Coronavirus (COVID-19 Outbreak) (68 Viewers)

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
39,347
Trump and his cronies are calling it this to try to imply they have done a great job if they keep US deaths under a quarter million. No one sane is. No one on Tuz is. Stop making nonsense up to support a dumb statement you made.

And you still haven't in the slightest addressed the fact that even if we followed your plan of abandoning all 80+ year olds, and letting this spread freely, the health care system of every nation in the world would be swamped and and unable to cope with the hospitalization and ICU rates of 20-65 year olds, let alone the 65-80 year olds at a much higher rate too.
Trump? I'm talking about the UN Secretary General: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52114829

Would it be swamped? Really? Because I see it is swamped because we're trying so save 85 year olds. What if we didn't?

- - - Updated - - -

I am assuming you have parents, grandparents, etc in your (extended) family?
So, why wait for coronavirus to get them, just smack them in the back of the head and wheel them out in a ravine or something.
Don't worry, I won't tell.
Like I said before, my father tested positive and he has been quite sick. He's 59. If he were 89 however, I don't think we should treat him. Our resources should go to younger people.

It's really not that difficult of a point to understand. And it's not callous either. Again, the 89 year old will die soon. Whether we cure him or not.

- - - Updated - - -

is modern day western society psychologically prepared to endure something like this? Not in the slightest.

Your points have merit, maybe a more (coldly) sensible society would allow the old to die to preserve the future prospects of the young. I mean fuck a significant amount of the old probably would be willing but imo modern western society is simply not built/ prepared to accept something like this. I agree, its not comparable to WW2 but a majority of the population have never experienced anything close to this.

I am not a psychologist so I don't know what the effects would be.

Our society is not prepared, no.

And I don't get it. We act as if we have found a way to stay young forever. And I'm all in favor of scientists trying rejuvenation therapies, trying to change the human race into something stronger, more resilient. But as of now we grow old and frail and die. It's just a fact of life that we have accepted for millions of years and all of a sudden we have trouble understanding that this is how it has always been.

The Spanish Flu infected 200 million and killed about 50 million. And this on a global population of 2 billion.

This is nothing.

Our response has been ridiculous.
 

Buy on AliExpress.com
Last edited:

X Æ A-12

Senior Member
Contributor
Sep 4, 2006
87,992
Trump? I'm talking about the UN Secretary General: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52114829

Would it be swamped? Really? Because I see it is swamped because we're trying so save 85 year olds. What if we didn't?
The CCP may have dragged feet initially but have since implemented measures which, even if their lies about no new domestic cases were true, might bring the whole ponzy scheme that is China crashing down. They are not humanitarians so why have they done this?
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
39,347
The CCP may have dragged feet initially but have since implemented measures which, even if their lies about no new domestic cases were true, might bring the whole ponzy scheme that is China crashing down. They are not humanitarians so why have they done this?
The Chinese? You're going to refer to the Chinese? They are sending 'aid' everywhere. There is nothing that scares me more than the Chinese at this point. We are creating a situation in which we are building moral and financial debt to China. It's the last place I want to be in. They are milking this to the bone and we're letting them.
 

Post Ironic

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2013
42,253
Trump? I'm talking about the UN Secretary General: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52114829

Would it be swamped? Really? Because I see it is swamped because we're trying so save 85 year olds. What if we didn't?

- - - Updated - - -



Like I said before, my father tested positive and he has been quite sick. He's 59. If he were 89 however, I don't think we should treat him. Our resources should go to younger people.

It's really not that difficult of a point to understand. And it's not callous either. Again, the 89 year old will die soon. Whether we cure him or not.
I posted all of this above. The health care system cannot handle the influx of hospitalized and ICU patients from coronavirus left to spread freely in just the 20-65 population, let alone the 20-80 population. It hospitalized around 15% in that age range, and ICU/ventilator is required for around 5%. In America, around 70-75% of the population is in that age range, which means about 240 million people. You let Coronavirus go wild and infect everyone over the next year, or let’s say 200 million people, that’s 30 million in the hospital and ~10 million of those needing ICU over the year for coronavirus alone, which would absolutely overwhelm the system when added to the fact you still have day to day life going on and all the hospitalization and icu treatments necessary for various health issues and accidents among that age group already.

Never mind what 30 million working age people hospitalized for A few weeks each does to the economy and work force lol. And at a 0.5% death rate (probably higher due to 60-80 age group), that’s at least 1 million deaths from those 200 million cases. Sounds great, right. :baus:

And the UN dude didn’t say it was comparable to WWII. That’s quite a misleading claim. He said it’s the world’s greatest test since then, nothing about it being on the same level. It may well end up being the greatest test of the post-wwii world if it kills millions around the world because of bizarre, misguided ideas like yours.
 
Last edited:

X Æ A-12

Senior Member
Contributor
Sep 4, 2006
87,992
The Chinese? You're going to refer to the Chinese? They are sending 'aid' everywhere. There is nothing that scares me more than the Chinese at this point. We are creating a situation in which we are building moral and financial debt to China. It's the last place I want to be in. They are milking this to the bone and we're letting them.
:shifty: Do Europeans really feel a debt to China over this? This situation should be the long awaited wakeup that China needs to get smacked around a bit.
 

acmilan

Plusvalenza Akbar
Nov 8, 2005
10,722
Trump? I'm talking about the UN Secretary General: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52114829

Would it be swamped? Really? Because I see it is swamped because we're trying so save 85 year olds. What if we didn't?

- - - Updated - - -



Like I said before, my father tested positive and he has been quite sick. He's 59. If he were 89 however, I don't think we should treat him. Our resources should go to younger people.

It's really not that difficult of a point to understand. And it's not callous either. Again, the 89 year old will die soon. Whether we cure him or not.
So, he is gonna be a 60 yo guy, who will get his lungs fucked up - really good chance of that - and will be a dysfunctional member of society going forward. Might as well end it now. Why wait another 20-30 years of watching the guy drag an oxygen tank behind him?

When it comes to who understands what, please don't patronize me. You have laid out some simplistic dystopian idea without even being able to comprehend how much more there is to an act of such magnitude. The arguments you are making are simplistic and one-dimensional and you haven't even started scratching the surface of this butterfly effect you'd have on your hands.

Doing what you are suggesting will change society in ways none of us can even begin to imagine. You can't just throw a simple idea in the air and draw a line where all the consequences of such an act will begin and end.

Who's to say that, in a society like the one you are proposing, people won't stop having children, their future killers, not seeing a point to the future that's waiting for them behind the corner. The concept of family dynamics may have to be redrawn completely.

Once you devalue human life like that, who's to say the "getting rid of the useless" stops with the elderly? Once you get on a slippery slope like this, there is no end to how far down you can slide. Before you know it, the young but sick will be deemed expendable by some Hitler/Mengele-style philosopher. Then will come the poor's turn to take a shower in a gas chamber, then the less intelligent, etc, etc. Where does it end but the self-annihilation of the human species?
What ultimately will help mankind survive is valuing all human life. Without that, it's just a matter of time and dogmatic philosophies before that slope gets so slippery that we find ourselves, as a species, at the very bottom.

And this me just scratching the surface of the tip of the iceberg ... Again, one such act will have unimaginable consequences in time. With so many variables in place, it will quickly become a self-backfeeding monstrosity of a randomly chaotic system that will take on a life of its own.

Fucked-up moral compasses aside, you may try to look at this as a purely practical solution to a problem but you can't just draw a line behind it and pretend that's where it ends ... That's because that line, will be the starting line for shit you aren't prepared to even begin to imagine, let alone foresee.
 

InterMerda

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2016
1,453
There are reports that 2 million people have died from the virus in China... 2 mil might be a little exaggerated but 1 mil is totally believable.

- - - Updated - - -

To everyone saying we should let old people die, fuck you. Those folks have contributed to this world more than any of you... And you want to thank them by letting them die? Ridiculous. Not impressed, insensitivity is standard nowadays.

I'd rather have my dad alive than keep my job (which is good and pays decently).
 
Last edited:

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
39,347
There are reports that 2 million people have died from the virus in China... 2 mil might be a little exaggerated but 1 mil is totally believable.

- - - Updated - - -

To everyone saying we should let old people die, fuck you. Those folks have contributed to this world more than any of you... And you want to thank them by letting them die? Ridiculous. Not impressed, insensitivity is standard nowadays.

I'd rather have my dad alive than keep my job (which is good and pays decently).
They are going to die regardless of treatment.

You seem to live in this fantasy where old people don't die. They do. All the time. Of all sorts of things. You spend billions saving them from corona and then they die a month later of some unrelated illness.

- - - Updated - - -

So, he is gonna be a 60 yo guy, who will get his lungs fucked up - really good chance of that - and will be a dysfunctional member of society going forward. Might as well end it now. Why wait another 20-30 years of watching the guy drag an oxygen tank behind him?

When it comes to who understands what, please don't patronize me. You have laid out some simplistic dystopian idea without even being able to comprehend how much more there is to an act of such magnitude. The arguments you are making are simplistic and one-dimensional and you haven't even started scratching the surface of this butterfly effect you'd have on your hands.

Doing what you are suggesting will change society in ways none of us can even begin to imagine. You can't just throw a simple idea in the air and draw a line where all the consequences of such an act will begin and end.

Who's to say that, in a society like the one you are proposing, people won't stop having children, their future killers, not seeing a point to the future that's waiting for them behind the corner. The concept of family dynamics may have to be redrawn completely.

Once you devalue human life like that, who's to say the "getting rid of the useless" stops with the elderly? Once you get on a slippery slope like this, there is no end to how far down you can slide. Before you know it, the young but sick will be deemed expendable by some Hitler/Mengele-style philosopher. Then will come the poor's turn to take a shower in a gas chamber, then the less intelligent, etc, etc. Where does it end but the self-annihilation of the human species?
What ultimately will help mankind survive is valuing all human life. Without that, it's just a matter of time and dogmatic philosophies before that slope gets so slippery that we find ourselves, as a species, at the very bottom.

And this me just scratching the surface of the tip of the iceberg ... Again, one such act will have unimaginable consequences in time. With so many variables in place, it will quickly become a self-backfeeding monstrosity of a randomly chaotic system that will take on a life of its own.

Fucked-up moral compasses aside, you may try to look at this as a purely practical solution to a problem but you can't just draw a line behind it and pretend that's where it ends ... That's because that line, will be the starting line for shit you aren't prepared to even begin to imagine, let alone foresee.

I never said we shouldn't treat 60 year olds. I said we shouldn't treat 85 year olds. Again, it's not about devaluing human life or getting rid of the useless and old. It's about seeing it for what it is: old people dying, because they are frail and weak. Like I've said again and again, they'll die of something else anyway. You lot act as if we're giving these people another 20 years to prosper and enjoy life, but it's simply not true. All moral debate aside, the overwhelming majority of 85 year olds we cure of corona will be dead in another 5 years. But in 'saving' these people we destroy the careers of 20-30 year olds. People who might suffer for decades because of that choice.

- - - Updated - - -

I posted all of this above. The health care system cannot handle the influx of hospitalized and ICU patients from coronavirus left to spread freely in just the 20-65 population, let alone the 20-80 population. It hospitalized around 15% in that age range, and ICU/ventilator is required for around 5%. In America, around 70-75% of the population is in that age range, which means about 240 million people. You let Coronavirus go wild and infect everyone over the next year, or let’s say 200 million people, that’s 30 million in the hospital and ~10 million of those needing ICU over the year for coronavirus alone, which would absolutely overwhelm the system when added to the fact you still have day to day life going on and all the hospitalization and icu treatments necessary for various health issues and accidents among that age group already.

Never mind what 30 million working age people hospitalized for A few weeks each does to the economy and work force lol. And at a 0.5% death rate (probably higher due to 60-80 age group), that’s at least 1 million deaths from those 200 million cases. Sounds great, right. :baus:

And the UN dude didn’t say it was comparable to WWII. That’s quite a misleading claim. He said it’s the world’s greatest test since then, nothing about it being on the same level. It may well end up being the greatest test of the post-wwii world if it kills millions around the world because of bizarre, misguided ideas like yours.

Does it hospitalize around 15% in that age range? We don't know. My father tested positive and is sick and is living with three of my siblings and his partner. The likelihood of all four of them testing positive is almost 100%. But they weren't tested and they won't be tested. They have zero symptoms. In the meantime I've been in contact with two people who have tested positive and I have zero symptoms as well. We just don't know what percentage of people is hospitalized, because we don't even know how many people have it. Not even a clue.

Your figure of 10 million people needing ICU for corona alone is based on presumption and little more.
 
Last edited:

Post Ironic

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2013
42,253
They are going to die regardless of treatment.

You seem to live in this fantasy where old people don't die. They do. All the time. Of all sorts of things. You spend billions saving them from corona and then they die a month later of some unrelated illness.

- - - Updated - - -




I never said we shouldn't treat 60 year olds. I said we shouldn't treat 85 year olds. Again, it's not about devaluing human life or getting rid of the useless and old. It's about seeing it for what it is: old people dying, because they are frail and weak. Like I've said again and again, they'll die of something else anyway. You lot act as if we're giving these people another 20 years to prosper and enjoy life, but it's simply not true. All moral debate aside, the overwhelming majority of 85 year olds we cure of corona will be dead in another 5 years. But in 'saving' these people we destroy the careers of 20-30 year olds. People who might suffer for decades because of that choice.

- - - Updated - - -




Does it hospitalize around 15% in that age range? We don't know. My father tested positive and is sick and is living with three of my siblings and his partner. The likelihood of all four of them testing positive is almost 100%. But they weren't tested and they won't be tested. They have zero symptoms. In the meantime I've been in contact with two people who have tested positive and I have zero symptoms as well. We just don't know what percentage of people is hospitalized, because we don't even know how many people have it. Not even a clue.

Your figure of 10 million people needing ICU for corona alone is based on presumption and little more.
Exactly. We don’t know. So we go by the stats we do currently have, because otherwise we’re flying blind in the face of something that is hospitalizing and killing a huge number of people. And yes, so far it’s hospitalizing a ton of young people. Some 40-50% of hospitalizations are under 65, so stop playing dumb here.

The random nonsense you are posting has no basis in any reality currently. Nothing backs up the shit you are saying. And epidemiologists and specialists in this stuff contradict every bit of your rubbish, including for the threat this poses to young people. But keep making a fool of yourself. :baus:
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
39,347
Exactly. We don’t know. So we go by the stats we do currently have, because otherwise we’re flying blind in the face of something that is hospitalizing and killing a huge number of people. And yes, so far it’s hospitalizing a ton of young people. Some 40-50% of hospitalizations are under 65, so stop playing dumb here.

The random nonsense you are posting has no basis in any reality currently. Nothing backs up the shit you are saying. And epidemiologists and specialists in this stuff contradict every bit of your rubbish, including for the threat this poses to young people. But keep making a fool of yourself. :baus:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-52086274

"Last week's lockdown turned them into refugees overnight. Their workplaces were shut, and most employees and contractors who paid them vanished."

"This time, hundreds of thousands of migrant workers are desperately trying to return home in their own country. Battling hunger and fatigue, they are bound by a collective will to somehow get back to where they belong. Home in the village ensures food and the comfort of the family, they say.
Clearly, a lockdown to stave off a pandemic is turning into a humanitarian crisis."

"In the end, India is facing daunting and predictable challenges in enforcing the lockdown and also making sure the poor and homeless are not fatally hurt. Much of it, Dr Snowden told me, will depend on whether the economic and living consequences of the lockdown strategy are carefully managed, and the consent of the people is won. "If not, there is a potential for very serious hardship, social tension and resistance." India has already announced a $22bn relief package for those affected by the lockdown."

And this isn't the plague we're talking about. It's a disease that kills old people.

This is nowhere near the appropriate response.
 
Last edited:

Dostoevsky

Tzu
Administrator
May 27, 2007
89,026
For all I care you send all people above 60 to improvised concentration camps. Hell, it would probably boost the economy by having to pay people to build them.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
That seems quite impossible at this point. Not only numbers of 60+ would be astronomically and placing them in modern conditions is rather impossible since it's not WWII. Also, forcing all of those people in one place while you have no clue whether some of them has the virus would be a mass murder.
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
39,347
That seems quite impossible at this point. Not only numbers of 60+ would be astronomically and placing them in modern conditions is rather impossible since it's not WWII. Also, forcing all of those people in one place while you have no clue whether some of them has the virus would be a mass murder.
The time to be sensible has long passed, I agree. We're fucked now.
 

Dostoevsky

Tzu
Administrator
May 27, 2007
89,026
The time to be sensible has long passed, I agree. We're fucked now.
I don't know if it was possible even at the beginning. Let's remember this shit began when 1 person had corona. Considering the incubation period it'd be insane to put them in camps without tests, and testing those numbers is insane.

I agree it would've been possible at the very beginning but there's literally no way people would be willing to do that while not being aware how serious it is. They get serious only when they see thousands of deaths but they surely wouldn't listen to "hey, we have a dangerous thing but it killed none so far...yet we're moving you to camp". Then again, nobody would build camps for millions of people. People nowadays became quite big pussies, so when they see one huge building filled with beds and nothing else they are all like "oh, but there's no wifi" "oh but there's no privacy mister" "oh but this is disgusting, I'm so much better than this".

It's kinda crazy when you look at Italy how they brought 24h lockdown when they had 10k cases. Now they have like 110k despite the lockdown. It's insane how fast it spreads.

Also to answer your statement from previous pages "simply forbid kids to visit grandparents", which I addressed earlier, I think that's impossible in so many cases. Not everyone in Europe lives separate from their parents, especially poor countries. Hell, not even poor, I heard tons of elders in Italy live with their son/daughter and little children. If they go to school and get infected, it's 100% chance they're bringing it home and it's 50% chance they are going to kill them. Despite them being old, it would be hard to digest the fact that your virus killed your grandparent, I think many scares would be left in people.
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
84,795
That's what I'm afraid of, and hence why I really don't want to see a bailout of the airlines. They've been effectively ran into the ground; some of it due to regulations, but most of it from their own incompetence. I was supposed to go to Greece in September with a stopover somewhere in central Europe, and the costs of flights are essentially the same as they were two months ago -- despite a lack of demand and oil prices at 20 year lows. Undersupply will be a problem, but a lot of people aren't going to be flying across the atlantic when 40% of the workforce was laid off for months. If we're truly in a depression, there won't be any demand at all.

I think you're right about folks staying closer to home. If oil remains lower due to oversupply and demand, gas should be cheaper, so people will drive. Another thought I was having is that folks will become more risk averse, not just financially or economically, but also in terms of travelling to certain areas for health concerns. The only piece of good news that could stem from this outbreak is the realization that your health actually matters, so the daily trips to grab that 1050 calorie iced latte might not be such a good idea. And that may even trend towards the idea of visiting places such as China, or others with environmental factors most wouldn't have considered before.
Oh, I think the airlines should eat sh%t. Their business models don't work anymore and they, arguably, were part of the unsustainable "problem" before all this. £29 to fly from Lisbon to London? I mean, that's cheaper than a bus ticket to the Spanish border here. That's cheaper than a family meal at a restaurant. The economics made absolutely no sense between subsidies, lack of airline fuel taxes, etc.

As a national service, since these things are going to be bailed out that way, I can see holding a few carriers afloat to keep the lights on. But otherwise this is an industry that needs to shrink 80%+ for the medium to long term.

I think people will probably think twice about going to more populous areas for their health. You're going to have the usual hard time getting a black person going to national parks, given the attitude that evolving as a civil society has meant no longer having to wipe your ass in the woods. But travel is also about culture. I actually see the long term effects of this being good for rebuilding the many global cultures that were being commiditized and McDonalds-franchised everywhere. Being local will mean something more again. Places will retain more of their uniqueness instead of looking like every other downtown with the same branded crap.

In London we're getting lots of dead birds near 5G towers. There is research starting to show 5G and previously 4G waves affecting male fertility etc. People are now saying that the 5G is making the COVID symptoms worse, this is starting to roll.
Russian trolls never get a day off.

I started working for a new law firm in January. They're known for having a huge workload and many people did not want to go there, despite the very decent wages. Many lawyers preferred softer workplaces, where they might rip you off, but you don't have to work as hard.

In January everyone thought I was crazy to want to work for such a firm.

Today everybody wants to be my friend.

People are scared.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
Remember when I was telling you that what you experienced as a career setback might actually turn out to be something in your favor? :D You never know...

No. It's a serious virus and it is killing people.

The vast majority of (European) casualties are over 80 however.

There is no reason to shut down our entire economy because old people die. Let me make this easy to understand: old people die all the time. And you know why? Because being old makes you frail and weak.

Do we need to take general measures? Absolutely. We need to do everything we can to protect people.

But did we need to shut down schools and essentially destroy the careers of 20-30 year olds? No, we did not. In fact a lot of scientists even advised against closing schools.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
My mom is in her 80s, and there's a very decent chance she could die of this. But then statistically anybody in their 80s has an 8-10% of dying every year just by being alive. I get that.

But crushing the health care system where falling off a ladder becomes potentially fatal now? No, I don't think that's a great tradeoff.

And while you could argue that many governments have needed a dose of euthanasia to control their spiraling pension debts, and probably nature has always done its job of preventing severe cases of gerontocracies by injecting a few rogue RNA strands to keep things fresh now and then, let's also remember what the medical profession really is.

The job of a doctor isn't just to keep old people alive. The job of a doctor is to prevent natural selection. Talk about sisyphean.

Doctors see the very young, the very old, the very unlucky, and the very stupid. And sometimes just the very poor. When we make a conscious decision to value one life over another's purely on something like this, you're pretty much condemning that whole lot there.

Some philosophical approaches, like Utilitarianism, might advocate. Others think that a society that sells out its fellow citizens for a quick buck is so morally corrupt it isn't worth living in. There are multiple ways to interpret that.



1585690179224.gif


source.gif


- - - Updated - - -

@Kyle Trump is on live now. Let’s see what reporter pisses him off with a fair question this time.
:lol: Ah, I need to watch some new South Park.

It's always mutating. This is called life. If it wasn't mutant, it would be dead. Life would be dead. See the system, not the reductionist individual thing.

This is great. But I can always count on you for great philosophical material. :heart:

Today, he was bitching about how he won't get a stimulus check from the government because his income is too high and, when I brought it up to see if his opinion had changed, he is still against federal funds for improved unemployment or food support aka stimulus package actually benefiting the at risk? He still wants his check though. He's in the market for a Porsche 911 so he needs the money.
I don't think Americans realize how much the rest of the world looks at them like financial system antiques of the 20th century whenever they talk about getting government "checks".

There are reports that 2 million people have died from the virus in China... 2 mil might be a little exaggerated but 1 mil is totally believable.
The Russian trolls never sleep.
 

s4tch

Senior Member
Mar 23, 2015
33,871
It's always mutating. This is called life. If it wasn't mutant, it would be dead. Life would be dead. See the system, not the reductionist individual thing.
i know. it was just a reference to one of the posts made by our new self-entitled expert epidemiologist, but i really shouldn't bother. concentration camps for old people where a single infection can turn the place into a mass grave, what a genius.

fingers crossed for your mum. mine is 68, my stepdad is 71, i hope they remain patient and can keep the quarantine until there's a cure, or the epidemic dies.
 

Hust

Senior Member
Hustini
May 29, 2005
93,703
Exactly. We don’t know. So we go by the stats we do currently have, because otherwise we’re flying blind in the face of something that is hospitalizing and killing a huge number of people. And yes, so far it’s hospitalizing a ton of young people. Some 40-50% of hospitalizations are under 65, so stop playing dumb here.

The random nonsense you are posting has no basis in any reality currently. Nothing backs up the shit you are saying. And epidemiologists and specialists in this stuff contradict every bit of your rubbish, including for the threat this poses to young people. But keep making a fool of yourself. :baus:
Why aren't more Canadians as aggressive as you? :grin:

You make a better American than Canadian :lol:
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 47)