CORONAVIRUS PANIC WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

It's easy to demonstrate that a life has a monetary value, just not so easy to identify that value.

Let's go to the extreme... let x be all the money in the world. If it would cost x to save one life, should x be spent saving that life? Clearly not, because that would result in millions of other people dying. Therefore, the value of a life is less than x.

---

Bingo.

Your example is great at establishing the concept.

Business has more clearly defined it and uses it concretely with the cost-benefit analysis:

You decide you have to make a new decision in a selected domain. To come to the "best" decision, you come up with the two "best" options. You then compare these two best options, and you will always do one of them. The one with the highest net benefit is the one you do.



We are in this exact situation right now when we have to decide at what point we kill more people by killing the economy than we save by not killing the economy. Obviously, this is super simplified. There are billions of variables baked into all this, many of which we can't measure so easily against each other.

Fucking some people.

https://twitter.com/PoliceHour/statu...35408833093632

Oh look, an economist has solved the problem:

https://twitter.com/omaclaren/status...79825333657601

There are other ways to establish the concept of the monetary value of a life.

You have three buttons in front of you. One will save the life of a random person somewhere in the world. One will kill a random person somewhere in the world, and also add $1m to your bank account. One will kill a person you can observe, and add $1b to your bank account.

Which button do you press? You're going to think about it, that's for sure.

People who say lives aren't worth money are either stupid, or virtue signalling.

https://www.thoughtco.com/worth-of-y...ements-3976054

Somewhere between $1 and $4.50 according to this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

People ... virtue signal

---

Oh virtual signalling. It keeps you safe among the group, but keeps the group less safe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

There are other ways to establish the concept of the monetary value of a life.

You have three buttons in front of you. One will save the life of a random person somewhere in the world. One will kill a random person somewhere in the world, and also add $1m to your bank account. One will kill a person you can observe, and add $1b to your bank account.

Which button do you press? You're going to think about it, that's for sure.

---

*smashes btn 2 repeatedly*

What right wing pundits are talking about right now with life vs economy numbers... we're probably talking way way under 1M per life if people go back to work... and we're not talking about saving lives by sacrificing lives because these people wouldn't die... most people don't have the wealth to be significantly impacted by an economic downturn. This is about people risking life and limb to keep up the profits of their employers while they don't even get increased pay. I can't get behind the mind of a supermarket worker who keeps working for minimum wage right now. If these fuckers threaten a general strike they could snap double their wages right now.


https://i.redd.it/e3dekueyaoo41.jpg

Kill one person you can observe for $1bn then donate it to disease prevention in third world and save more lives by orders of magnitude

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Kill one person you can observe for $1bn then donate it to disease prevention in third world and save more lives by orders of magnitude

---

Pfft. Donate half of it, still save lives, and be filthy rich.

Quote:

---

I can't get behind the mind of a supermarket worker who keeps working for minimum wage right now. If these fuckers threaten a general strike they could snap double their wages right now.

---

If I had an essential job right now, which clearly a supermarket worker is, I'd feel particularly selfish if I didn't go in, unless I was feeling unwell of course. People who work in supermarkets will be grateful they have a job that can ride an economic downturn of this magnitude. Walking out now might be something you regret in the future.

If these people threatened a strike, it could cause looting and riots. It would be massively reckless. If you're not happy with your wage, quit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

If I had an essential job right now, which clearly a supermarket worker is, I'd feel particularly selfish if I didn't go in, unless I was feeling unwell of course. People who work in supermarkets will be grateful they have a job that can ride an economic downturn of this magnitude. Walking out now might be something you regret in the future.

If these people threatened a strike, it could cause looting and riots. It would be massively reckless. If you're not happy with your wage, quit.

---

Wait wat?

So it's selfish to not want to do a dangerous, possibly life-risking and low-paying job, but it's totally understandable to hoard toilet paper?

I didn't say it wasn't selfish to hoard toilet paper. I just said it's understandable because people behave in unusual ways when they panic.

Supermarkets are the most essential service right now. More so than the NHS. I know that sounds batshit, but if the people can't get food, then they either starve or it's looting time. Supermarket workers have quite a heavy burden on their shoulders. If an individual isn't up to the task, stand aside and let someone else take your job. There's lots of people right now who need it.

Kind of a moot point anyways since there's no way they'd have the balls to go on strike right now, even though they are being somewhat exploited.

Can you imagine the NHS going on strike, or the police? They'd have the Army dragging them back to work in about 2 seconds. Same would happen with Tesco.

I think so. It would be foolish to go on strike over money anyway, I mean usually nobody gives a fuck about shelf stackers, but right now they are rightly being hailed as national heroes. Throwing a tantrum over money while people are dying due to a pandemic would be extremely callous.

https://time.com/5805368/will-corona...-organization/

One of the main WHO guys talks.

It appears that cases in Washington are falling behind many other states at a quickened pace. WA deaths look to be over the hump (probably) and declining (probably).

Could indicate how the virus was going around here for about 2 months before people paid much attention.

How the hell does the USA not notice it has a 1% killer virus outbreak for two months? I think there's a lot of people who got regular nasty flu and now think they had Wuhan plague. My housemates say exactly the same, that they had it before Christmas. Bollocks did they.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Could indicate how the virus was going around here for about 2 months before people paid much attention.

---

Could be, and it's interesting to speculate how many deaths in various places were attributed to 'flu before anyone thought to start testing for CV.

Otoh, the best predictor of number of cases reported is number of tests done. If they're still not testing many people in some places where it isn't currently 'hot', they're likely still underestimating the number of cases by a large margin.

In the UK, for example, you only get tested if you are sick enough to need a hospital visit (afaik). So, who knows how many people are currently sitting in their homes with mild or asymptomatic cases and not being counted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

How the hell does the USA not notice it has a 1% killer virus outbreak for two months? I think there's a lot of people who got regular nasty flu and think they had Wuhan plague. My housemates say exactly the same, that they had it before Christmas. Bollocks did they.

---

Theoretically, it takes < day someone to fly from China to the UK. That, plus a train ride to wherever you live is about how long behind China your area could be.

As far as someone thinking they had it before xmas in the UK, the chances are probably like 9999/10000 it was seasonal flu. Maybe if they had some corona-specific symptoms I'd be inclined to take their claim seriously, but otherwise nah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

How the hell does the USA not notice it has a 1% killer virus outbreak for two months?

---

Possibly because people don't know how easily a virus can spread. Media reported the couple cases we got as quarantined and basically fixed. They did NOT report that finding those cases at our airport and a few other spots almost certainly meant the virus was spreading undetected.

At that time, people thought it would be closer to SARS or swine flu, meaning that they might not be a big deal to the US.

I think you can get a good idea of how many people are being tested by comparing cases to death rate. In Germany, where testing is widespread, cases/death ratio is low, while in Italy it is terrible. I assume in Italy testing is not so widespread, and also their health system has collapsed. In the UK, our case/death ratio isn't actually too bad, so either people are being tested, or our health system is performing better than average.

With a functioning health system, this is under 1% imo. That's still bad if everyone gets it.

I saw a report that there's a country that is unsatisfied with the accuracy of their mass testing, I think it was Spain but don't quote me on that. Our govt is absolutely right to ensure the test is as accurate as it can be before mass producing it. Unreliable test results could make the problem worse.

Sainsbury (a local supermarket) today was forcing people to queue to go into the store, and only letting another person in when someone else left. I'm thinking 'oh good.'

Then I noticed that at the entryway they had about six attendants all standing together to shepherd people in and out, so that everyone who entered the store had to walk within breathing distance of them on the way in, and then again on the way out. Fuck me.

I went to Waitrose instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Possibly because people don't know how easily a virus can spread. Media reported the couple cases we got as quarantined and basically fixed. They did NOT report that finding those cases at our airport and a few other spots almost certainly meant the virus was spreading undetected.

At that time, people thought it would be closer to SARS or swine flu, meaning that they might not be a big deal to the US.

---

SARS is a fucking big deal if it takes hold like this fucker has done. We're extremely lucky they got on top of SARS before it got out of hand. It would be a lot, lot worse if this was SARS, and if it were MERS then we're into plague territory.

Only MERS doesn't spread very well, and so it would actually have to be some kind of hybrid mutant for that to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

SARS is a fucking big deal if it takes hold like this fucker has done. We're extremely lucky they got on top of SARS before it got out of hand. It would be a lot, lot worse if this was SARS, and if it were MERS then we're into plague territory.

---

Certainly.

SARS specifically stuck in my head, becuase back in January things were going haywire in China and I was thinking we need to shut all travel down immediately. I asked a close friend his thoughts, and he said it looks like people are overreacting and the virus will probably just fizzle out like SARS.

It boils down to people just not paying attention and/or not knowing how this stuff works. They don't realize that when there is a big enough virus outbreak with high enough uncertainty about its impact, it needs to be shut down ASAP. You can't wait until after you get enough deaths to worry you. By then you're already cooked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Only MERS doesn't spread very well, and so it would actually have to be some kind of hybrid mutant for that to happen.

---

Yeah but SARS did spread well. And as you imply, MERS can mutate. As bad as this could still get, it could always have been worse. SARS and MERS are coronaviruses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Certainly.

SARS specifically stuck in my head, becuase back in January things were going haywire in China and I was thinking we need to shut all travel down immediately. I asked a close friend his thoughts, and he said it looks like people are overreacting and the virus will probably just fizzle out like SARS.

It boils down to people just not paying attention and/or not knowing how this stuff works. They don't realize that when there is a big enough virus outbreak with high enough uncertainty about its impact, it needs to be shut down ASAP. You can't wait until after you get enough deaths to worry you. By then you're already cooked.

---

There's a lot humanity can learn from this which hopefully makes it easier to control future outbreaks. First thing to do when there's a potential pandemic is... shut the borders immediately. People should be prepared too, by having a month of essentials in stockpile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

There's a lot humanity can learn from this which hopefully makes it easier to control future outbreaks. First thing to do when there's a potential pandemic is... shut the borders immediately. People should be prepared too, by having a month of essentials in stockpile.

---

Yup.

There has been, and still is, a large amount of complacency. It's kind of like when the sea rushed out before the Indian Ocean tsunami arrived. People were curious and walked out onto the exposed shore. Now everyone knows to run for the hills. It took that event for people to understand the threat en masse. This pandemic will serve as the one that taught us not to be so complacent. Next time there's an outbreak in China, I guarantee that everyone buys a 24 pack of bog roll.

Ong, I'm not sure SARS and MERS fizzled out because of anything we did then vs what we did now. I think it was more to do with their particular variables: incubation period, means of spreading, death rate, etc.

I think in the case of MERS you're right, but in the case of SARS it was because we acted fast enough. No doubt viral factors are hugely important too, but if we just allowed SARS to spread it would be dreadful. Perhaps it's easier to contain though, but it's also not out of the question that China were too slow to act this time. Or that they did it on purpose, and SARS and MERS were trialed and deemed too dangerous. Depends how paranoid you're feeling really.

If we want to play with conspiracies, it's not the absolute craziest. It's pretty whacky, but China has managed to consolidate the manufacture of a vast amount of the world's medicals supplies, medicines and raw ingredients for medicines. Why displace the reigning world police in a head on conflict when you can simply become the world's medic in an ongoing pandemic?

The economic consequences of this are scary enough, but throw in the potential for escalation of a stealth conflict and I think I'm going to be getting through my stockpile of bog roll pretty quickly.

I mean, if this is biowarfare, it's a game changer. You can't nuke them for it, they could release something even deadlier. Virus vs nukes, virus wins. Maybe you could nuke the UK off the map, but not China. You either hit them back with a virus, or you say "ok you win".

If it's a false flag hoax or something like that, it shows the powers that be truly are global, that democracy is a complete sham the world over.

It could have been an accident, released from a lab. That's not so bad in terms of future consequences, but it's still bad. China will have to pay if that's the case, but pay economically.

And if it's just a natural event, well at least it's not the plague.

Joe Rogan asked Osterholm about the chances this were done on purpose and he said 'no way, you couldn't design something this good if you tried.'

I mean, it also seems a bit funny China would set it loose on their own population first. Presumably they'd have some agents take it to a bunch of mass gatherings in other countries and smear it around instead.

idk, depends if you want to sew doubt. I mean, perhaps they already had a vaccine, or other method of control, and knew their losses would be within acceptable levels.

This isn't what I think happened, and I hope it didn't, but I don't write it off.

Still can't quite see what their endgame would be, unless they think the West wlll go all Mad Max on each other in a global war over toilet paper. If it's economic, it's pretty hard to see a worldwide re/de-pression being good for them - no matter how many meds they sell in the next year or so, they won't make up for it.

And, if they want to take advantage of cornering the market on meds, making the demand so high that other countries are forced to start producing those meds themselves seems a pretty shortsighted strategy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I mean, it also seems a bit funny China would set it loose on their own population first. Presumably they'd have some agents take it to a bunch of mass gatherings in other countries and smear it around instead.

---

My Chinese history professor had this to say about the Communist Party of China: they never viewed mass casualties of Chinese people an issue as long as the cause was in pursuit of the agenda of making China great.

I guess their endgame is to emerge the dominant economy, with their enemies severely impacted. Either that or it's a show of force, a threat if you like. If they can and will do this, then you either have to up the stakes, which is scary, or just say "ok you win".

Time will tell to see who benefits and who is the most severely impacted. If USA collapse as a global superpower, to be replaced by China, then I'll take this idea more seriously.

Do I think China manufactured the virus? Maybe but probably not. Those wet markets have so many different animals and people packed in tightly. AFAIK, scientists claim that condition can create viruses.

I'd rather hit China for their more confirmed Nazism, like the torture of the Falun Gong and Uighurs.

Well if it was their plan, they picked the perfect time to do it. If they gamed out the fact that Trump in an election year would try to pretend it wasn't happening as long as possible, making the US the hardest hit country, then hat's off to them I guess.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

It goes deeper than I thought, now they've infiltrated Nature.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/h...rus-cases.html

I have a feeling even left wing media has quite understood how serious this is. Quit whatever you're doing, and stay inside for the next two months. This is going to hit like a truck. Deaths are going to skyrocket over the next couple of weeks. You do not want to be needing a hospital in the coming months. Stay safe, and good luck.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

use covid19info.live

We could be on the hump (of new infection/death rate).

Europe probably at the beginning of the hump. US could be middle of hump.

If they had graphical data for WA I bet it would show end of hump.

China's recovered rate grew beyond infection rate after about a month. Same in South Korea.

Rest of world is around the 3 week point, but the outlook is probably between 4 to 8 weeks for most or all for recovered rate to exceed infection rate.

Yeah. The more people get it, the more people get over it.

So long as it's not re-catchable, the recovery rate has to outpace the infection rate, and the more aggressive it is, the shorter it will take for that "milestone."

I just learned the state of New York (population 19.5M) has 400 ventilators. The city of Helsinki, Finland (population 630k) has 300. And we are worried we're massively unprepared for the coming months.

If everyone in the world catches it within a short time, then yeah we'll get over the hump quickly. Currently < .001% of the world have it, or have had it (if you accept the figures). Could be higher than that, but I think < 1% is a pretty safe bet.

So, the recovery rate overtaking the infection rate in any given location is more a matter of keeping the infection rate down in that specific location than having the infection run out of hosts. It's not as if we can just go back to normal after "cresting" the hump the first time, when still > 99% of the population has yet to be infected.

China took 39 days to go from ~500 to >80k confirmed cases, and were already leveling off when they reached that figure.

Italy took 29 days, and now appears to be at the peak, about to turn the corner.

The US has done the ~500 to > 80k sprint in 19 days and shows no signs of slowing down.

Does anyone honestly think Trump is doing a great job of handling this? How about a passable job?

When you're just talking base numbers, the US has a lot more population than Italy, but a lot less than China.

They're not direct comparisons.
Maybe if you compare % of the population in each country, but even then... IDK if you can look at China as a whole, singular entity when it comes to the availability and efficacy of their healthcare. I don't think you can really look at the US like that.

I'd bet there are some pretty big differences in the availability and quality of healthcare as you go from state to state or county to county. Especially in rural USA.

EDIT: You think the sprint is on now? Trump is telling people "It'd be beautiful" if we all went to Easter mass. We'll see where people really put their faith on April 12.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

When you're just talking base numbers, the US has a lot more population than Italy, but a lot less than China.

They're not direct comparisons.

---

The effects of differences in population would change the final numbers, not the rate of increase. 80k is still just over 1% of the entire pop. in Italy for example. The reason it's levelling off there and has levelled off in China is not that they've run out of people who could get sick, it's because they've begun to contain it from spreading.

So unless your country has <80k people to begin with, how long it takes to go from 500 to 80k is a pretty good index of how well you're controlling the spread*. If your country was really small, you could ask how long it takes to go from 5 cases to 800, for example, and it would be just as valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

You think the sprint is on now? Trump is telling people "It'd be beautiful" if we all went to Easter mass. We'll see where people really put their faith on April 12.

---

Yea, I think we can effectively ignore anything Trump says about almost any topic as fantasy and/or bullshit.

As far as being in the sprint, well, yes, your numbers are currently still going up exponentially.

* Edit: There's other variables that affect number of confirmed cases of course, like testing rates. Perhaps some of the increases seen in the US rates recently are due to them finally catching up with other countries on testing.

If if makes you feel better though, Spain had a similar roughly 160-fold increase in confirmed cases in just 20 days (~400 to 57k)

on a side note - are a load of junkies going cold turkey since they can't get out to get the drugs?

You think junkies care about health risks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

You think junkies care about health risks?

---

No, but the dealers will be a lot more cautious about having people turn up at the house. I went to get weed yesterday before the lockdown got serious. My dealer was cagey about visitors. I imagine there comes a point where he says he's got to stop. Smack dealers have a lot more to worry about than weed dealers. Cops don't care about weed, so long as it's just weed.

I'm sure you two will find a way to make it work.

You put your thing down and step back.
They exchange your thing for their thing and step back.
You gather up the exchanged item.

You both have a brief chat from a few meters distance, then wave goodbye.

I bought a month's worth, or at least I spent what I can for the month and have to try and make it last a month. Hopefully there's some degree of normality returned by then.

I think we better be ready for this to go on a while.

China has been on lockdown for two months, and is just now starting to loosen things up. And if cases start to grow quickly again, they'll probably go on lockdown again.

conundrum for ong ....buy a months worth of weed or some bog roll

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith

conundrum for ong ....buy a months worth of weed or some bog roll

---

Got plenty of bog roll.

Well, Boris Johnson is confirmed positive.

If Trump gets it, do we think he'll try to hide it?

A new national treasure for Ireland.

https://twitter.com/Rubberbandits/st...94193630191618

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Well, Boris Johnson is confirmed positive.

If Trump gets it, do we think he'll try to hide it?

---

I doubt it, he'd just double dose on the adderall.

If he went to hospital with it though, that would be an interesting scenario...would they try to hide it somehow?

Do you think heads of state would be put in a hospital? I mean, maybe, but I also wouldn't be surprised if the pentagon has a fully functional mini hospital somewhere in the basement just for the president.

Dunno, good question. Hard to imagine they'd have such a unit that would be able to give the same amount of care as that place he went when he had the panic attack or whatever it was a while ago (Walter Reed?).

In any case, I mean would we be told if he was so sick as to require serious, hospital-level treatment? If he was on a ventilator, for example.

And if not, what would they do to cover it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

There are other ways to establish the concept of the monetary value of a life.

You have three buttons in front of you. One will save the life of a random person somewhere in the world. One will kill a random person somewhere in the world, and also add $1m to your bank account. One will kill a person you can observe, and add $1b to your bank account.

Which button do you press? You're going to think about it, that's for sure.

---

How could you justify pressing anything except button 1?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by givememyleg

How could you justify pressing anything except button 1?

---

Cocaine and hookers is a powerful incentive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by givememyleg

How could you justify pressing anything except button 1?

---

$3500 buys enough bed nets and malaria fighting drugs to save a life. 1m/3500 is a big number, quite a bit bigger than 1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Still can't quite see what their endgame would be, unless they think the West wlll go all Mad Max on each other in a global war over toilet paper. If it's economic, it's pretty hard to see a worldwide re/de-pression being good for them - no matter how many meds they sell in the next year or so, they won't make up for it.

And, if they want to take advantage of cornering the market on meds, making the demand so high that other countries are forced to start producing those meds themselves seems a pretty shortsighted strategy.

---

Why does "USA NUMBER ONE!!" get met with "well, not in [insert specific niche]", but not denied categorically, or simply with scoffs at the arrogance? It's because much of the world has believed that USA is in fact number one since end the end of WWII. All of it has believed it since 1989. And it's true, because whether people liked it or not, they believed it. Nation states defer to the USA and expect it to be there when shit hits the fan. This isn't me rah-rah-rah'ing for my country, it's simply an assessment of reality: the USA has been the unchecked leader of the developed world for three decades at minimum.

Now that shit is hitting the fan, the US can't even get it's own house in order, our president is trying to bribe pharma companies to develop a vaccine exclusively for the US-- meanwhile China, authoritarian overreach or not, seems to have handled the outbreak relatively well, and now they're sending supplies and doctors to countries in need.

Think of all the goodwill the USA earned in the world wars and in standing up to the expansionist Soviets. What has the US done in recent decades to defend its title? Whether China unleashed this on the world intentionally (I think there's almost no chance), they stand to gain immensely on the world stage if they continue to step up and lead the way out of this pandemic.

I can't say if Trump is handling the virus well now, but it's a damn sight better than he did at first.

What's he doing now that is making you reevaluate?

It seems like he's just all over the place. Virus is a hoax--> This is serious and we need to shut shit down --> Open for Easter, Invokes wartime powers --> doesn't use wartime powers --> maybe might make specifically GM make face masks

What are you seeing differently?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Nation states defer to the USA and expect it to be there when shit hits the fan.

---

I for one have not thought that anytime after Katrina, and nothing since then has changed that belief. The reponse in Puerto Rico reinforced it. Not that I wouldn't expect the US to try to help other countries if there was a disaster there, but just that the effectiveness of that help would be low - i mean if a country can't even manage its own disasters...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Now that shit is hitting the fan, the US can't even get it's own house in order,

---

It surprises me how disjointed the response is atm. States are bidding against each other for medical equipment, wtf??? Why is this being treated like 50 separate pandemics in each of 50 states? Where are the feds? Wtf is Trump actually doing to help the country, apart from holding his daily reality pandemic TV press conferences?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Whether China unleashed this on the world intentionally (I think there's almost no chance), they stand to gain immensely on the world stage if they continue to step up and lead the way out of this pandemic.

---

It seems as likely to me (i.e., very, very unlikely) that another country unleashed it. China, with all it's wet markets, would be the perfect cover.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

What's he doing now that is making you reevaluate?

---

Yeah well, there was nowhere to go but up from 'it's a hoax!' was there? But he hasn't gone up by much imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I can't say if Trump is handling the virus well now, but it's a damn sight better than he did at first.

---

Last I heard, he was encouraging the nation to get excited to go to mass on Easter Sunday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Last I heard, he was encouraging the nation to get excited to go to mass on Easter Sunday.

---

Was that an improvement over calling chlorprozoquine (or whatever) a miracle cure for CV? Hard to say.

I have to say, I prefer tsunamis to pandemics. Even a meteor would be cool to watch. This is dragging on a bit now, and it's only just getting started.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I for one have not thought that anytime after Katrina, and nothing since then has changed that belief. The reponse in Puerto Rico reinforced it. Not that I wouldn't expect the US to try to help other countries if there was a disaster there, but just that the effectiveness of that help would be low - i mean if a country can't even manage its own disasters...

---

That's great, I'll add your personal anecdote to the countless other sources. Thanks.

*less snarky*: I completely agree, the US has been on the decline for some time now. 9/11 was likely the high point, and the essentially unilateral invasion of Iraq may be seen as the start of the rapid decline.

Quote:

---

It surprises me how disjointed the response is atm. States are bidding against each other for medical equipment, wtf??? Why is this being treated like 50 separate pandemics in each of 50 states? Where are the feds? Wtf is Trump actually doing to help the country, apart from holding his daily reality pandemic TV press conferences?

---

Yeah, it's pretty disturbing.

Quote:

---

It seems as likely to me (i.e., very, very unlikely) that another country unleashed it. China, with all it's wet markets, would be the perfect cover.

---

Yeah, Russia has insanely low numbers if they're to be believed. If I can keep playing in conspiracy land, Russia loves chaos and could well have slipped their predeveloped vaccine in with the standard battery of vaccines their people have gotten over the past year+

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I have to say, I prefer tsunamis to pandemics. Even a meteor would be cool to watch. This is dragging on a bit now, and it's only just getting started.

---

lol, this is perfect British humor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

What's he doing now that is making you reevaluate?

It seems like he's just all over the place. Virus is a hoax--> This is serious and we need to shut shit down --> Open for Easter, Invokes wartime powers --> doesn't use wartime powers --> maybe might make specifically GM make face masks

What are you seeing differently?

---

He's leading more than he was at first.

There could be other things, but ultimately the country in general seems to feel better with the daily briefings that show leadership and provide some level of information and encouragement. He's gotten a lot of praise for this from some opponents too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Last I heard, he was encouraging the nation to get excited to go to mass on Easter Sunday.

---

Pandemics experts and economics experts disagree with each other. The President has to make a decision that some experts will believe to be wrong.

Do I know that the plan of resurrecting the economy on Easter Sunday is right? No. But I can tell you it's A+ persuasion economically and psychologically. My HOPE is that it can actually be done, instead of having to cancel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

He's leading more than he was at first.

There could be other things, but ultimately the country in general seems to feel better with the daily briefings that show leadership and provide some level of information and encouragement. He's gotten a lot of praise for this from some opponents too.

---

You are good at throwing out the "can you tell me one specific thing" question (which I think is sleight of hand, since a major part of Trumps playbook is to just overwhelm with scandal, making it hard to pick one thing, but I digress...) so I'm going to hold you to it here. No hand waving. How has he stepped up as a leader? What is the substance of those daily briefings that show leadership? What opponents have praised him? No hand waving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

You are good at throwing out the "can you tell me one specific thing" question

---

Very astute that you noticed that, because you're right. Usually when people have a laundry list of reasons for something, psychological biases are at play. One tool that can help keep views in the concrete realm is to discuss the main big one that's the most important.

Quote:

---

so I'm going to hold you to it here.

---

Thank you.

Quote:

---

No hand waving. How has he stepped up as a leader? What is the substance of those daily briefings that show leadership? What opponents have praised him? No hand waving.

---

The #1 thing IMO is that he stands up there (daily) and holds the conference. It's a damn shame that's the #1 because it means the bar is super low. Where was the bar before that? Down to putting the #2 guy in charge. It's no wonder everything *felt* so bad at first. Everybody knew that the #1 guy was not taking charge, and that is bad for national psychology at the one time we needed it most, roughly speaking.

I recall seeing Dana Bash praise Trump on CNN (or MSNBC?) when he first started doing these conferences. Her reason was that he toned down the attacking of reporters by a very noticeable degree. Instead he was answering questions more cleanly and seemed to be putting on an air coming together and getting through this.

Thanks, that makes sense. But also it makes your previous praise a bit misleading. He's clearing an incredibly low bar.

As for the laundry list = bias: now that I think of it, it's also common when people aren't really expressing why they are upset (sometimes they don't know themselves), but instead they're nitpicking everything else. The problem with this heuristic is that there are instances where there is a legit laundry list of grievances, and though there may be varying degrees of offenses, the laundry list itself is the best representation of the offense to the aggrieved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

there are instances where there is a legit laundry list of grievances, and though there may be varying degrees of offenses, the laundry list itself is the best representation of the offense to the aggrieved.

---

That is definitely true. What do you think is a good way to test the list?

The tool I've adopted to test the list is to test the most egregious of the grievances. If that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, then almost certainly the others don't as well. However, if it does stand up to scrutiny, then it's looking like the others have a solid leg to stand on as well.

Do you think that's a helpful way of going about it?

Every exposure you have to someone leaves you with some kind of impression. It's unlikely you'll remember each of these exposures in detail, and so unlikely you'll be able to articulate what exactly they did or said that turned you on or off. They eventually just become the sum of the impressions, good and bad.

In Trump's case, he's in the news every day, and I'm sure I can't even remember 90% of the shit he's done or said that made me throw up in my mouth a little. Sometimes I watch an old clip on youtube and then remember, 'oh yeah, he told the Russian ambassador some classified shit 3 years ago. Wtf.' I'd forgotten about that, so it wouldn't even make my laundry list if you asked me.

Some of the stuff he does amuses me too. It just doesn't outweigh the bad. So asking me what's the worst thing he's done is (in my mind at least) not helpful. Because even if you can convince me that putting kids in cages (let's say) is ok (and you never will), I'm still going to have the same general impression of him. Trump going from a -100 to a -95 in my mind, that is not going to turn me into a fan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Some of the stuff he does amuses me too. It just doesn't outweigh the bad. So asking me what's the worst thing he's done is (in my mind at least) not helpful. Because even if you can convince me that putting kids in cages (let's say) is ok (and you never will), I'm still going to have the same general impression of him. Trump going from a -100 to a -95 in my mind, that is not going to turn me into a fan.

---

Yeah, for a productive discussion, we would have to at least first agree that if the #1 issue is debunked, it suggests we should view the others on the laundry list as possible hallucinations.

Just curious: is kids in cages your #1?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Yeah, for a productive discussion, we would have to at least first agree that if the #1 issue is debunked, it suggests we should view the others on the laundry list as possible hallucinations.

Just curious: is kids in cages your #1?

---

It's certainly up there near the top. Like I said though, I'm really not keeping a scorecard on the guy. I do have a life to live.

And, I think we could only have a productive discussion if I were somehow open to the idea that separating families/kids in cages is an acceptable means of treating the immigration problem, or if you were open to the idea that its not.

I won't try to speak for you, but tbh I'm not sure I'm prepared to accept any argument that makes it ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

That is definitely true. What do you think is a good way to test the list?

The tool I've adopted to test the list is to test the most egregious of the grievances. If that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, then almost certainly the others don't as well. However, if it does stand up to scrutiny, then it's looking like the others have a solid leg to stand on as well.

Do you think that's a helpful way of going about it?

---

I don't think this is a bad heuristic to layer on the laundry list heuristic, but this still misses the habitual line steppers, pathological liars, emotional bullies, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Every exposure you have to someone leaves you with some kind of impression. It's unlikely you'll remember each of these exposures in detail, and so unlikely you'll be able to articulate what exactly they did or said that turned you on or off. They eventually just become the sum of the impressions, good and bad.

In Trump's case, he's in the news every day, and I'm sure I can't even remember 90% of the shit he's done or said that made me throw up in my mouth a little. Sometimes I watch an old clip on youtube and then remember, 'oh yeah, he told the Russian ambassador some classified shit 3 years ago. Wtf.' I'd forgotten about that, so it wouldn't even make my laundry list if you asked me.

Some of the stuff he does amuses me too. It just doesn't outweigh the bad. So asking me what's the worst thing he's done is (in my mind at least) not helpful. Because even if you can convince me that putting kids in cages (let's say) is ok (and you never will), I'm still going to have the same general impression of him. Trump going from a -100 to a -95 in my mind, that is not going to turn me into a fan.

---

Well said. I'm not limiting my critique of the president to this, but I think it's a sufficient critique to say he's committed original sins that cannot be overcome. And that's no fault of the detractors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

kids in cages

---

What would you do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

What would you do?

---

Not put them in cages. How about you?

Do you know why the security and evaluation policy exists in the first place?

Answer my question first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Do you know why the security and evaluation policy exists in the first place?

---

Yes.
Lies, BS and fear-mongering.

Now answer the question.

I do not know enough about the facts of the matter to have a meaningful opinion.

I do know what Politifact says about what the policy is:

The separations are a result of the Trump administration "policy to prosecute all adults crossing the border illegally."

"Generally, a child and an adult who arrive together at the border can be separated when border officials cannot establish the custodial relationship; when they believe the custodian may be a threat to the child; or when the custodian is being detained for prosecution."

Does this sound reasonable to you?

The Trump administration could be very wrong on all this, or it could be right, or somewhere in between. My goal is to understand the details in a rational way so that I can have a full opinion instead of a half-opinion.

We bought a sack of potatoes so I just made chips for the first time in my life.

Best chips I've ever eaten. How am I so good at making chips?