Debt Rattle April 16 2020
- This topic has 34 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 4 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Dorothea Lange Richmond, California 1942 • Coronavirus Testing Hits Dramatic Slowdown In US (Pol.) • Antibody Tests For Coronavirus Can Miss Th
[See the full post at: Debt Rattle April 16 2020]The world has changed. Accept it.
Covid19 says:” I’m taking your old and weak”
Man says: “First, Let us test to determine who is old and weak.”
Covid19 says:”I’m doing the testing. for 97% of mankind. I’ll make less mistakes than your tests.
You cannot change the mortality rate for closed cases. (remains at 21%)
Stop complaining. Count your blessings. read.
https://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2020/04/overcapacity-oversupply-everywhere.html
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 2020
Overcapacity / Oversupply Everywhere:Massive Deflation Ahead
———-“the market price of assets can fall 90% or even to zero.”
The banks will have put plywood on the windows long before that and will be waiting for buyers at a price that they want.
Selling the extra inventory at too low a price destroys all the value of all assets.
Therefore, there will not be massive deflation.• The Coronavirus Is Particularly Unkind To Those Who Are Obese (LAT)
…among those ages 65 and older, there was no link between obesity status and hospital careThe study actually concluded that Age >65 is a predictor of hospital admission (87% admitted), without making a distinction between the obese and non-obese in this age range.
For the people who are not in that Age >65 category, obesity was found to be a major factor in hospitalizations.
This is clearly shown in the related chart which Ilargi posted on April 13:
I have just caught up on the comments following Ilargi’s fine and instructive essay “The Only Man Who Ha A Clue” about Taleb et. al.
Good bunch of comments. Nice to meet you, Kimyo99.
I agree that having a viral adversary and having an “enemy” going forward (or back in time) are different.
I might think “V-shaped recovery” if the virus(es) come without harmful intent, but I think “hunker-down-into-societal-reset” if I believe they are the first real attack on my person. Others have already been personally attacked in the “wars on terror” after the massive false flag attacks of 9/11/01, and the anthrax letters to Tom Daschle, and those who opposed the global war on terrorists living over easy to extract oil and poppy fields.
WTC Bldg #7 collapsed into it’s footprint, in freefall time about 5:20 PM as the evening news was playing across America. The government claimed this suspension of the laws of physics was normal, just the first time ever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc
The space-time continuum was also rent asunder, as the BBC reported that “the Lehman Building” had collapsed, as it was visible out the window, still standing for a few more minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEsjv9vKCGc
Who benefited? Inside traders, the military industrial complex, western banking, Bibi Netanyahu, Bushes, Clintons, Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, and anybody who might have faced criminal charges in the investigation of Pentagon misspending of over a trillion dollars, the “unaccounted for” money that Rumsfeld mentioned 9/10/01. Whatever put those clean, cookie cutter holes in the Pentagon that day, without leaving any trash, luggage, wings or bodies on the lawn, sure put an end to that investigation. BULLSEY!
I believe this is the archetype that people resonate with as “Armageddon”, and it has come before, but this one is ours.
The American revolution probably felt like Armageddon, as did WW-2.
People will fight to the death for that archetype, but that is misguided this time.
This time, all the infrastructure is too valuable to the ruling elites, and resources are running low, but there are more people than they need, so they need to keep the most competently obedient ones.
This will take several different kinds of herd-thinning to accomplish.
Restive members of the herd have seen this movie, too.
French Revolution or Killing-Fields? Pick a side, right?
I’d rather not. I’d rather let the elites reduce their less-competent elite competitors, while I figure out how to set a good example of human-ecological-living with just a little bit of what we now burn each day. http://www.johndayblog.comYay EU, doing something right first time I remember:
“Companies given equity injections by EU member states as a result of the coronavirus will not be allowed to pay out dividends, buy back shares or provide bonuses or similar remuneration.”
An example for us all.Oh wait, too soon: “German Lawyer Who Criticized Lockdown Arrested, Taken To Psych Ward” https://summit.news/2020/04/15/german-lawyer-who-criticized-lockdown-arrested-taken-to-psych-ward/
Reports are that the “Swiss Also Locked Up A doctor for being Against the Coronavirus Fraud”
Reports are that the Swiss Also Locked Up A doctor for being Against the Coronavirus Fraud
Opinions are treason. While we’re erasing 1st Amendment rights to protest, why not the rights to opinions, Assembly, Religion, and the Press as well. We already got rid of Due Process, eternal infinite house arrest without adjudication, and much, much more! They’re tracking you down in the woods to arrest you for being too close to people, and therefore put you in jail where you’re unprotected and close to people. #Logic!
Anecdotally, this is going around. Remember, Epstein didn’t kill himself, he died of Coronavirus. “COVID-19 a Miracle Cure for All Other Disease; Prevents Heart Attacks” https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/press/covid-19-miracle-cure-for-all-other-disease-prevents-heart-attacks/
In London, they were calling it the “Miracle Cure” as all other diseases vanish from records. True? You’d have to look, but the fact it’s even said indicates something.
Like the laundry list on Gates, this has been around, the hundreds of deaths cause by WHO: https://greatgameindia.com/who-list-of-errors/
So they are CONSTANTLY, for decades, issuing vaccines that kill or maim 10% of all recipients. And they get annoyed that the victim nations are mad at them, I mean, just because they’re KILLING brown people like flies. Then, like the IMF, they fail and do it all over again. While sucking up billions that would easily help people with simple, uncontroversial aid like wells and refrigeration.
Of course, that’s not just “them”, Flint and hundred other cities need fresh water, while WHO steals the money that would easily cure people’s health. “$3.5 Billion Has Flowed from U.S. Taxpayers to the World Health Organization Since 2010”
Speaking of obvious avoidance of death, the food system is breaking down all over, putting 100% of the population in danger, not only of food, but of crime. We are going to kill every town to save every town. Good job, Brownie!
“Nobody wants to go to a bar or an office or factory floor if they can catch a deadly virus there.”
I will. I’ll do it all day but I’ll get arrested. They say stats lead to” inevitability” of masks and economy. Why? It’s indeed an option to do nothing. I would but I’m not free. I’m not allowed. For whose good is that? You say it is mine, but I’d prefer you all go away and leave me to my own life, my own death, and my own choices, thanks. There has never been any more oppressive force than of do-gooders. Indeed that impulse has killed most of the people of the 20th century.
In any case, if the nation wasn’t made of cowards, they’d go work and get things done like the Doctors and Nurses are doing right now. Truckers are on, cashiers, car mechanics. How about all the people who aren’t working get thrown overboard since they’re neither “essential” nor brave? Because we, the brave, being brave, will inevitably help you at our own risk and expense anyway, that won’t happen, but do you see what I’m saying here? This is what I said about locking down the factory in China and running it anyway, because China, and her goods, and those goods being food and masks and truck parts, are vital to China, the Chinese, and to world health? I said that of them, there, and no less for me, here.
Isn’t risking yourself to support your fellow man what we’re aspiring to? I bet a whole lot of people will join me, and are going to offices and factories right now. To keep YOU alive, complaining bitterly about watching Netflix at home. While you say they are stupid, foolish, and suck to be out. “Shut it down, Mr. President, shut it down.” Shut down the food? The truck parts? The masks?
Yes, testing is a big problem. Even if it were accurate, it might show someone died of Corona when they had got over it 5 months ago. The non-antibody test has different problems, suggested it sees other Coronas (which are common), may be set off by vaccines, and aren’t accurate, which almost certainly makes things worse wasting scarce resources with false positives (and negatives). If NPR is sure of that test, it would be the first science so far that’s been solid and a known-known.
Why aren’t we testing? Well If the tests don’t work, why bother? To “do something”?
“The Coronavirus Is Particularly Unkind to Those Who Are Obese (LAT)”
It has been suggested this goes with the theory that overweight is a symptom of chronic inflammation. Covid death seems to depend strongly on immune overreaction.
“thwart expected pressure from President Donald Trump to move more rapidly,”
He won’t have an economy and collect taxes, but he sure will have Wall Street, New York, suck massive Federal money out of Michigan, Oklahoma, and Wyoming. Like I said, when you’re the heroes, the good guys, you help NY anyway, despite that they’ve nuked your town, repoed your house, and economically murdered your people by the ten-thousands for the last 30 years while giggling with glee at your distress. Sucks to be the good guy. Now Cuomo will want Moar! There’s a couple houses left in Detroit, can’t you sell them or something and send the cash to the Hamptons for us? You know, since he closed down 20,000 hospital beds and lowered taxes on Wall St over his reign? There’s a good boy.
“Investors Are Underestimating the Economic Shock the World Is Facing (AEP)”
I don’t know about that, this is probably what happens to all socialist, 3rd world, banana republics like we are: they print $10T and the stock market goes up. However, food stops being harvested and goes up faster. Check! On both counts. But we don’t have to do work, put dirty seeds in the dirty ground, just print money! It’s magic!
“It was obvious before it started that it would be a mess.”
There is a second problem that it’s simply harder to write 10,000,000 loan applications than 20. And a lot less profitable for the work involved too. Hey, isn’t that why we have competition and no monopolies? So we’ll have 1 million banks who can easily write 10 loans apiece? Nah, that’d be capitalism. Haven’t had that in 100 years and we’re not starting now. More government, more checks, less work. Cheers all around!
“We Scientists Said Lock Down. But UK Politicians Refused to Listen (G.)”
Should probably look into why nobody believes what you say anymore. Would it be because of the 300 word-salad papers that got published, no problem? 20 years ago, and you weren’t even embarrassed? That Vioxx and Roundup are safe as water and Manhattan should be underwater? Or is it because the last 5 epidemics you called were wildly overhyped, big fat zeros? Gosh, so weird how anti-science everyone got when Science has been dead-wrong much of my lifetime, much to my personal cost, and indeed deaths, See WHO killing 10% (that’s call “Decimating” a population), above. Funny how that happens. After a while even ignorant dummies can tell where they’re being poked from.
Don’t worry: they will NEVER self-examine. EVER. Why clean up your own house, cities, reporters, government, science, when you’re practically perfect in every way? Tell other people what to do, what costs you’re going to force on THEM instead while I sit in Princeton and Fairfax and order them about like monopoly pieces and throw violent tantrums if they resist.
“The past few months are not a litany of errors and honest mistakes”
I see we’re on the same page. They get it 100% wrong in 100% the same direction, every time. “They” being media, government, science, cities…
“What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor.”
But rural people, brown people, poor people, slavs, are not “people.” They are therefore not “neighbors.” We don’t think of them or their calling any more than we think of the rats or the crows. Nothing they say matters, their deaths are provably a net positive.
There are exploits in the Golden Rule though: What if you’re a Spartan and treat other men as Spartans? What if you’re a corrupt man of decadence and lavishly share your decadence, sexual or otherwise? Decadence is doing that right now, forcing themselves on the unwilling. Less bad than not, though, which is why we usually write on hypocrisy instead.
THE OTHER VICTIMS OF COVID-19
One UK newspaper said that about 2600 people per week were dying because they could not receive the non-COVID treatment normally carried on in UK hospitals.
A new temporary hospital has been built in London, Nightingale, with 2,900 ICU beds specifically for COVID-19 treatment, plus 750 normal beds. Similar hospitals are being created in major cities using covered stadiums.
I believe they are regarded as overflow beds. As I suspected Nighingale is almost empty.
Here’s an idea. Why not move ALL the COVID-19 cases from normal hospitals to these centres and let the normal hospitals go back to treating non-COVID cases. Normal hospitals should not accept any COVID-19 cases.
Many countries seem to be building temporary hospitals so it should be possible to segregate COVID-19 cases from other patients, or even just select specific normal hospitals as COVID only.
ANTIBODY TESTS
I am still struck by the 1.6 million people reporting to a UK hotline that they had the virus.
Antibody tests would be perfect for testing a significant sample of these people to get an idea of how many really had been infected, although this would not show asymptomatic carriers.
I do not believe the UK is an exception so the antibody test could be used on random sampling of the population of any country to get a better idea of the real infection levels.
How can the correct decisions be made without accurate information, or at least a good estimate?
One UK newspaper said that about 2600 people per week were dying because they could not receive the non-COVID treatment normally carried on in UK hospitals.
I doubt it. If the UK is anything like other countries, those “extra” deaths are people who dies of COVID19 but were never tested and, hence, never counted. I’ve seen these stories come from France, Belgium, Holland, and I suspect Germany is undercounting victims in bulk this way.
The NHS doesn’t appear to be overwhelmed yet, but it soon will be. When that happens, the headlines won’t stop telling you about it. The UK appears even worse managed then the rest, and that’s saying something. All these “leaders” are merely managing the consequences of their own failures. It’s a strange gig, you won’t find that in any other field, it’s only possible in politics.
Huskynut from the Taleb thread. No ideal solution to carry one thread into another… So hereby..
1. Reasoning that the potential ultimate risk of Covid is human extinction and thus mandates the most extreme of precautions is, well, useless. I mean in scientific terms then yes it’s technically true, but the same is true of other edge cases (including GMOs and climate change). There is no particular reason (that I’m aware of) that this risk should be uniquely or especially true of Covid vs a mutation of a pre-existing virus, or from one that emerges tomorrow
That’s not how Taleb puts it. He says: “..over time, exposure to tail events leads to a certain eventual extinction. While there is a very high probability for humanity surviving a single such event, over time, there is eventually zero probability of surviving repeated exposures to such events.” There’s nothing there that is “especially true” about COVID19, this is a general comment: if you fail to follow the ground rules, and you persist in doing that in multiple cases, you go down a road you shouldn’t travel on.
Also please note that he very much emphasizes that hardly any of what he recommends now, masks, restricted mobility, would have been needed if the first steps had been taken. But now that we failed at that, there is no other option than door no. 2. I think many people tend to overlook that first step argument, because when it happened, they were blissfully ignorant thanks to Beijing, WHO and their own governments. They entered the stadium in the third inning, hot dog in hand, and think the pitcher is still warming up. They can’t for the life of them figure out why the anthem is not being played.
As a socio/psych-ological deomstration of basic human behaviors, we here seem almost classically textbook examples, per the wee bit of soc-psych I tell myself I know.
***
The “shrinking trust horizon” Nicole mentions is highly evident in our remarks about the larger institutions influencing our lives as well as our individual interactions to one another.
We amuse me, and I say that affectionately. A roomfull of mutts. (wags tail while simultaneously displaying canine incisors)
http://www.johndayblog.com/2020/04/scylla-and-charybdis.html
Scylla and Charybdis were mythical sea monsters noted by Homer; Greek mythology sited them on opposite sides of the Strait of Messina between Sicily and Calabria, on the Italian mainland.Ilargi at The Automatic Earth has posted an excellent piece , explaining the complexity-theory analysis of the current spread of novel coronavirus in our human population, which is life-supported by our political-economy.
This is the primary, fundamental process to understand. Read this first.
https://www.theautomaticearth.com/2020/04/the-only-man-who-has-a-clue/Gail Tverberg explains why the economy can never get back to “normal”, which was straining in every way, already. Humpty Dumpty. How far down, and what can we all reorganize to, eventually, are the relevant questions.
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2020/03/31/economies-wont-be-able-to-recover-after-shutdowns/The internet has let me down. I searched for “schadenfreude Danke Schoen” and found naught… no wait. I’d mispelt Danke Schoen! Big Brother really *does* love me! I’m not the only one who thought schad-themed lyrics belonged with this tune!
My faith is restored.
How does this relate to whatever is deemed by this or that poster the Official Topic?
It’s a question. I *think* I know “the” answer, but I have been known to be wrong.
On the other hands(sic typo), the newer forms of networking that technology has given us, provide uncannily tribalesque opprtunities for enharmonic group behavior:
Ilargi – thanks for the response
“That’s not how Taleb puts it. He says: “..over time, exposure to tail events leads to a certain eventual extinction. While there is a very high probability for humanity surviving a single such event, over time, there is eventually zero probability of surviving repeated exposures to such events.” There’s nothing there that is “especially true” about COVID19, this is a general comment: if you fail to follow the ground rules, and you persist in doing that in multiple cases, you go down a road you shouldn’t travel on.”
Sure, I get it, and my comment still stands. Taleb’s observation is 100% correct, and also 100% functionally useless to us in making sense of this crisis. Human beings never have and never will respond to potential extinction-level events in a rational manner. We’re simply not wired for it. Neither I would observe is the entirety of the animal kingdom. We behave as if we will go on living. The litany of examples in Jared Diamond’s “Collapse” illustrates that pretty well.
So investing time and energy trying to mobilise people to respond in ways they will never respond is simply wasted energy. And that’s without discussing the negative externalities of the proposed action which are conspicuously avoided.A couple of additional claifications:
– the negative externalities of compulsory mask wearing are trivial. I’m not personally convinced of the merit of masks (in part as I’m at lower personal risk of death from my demography), but the cost of compliance to me is trivial. So I’d take one for the team and comply (as I am with current restrictions). The external costs of long-term lock downs is vast and there’s no way in hell I’m willing to take that on the chin for the sake of either abstract Black Swan concept or practical advantage to society
– the “100% right but functionally useless” concept comes from Anthony De Mello – a Jesuit priest and spiritual teacher who relates his personal story. One day in councelling one of his flock, he was confronted by the man. “Father what you’ve told me is 100% correct but completely useless to me”. He took that on the chin and went off and trained as psychotherapist, so that instead of just relaying abstract concepts he could make useful practical interventions in the lives of his parishioners.
Now Taleb is a great intellect, and his insights have a utilitarian place in finance and economics, but invoking them in the current Covid context to justify lockdowns is an over-extension and misuse of the concepts.Sorry, I forgot to respond to your second point:
“Also please note that he very much emphasizes that hardly any of what he recommends now, masks, restricted mobility, would have been needed if the first steps had been taken. But now that we failed at that, there is no other option than door no. 2. I think many people tend to overlook that first step argument, because when it happened, they were blissfully ignorant thanks to Beijing, WHO and their own governments. They entered the stadium in the third inning, hot dog in hand, and think the pitcher is still warming up. They can’t for the life of them figure out why the anthem is not being played.”Amen to that. The widespread government response (the US in in particular) has been ghastly. But you wouldn’t know that from the tub-thumping MSM, certainly not in NZ.
My jaw fell open this morning – Jacinda Ardern has just been quoted as saying “it’s largely in NZ’ers hands how long they’ll have to live under such tight conditions”. I mean, fuck me – considering we’re being told almost nothing meaningful around her decision-making, and the power to unilaterally compel the population is solely in her hands, that is some industrial-grade patronisation going on right there..I long wondered why apocalyptic predictions never come to pass (evidence : here we are despite uncountable numbers of dire predictions made in the past. Not extinct. Apocalypse pending, I guess. Knock on wood.)
Then I gave it some brain searing concentrated cogitation and came up with what I think is big part of the answer.
Our own experiences are the only model of “normal” that we have to go on. It is literally all we have ever known and the only things we have ever done. This reality may not exactly be heaven on earth but at least it is a hell on earth that have have more or less learned how to cope with. The model is probably tinted with aspirations for a better normal, but the fact is that at least we have acquired the skills and illusions about “how things work around here” to have survived up through the present moment.
When an apocalyptic “series of unfortunate events” like wars, imperial collapses and world wide pandemics just rip the living shit out of everything, then what happens next?
Well there are only two possibilities. In the event that we go extinct then that’s that. The piles of dead will neither complain nor worry, and scavengers of all sizes and description will have a long field day.
In the alternative scenario ( in which we don’t go the way of the dinosaurs, and is the one I’m personally rooting for) then the survivors will work like never before, like obsessed maniacs, like bankers at a bailout . . . . . to put it all back to as close to the old “normal” as closely as the can, and as quickly as they can. After all, the “doings” of the old normal is the only thing they ever knew how to do. It is their ONLY model, and so that is the one they will build toward.
If the “new normal” is a bit skewed from the old one I don’t think very many people will even notice. Those that do will be regarded by everyone else as quaint old nostalgic geezers yearning for “the good old days.”
So do make plans but don’t over-worry it . Predict and prepare to the degree you think you should and then just get on with living, until further notice.“Taleb’s observation is 100% correct, and also 100% functionally useless to us in making sense of this crisis. Human beings never have and never will respond to potential extinction-level events in a rational manner. We’re simply not wired for it. Neither I would observe is the entirety of the animal kingdom. We behave as if we will go on living. The litany of examples in Jared Diamond’s “Collapse” illustrates that pretty well.”
Should we therefore give up any attempt to prevent such an event? Even if it is rationally apprehensible (i.e. not an inevitable asteroid or the Yellowstone caldera doing what it inevitably will in ways we can scarcely imagine how to avert except in silly movies)?
After all, we’ve done such a lousy job so far of surviving despite our exorbitant abundance of irrationality, right?
Also, what evidence is there that “Human beings never have and never will respond to potential extinction-level events in a rational manner”? Oh, I don’t like our chances at all but I do know that we survived an Ice Age, were in fact practically born of one, and we ain’t all dead yet.
We simply do not know.
“So investing time and energy trying to mobilise people to respond in ways they will never respond is simply wasted energy.”
While I am very much on recent record that I don’t like our chances of simply enacting a major quarantine in an effective way, much less the chances of our using knowledge of evil world cabal biogenocide plots to counter same, I would never say that we could never effectively respond in a group-survival satisfying manner. Because, again, we don’t know. Dr. Fauci likes to make absolute statements like the ones you’ve just made. He at least has a fancy title.
“The health “professionals” modelled several scenarios. The lower death scenarios (which turn out to be more in line with what we’ve actually observed *were simply excluded from theirreport*. Get that – they modelled them but didn’t like the results they produced, so simply didn’t report the scenarios. That’s a damn scandal right there.”
The concept here is that of erring on the side of caution not complacency or arrogance or greed or confusion or… why yes indeed, dear hearts, it’s a damn scandal they didn’t go all-out cavalier on this one like Bojo or Trump or Macron or… my memory’s getting bad. Anyone recall a national leader/global health technocrat who didn’t initially lead with their chin and tell us this was just a Big Sniffle, no reason to panic, carry on…
A) “And that’s without discussing the negative externalities of the proposed action which are conspicuously avoided.”
B) “Bye, bye Grandma and Grandpa. So sorry about your luck. We decided the model looked better for younger people if we didn’t reduce GDP so we let Covid-19 run loose.”
A) “That, right there is a beautiful example of hijacking a rational discussion with a purely emotional dog-whistle, and sadly that’s exactly the widespread quality of debate.”Apparently, not running one’s remarks along the lines you think they should go is hijacking a debate. If this is your idea of establishing a middle-ground of debate, we’re gonna have to seriously move the goal posts, I guess.
And what is, exactly, “exactly the widespread quality of debate.” Other than your subjective impression expressed as absolute universal truth?
If, by “that’s without discussing the negative externalities of the proposed action which are conspicuously avoided” you refer to us here, I have to differ: such matters have been discussed here in myriad ways. If you mean in the circles of enforceable or officially declarative power: you’ve got to be kidding. I’ve heard economy over death count reduction, and death count reduction over economy, from many blithering members of the CIC.“Reasoning that the potential ultimate risk of Covid is human extinction and thus mandates the most extreme of precautions is, well, useless. I mean in scientific terms then yes it’s technically true, but the same is true of other edge cases (including GMOs and climate change). There is no particular reason (that I’m aware of) that this risk should be uniquely or especially true of Covid vs a mutation of a pre-existing virus, or from one that emerges tomorrow, or from other scientific edge cases (physicists have speculated on a black hole produced by the Large Hadron Collider..).”
The word ‘ultimate’ means, in this instance, ‘at the very worst’. It also means, ‘as far as the effect on homo saps can go’. It is a means of stating that this event is the kind of thing that can indeed make things very much worse, up to and including extinction. Picking on the most extreme and least probable negative outcome (and easy to prevent, I say, contrary to your standing position, seeing as how killing off an entire species is much more challenging job than merely driving into depopulated penury and misery) is gross cherry-picking. In this case, in a mine field, but that’s just a metaphor for fun’s sake. You know: “rambling semi-coherently”
Actually, there IS a reason “that this risk should be uniquely or especially true of Covid vs a mutation of a pre-existing virus, or from one that emerges tomorrow”: velocity of events.
Your logic here reminds me of Zeno’s* tortoise/hare/arrow refutations of time or movement, depending on your perspective. Lovely poetic paradox but it resolves easily when one considers that time, while theoretically infinitely divisible, does not stop moving while it is being infinitely divided. What is infinitely divided gets left behind, like every moment in time does.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes
The whole point of flattening the curve is to reduce the s[peed at which the (metaphor alert!) water rises. A tsunami coming in at the speed of a glacier is no problem. A tsunami landing at 20-30 mph, as they typically do, is a very big problem even if it’s only 6’ feet high.
Not to ignore the other aspect: inertia. Once a virus gets in pandemic motion, it has considerable inertia that can only be significantly reduced by isolating the vectors of its momentum: in this case, people, although there’s also room for bats, maybe pangolins, maybe government research labs, and maybe even the many Drs. Evil who call 1% their home.
“Physicists” have been speculating for decades on string theory without a shred of supporting evidence outside of labyrinthine mathematical models. No one except ‘credulous mystics’ (to quickly coin a handy tar-brushed label) worried about the Hadron Collider. That’s one heckuva red herring though, bosco says admiringly.
“You know Taleb/Ilargi – when you can show me how this new morality will claw back the billions from the 1% to finance this humanity-embracing effort, rather than ditching the costs onto future generations, then I’m up for it.”
No one claims such magical powers. The struggle now is to keep viral panic and viral illness from doing worse damage to people – and the economy on which they depend. Period.
After that we can deal with the 1%. Maybe. BTW, history shows very little evidence that human beings ever have or ever will respond to potential extinction-level events in a rational manner… most of which potentials, from atom bombs to Monsanto poisons and possible feral DNA breaking loose from patented genegineer designer molds to global warming to a whole lotta very destructive and economically expensive war, can be traced back to that 1% always encouraging their short-term greed over long-term group welfareand survival, especially the sustainable kind. So I find it funny to hold accountable the likes of Taleb/Ilargi and the CIC and even the human beings dominated by the CIC, to an approach pandemic mitigation that also prioritizes as much or more that we won’t get fucked by the 1% and won’t get fooled again.
You know what song I’m gonna play now:
<a href=”http://“Taleb’s observation is 100% correct, and also 100% functionally useless to us in making sense of this crisis. Human beings never have and never will respond to potential extinction-level events in a rational manner. We’re simply not wired for it. Neither I would observe is the entirety of the animal kingdom. We behave as if we will go on living. The litany of examples in Jared Diamond’s “Collapse” illustrates that pretty well.” Should we therefore give up any attempt to prevent such an event? Even if it is rationally apprehensible (i.e. not an inevitable asteroid or the Yellowstone caldera doing what it inevitably will in ways we can scarcely imagine how to avert except in silly movies)? After all, we’ve done such a lousy job so far of surviving despite our exorbitant abundance of irrationality, right? Also, what evidence is there that “Human beings never have and never will respond to potential extinction-level events in a rational manner”? Oh, I don’t like our chances at all but I do know that we survived an Ice Age, were in fact practically born of one, and we ain’t all dead yet. We simply do not know. “So investing time and energy trying to mobilise people to respond in ways they will never respond is simply wasted energy.” While I am very much on recent record that I don’t like our chances of simply enacting a major quarantine in an effective way, much less the chances of our using knowledge of evil world cabal biogenocide plots to counter same, I would never say that we could never effectively respond in a group-survival satisfying manner. Because, again, we don’t know. Dr. Fauci likes to make absolute statements like the ones you’ve just made. He at least has a fancy title. “The health “professionals” modelled several scenarios. The lower death scenarios (which turn out to be more in line with what we’ve actually observed *were simply excluded from theirreport*. Get that – they modelled them but didn’t like the results they produced, so simply didn’t report the scenarios. That’s a damn scandal right there.” The concept here is that of erring on the side of caution not complacency or arrogance or greed or confusion or… why yes indeed, dear hearts, it’s a damn scandal they didn’t go all-out cavalier on this one like Bojo or Trump or Macron or… my memory’s getting bad. Anyone recall a national leader/global health technocrat who didn’t initially lead with their chin and tell us this was just a Big Sniffle, no reason to panic, carry on… A) “And that’s without discussing the negative externalities of the proposed action which are conspicuously avoided.” B) “Bye, bye Grandma and Grandpa. So sorry about your luck. We decided the model looked better for younger people if we didn’t reduce GDP so we let Covid-19 run loose.” A) “That, right there is a beautiful example of hijacking a rational discussion with a purely emotional dog-whistle, and sadly that’s exactly the widespread quality of debate.” Apparently, not running one’s remarks along the lines you think they should go is hijacking a debate. If this is your idea of establishing a middle-ground of debate, we’re gonna have to seriously move the goal posts, I guess. And what is, exactly, “exactly the widespread quality of debate.” Other than your subjective impression expressed as absolute universal truth? If, by “that’s without discussing the negative externalities of the proposed action which are conspicuously avoided” you refer to us here, I have to differ: such matters have been discussed here in myriad ways. If you mean in the circles of enforceable or officially declarative power: you’ve got to be kidding. I’ve heard economy over death count reduction, and death count reduction over economy, from many blithering members of the CIC. “Reasoning that the potential ultimate risk of Covid is human extinction and thus mandates the most extreme of precautions is, well, useless. I mean in scientific terms then yes it’s technically true, but the same is true of other edge cases (including GMOs and climate change). There is no particular reason (that I’m aware of) that this risk should be uniquely or especially true of Covid vs a mutation of a pre-existing virus, or from one that emerges tomorrow, or from other scientific edge cases (physicists have speculated on a black hole produced by the Large Hadron Collider..).” The word ‘ultimate’ means, in this instance, ‘at the very worst’. It also means, ‘as far as the effect on homo saps can go’. It is a means of stating that this event is the kind of thing that can indeed make things very much worse, up to and including extinction. Picking on the most extreme and least probable negative outcome (and easy to prevent, I say, contrary to your standing position, seeing as how killing off an entire species is much more challenging job than merely driving into depopulated penury and misery) is gross cherry-picking. In this case, in a mine field, but that’s just a metaphor for fun’s sake. You know: “rambling semi-coherently” Actually, there IS a reason “that this risk should be uniquely or especially true of Covid vs a mutation of a pre-existing virus, or from one that emerges tomorrow”: velocity of events. Your logic here reminds me of Zeno’s* tortoise/hare/arrow refutations of time or movement, depending on your perspective. Lovely poetic paradox but it resolves easily when one considers that time, while theoretically infinitely divisible, does not stop moving while it is being infinitely divided. What is infinitely divided gets left behind, like every moment in time does. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes The whole point of flattening the curve is to reduce the s[peed at which the (metaphor alert!) water rises. A tsunami coming in at the speed of a glacier is no problem. A tsunami landing at 20-30 mph, as they typically do, is a very big problem even if it’s only 6’ feet high. Not to ignore the other aspect: inertia. Once a virus gets in pandemic motion, it has considerable inertia that can only be significantly reduced by isolating the vectors of its momentum: in this case, people, although there’s also room for bats, maybe pangolins, maybe government research labs, and maybe even the many Drs. Evil who call 1% their home. “Physicists” have been speculating for decades on string theory without a shred of supporting evidence outside of labyrinthine mathematical models. No one except ‘credulous mystics’ (to quickly coin a handy tar-brushed label) worried about the Hadron Collider. That’s one heckuva red herring though, bosco says admiringly. “You know Taleb/Ilargi – when you can show me how this new morality will claw back the billions from the 1% to finance this humanity-embracing effort, rather than ditching the costs onto future generations, then I’m up for it.” No one claims such magical powers. The struggle now is to keep viral panic and viral illness from doing worse damage to people – and the economy on which they depend. Period. After that we can deal with the 1%. Maybe. BTW, history shows very little evidence that human beings ever have or ever will respond to potential extinction-level events in a rational manner… most of which potentials, from atom bombs to Monsanto poisons and possible feral DNA breaking loose from patented genegineer designer molds to global warming to a whole lotta very destructive and economically expensive war, can be traced back to that 1% always encouraging their short-term greed over long-term group welfareand survival, especially the sustainable kind. So I find it funny to hold accountable the likes of Taleb/Ilargi and the CIC and even the human beings dominated by the CIC, to an approach pandemic mitigation that also prioritizes as much or more that we won’t get fucked by the 1% and won’t get fooled again. You know what song I’m gonna play now:
Here is a lot of the summary from a very long and mind glazing science piece of analysis. I’ve quoted from the Abstract and the summary of it. I put some bold on parts of the summary.
Recurring distancing of 8 to 12 weeks are highly likely for the next few years as the virus sweeps through the year, assuming it establishes as a seasonal winter event or in continuing waves through the year, to prevent it from overwhelming critical care. More data will clarify what is more likely to happen.
This is more of the kind of analysis I can understand, rather than dealing with tail event probabilities. Masks and gloves, distancing for old folks looks like the new normal for a while.
Projecting the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 through the postpandemic period
Stephen M. Kissler1,*, Christine Tedijanto2,*, Edward Goldstein2, Yonatan H. Grad1,†,‡, Marc Lipsitch2,†,‡
Abstract
It is urgent to understand the future of severe acute respiratory syndrome–coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission. We used estimates of seasonality, immunity, and cross-immunity for betacoronaviruses OC43 and HKU1 from time series data from the USA to inform a model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. We projected that recurrent wintertime outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 will probably occur after the initial, most severe pandemic wave. Absent other interventions, a key metric for the success of social distancing is whether critical care capacities are exceeded. To avoid this, prolonged or intermittent social distancing may be necessary into 2022. Additional interventions, including expanded critical care capacity and an effective therapeutic, would improve the success of intermittent distancing and hasten the acquisition of herd immunity. Longitudinal serological studies are urgently needed to determine the extent and duration of immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Even in the event of apparent elimination, SARS-CoV-2 surveillance should be maintained since a resurgence in contagion could be possible as late as 2024.
…
SARS-CoV-2 has demonstrated an ability to challenge robust healthcare systems, and the development and widespread adoption of pharmaceutical interventions will take months at best, so a period of sustained or intermittent social distancing will almost certainly be necessary.In summary, the total incidence of COVID-19 illness over the next five years will depend critically upon whether or not it enters into regular circulation after the initial pandemic wave, which in turn depends primarily upon the duration of immunity that SARS-CoV-2 infection imparts. The intensity and timing of pandemic and post-pandemic outbreaks will depend on the time of year when widespread SARS-CoV-2 infection becomes established and, to a lesser degree, upon the magnitude of seasonal variation in transmissibility and the level of cross-immunity that exists between the betacoronaviruses. Social distancing strategies could reduce the extent to which SARS-CoV-2 infections strain health care systems. Highly-effective distancing could reduce SARS-CoV-2 incidence enough to make a strategy based on contact tracing and quarantine feasible, as in South Korea and Singapore. Less effective one-time distancing efforts may result in a prolonged single-peak epidemic, with the extent of strain on the healthcare system and the required duration of distancing depending on the effectiveness. Intermittent distancing may be required into 2022 unless critical care capacity is increased substantially or a treatment or vaccine becomes available. The authors are aware that prolonged distancing, even if intermittent, is likely to have profoundly negative economic, social, and educational consequences. Our goal in modeling such policies is not to endorse them but to identify likely trajectories of the epidemic under alternative approaches, identify complementary interventions such as expanding ICU capacity and identifying treatments to reduce ICU demand, and to spur innovative ideas (55) to expand the list of options to bring the pandemic under long-term control. Our model presents a variety of scenarios intended to anticipate possible SARS-CoV-2 transmission dynamics under specific assumptions. We do not take a position on the advisability of these scenarios given the economic burden that sustained distancing may impose, but we note the potentially catastrophic burden on the healthcare system that is predicted if distancing is poorly effective and/or not sustained for long enough. The model will have to be tailored to local conditions and updated as more accurate data become available. Longitudinal serological studies are urgently required to determine the extent and duration of immunity to SARS-CoV-2, and epidemiological surveillance should be maintained in the coming years to anticipate the possibility of resurgence.
Boscohowitz – thanks for taking the time to respond, but I’m gonna take take a pass on replying to it. You’ve managed to twist my meaning quite substantially whilst sidestepping the critical arguments. So no offence, but I’ll just pass in this case.
Also on further reflection I realised I’d missed a fundamental logical fallacy in Taleb’s argument:
“Also please note that he very much emphasizes that hardly any of what he recommends now, masks, restricted mobility, would have been needed if the first steps had been taken. But now that we failed at that, there is no other option than door no. 2. I think many people tend to overlook that first step argument, because when it happened, they were blissfully ignorant thanks to Beijing, WHO and their own governments. They entered the stadium in the third inning, hot dog in hand, and think the pitcher is still warming up. They can’t for the life of them figure out why the anthem is not being played.”This argument is fallacious. In the first instance we definitely had an opportunity to get in early and avoid large numbers of infections, which was squandered by politicians. At some time it might be wonderful and cathartic for us to go back and hold the muppets who screwed that up accountable.
But having squandered that first opportunity there is no reason we “have” to go with option B (or C or D). What we have to do is take a relatively calm stock of the options before us and the predictable consequences of those options, and choose one or more of them (bearing in mind that we cannot predict the unpredictable consequences, or extreme edge cases which are highly unlikely to materialise). That’s risk management in the real world, and outside of academia.
A further basic principle is we should keep our eyes and ears and options open to be able to remain agile and to pivot on strategy as required. Thus we should actively dump strategies and actions which are excessive as fast as we adopt fit-for-purpose methods, because in doing so we will maximise our agency. This last point is why I am so utterly skeptical of central government’s ability to manage the crisis, and so reluctant to accept central government mandated anythings, let alone lock downs (and please realise I am speaking primarily of the NZ situation, in which we have specific set of circumstances, and not, say New York. New York certainly should be considering it as an option).
Central governments have screwed this up royally on the planning and action fronts. In the NZ case there’s good evidence they’ve been basing their decisions on utterly flawed modelling. They’re releasing almost zero information to allow rational external critique of their decision making, which is the only thing that might possibly improve the quality of it moving forward. Even the incentives are utterly wrong – the decision-makers will have no consequences. These facts and pre-conditions mean decentralised decision-making is likely to be vastly superior than centralised. Yes, we need central government to control the borders. But decentralised emergency response more akin to a natural disaster is likely to be far more accurate, effective and responsive than centralised. it’s likely to have winners and losers too, depending on the quality of the local decision-makers. But better that I say than allowing a single set of centralised and disconnected fools make quick and ill-informed decisions with future costs in the 10s of billions of dollars.That’s an interesting piece – thanks Glenda.
The govt here is seriously considering the option of locking us down longer to “eliminate” the virus.
So… that happens, when a single case spontaneously arises (and it will), do we then lock down the country again? Every time? If so, how will anyone plan for the future? If not, then why would we do it the first place..?Also, what John Day said.
Bonnie rules the gang here even after admiring an amazing guitar solo in which it sounds like Jerry Garcia meets middle era Beethoven. Breathtaking… and then Bonnie owns ’em all:
It’s good you didn’t respond to my remarks, Huskynut. I grow weary of dismembering glaring inconsistencies, logical fallacies, and patently closed thinking.
It reminds me of what was said about Barry Goldwater’;s campaign speeches, which were known to get feiry and alienate more moderate potential supporters.
After the speeches, Goldwater’s handlers would ask the reporters to “Say what he meant not what he said.
***
THere’s an old joke, sort of a variation on Aesop’s Belling the Cat fable:The termites gather in huge assembly to discuss their newest threat to peace and survival: the big old elephant who gets drunk regularly anbd comes stomping through the termite mounds just for fun.
The termites decide that what they’ll dop is gather en masse in the treetops and ambush the elephant when he comes traipsing their way next Saturday night.
The elephant walks through the ambush. Ten gazillion termits jump it at once.
The elephant’s knees buckle briefly, then he strains, shakes mightily, and all the termites are flung to the ground except one persistent little feller who clings to the elephant’s quivering dewlap. Emboldened by the sole termites persistence, the termites holler:
“Choke him!!!”
It’s good you didn’t respond to my remarks, Huskynut. I grow weary of dismembering glaring inconsistencies, logical fallacies, and patently closed thinking.
…you really are a tonic unto yourself…
” … we note the potentially catastrophic burden on the healthcare system”
I’ll wait to see what will happens because the countries with no health care systems system are going to have an outsize influence on the future.
The West did lockdowns because they had no other choice after Italy. The hospitalization rate for the Wuhan coronavirus is too high. It has knocked out NY State’s healthcare systems; from the Hamptons to the Queens. But like all things, it is adversely affecting poor minorities more than the wealthy who brought the virus into the East Coast of the USA in the first place. Basically, today, the Elite decided to let the virus run wild and lockdown locally when a regional healthcare system starts to breakdown. There is an alternative; test, trace and isolate. Only government can direct resources, make contracts, hire staff and set priorities so that a system of safe and fair quarantines can control the epidemic sufficiently for the economy to reopen. This is abhorrent to the Oligarchy. It makes government superior once again, requires democracy to work, and extracts wealth back from the rich. Every death above normal in the USA from now on is directly on the Establishment. PR cannot hide the responsibility of the top 10% for this murder.
Regarding what VN Vet said above (and yes, I agree with him):
the situation with the CIC elites, early knowledge of the virus in Wuhan, and their seeming decision to pass on taking classically known effective quarantine measures, reminds me of 911, Pearl Harbor, and the Third Reich Reichstag event: whether or not those events were encouraged, allowed, or merely the result of incompetence remains abtract. What is concrete and real is what the power structures affected by those events did: took advantage of them as much as possible to achieve selfish ends otherwise unavailable to them.
That’s what I see happening now. It bodes well, imo, neither for the elites nor we the people. Collapsing nested economic bubbles, that are ultimately based on the petrodollar allowing the Fed to believe it could do monetary magic, are not respecters of one’s station in life. Nor are viruses, although those with more money initially will fare better than those who don’t. But, judging by how events are currently unrolling, ‘if this goes on’ it seems increasingly likely that wealth will not provide adequate protection from either the virus or the massive civil disruption that this popping of a global economic balloon seems likely to cause.
Turn Off-a De Bubble a-Machine, a-Please-a
Their jubilee won’t hold.
“…you really are a tonic unto yourself…”
I find room in myself for no one but myself. Split personalitires are messy. I am entirely full of myself. Perfect fit. It’s as if it was meant to be!
I’m with Husky on this one. First, ALL events ALWAYS lead to extinction. The sun will burn out someday. That’s the nature of Time. However, despite Taleb, we just lived since the first day of life on earth, (200,000 years?) without going extinct. Huh. But now, suddenly, if we don’t lock down instantly and voluntarily BEFORE we know anything, we’ll be extinct in 50? Taleb, I fear you’re bad at math, that does not follow for me at all, except as an empty truism. That is, he has joined the “War on Death”, the war on extinction, ever, as we’re going to give up all civil rights and due process for the next 200,000 years until we go extinct anyway.
The only alternative to that is cost-benefit. But that’s not allowed in any math since the value of every life is infinite. Even though, you, me, and the mailman have never once acted that way, and every minute decide life-risks, to dart across traffic, to have that extra taco, to fly airlines or ride a bike. But it’s totally different when –I– do it.
The consequence of Taleb’s violent over-estimation of risk is totalitarian hell on earth, forever, the antithesis of all life. It removes what life is FOR. You shall be born in prison, and never leave it. Safe in your sunless cube, without choices, until we finally have expended a trillion dollars extending your life-in-misery, limping along, blind, in pain, 500 years from now, having never been truly “alive” for a single day, never jumped into a lake, never played on a swing, as that is far too dangerous. For your own good; Mommy Knows Best.
No, you cannot have infinite response to a vanishing risk, and of all people he should know that, as you can easily chart how nonsensical that would be. Diminishing returns of the parabolic function are the first thing we realize in life. Actually, I could care less if humans go extinct. First, I thought everybody WANTED that. I read everyday from IYIs that should be our singular goal. But second, extinction is going to happen, and that’s Nature, so unless you’re going to fight Time, Nature, and Death itself, you’re a fool greater than any fool seen on earth before. Every day I am gobsmacked by the arrogance and self-aggrandizement of humans thinking they have any but the slightest power, the slightest understanding of the world. Instead, they think they are God himself, will fight time, death, and reality, as a certain angel did once, and with similar results.
Given that, our response to extinction events is perfectly logical and extensively proven: we’ve survived extinction level events ten-thousand times, Ice Ages, meteors, Black Plagues, wars of 60 Million people and even Communism. We humans are a heritage that goes back to lemurs, dinosaurs, and survived the Chicxulub event, and hundreds more that wiped out nearly all life on earth. Here we are! So we’re not going to be at all alarmed, caring a bit about a virus that kills virtually nobody, when next year there will be MORE people than ever from the baby boom. Here we can’t mathematically tell more from less? Srs?
I swear you should go back to the fall of Crete, the Plague, to the darkening skies Roman Ice Age, to the Mongols erasing the planets’ population, to Vikings erasing civilization on earth, with bare single books surviving, to the Chinese civil war, to Stalingrad, non-events like the London Blitz, to bejeepers, ANYWHERE things have actually been slightly hard just to appreciate how much of a total zero Corona is. You’re sitting here on the internet watching Netflix while eating Cheetos in a heated house by electric light for God’s sake! But Taleb is going to end freedom on earth for it, for what hasn’t happened in 60 million years yet.
Pass. He’s totally wrong. Humans are totally right not to be concerned. If we’ve made it through THAT? Shrugged it off and found 8 Billion of us? As “Humans”, the species, we go forever on. As INDIVIDUALS, of course, we’re going to die anyway, either now or later. That’s different math.
Hope to God no one ever follows Taleb’s advice and we always find ourselves at Option B. Then at least we can die free and alive and not in prison from his “help.”
But now, suddenly, if we don’t lock down instantly and voluntarily BEFORE we know anything, we’ll be extinct in 50?
Dr D where exactly is this in Taleb? Or is this another straw man argument?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.