Coronavirus

[gmillerdrake]

[This whole ordeal has convinced me that such a plan could never exist. Such a plan would require direct orders from the federal government with consequences for not following those orders, and that would never fly. We could have all the plans in place that we want, but there's clearly a large segment of this population that will just straight up refuse to cooperate. I just don't get it. People don't seem to object to fines or more severe punishment for speeding, illegal dumping, or child abuse. What is it about "Where a mask out while out in public" or "You can't have a gathering with over 40 people" that's so controversial? The "slippery slope" argument only goes so far, and to play that card (not implying you are) in this scenario just seems foolish.

I really believe a different President could have gotten out in front of the virus.  It would have been possible to get all 50 governors on a phone call, tell them what to prepare for, advise them on how the federal government could help them if needed, that it doesn't matter what political party a state is led by when the virus is coming for all of them at some point.  The response is still led by the states, but a national message of unity and fighting the virus together as opposed to division down party-lines. 

What actually happened just demonstrates the results of having a President with zero political experience and the inability to handle a true crisis.

Totally this. A 'REAL' leader could have and would have taken the bull by the horns and gotten both sides and the states to focus on a unified vision. I understand what Brian is speaking to....we see it everyday where people are just ignoring common sense and refusing to take the simplest of measures by wearing a mask. I get it. But I do believe a real, focused leader could reach the population and lower leaders in government and could have made a significant impact. Problem is....I don't think our country has had a 'real' leader in quite some time. Decades....the past few Presidents have just been party and corporate puppets with no real concern for the average American.

[The Walrus]

^^ You don't think Obama cared about the average regular person? I don't like everything he did (or didn't do...) but that man was absolutely concerned for the average American and still is.

[gmillerdrake]

^^ You don't think Obama cared about the average regular person? I don't like everything he did (or didn't do...) but that man was absolutely concerned for the average American and still is.

To an extent I do. He was certainly more genuine and compassionate than trump.....I even thing George W. is a good man with a caring heart. But I think both of them along with Clinton, Bush Sr. and so on are still completely detached from reality when it comes to the plight of the 'average' American. Maybe at one time they spent some time as 'average'....but the level of wealth and power that they've been exposed to, lived in and are a still a part of makes it near impossible for them to relate to what 'real' people are going through. I think at this point with obama and the rest of them it's all about power and who gets to use it.....'us' or 'them'.

[jingle.boy]

The response might be led by the states, and a better leader might have gotten out in front of it, but it would've have made a lick of difference to any of the hundreds of thousands of rubes out there who think wearing masks is bullshit or for pussies etc.

Agreed... but why do people think that way?  How was that perception initiated and then propagated - and continually done so today?  I can't help but believe it was largely a political stance.

If you really think a change in leadership is all that it would take to sway all the minds of those anti-maskers, I'm not sure what to tell you, man. These people would be ignoring the mandate no matter who put it in place. Trump could come out and demand a mask mandate yesterday and tons of people would give him the finger and go about their business. Humans aren't going to just go along a mandatory mask mandate, not here, anyway. Especially when you can, like, wear it in the restaurant, but you can take it off when you sit down to eat? Then what's the point of wearing it in the restaurant at all? And the slope gets more slippery from there. As soon as you allow leniency or certain places to take it off, people will run with it and eventually go, "Why even bother?"

Switching out a republican for a dem, especially at this point, really isn't going to make a large number of people change their behavior 9 months into this. I just don't have confidence in human nature - or American culture - to pretend like a paradigm shift is going to happen just because a politician mandates masks. ESPECIALLY in places like my town where life has, more or less, gone on as usual without any interruptions.

You're completely right, MJ.  I'm with you.  But just as *some* of the MAGA bubble wear masks, and lots of moderate Reps (ie, the Gary Miller's of the country) do abide by mask suggestions, just think how many more would if POTUS and the party leadership were vehement around the need.  Look, it's not solely on Reps ... I'm sure there are more than a handful of Dems screaming "but mah freedomz!!!".  In the end, I think a unified message from all political leaders would have had a meaningful impact.  At this point, that toothpaste ain't getting back in the tube.

[MirrorMask]

^^ You don't think Obama cared about the average regular person? I don't like everything he did (or didn't do...) but that man was absolutely concerned for the average American and still is.

To an extent I do. He was certainly more genuine and compassionate than trump.....I even thing George W. is a good man with a caring heart. But I think both of them along with Clinton, Bush Sr. and so on are still completely detached from reality when it comes to the plight of the 'average' American. Maybe at one time they spent some time as 'average'....but the level of wealth and power that they've been exposed to, lived in and are a still a part of makes it near impossible for them to relate to what 'real' people are going through. I think at this point with obama and the rest of them it's all about power and who gets to use it.....'us' or 'them'.

I  think most of all you need empathy, and a basic decency. You can understand people's plight even if you don't live it. My biggest musical discovery of this year is Bruce Springsteen, he's hailed as a working class hero and yet he never worked in a factory a single day of his life. Why he's the hero of a group of people he never belonged to, not even before becoming famous? because he has empathy, he gets them, and finds a way to understand their feelings and put them into songs. I have never been despressed but I can - somehow - understand what depressed people go through (how? simple, they speak about it. Listen to them, read what they write). And there are countless brilliant filmmakers and book writers out there who create movies and books that reasonate with certain plights the authors themselves never suffered. Yes, when you're a politician having lived the hard life can surely help to give you basic experience, but when you don't have experience, some empathy and being at heart a decent, good human being brings you quite far.

[The Walrus]

The response might be led by the states, and a better leader might have gotten out in front of it, but it would've have made a lick of difference to any of the hundreds of thousands of rubes out there who think wearing masks is bullshit or for pussies etc.

Agreed... but why do people think that way?  How was that perception initiated and then propagated - and continually done so today?  I can't help but believe it was largely a political stance.

If you really think a change in leadership is all that it would take to sway all the minds of those anti-maskers, I'm not sure what to tell you, man. These people would be ignoring the mandate no matter who put it in place. Trump could come out and demand a mask mandate yesterday and tons of people would give him the finger and go about their business. Humans aren't going to just go along a mandatory mask mandate, not here, anyway. Especially when you can, like, wear it in the restaurant, but you can take it off when you sit down to eat? Then what's the point of wearing it in the restaurant at all? And the slope gets more slippery from there. As soon as you allow leniency or certain places to take it off, people will run with it and eventually go, "Why even bother?"

Switching out a republican for a dem, especially at this point, really isn't going to make a large number of people change their behavior 9 months into this. I just don't have confidence in human nature - or American culture - to pretend like a paradigm shift is going to happen just because a politician mandates masks. ESPECIALLY in places like my town where life has, more or less, gone on as usual without any interruptions.

You're completely right, MJ.  I'm with you.  But just as *some* of the MAGA bubble wear masks, and lots of moderate Reps (ie, the Gary Miller's of the country) do abide by mask suggestions, just think how many more would if POTUS and the party leadership were vehement around the need.  Look, it's not solely on Reps ... I'm sure there are more than a handful of Dems screaming "but mah freedomz!!!".  In the end, I think a unified message from all political leaders would have had a meaningful impact.  At this point, that toothpaste ain't getting back in the tube.

I think a unified message would've made a meaningful impact as far as a message goes, but I think where we disagree is the impact it would have on the population of regular Joes. You're right, the toothpaste ain't getting back in the tube either way, so it's kind of a moot point now, but it certainly would've been better to have a unified message from the get go, and especially not playing political games with states who do/don't support you so you're gonna fuck with emergency PPE shipments... stupid Don

[gmillerdrake]

The response might be led by the states, and a better leader might have gotten out in front of it, but it would've have made a lick of difference to any of the hundreds of thousands of rubes out there who think wearing masks is bullshit or for pussies etc.

Agreed... but why do people think that way?  How was that perception initiated and then propagated - and continually done so today?  I can't help but believe it was largely a political stance.

If you really think a change in leadership is all that it would take to sway all the minds of those anti-maskers, I'm not sure what to tell you, man. These people would be ignoring the mandate no matter who put it in place. Trump could come out and demand a mask mandate yesterday and tons of people would give him the finger and go about their business. Humans aren't going to just go along a mandatory mask mandate, not here, anyway. Especially when you can, like, wear it in the restaurant, but you can take it off when you sit down to eat? Then what's the point of wearing it in the restaurant at all? And the slope gets more slippery from there. As soon as you allow leniency or certain places to take it off, people will run with it and eventually go, "Why even bother?"

Switching out a republican for a dem, especially at this point, really isn't going to make a large number of people change their behavior 9 months into this. I just don't have confidence in human nature - or American culture - to pretend like a paradigm shift is going to happen just because a politician mandates masks. ESPECIALLY in places like my town where life has, more or less, gone on as usual without any interruptions.

You're completely right, MJ.  I'm with you.  But just as *some* of the MAGA bubble wear masks, and lots of moderate Reps (ie, the Gary Miller's of the country) do abide by mask suggestions, just think how many more would if POTUS and the party leadership were vehement around the need.  Look, it's not solely on Reps ... I'm sure there are more than a handful of Dems screaming "but mah freedomz!!!".  In the end, I think a unified message from all political leaders would have had a meaningful impact.  At this point, that toothpaste ain't getting back in the tube.

yep. that's the point. The moment there was a sliver of a chance to politicize wearing a mask....the simplest and pretty effective way of containing the spread.......it was politicized. It should have never even been a discussion on whether you should or shouldn't. A good leader would have made that clear to the country and all parties involved.

[jingle.boy]

I think a unified message would've made a meaningful impact as far as a message goes, but I think where we disagree is the impact it would have on the population of regular Joes. You're right, the toothpaste ain't getting back in the tube either way, so it's kind of a moot point now, but it certainly would've been better to have a unified message from the get go, and especially not playing political games with states who do/don't support you so you're gonna fuck with emergency PPE shipments... stupid Don

You mean moo?

[Stadler]

We should be at the point now where masks are mandatory but that’s it. Everything should be open. The initial shut down wasn’t about making sure people didn’t get it.....it was about not overwhelming the hospitals.

In Illinois, hospitals are now getting overwhelmed again.  So here come the shutdowns again....because masks aren't mandatory, and even if they were, people are refusing to wear them and business are refusing to close.  So it is what it is at this point.  I like our governor and think he has done the absolute right things to keep the hospitals from being overwhelmed, but the politicization of the virus and mask wearing are continuing to create issues for the hospitals.

100% agreed, but none of the rubes want to talk about that, they just want to bitch about his toilets (which is a valid but hilarious argument, but completely irrelevant)

I agree as well. All of the models show even with just 85% of the American public wearing masks the virus’s spread would be greatly reduced to manageable numbers. Add in good hygiene and the social distancing measures and this thing is manageable.

And that’s been the beef all along. From the top (President) to the local level the leadership on this has been non existent.....or sporadic at Best with conflicting ideologies. The fact that our country didn’t have a unified plan and vision for this is unacceptable. Historically things like this are when the two sides would put aside differences and do what was best for the American people. The fact this was politicized is just a sign of the times and an outright shame.

This whole ordeal has convinced me that such a plan could never exist. Such a plan would require direct orders from the federal government with consequences for not following those orders, and that would never fly. We could have all the plans in place that we want, but there's clearly a large segment of this population that will just straight up refuse to cooperate. I just don't get it. People don't seem to object to fines or more severe punishment for speeding, illegal dumping, or child abuse. What is it about "Where a mask out while out in public" or "You can't have a gathering with over 40 people" that's so controversial? The "slippery slope" argument only goes so far, and to play that card (not implying you are) in this scenario just seems foolish.

In part, it's because this is immediate and personal.   None of this surprises me; for all the laughter I get in response to my "tend your own garden", this is literally the definition of that.  Everyone do their part.  Everyone make sure their masks cover their nose and moutn, and if 85% of people do that, we're good.

It's easy to say "throw the book at child molesters!" because I'm not and so I'll never pay that price.   This is different.  I have to actually wear that mask that I may be telling others they should wear. 

[Stadler]

We should be at the point now where masks are mandatory but that’s it. Everything should be open. The initial shut down wasn’t about making sure people didn’t get it.....it was about not overwhelming the hospitals.

Mandatory masks will limit the spread to the point of hospitals aren’t overwhelmed. Yes, 200k+ people have died and that’s horrible but a large percentage of those people that died had underlying health issues. Doesn’t make the deaths any less significant.....only that we should also be focused on the survivability if the virus as week which is extremely high. When you look at pet capita models the US is one of the lowest as far as deaths and infections.

Come again?  Per the below (as of 2 weeks ago), the US is 7th highest in per capita.  Although I think the below graph doesn't include deep 3rd world countries (eg Peru, Ecuador ...).  Though, with over 200 countries on the planet, being in the top 20 doesn't make you "one of the lowest"

"Countries that were unable to control their outbreaks have tended to suffer the most economic pain"
source: https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-global-data/



I do agree on your last part.  wide-scale macro lockdowns are not the best approach.  Contact tracing, and targeted restrictions (along with masks + hygiene + distancing) are the simplest, most non-restrictive tactics that deliver great benefit.  Lockdowns are simply a means to the end goal of enforcing the distancing aspect.

We are 13th in cases per 1M population, and 10th in deaths per 1M population.

[XeRocks81]

It's easy to say "throw the book at child molesters!" because I'm not and so I'll never pay that price.   This is different.  I have to actually wear that mask that I may be telling others they should wear.

Do you get the sense the people saying to wear a mask don't wear it themselves?

[Stadler]

[This whole ordeal has convinced me that such a plan could never exist. Such a plan would require direct orders from the federal government with consequences for not following those orders, and that would never fly. We could have all the plans in place that we want, but there's clearly a large segment of this population that will just straight up refuse to cooperate. I just don't get it. People don't seem to object to fines or more severe punishment for speeding, illegal dumping, or child abuse. What is it about "Where a mask out while out in public" or "You can't have a gathering with over 40 people" that's so controversial? The "slippery slope" argument only goes so far, and to play that card (not implying you are) in this scenario just seems foolish.

I really believe a different President could have gotten out in front of the virus.  It would have been possible to get all 50 governors on a phone call, tell them what to prepare for, advise them on how the federal government could help them if needed, that it doesn't matter what political party a state is led by when the virus is coming for all of them at some point.  The response is still led by the states, but a national message of unity and fighting the virus together as opposed to division down party-lines. 

What actually happened just demonstrates the results of having a President with zero political experience and the inability to handle a true crisis.

The problem with that theory is that there's no really strong correlation between the states with "bad" numbers (or outbreaks) and party affiliation.   Whether Trump was a "strong leader" or not, most of the controls were and still are implemented at the state level.   It's not like here in CT we're all waiting on baited breath for the next pearl of wisdom from Donald J. Trump.  Ned Lamont - my governor - has done about as good a job at this as you could ask (he's a Democrat, by the way) and yet, we're battling with each of the states around us, mostly also led by Democrats, and our almost-40 state travel restriction list changes almost daily.   

[Stadler]

It's easy to say "throw the book at child molesters!" because I'm not and so I'll never pay that price.   This is different.  I have to actually wear that mask that I may be telling others they should wear.

Do you get the sense the people saying to wear a mask don't wear it themselves?

I have no way of answering that.  Do I have a "sense"?   I don't know.   I wear one almost all the time I'm out of my house (I say "almost" because I didn't wear one when I went and hung with my friends a couple weeks ago, and didn't wear one when I was at my daughter-in-laws birthday party, but I social distanced like a mofo in both cases) and yet I've had the conversation of "do I need this?" while the person waves the mask at me far more often than I should if this was accepted by as many people as some of the posts here suggest. 

[Ben_Jamin]

We should be at the point now where masks are mandatory but that’s it. Everything should be open. The initial shut down wasn’t about making sure people didn’t get it.....it was about not overwhelming the hospitals.

In Illinois, hospitals are now getting overwhelmed again.  So here come the shutdowns again....because masks aren't mandatory, and even if they were, people are refusing to wear them and business are refusing to close.  So it is what it is at this point.  I like our governor and think he has done the absolute right things to keep the hospitals from being overwhelmed, but the politicization of the virus and mask wearing are continuing to create issues for the hospitals.

100% agreed, but none of the rubes want to talk about that, they just want to bitch about his toilets (which is a valid but hilarious argument, but completely irrelevant)

I agree as well. All of the models show even with just 85% of the American public wearing masks the virus’s spread would be greatly reduced to manageable numbers. Add in good hygiene and the social distancing measures and this thing is manageable.

And that’s been the beef all along. From the top (President) to the local level the leadership on this has been non existent.....or sporadic at Best with conflicting ideologies. The fact that our country didn’t have a unified plan and vision for this is unacceptable. Historically things like this are when the two sides would put aside differences and do what was best for the American people. The fact this was politicized is just a sign of the times and an outright shame.

This whole ordeal has convinced me that such a plan could never exist. Such a plan would require direct orders from the federal government with consequences for not following those orders, and that would never fly. We could have all the plans in place that we want, but there's clearly a large segment of this population that will just straight up refuse to cooperate.

Dude, I've been saying this...It's impossible to control people. You can have the best ideas in the world, yet in practice, Life, Reality, and Nature, takes over and completely puts that Idea to the gutter. That's what Free-Will is.

The book I am currently reading, coincidentally enough, has an example of someone having an idea and Reality completely shitting on the idea.

Nicolas de Ovando was sent to "restore order to a colonial experiment that had fallen into complete disarray", the "New World", as King Ferdinand reminded to Christopher Columbus' Son, Diego Columbus, " We sent him (Ovando) to that island because of the bad mistakes committed by your father while discharging the office that you currently have; the island was all up in arms, lost, and yielding no benefit."

"Ovandos most important initiative was to distribute the Natives of the island to various encomendereos, or grantess. In effect, such each Spanish grantee was "given" or "entrusted with" a cacique Fulano [so and so] and one hundred Indians, so you can make use of them in your ranches and mines and teach them the things of our holy Catholic Faith. Known distinctively by the two relevant Spanish words Repartimiento and Encomienda.

"Ovando did not intend the Encomiendas  to become a disguise for slavery. He carefully regulated these arrangements, spelling out mutual rights and obligations. To prevent sexual predation, for example, Ovando insisted that prospective encomenderos had to be married, preferably with their wives on the island. Before receiving an encomienda, each grantee had to understand the limits of his authority. He did not own the Indians in any sense of the word and therefore could not sell them or rent them out. In fact, The Indians would continue to live in their own villages under their caciques and by their own rules. The Encomendero did have a right to require labor from the Indians given to him, and he was naturally eager to send them to the mines. But, he had to pay 1 gold Peso per year. The Indians would work in the mines only for a limited period, known as the Demora, which was initially set at six months a year. If the Encomendero failed to abide by these terms, Governor Ovando could take away his encomienda and award it to someone else, a powerful lever in a cutthroat world in which only some Europeans had encomiendas and all others clamored for them."

"By Allowing these caciques and their people to live without Spanish interference, the governor wished to show that Indians were responsible neighbors and upstanding vassals of the empire, entirely capable of charting their own destiny. Unfortunately, reality overwhelmed Ovando's careful plans. Dispersed in five or six hundred small villages, the islanders became easy prey for Spaniards determined to succeed at all costs. Some conquistadors simply enslaved the islanders illegally. Encomienda owners also found ways to get around the restrictions and safeguards...In their haste to obtain gold, the encomenderos pushed the Indians beyond the limits of survival. "The Greed of men is insatiable," commented Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo. "Some owners gave excessive work to the Indians, and others provided them with too little food." Contemporaries spoke of Quebrantamiento, the breaking down of the body, turning laborers into walking cadavers stripped of the will to continue living. Such merciless exploitation was compounded by the constant shifts from one encomendero to another, "One more covetous than the previous one."

"The Encomiendas were granted at Ovando's pleasure and last three years or less. Thus owners had an incentive to get the most out of their Indians, even it that meant passing on famished and exhausted workers to the next encomendero, who repeated the cycle of exploitation with renewed vigor...Ovando himself, realizing the depth of the crisis and the failure of his policies, proposed a dramatic and far-reaching solution: bring Indian slaves from the surrounding islands to work in the gold mines and other endeavors of Espanola. a New chapter in the sad history of the early Caribbean had begun"

Even more coincidentally, it said something I found pretty interesting and related to the Virus and Diseases

"The shorthand version of the history of the Americas posits that virgin soil epidemics were at the root of the demographic devastation that ensued. However, an exclusively biological explanation is at odds with much of the documentation of that era and runs contrary to the observed adaptability of humans. In the long sweep of history, human populations have survived virgin soil epidemics. The most well-known case is the Black Death. Possibly originating in China and spreading along the silk road, this epidemic arrived in Europe during the second half of the fourteenth century, when devastating outbreaks wiped out perhaps one-third of the continents inhabitants. It is hard to overstate the fear, suffering, and dislocation caused by the Black Death. But it's aftermath shows the resilience of human populations. Europe's losses lingered until the early decades of the fifteenth century, but then the population made a stunning demographic comeback. Men and women kept marrying, enjoyed higher standards of life, and had more children, boosting birthrates all across the continent. The recovery was powerful and long lasting. By the middle of the sixteenth century, all major European regions had reached or surpassed their pre-plague populations. Indeed, we can think of Europe's colonization of the New World as an extension of the remarkable demographic rebound.

Left to their own devices, the Native peoples of the Caribbean would have limited their exposure to illness, coping like many other human populations before and after them. We will never know how many Indians actually died of disease alone. But even if one-third, or two-thirds, of the Caribbean islanders had died of Influenza, typhus, malaria, and smallpox, they would have been able to stem the decline and, in the fullness of time, rebound demographically. In fact, some Indian populations of the New World did just that. But unlike fourteenth-century Europeans, the Natives of the Caribbean were not left to their own devices. In the wake of the epidemics, slavers appeared on the horizon."

I got from that...We have always survived Diseases and Viruses. Many will die, but we will still survive. Is Covid as bad as the Black Plague?

[MirrorMask]

Of course not, we have science, resources, and vaccines. During the Black Plague they had ignorance and superstition, and they held religious processions that only spread the plague even more, and killed black cats which were natural predators of the rats carrying the diseases.

Even though this time around we did EAT the animals carrying the disease, so live and learn I guess?

[MoraWintersoul]

I am gonna come out with my first prediction post.

In about five to six months, the first several vaccines will come out, covering most countries (but perhaps some countries will have vaccine scandals, where it will turn out they purchased a delayed vaccine candidate, and everyone will be super pissed about them lagging). The way that some or most of them will work is that they will probably just make your symptoms weaker if you end up getting it, and in the first few waves they will be limited to only the elderly, the hospital workers, and people vulnerable to the virus. The definition of "vulnerable to the virus" will definitely be dependent on how generous the country is, and it will get politicized, and we'll have all sorts of bizarre bureaucracy reported in the news, things like cases where a person whose health is in jeopardy in a very specific way that's not deemed serious enough can't get it, but their spouse who has a very mild preexisting condition and a home office job can get one.

All govt officials of all affected countries will come out and say "there, the lockdowns are over! now go out and stimulate the stumbling economy that we did a such a good job of keeping afloat by just... uh... requiring desperate people to still work for a living. but definitely still wear a mask, keep a distance and wash your hands because the danger is not over! but definitely go out! we won!". We'll go on with our lives because we're sick of pandemic living, but kind of bitter because we know now that in the case of a pandemic, the only thing that helps is personal responsibility to the point of germophobia and killing every non-job social contact for a dozen months at a time, and no one in charge can do jack shit to make our lives even slightly easier.

People who didn't get the shots will still get sick and even die for a really long time, but they were just unlucky and it won't happen to us, and we'll talk about that like we talk about someone dropping young of a heart attack - very unfortunate, how good is it that it doesn't happen to most people. At first we'll have domestic + outstanding foreign corona news on the first page, but we won't have special pages dedicated to that anymore. Then just domestic news. Then it will be moved a little bit to the back. Then it will be in the "health" section.

[MirrorMask]

We'll go on with our lives because we're sick of pandemic living, but kind of bitter because we know now that in the case of a pandemic, the only thing that helps is personal responsibility to the point of germophobia and killing every non-job social contact for a dozen months at a time, and no one in charge can do jack shit to make our lives even slightly easier.

While this is not exactly and literally a war, we'll have to enter in the frame of mind that the consequences are gonna be like a war. When the Axis powers were defeated in WWII, it wasn't suddenly all rainbows and sunshines - it took years to rebuild nations, repair war damages, and get the economies going.

This time around there won't even be a "Victory day", a defining moment - as you said a vaccine will come, it will slowly prove itself useful, and life will slowly get better, but gradually and over time. And yes, people will have to be responsable and that's what any government, even the most expert ones, will have no control over.

[jingle.boy]

Couple of excellent posts right there.  Just as the rise of the virus is coming in waves, and a zig-zag ebb and flow of increasing cases, I suspect the decline will be the same, and take years (at least).  It's not just 2020 that's sucking ... the decade of the '20s is going to pretty much suck.

[Chino]

Couple of excellent posts right there.  Just as the rise of the virus is coming in waves, and a zig-zag ebb and flow of increasing cases, I suspect the decline will be the same, and take years (at least).  It's not just 2020 that's sucking ... the decade of the '20s is going to pretty much suck.

No doubt. It's the dawn of AI. Super computers will be (already are to an extent) controlling the markets and managing autonomous truck fleets, and we'll be witnessing the collapse of retail on a scale never seen. The divisions pertaining to class will continue to get widen and worsen. 

[The Walrus]

Couple of excellent posts right there.  Just as the rise of the virus is coming in waves, and a zig-zag ebb and flow of increasing cases, I suspect the decline will be the same, and take years (at least).  It's not just 2020 that's sucking ... the decade of the '20s is going to pretty much suck.

Hell yeah, that's that good old optimism at work! We're barely 9 months into this, it's a little premature to predict the next 10 years eh?

[jingle.boy]

Couple of excellent posts right there.  Just as the rise of the virus is coming in waves, and a zig-zag ebb and flow of increasing cases, I suspect the decline will be the same, and take years (at least).  It's not just 2020 that's sucking ... the decade of the '20s is going to pretty much suck.

Hell yeah, that's that good old optimism at work! We're barely 9 months into this, it's a little premature to predict the next 10 years eh?

It's neither optimism, or pessimism.  It's actually pragmatism at work.  Given the plight of a global pandemic, and the trends in society (globally... not just in the US), I think - for the foreseeable future - the suckage is going to mostly outweigh the goodness.

[Stadler]

Couple of excellent posts right there.  Just as the rise of the virus is coming in waves, and a zig-zag ebb and flow of increasing cases, I suspect the decline will be the same, and take years (at least).  It's not just 2020 that's sucking ... the decade of the '20s is going to pretty much suck.

Hell yeah, that's that good old optimism at work! We're barely 9 months into this, it's a little premature to predict the next 10 years eh?

It's neither optimism, or pessimism.  It's actually pragmatism at work.  Given the plight of a global pandemic, and the trends in society (globally... not just in the US), I think - for the foreseeable future - the suckage is going to mostly outweigh the goodness.

I'm not sure how I feel about that.   It is what it is.   Every decade has their issues, and has their advancements.  Do you choose to look back at the 60's and see assassinations and racial discord, or do you look back and see the dawning of scientific and sexual awakening?    What do you see when you look at the 70's and 80's?   

I think the one lesson we get from all this is one that we should have been carrying all along.   You can phrase it how you like; I choose to say "Man plans, and God laughs".  Others say it like John Lennon did, "Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans".

[The Walrus]

Couple of excellent posts right there.  Just as the rise of the virus is coming in waves, and a zig-zag ebb and flow of increasing cases, I suspect the decline will be the same, and take years (at least).  It's not just 2020 that's sucking ... the decade of the '20s is going to pretty much suck.

Hell yeah, that's that good old optimism at work! We're barely 9 months into this, it's a little premature to predict the next 10 years eh?

It's neither optimism, or pessimism.  It's actually pragmatism at work.  Given the plight of a global pandemic, and the trends in society (globally... not just in the US), I think - for the foreseeable future - the suckage is going to mostly outweigh the goodness.

A pessimist in 2010 would've said exactly the same thing. *shrug* I don't think having one shitty year with a pandemic is any indicator of the next ten years especially with the countless other surprises in store for us that have no relation to this pandemic. Did bird flu go on for years? Did swine flu? Nope. Even the Spanish flu only ran from 1918 to sometime in 1920.

I dunno. Every year I hear my mom say, "The world is going crazy and coming to an end" and I have to remind her that every generation before her has thought the same thing and that you only think that because you see everything happening around the world during the block of evening news every night, and ask her if she remembers living prior to the advent of 24/7 news... also, bad news and cynicism and fear sells, happiness doesn't. That's why prime time news will spend 56 minutes on all the bullshit in the world and then end it with a 30 second clip of a dog doing something stupid like a flip before saying "have a great night"

[Chino]

  What do you see when you look at the 70's and 80's?   

 

You're not missing anything! I looked into it. There's a gas shortage and a flock of seagulls. That's about it!

[The Walrus]

  What do you see when you look at the 70's and 80's?   

 

You're not missing anything! I looked into it. There's a gas shortage and a flock of seagulls. That's about it!

 

[cramx3]

It's hard to say the entire 20s will be terrible, but this pandemic is going to turn endemic and not go anywhere, but I do think we gradually see things get better over time.  There will be lots of other things besides covid 19 that will bring the 20s down a peg or two and a bunch of things that bring it up.  I don't see the world economies getting better quickly so it's going to be more painful before it gets better IMO. 

[jingle.boy]

I guess I'm seeing three major issues not getting better anytime soon, with very real potential of getting worse for more than a couple of years.

COVID / Pandemic itself
Gov't debt and economic issues related to ^
Climate disasters

Societal divide is a biggie too.  And that's just what we know about right now.

Don't mean to be a Debbie Downer, it's just how I sees it.

[ErHaO]

It's hard to say the entire 20s will be terrible, but this pandemic is going to turn endemic and not go anywhere, but I do think we gradually see things get better over time.  There will be lots of other things besides covid 19 that will bring the 20s down a peg or two and a bunch of things that bring it up.  I don't see the world economies getting better quickly so it's going to be more painful before it gets better IMO.

I agree, we will first witness the true scope of the (financial) fallout before things get better. But I am fairly optimistic most countries will relapse well.

Different discussion, but based on climate science, I unfortunately think the chance of one of the following decades being much, much more problematic is quite big.  Sure, you can call me a pessimist on that, but if we all think it will be fine we will keep heading for our current course, which according to scientific evidence does not look good. The global answer to covid has actually made me much more pessimistic for our response to climate change than I ever was. I will gladly be wrong on this one.

[cramx3]

I guess I'm seeing three major issues not getting better anytime soon, with very real potential of getting worse for more than a couple of years.

COVID / Pandemic itself
Gov't debt and economic issues related to ^
Climate disasters

Societal divide is a biggie too.  And that's just what we know about right now.

Don't mean to be a Debbie Downer, it's just how I sees it.

Yea, there's lots of reason to be concerned with that stuff, but it doesn't all really relate to covid.  If you watched the Social Dilemma doc on netflix, you could remove covid completely from our lives and those folks seem to think we're going to go into civil war regardless just from the social divide caused by social media.

I'm not saying you are wrong, things look pretty damn bleak, but I'm not ready to say the world is ending.... just yet.

[The Walrus]

I guess I'm seeing three major issues not getting better anytime soon, with very real potential of getting worse for more than a couple of years.

COVID / Pandemic itself
Gov't debt and economic issues related to ^
Climate disasters

Societal divide is a biggie too.  And that's just what we know about right now.

Don't mean to be a Debbie Downer, it's just how I sees it.

cram beat me, but other than the pandemic, these same problems were happening 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 etc.... years ago. There are a lot of problems out there in the world. There have always been divides. You're right to worry, but absolutely none of this is new or unique to right now. There are a hundred thousands other viruses, worse than this coronavirus, out there waiting for us. This ain't shit.

[cramx3]

I guess I'm seeing three major issues not getting better anytime soon, with very real potential of getting worse for more than a couple of years.

COVID / Pandemic itself
Gov't debt and economic issues related to ^
Climate disasters

Societal divide is a biggie too.  And that's just what we know about right now.

Don't mean to be a Debbie Downer, it's just how I sees it.

cram beat me, but other than the pandemic, these same problems were happening 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 etc.... years ago. There are a lot of problems out there in the world. There have always been divides. You're right to worry, but absolutely none of this is new or unique to right now. There are a hundred thousands other viruses, worse than this coronavirus, out there waiting for us. This ain't shit.

TBH, I'm more worried about the next virus from a wetmarket now.  Like, covid isn't the worst thing we've seen and are going to see IMO.

[The Walrus]

I guess I'm seeing three major issues not getting better anytime soon, with very real potential of getting worse for more than a couple of years.

COVID / Pandemic itself
Gov't debt and economic issues related to ^
Climate disasters

Societal divide is a biggie too.  And that's just what we know about right now.

Don't mean to be a Debbie Downer, it's just how I sees it.

cram beat me, but other than the pandemic, these same problems were happening 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 etc.... years ago. There are a lot of problems out there in the world. There have always been divides. You're right to worry, but absolutely none of this is new or unique to right now. There are a hundred thousands other viruses, worse than this coronavirus, out there waiting for us. This ain't shit.

TBH, I'm more worried about the next virus from a wetmarket now.  Like, covid isn't the worst thing we've seen and are going to see IMO.

Billy Mays here with a nice pint of the novel coronavirus! It'll get you sick! You'll be intubated in no time! BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE! If you order now, you'll get a free sample of our next pandemic, the novel hantavirus! Call now!

[MirrorMask]

I guess I'm seeing three major issues not getting better anytime soon, with very real potential of getting worse for more than a couple of years.

COVID / Pandemic itself
Gov't debt and economic issues related to ^
Climate disasters

Societal divide is a biggie too.  And that's just what we know about right now.

Don't mean to be a Debbie Downer, it's just how I sees it.

cram beat me, but other than the pandemic, these same problems were happening 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 etc.... years ago. There are a lot of problems out there in the world. There have always been divides. You're right to worry, but absolutely none of this is new or unique to right now. There are a hundred thousands other viruses, worse than this coronavirus, out there waiting for us. This ain't shit.

TBH, I'm more worried about the next virus from a wetmarket now.  Like, covid isn't the worst thing we've seen and are going to see IMO.

On that we're entirely in China's hands. Eating pangolins and bats it's not just a wacky weird habit for them, there's an entire industry and economy behind it that supports millions of people. Only their government will decide if they have to cut down on that or think "eh, we've learnt by now how to monitor pandemics, guess we'll defy the odds and be ready next time", because no amount of international pressure will change that.

[cramx3]

uhhhh

Human infections of hantaviruses have almost entirely been linked to human contact with rodent excrement

please leave the roden poop alone

[The Walrus]

I like that you asked 'please'