The Coronavirus thread - Page 18

Not sure what loco means but power is gained through force all the time unfortunately. I think we can all agree on that

On May 03 2020 12:06 Loco wrote: The article you linked starts with a provoking title that presents itself more as an emotionally loaded attack on the producers and the film than a reasoned critique, and sure enough, most of the critique is vapid or tenuous at best. If you have a look at the comment section and how the top upvoted comments are from people who are furiously asking for the film to be banned from the internet (!) you can guess why the article is written in this way.

The review seemed fine to me. I just looked at the main point on life cycle's. I'm suprised so many of my left-friends have been lenient on this documentary.

Your comment on universities; I think ecology and climate science in general is a legitimate science. I don't think the same is true of neoclassical economics and other parts of the social sciences.

On May 05 2020 03:33 Stroggoz wrote: Not sure what loco means but power is gained through force all the time unfortunately. I think we can all agree on that

I would use your own words as a counterpoint. The reason you believe that "the most oppressive institutions" are the schools/universities and the media, and not the police forces--even though they have the monopoly on force--is precisely because you understand that force (or the threat of it) is only a small part of what keeps oppressive institutions together and makes them so efficient within society.

Power, I would say, is not "gained" through force; rather it is that force is used to protect those other systems that make those gains. The more a power-holder has power over others, the less force (or threats of force) they need to be using, because they have managed to make their own will that of the other's, and make the other feel as though it is his, as he is voluntarily carrying out those actions that benefit the power-holder. Torturing someone to death is not something that increases your power; flipping someone to your cause or turning them into a spy or a propagandist for your cause is. Similarly, a narcissist in a relationship holds a lot more power over the other person if they are convincing them that they are the perfect partner for that other person, or that they need them for XYZ reason, than if they only rely on threats of force and its actualization.

well i was clearly talking about the context of our society when i said that, and not societies where turkmenistan where police torture does make the statesman quite powerful. Cultural hegemony that gramsci talked about is deeply embedded in all societies though.

On May 05 2020 03:45 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On May 03 2020 12:06 Loco wrote: The article you linked starts with a provoking title that presents itself more as an emotionally loaded attack on the producers and the film than a reasoned critique, and sure enough, most of the critique is vapid or tenuous at best. If you have a look at the comment section and how the top upvoted comments are from people who are furiously asking for the film to be banned from the internet (!) you can guess why the article is written in this way. The review seemed fine to me. I just looked at the main point on life cycle's. I'm suprised so many of my left-friends have been lenient on this documentary. Your comment on universities; I think ecology and climate science in general is a legitimate science. I don't think the same is true of neoclassical economics and other parts of the social sciences.

They are of course legitimate sciences but their legitimacy doesn't mean that they exist outside of spheres of power that influence their worldviews and the data they pay attention to, and that those who are selected to write about them in mainstream news outlets should be granted some special status that those from other disciplines don't benefit from.

Life cycles are definitely better, and the bits on solar energy were not encompassing of all solar, especially today, it was clearly cherry-picked. But the unfortunate side effect of this knowledge is that most people tend to assume that it will just keep improving, and that there is a lot of time ahead of us for improvement, and that we'll be able to rely on this, and rely on capitalism to usher in a green revolution. I think the documentary succeeds in making people skeptical about this, which is good, despite the factual errors or oversimplifications (which are always to be expected in documentaries). Where it's really problematic, again, is at a political level, when they're talking about "us humans" being the cause, rather than making a nuanced critique of the incentives of capitalist relations and oligarchical forces bearing the bulk of that responsibility. Even though in their response they claim that they don't advocate for "population control", when they use the sentence "we have to get ourselves under control" as their conclusion, it's hard to take them seriously.

Still, I think you're underestimating the greenwashing that goes on and will keep going on as the focus remains on techno-fixes and using market forces. The documentary does a fine job of showing that, and showing how people's natural dispositions toward optimism makes them easy to fool.

On May 05 2020 07:03 Stroggoz wrote: well i was clearly talking about the context of our society when i said that, and not societies where turkmenistan where police torture does make the statesman quite powerful. Cultural hegemony that gramsci talked about is deeply embedded in all societies though.

Well, so was I; I was responding to Baal's claim that "I support antifa's use of force because they are advancing my political goals." That's not the reason for my (conditional) support; and they don't.

Yes, it is, and that statesman would also be more powerful if he didn't have to rely on it. Power increases its efficiency and stability by concealing itself, by presenting itself as something commonplace, something taken for granted. The more mediated and dispersed power is, the stronger and more stable over time it is going to be. Power when it exists only in its repressive form either terminates the relationship of power by annihilating the other quickly, or, due to its linear and centralized nature opens itself up to be more easily fought against and defeated.

When Chris Hedges talks about "inverted totalitarianism", I think this is what he really means: power that is cunning and that imposes a habitus that makes use of people's will in order to make them less free, in the sense that it makes them more simple and habitual creatures that are unable to resist -- all of which happens without requiring coercion or threats. This is the power that we ought to think more about rather than the sovereign or disciplinary kind and which I believe really is the "prime mover" today and what makes neoliberalism so powerful.

On May 05 2020 01:04 Baalim wrote: [meme picture] Socialist criticizing capitalism because in the REAL WORLD the system doesnt work. My endorsements of murderous dictators can change at any time without any notice, can't pin me on them, this is true progressive poltics. Power cannot be won through violence. And finally... Chavez was not an authoritarian, also Kimg Jong Un has a perfect 100% approval rate, people love him so much they hung pictures of him in their homes, perfect democracy. We have reached peak clown world on this forum LOL.

~3

+

~4

(My estimate of the number of calories that you have burned while thinking about the creation of that meme, followed by my estimate for thinking up those 5 lines of text consisting of straw men that you believe constitute some kind of "response" to my nuanced critiques of the things you wrote.)

I could not have dreamt up a more validating response to my claim that you have low standards for yourself. Baal's thinking is equivalent to Homer Simpson's running.

Channel has a bunch of people

Fair studies but it doesn't extrapolate down to a superspread within an entire country -> overloading the healthcare system -> causing more deaths (not corona related only either). Thats what the measures are meant to prevent and it seems that they're doing it well.

And then he says he doesn't know how far the spread would potentially go, which is the most important part imo, its the biggest uncertainty that causes this. The problem is that we don't even know if you can get immune to it, thus you could have it circulating into society until a vaccine is out

If its less deadly then it is more virulent, the danger remains the same, once you've seen its effects on a population R0 and mortality are less useful for projections besides calculating potential heard immunity timing and I suppose individually if you get symptoms is less scary.

On May 05 2020 15:25 Spitfiree wrote: Fair studies but it doesn't extrapolate down to a superspread within an entire country -> overloading the healthcare system -> causing more deaths (not corona related only either). Thats what the measures are meant to prevent and it seems that they're doing it well. And then he says he doesn't know how far the spread would potentially go, which is the most important part imo, its the biggest uncertainty that causes this. The problem is that we don't even know if you can get immune to it, thus you could have it circulating into society until a vaccine is out

it does seem to be very contagious and even if it only kills a small subset of people the sheer number would definitely overwhelm government hospitals and private ones. the medical bill alone is also a fucking disaster in and of itself which is what i really feel is going a problem for most. unless a real cure is figured out and doesn't cost your life savings to get it this is really going to suck

The thing that bothers me the most is that there is literally zero evidence we have that supports that we build immunity towards the virus yet herd immunity was a strategy that was used.

On May 06 2020 21:12 Spitfiree wrote: The thing that bothers me the most is that there is literally zero evidence we have that supports that we build immunity towards the virus yet herd immunity was a strategy that was used.

Wrong, we have tested immunity against other human coronaviruses and we do build up immunity, in some cases reinfection after over a year can accur but the effects are much milder.

Also the fact we build immunity to every other virus (a vital part of our immune system) is evidence that points towards immunity, about using that strategy at the infection rates it seems like its likely it will happen before we have a vaccine ready.

Please link me any research showing that we have evidence of obtaining COVID-19 immunity, there istn one

Spitfiree is right. There isn't a clear cut evidence of immunity of people who was infected towards covid 19 yet...but as baal said it's safe to presume immunity once someone had it previously because of all the past evidence with other similar kinds of coronaviruses. At least that's the majority consensus among medical professionals at the moment.

Since this is a novel virus the science is ongoing as more and more breakthroughs are done

On May 25 2020 19:37 YoMeR wrote: Spitfiree is right. There isn't a clear cut evidence of immunity of people who was infected towards covid 19 yet...but as baal said it's safe to presume immunity once someone had it previously because of all the past evidence with other similar kinds of coronaviruses. At least that's the majority consensus among medical professionals at the moment. Since this is a novel virus the science is ongoing as more and more breakthroughs are done

It's a fair assumption, but not to be taken action upon. If immunity is indeed obtained, we need to have a good understanding of how long it will last. Previous epidemics with coronavirus strains e.g. SARS in China/South Korea have proven to only gain an immunity for a few years (cba searching for the actual paper but it was either 2 or 4 years). Why does this matter?

It's very likely that unless we find a vaccine coronavirus will not die out and will be circling around for years. The lack of evidence for immunity half a year into the pandemic is very concerning to say the least

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavi...lors-test-positive-for-covid-19-again


I'd say the fact that we have no evidence of immunity and the fact that we have multiple cases in multiple places around the world of people getting infected twice most likely means at least not everyone can gain an immunity, if immunity is even possible.

On May 25 2020 23:38 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On May 25 2020 19:37 YoMeR wrote: Spitfiree is right. There isn't a clear cut evidence of immunity of people who was infected towards covid 19 yet...but as baal said it's safe to presume immunity once someone had it previously because of all the past evidence with other similar kinds of coronaviruses. At least that's the majority consensus among medical professionals at the moment. Since this is a novel virus the science is ongoing as more and more breakthroughs are done It's a fair assumption, but not to be taken action upon. If immunity is indeed obtained, we need to have a good understanding of how long it will last. Previous epidemics with coronavirus strains e.g. SARS in China/South Korea have proven to only gain an immunity for a few years (cba searching for the actual paper but it was either 2 or 4 years). Why does this matter? It's very likely that unless we find a vaccine coronavirus will not die out and will be circling around for years. The lack of evidence for immunity half a year into the pandemic is very concerning to say the least https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavi...lors-test-positive-for-covid-19-again I'd say the fact that we have no evidence of immunity and the fact that we have multiple cases in multiple places around the world of people getting infected twice most likely means at least not everyone can gain an immunity, if immunity is even possible.

It depends I think you are channeling a bit of Taleb's refusal to price his hedges here.

You dont need 100% certainty to make moves, you take risks in proportions to the certanty of something, we should make big bets with little certanty but developing immunity to this virus is definitelly above the 90% likelyhood and possibly much higher and based on that we can take action.


You are confusing personal immunity to a virus with a the "heard immunity strategy" these aren't related at all, personal immunity to SARS-COV-2 is extremely likely, that doesn't make infecting everyone a good strat.

On May 26 2020 02:24 Baalim wrote: You are confusing personal immunity to a virus with a the "heard immunity strategy" these aren't related at all, personal immunity to SARS-COV-2 is extremely likely, that doesn't make infecting everyone a good strat.

I'm not suggesting we go all out and go for herd immunity, I'm simply assuming that if the immunity doesn't last long enough until the entire cycle is done, then the cycle will never be done and the virus will keep spreading infinitely until a vaccine is done

On May 26 2020 16:45 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On May 26 2020 02:24 Baalim wrote: You are confusing personal immunity to a virus with a the "heard immunity strategy" these aren't related at all, personal immunity to SARS-COV-2 is extremely likely, that doesn't make infecting everyone a good strat. I'm not suggesting we go all out and go for herd immunity, I'm simply assuming that if the immunity doesn't last long enough until the entire cycle is done, then the cycle will never be done and the virus will keep spreading infinitely until a vaccine is done

The article i read about other immunity tests about human coronaviruses 3/4 gained immunity of at least 2 years (when they attempted re-infection), and 1/4 got reinfected but the virus was virtually asymptomatic and wasn't remotely as powerful as the 1st infection.

There's quite a few medical professionals mentioning that there's been links to how severe you were sick before can also be a factor in a person's immunity towards the virus as well...Basically pointing out that there's too many variables that can determine one's immunity to this disease.

At this point it's pretty pointless to make assumptions without additional data. All the clear concise data we have for other viruses are there because they had years and years to research. The process can't be done at "warp speed" as in Trump's words lol

As baal said we gotta make bets on some things that don't have a 100% degree certainty. It's not like we can lock up the economy for years as that's not a sustainable strategy.

I believe out of all the shitty options laid out for us herd immunity is definitely a reasonable/inevitable (in many epidemiologist's eyes) choice.

Also the irrational fear towards this disease by many I feel is very hurtful to our society as well. (as an asian i've had my fair share of racism towards me but it has definitely ramped up over the past few months. I believe racially motivated hate crimes is up quite a bit across the board) The real fear initially in the United states was what happened in some parts of Italy/spain etc where Hospitals was so overwhelmed that people who needed critical care many of whom were not covid related could not receive it. Causing many extra deaths.

That fear is mostly gone for many parts of the united states at least. As production and stockpiles are ramping up. The threat of hospitals being overwhelmed in many metro areas is past...so now it's about managing the slow burn to make sure that the ppl that do get really sick can get the care they need. Very difficult to make this point to some people as all you see on the mainstream news is piles of dead bodies and ppl suffering from the disease.

What a shitty situation /endrant lol

It's just a situation where there are no 'good' options and thats why everyone sucks at taking decisions. You also can't really take 'the least hurtful' option either since there's not enough data to make a claim. It takes strong leadership skills to do this which the USA currently lacks heavily.

Simple observations from countries like Germany where the virus did spread quite a lot, but the situation was still contained, point out that the way to go is by implementing preventative measures like:
- mass testing, including thinking in terms of improving the quantity while staying with the same efficiency
- wear masks everywhere
- minimize social interactions, but do not disallow anything
- have a real plan of action for all scenarios, even if the actions are not a 100% correct


There are still idiots that will whine and cry about their rights being taken away, but there will be no chaos. Everyone will know that there is a plan and that the government is trying to handle the situation. Businesses still ended up being quite hurt, yet they have an approach to handle that as well.

Lufthansa got bailed out.... except they didn't shove down money in a drain. They gave them money and bought a percentage of the company, meaning they have the say of how the company will be operated. It's not the first time, nor the last time this will happen and in a few years time the government will sell all the shares back to the shareholders and leave the company be 100% private again. Something like this will never happen in the USA cause people will shout " socialism" and "Russia". Americans prefer that their money go down a drain with no supervision whatsoever, simply so that the same thing happens in a few years time.