OSDev.org

Solar wrote:To answer my own question, you haven't gotten any suggestions

You are expecting a solution without understanding the question.
Btw the obvious solution is already told by the WHO, use more tests, and let the healthy people work. Check the people at the entrances, and only let the healthy ones in. This stands for markets, factories, offices etc. Does that many tests cost money? Of course it does, but it is still a lot cheaper than the missing production's value, not to mention the additional price of handling global unrests and famines. Govs should listen to the pandemic experts instead of hiding the truth about severity and looking for their own benefits.

Transparency and medical science are the solution, simple as that. Why don't govs do that then? Because that would show the world the obvious, that polititians are not needed at all, and humanity would be better off without them. Parasites will never admit that, they always lie and pretend to be something else. Govs are no different.

Solar wrote:you're just just fear-mongering.

How so? Do you think that the CDC link I gave was a fake? Do you think I just made up that people are starving in Italy? I assure you those are true. Don't hate the messenger.

Cheers,
bzt

bzt wrote:Why don't govs do that then?

Because lab capacity to do those tests is limited (they do not even have the capacity to test all suspects, let alone everyone, at this point), and you would have to repeat those tests more or less daily to avoid a recently infected (because you can get infected at other places than work) infecting all of their company.

Any more "educated" suggestions?

What's not needed isn't politicians, it's people who have no clue about the subject making "suggestions" like these and stirring the fires. Are you by any chance working for the CDC, the RKI, the WHO or a similar organization as a health specialist? No. So let the specialists do the thinking, they are actually qualified.

bzt wrote:

eekee wrote:

StudlyCaps wrote:Food comes from farms worked by men, not from stock brokers.

Technically true, but food distribution has become excessively complex.

Yes, and also I see no way to transfer food from farms to cities during a curfew. Here one of the biggest problems last week was that every time a new truck crosses the border they quarantining the truck drivers for two weeks. And I imagine when they get out from the quarantine and go home, they'll facing similar restrictions there. This kinda kills international transportation as a whole. Luckily our argiculture is strong, but we're still going to have problems because they've ordered a curfew starting from today morning. Standard markets are closed and local farmers are not allowed to sell the food they grow. Some supermarkets are still working with limited opening hours, and only a limited number of people allowed to enter at any given time, but most of the stores has already closed for an undefined time.

Ah Britain is doing all right on this point, at present. The worst of it is queueing for the supermarket so the people inside can maintain 2m distancing. Not that it's entirely possible to do so in aisles, but it helps. Hopefully it won't get any worse than that.

I was pleasantly surprised when my sister told me her flower business on the Isle of Man is doing all right. "We live above the shop so technically working from home. Just me and [_], staff sent home. Was difficult at first to get flowers from Holland but seems OK now." If it helps people keep their spirits up in isolation, it's a good thing, I think.

Looks like I missed a page, but don't have anything practical to say on those points anyway.

The latest estimates, direct from the White House, are that without the measures being taken there could be between 1.5 and 2.2 million deaths in the US. Given that Trump has always tried to downplay the scale of the problem this is probably an underestimate.

Restricted freedom, for a while, to avoid this outcome is a small price to pay. When even Trump accepts this simple fact you have to be pretty obtuse to think otherwise.

iansjack wrote:Restricted freedom, for a while, to avoid this outcome is a small price to pay.

I agree on general principle, but Italy has evidently managed to mess up even this. People are running out of money to buy food, a big portion of the population don't qualify for government aid, while for others the aid is apparently too late. Hunger is real for some, riots are starting to look like a real possibility, and I'm starting to pray for the innocent over there. There's nothing else I can do, I don't think. I'm not sure what I'll do if riots come to Britain, but I have a couple of weeks to think about it and I think it's a much lower possibility in the first place—I think we have a much smaller population of unregistered workers. I could be wrong.

Hmm... thinking about preparation... article: When Disaster Strikes​—Steps That Can Save Lives.

The problem here in the UK is not that the Government are being too Draconian, but the very opposite. They have *****-footed about, taking unclear, confused action far too late. There is plenty of food available here, but rationing should have been imposed immediately when the idiots started panic buying.

This imposes real problems on over-70s, like myself, who can't afford to expose ourselves to the risk of catching the virus but find it impossible to get on-line deliveries. I am fortunate enough to live in a caring neighbourhood; neighbours, in particular a very kind girl home from university, are shopping for us and picking up prescriptions. But I'm only too aware that there are those in city centres who have never even spoken to their neighbours.

It's all very well for the government to impose restrictions on us, and I'm glad that they have, but they're doing bugger all else to help those in need.

Solar wrote:Because lab capacity to do those tests is limited (they do not even have the capacity to test all suspects, let alone everyone, at this point), and you would have to repeat those tests more or less daily to avoid a recently infected (because you can get infected at other places than work) infecting all of their company.

And that's exactly why all efforts should be focused on portable tests and neverseen collaboration between countries. You haven't said anything new here.

What would be YOUR suggestions?

Solar wrote:What's not needed isn't politicians

How so? They clearly don't listen to health specialists. In fact politicians are the number one cause of this pandemic, because they tried to silence the doctors in Wuhan. There are unfortunate countries where people were commanded on the street to celebrate their dictator... And countries where the shrines were not locked down, and people were let to kiss the statues for weeks after the outbreak...

Solar wrote:So let the specialists do the thinking, they are actually qualified.

We're way beyond that. The time for thinking is over, and it is time for the politicians to listen to what specialist are saying.

iansjack wrote:They have *****-footed about, taking unclear, confused action far too late.

Unfortunately this is the same for all countries. The worst of all I think is North-Korea, where the gov officially still denying the existence of the virus. Lies won't stop the epidemic, that's for sure.

eekee wrote:Ah Britain is doing all right on this point, at present. The worst of it is queueing for the supermarket so the people inside can maintain 2m distancing. Not that it's entirely possible to do so in aisles, but it helps. Hopefully it won't get any worse than that.

Sorry to hear. Let's hope the best!

iansjack wrote:The latest estimates, direct from the White House, are that without the measures being taken there could be between 1.5 and 2.2 million deaths in the US

That might be true. However we know for sure if the Chinese gov hadn't deny the epidemic at the early stage in the first place, then there would be no pandemic to talk about, that's for sure.

Chinese gov cannot be held responsible for the appearance of the virus, but they are responsible and the number one cause for letting it became a pandemic. Should they have listened to the doctors and order the quarantine in time instead of jailing them, and there would be no problem at all. Sadly that brave doctor Li Wenliang died because of the virus.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/worl ... virus.html.

UPDATE: estimated 1.5 - 2.2 million deaths in total contra nearly 10 million real (not an estimation) unemployed just in the last two weeks and sadly their number exponentially growing. If nothing changes, then I estimate by the end of the year the number of deaths due to hunger will exceed the estimated number of deaths due to the virus. I really really do hope I'm wrong.

Cheers,
bzt

Sorry for bringing bad news again, and please don't hate the messenger! It seems this is going to be a lot worse than I imagined.

According to IMF, we are facing a "crisis like no other" before. If this includes 1929 (and I think it does), then chances are good that we might also facing WWIII, and means that the total collapse of the global economy is on the table as well.

Honestly, the numbers in IMF's article are just shocking, I would never thought that the situation is this bad (and we still don't see the end).

Cheers,
bzt

The world economic systems are unsustainable. It was just a matter of time before everything exploded. This virus just made it happen sooner.

It will be hard for a few years, but things will have to change and the wanton destruction of our planet in the name of economic growth will hopefully stop.

I wouldn't say I am happy it's happening, but I am looking forward to what is next. Golden ages happen after major crisis such as this one.

Not everything is gloom and doom.

I was listening to an interesting TED talk today. The speaker was explaining how everyone believes that the post-pandemic world will change and align with their believes.

Some people think we will have a police state, others thinks it will be anarchy, others think it will get better and change in unknown directions. Everyone agrees things will change. But nobody agrees what the changes will be and what it is going to look like.

kzinti wrote:Everyone agrees things will change. But nobody agrees what the changes will be and what it is going to look like.

I guess, that is because change is the one constant in the universe. Everything is always changing. Sometimes radically so, but I wouldn't bet on it. So far, capitalism is the only economic system that could be shown to work. I, for one, don't think major economic changes will be happening as a result of this. Although some politicians now see value in not outsourcing important industries to China, talk is always cheap, and talk during a crisis doubly so. They also made grand pronouncements about putting the banks on a leach after 2008, and look what happened there: Nothing. Tons of state money burnt up in the furnaces of the banks, and very little of consequence happened.

The food is never eaten as hot as it is cooked.

bzt wrote:If this includes 1929 (and I think it does), then chances are good that we might also facing WWIII, and means that the total collapse of the global economy is on the table as well.

The second world war was not just a consequence of the Great Depression. Lots of other factors were in there, too. Note that the world at large was recovering from the Depression by the time Hitler was elected, never mind when he actually went to war. And now we have large international trade networks that mean that the countries depend on each other so much that war would be economic suicide.

kzinti wrote:The world economic systems are unsustainable. It was just a matter of time before everything exploded.

Possibly. Well, here's hoping the growth economy does not come to an end. Because while a zero-sum economy is sustainable, it is not very peaceful. Zero-sum economy is what we had in the middle ages, and it meant that everyone was always fighting everyone else for more land.

In the middle ages, economy was largely agriculture, and the only way to get more resources doing agriculture is to get more land. So if you want to have a better life tomorrow than you have today (or you want your children to have a better life than you), you have to take away someone else's land. And even if you do not think so selfishly, all of your neighbors are faced with the same problem, and at least some of them will think so. So you are always either at war or preparing for one. But in a growth economy, that is no longer true. In a growth economy, if I can get you to make more money, and give part of that money to me, I make more money all the same. I'm invested in making your life better for selfish reasons. And that is the power of capitalism: Turning selfishness into a power for peace and prosperity. And human beings, by and large, are selfish. I mean, some only care for themselves, some care for their families, and some even care for their "tribe" however you want to define that (city, region, country, ...), but there is usually an in-group preference.

Of course, prolonged growth economy requires a purging every now and again... oh boy, here we go again.

nullplan wrote:Of course, prolonged growth economy requires a purging every now and again... oh boy, here we go again.

Yep.

I am not against capitalism. But corruption brought it too far. Correction is about to happen.

A good news is pollution across the world is down.

kzinti wrote:The world economic systems are unsustainable. It was just a matter of time before everything exploded. This virus just made it happen sooner.

It will be hard for a few years, but things will have to change and the wanton destruction of our planet in the name of economic growth will hopefully stop.

I wouldn't say I am happy it's happening, but I am looking forward to what is next. Golden ages happen after major crisis such as this one.

Not everything is gloom and doom.

Exactly my thoughts. Let's just hope we're not going on the road of police states with further forcing this unsustainable economy. Fingers crossed for something new, non-capitalist and non-communist solution. I really would like to see something radically new and sustainable system, something more along the line of true meritocracy and true democracy. But I'm afraid the ones currently in power just won't let it happen, because they are too greedy and way too short sighted on their profit to see the big picture.

kzinti wrote:I am not against capitalism. But corruption brought it too far.

In a system where profit is above everything else corruption is unavoidable and encoded deeply in the system itself. No matter how hard we try, capitalism will always end up in a greedy, morality-less rampage, that's its nature. Not unlike cancer. Just for the records communism is no better. Despite of the common belief, communism is not the opposite of capitalism, rather just a complementary part of it. Without capitalism there would be no communism either, and is just as corrupt.

nullplan wrote:The second world war was not just a consequence of the Great Depression. Lots of other factors were in there, too.

True, but the pandemic is not the only factor today either. The regression coming is just merely a catalist.

Many states already admitedly switched to war-time operation. For example in my country last week soldiers marched into companies' HQs, and all the big corporations are now under military control. Just like that. I find it hard to explain how does commanding a bunch of soldiers all around the country helps with stopping the pandemic (but for totally different reasons I happen to agree with this takeover in hundred percent).

Cheers,
bzt

kzinti wrote:

nullplan wrote:Of course, prolonged growth economy requires a purging every now and again... oh boy, here we go again.

Yep.

I am not against capitalism. But corruption brought it too far. Correction is about to happen.

Had to think about this for a while. Then I noticed that war is not the only market-purging event. Disruptive technologies can do the same job. When refrigeration became cheap enough that common households could afford it, the entire ice production, preservation, and transport industries broke down. So, too, did the market for vacuum-tubes after the invention of the transistor.

The disruption due to the quarantine measures will end up putting some companies out of business, but those closures will leave a hole behind for others to fill after the conclusion of those quarantine measures. If you invested in a restaurant in the Lake Constance area and wanted to throw a grand opening this year, that might suck for you, but the restaurant itself will be available for someone to open next year. And if the company I work at folds, a new space will have opened up in the car tightening tool supplier industry. And I am not worried, since my skills are going to be in demand even if the entire German car industry should fold. Not everyone is so lucky, though. If you just spent thirty years working at the assembly line for the car industry, you are going to have a really tough time in the same event.

Oh, and the only thing that helps against corruption is swapping out the powerful people every so often. And not just by changing generations in a dynasty. Politicians need to be changed like diapers, and for the same reason. Crises like the current one, or even widespread pandemics, will not end up doing that. The powerful people will hold onto power until they die. They have to be removed by others. For politicians at least, we have a non-violent way of doing that, we just aren't very good at exercising it. For powerful people in commercial companies, though, I have no idea. And the really rich and powerful ones have ways to immortalize themselves by creating foundations. (I promised myself I would not name a certain Hungarian at this point). Seems like the only way to get rid of those people is a really violent shake-up of society.

You've made some really good points @nullplan, and in general I totally agree. However

nullplan wrote:Oh, and the only thing that helps against corruption is swapping out the powerful people every so often. And not just by changing generations in a dynasty. Politicians need to be changed like diapers, and for the same reason.

I don't see how that would help. Knowing that they have only a limited time to make a fortune, I believe if anything, this would make politicians even greedier and more willing to accept bribe.

I've seen this unfortunately. There was a scandal with the gov before Orban. On a leaked voice recording, the then prime minister said to his comrades "We f*cked up. Not just a little, but big time". When those politicians realized with the recording out they had absolutely no chance of winning the next election, they started to steal taxpayers money as well as EU money in a magnitude no-one could imagine possible. And they kept doing that to the very last day till they were on power.

So I don't think frequently changing the robber would do any good. Instead I think we must make sure of it, that only honest, thrustworthy and non-greedy people gets elected. It is easier to be said than done, I know. But I still believe that's the long-term solution.

Cheers,
bzt