brain.
(4) The fourth way is to listen to Greta and the UN. Best of luck with that one.
If I was a betting man, I'd say we're already dead.
I hope everyone will now see that the climate models which people refer to as "scientific evidence" from "scientific experts", are every bit as galactically retarded as the pandemic models, which have proven so so very valuable during these times. All the climate scientists are just a bunch of fake captain pantsdowns that deserve a bullet in their brain. Shame most of them are racist too, or else they'd recruit more black researchers, and then increase the chances of getting a bullet.
Lockdown is being relaxed in stages as of Monday, which is pretty much as expected, and very welcome.
Any longer and the economy is going to completely tank - as opposed to just slightly tank - millions more will lose jobs, security and their houses; thousands of small businesses will collapse; retail will be decimated and many other sectors may take years to recover.
So there's no choice, because the working population's taxes and a healthy economy pays for fucking everything else, so whatever "back to normal" means, we need to get close to it, and soon.
I'm sure there are some who reckon total lockdown should carry on - until when exactly? Indefinitely? Until a cure is found? - but by then you'll be eating rats in your unlit houses, while refuse piles up to the windows.
So better get used to it.
Any longer and the economy is going to completely tank - as opposed to just slightly tank - millions more will lose jobs, security and their houses; thousands of small businesses will collapse; retail will be decimated and many other sectors may take years to recover.
So there's no choice, because the working population's taxes and a healthy economy pays for fucking everything else, so whatever "back to normal" means, we need to get close to it, and soon.
I'm sure there are some who reckon total lockdown should carry on - until when exactly? Indefinitely? Until a cure is found? - but by then you'll be eating rats in your unlit houses, while refuse piles up to the windows.
So better get used to it.
I agree with the last point, we're already dead.
The pubs opening will reduce the numbers of alcoholics almost immediately too.
You're still allowed to go to the bins, you know.
In what way are they getting stuffed by apple and google? And in not forgetting that what can the UK Government actually do?
PPE ordered form Turkey..
400,000 gowns.. pile of shit... doesn't meet safety standards..
You couldn't make this shit up could you, even if you tried..
400,000 gowns.. pile of shit... doesn't meet safety standards..
You couldn't make this shit up could you, even if you tried..
But there is a valid reason that OS/Kernel
Level guards exist too. It’s to stop
developers misusing it which is valid. If phone vendors are provided overrides to governments apps then we are down a dangerous road (not that it hasn’t happened already 🙂)
Even if they had got IOS/Android patches to allow the usage, it would imagine be at least a month before dev/release roll out and then users would have to update their phones to the latest where there is often a lag.
The government as I understand it had other options but choose to ultimately go down this centralised root and go back on the usage of the data collection. It has no one else to blame but it’s own stupidity.
Last edited:
Of course you could.
Outsourcing manufacturing to 2nd world countries always carries the risk that you will receive substandard goods.