Our happiness shouldn't rely on other people's misery. And in this case I don't think they are necessarily connected. People in these countries don't have to be miserable. I was in Ethiopia last year. The country was doing very well. People seemed as happy as they do anyplace else. The economy was booming. Yes, there was very real hardship but often we see these things in a relativistic way. Are things better or worse for us than they were.
It isn't our obligation to solve their problems. 6 million were killed in the Congo civil war in the 1990s. I wouldn't have suggested intervention. But here, we are creating the problems. They couldn't get the supplies because *our* supply chains were down.
Our single-minded focus is killing them - and it will kill us too.
It was $70M and some equipment and supplies. This was not a major aid effort, this was small-time as these things go. It will be bigger soon, but we've made our own problems so large that we lack the ability to help nearly as much as we should.
And without refrigeration I imagine even locusts go bad. Plus, you can't plant them and grow new locusts the next year. Locusts are a short-term food, not a permanent one. Oh, and they fly away. You probably can't collect a year's worth to make up for lost crops.
Nobody cares because they are Africans. An area about the size of Western Europe is about to be consumed. And it was ENTIRELY preventable - if we hadn't shut down. The Ethiopians needed $70 million, some helicopters and pesticide.
Harry Goldstein, The danger of the disease matters because the economic decisions also cost lives. Our decisions are already almost guaranteed to cost tens of millions of lives in Africa.
The virus can be just as good as the flu and far far worse. Convenience surveys (antibody population tests) suggest a death rate similar to the flu. The difference is that nobody has had exposure before. So instead of 50 million Americans getting infected and 35,000 dying, 300 million could get infected with 200,000 dead (although it is looking lower than that).
Sweden has more dead now than other Scandinavian countries, but on the other they are on track with most of Europe. That is an interesting data point. But what has to be remembered is that Sweden will have the health care capacity (borne of a stronger economy) to deal with the virus and other medical issues 6 months, a year, two years from now. And they won't have the mortality and morbidity issues associated with widespread unemployment.
This is a marathon, not a sprint.
In this panic, most countries set off at a sprint. Their current lead REALLY doesn't mean they'll win the race.
I think we may be jumping the gun on who is winning and losing here. We've got another year, minimum, to go. The costs of this virus on our ability to provide a wide range of health and other services are still likely to cause overwhelming suffering.
In my presentation above - made early on - I estimated that if unchecked the virus would double normal mortality. This means it would kill 2.5 million Americans with 30 million life-years lost. It won't get close to that. But the economic contraction could easily claim an additional 30 million life years. And this is just in the first world.
In the third world, over 250 million people are already facing starvation due to first-world lockdowns. This includes 130 million from economic collapse and 130 million from the collapse of the pesticide supply chain to suppress locusts in East Africa. Far more people will be killed by the locusts alone than by corona virus - and those deaths would have been entirely preventable.
I was speaking of principles. I agree that US wars have had very limited benefit and massive costs - that doesn't mean *a* country doesn't need military capability. I agree courts have issues - that doesn't mean *a* country doesn't need them. And I agree that we've almost certainly made epic mistakes with corona. It is appearing more and more likely that the disease isn't as deadly as perceived - but that it is totally new and thus affecting far more people than a normal flu.
On vaccines I'll have to disagree. Although I was homeschooled, I still disagree. I'm very very happy with vaccinated smallpox into oblivion and our lives as individuals are enhanced when we collectively push deadly diseases out of our lives. That said, I recognize you disagree and that this is a fruitless line of conversation.
On the wars front, I wrote a book about the civil war in Syria and what I believe would be a far more effective way of helping than either throwing open borders or bombing the heck out of things.
I guess, DRM, that you are against mandatory vaccines. Obviously those are people who know what's ideal for others. You're probably against taxes to pay for a military, as you're forcing people to take part in building up a defensive capability that is only 'supposed' to help them. And you're probably against making people pay for a legal system. After all, that's just making people pay for a societal good - and then obligating them to obey it when it does what they don't like.
The thing is, there's always a balance. Isolation isn't about helping you, it is about others. Same with support for a military, courts and vaccines. You aren't allowed to say I won't pay for that or participate in that because it creates a huge free rider program. Of course these efforts always have to be moderated. The societal benefits have to be leavened with individual freedoms - or you could say individual freedoms have to be leavened with societal needs.
You should be very careful to limit when you limit freedoms. But it doesn't mean you should never do it.
I recently wrote a futuristic story (think Blade Runner light) dealing with these issues - and asking what cost we should pay for life itself. It doesn't really have answers, but you might enjoy it.
Latest Comments
The Cost Of Our Coronavirus Insanity
Our happiness shouldn't rely on other people's misery. And in this case I don't think they are necessarily connected. People in these countries don't have to be miserable. I was in Ethiopia last year. The country was doing very well. People seemed as happy as they do anyplace else. The economy was booming. Yes, there was very real hardship but often we see these things in a relativistic way. Are things better or worse for us than they were.
Sadly, this year, things are far far worse.
The Cost Of Our Coronavirus Insanity
It isn't our obligation to solve their problems. 6 million were killed in the Congo civil war in the 1990s. I wouldn't have suggested intervention. But here, we are creating the problems. They couldn't get the supplies because *our* supply chains were down.
Our single-minded focus is killing them - and it will kill us too.
The Cost Of Our Coronavirus Insanity
It was $70M and some equipment and supplies. This was not a major aid effort, this was small-time as these things go. It will be bigger soon, but we've made our own problems so large that we lack the ability to help nearly as much as we should.
The Cost Of Our Coronavirus Insanity
And without refrigeration I imagine even locusts go bad. Plus, you can't plant them and grow new locusts the next year. Locusts are a short-term food, not a permanent one. Oh, and they fly away. You probably can't collect a year's worth to make up for lost crops.
Stop The Corona Insanity - The Data
@DRM Stockholm has 2.2 million in the metro area. Copenhagen 2 million. The city size does not explain the differences.
Stop The Corona Insanity - The Data
Nobody cares because they are Africans. An area about the size of Western Europe is about to be consumed. And it was ENTIRELY preventable - if we hadn't shut down. The Ethiopians needed $70 million, some helicopters and pesticide.
No dice.
Stop The Corona Insanity - The Data
Harry Goldstein, The danger of the disease matters because the economic decisions also cost lives. Our decisions are already almost guaranteed to cost tens of millions of lives in Africa.
The virus can be just as good as the flu and far far worse. Convenience surveys (antibody population tests) suggest a death rate similar to the flu. The difference is that nobody has had exposure before. So instead of 50 million Americans getting infected and 35,000 dying, 300 million could get infected with 200,000 dead (although it is looking lower than that).
Sweden has more dead now than other Scandinavian countries, but on the other they are on track with most of Europe. That is an interesting data point. But what has to be remembered is that Sweden will have the health care capacity (borne of a stronger economy) to deal with the virus and other medical issues 6 months, a year, two years from now. And they won't have the mortality and morbidity issues associated with widespread unemployment.
This is a marathon, not a sprint.
In this panic, most countries set off at a sprint. Their current lead REALLY doesn't mean they'll win the race.
Stop The Corona Insanity - The Data
I think we may be jumping the gun on who is winning and losing here. We've got another year, minimum, to go. The costs of this virus on our ability to provide a wide range of health and other services are still likely to cause overwhelming suffering.
In my presentation above - made early on - I estimated that if unchecked the virus would double normal mortality. This means it would kill 2.5 million Americans with 30 million life-years lost. It won't get close to that. But the economic contraction could easily claim an additional 30 million life years. And this is just in the first world.
In the third world, over 250 million people are already facing starvation due to first-world lockdowns. This includes 130 million from economic collapse and 130 million from the collapse of the pesticide supply chain to suppress locusts in East Africa. Far more people will be killed by the locusts alone than by corona virus - and those deaths would have been entirely preventable.
Stop The Corona Insanity - The Data
I was speaking of principles. I agree that US wars have had very limited benefit and massive costs - that doesn't mean *a* country doesn't need military capability. I agree courts have issues - that doesn't mean *a* country doesn't need them. And I agree that we've almost certainly made epic mistakes with corona. It is appearing more and more likely that the disease isn't as deadly as perceived - but that it is totally new and thus affecting far more people than a normal flu.
On vaccines I'll have to disagree. Although I was homeschooled, I still disagree. I'm very very happy with vaccinated smallpox into oblivion and our lives as individuals are enhanced when we collectively push deadly diseases out of our lives. That said, I recognize you disagree and that this is a fruitless line of conversation.
On the wars front, I wrote a book about the civil war in Syria and what I believe would be a far more effective way of helping than either throwing open borders or bombing the heck out of things.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0976465965/
Stop The Corona Insanity - The Data
I guess, DRM, that you are against mandatory vaccines. Obviously those are people who know what's ideal for others. You're probably against taxes to pay for a military, as you're forcing people to take part in building up a defensive capability that is only 'supposed' to help them. And you're probably against making people pay for a legal system. After all, that's just making people pay for a societal good - and then obligating them to obey it when it does what they don't like.
The thing is, there's always a balance. Isolation isn't about helping you, it is about others. Same with support for a military, courts and vaccines. You aren't allowed to say I won't pay for that or participate in that because it creates a huge free rider program. Of course these efforts always have to be moderated. The societal benefits have to be leavened with individual freedoms - or you could say individual freedoms have to be leavened with societal needs.
You should be very careful to limit when you limit freedoms. But it doesn't mean you should never do it.
I recently wrote a futuristic story (think Blade Runner light) dealing with these issues - and asking what cost we should pay for life itself. It doesn't really have answers, but you might enjoy it.
It isn't short, but it's up at:
medium.com/.../the-cost-of-life-fiction-268cb891e075