Wuhan Killer Sneeze (thanks Tea)

[kumar]

well at least its better to be slagging each other off on here than your housemate whose practicing their tech step mixing

 

[comelately]

I think it's quite fundamentally important to make it clear that there isn't some other, somehow higher form, of logic that is of relevance here. But what I think of as logic is actually logic, and I think your dismissal of it is more than a bit gross.

 

[luka]

Lol leave it out respond to Kumar instead I'm not interested in this

 

[kumar]

i think the limitations of writing to each other mean that people might be getting stuck on what might seem like reductive and overly abstract ways of thinking about whats best to do here

 

[kumar]

as in the "economic argument" over the "health crisis" argument, which i'm not accusing you of making comelately

 

[kumar]

but i havent seen any doctors in lombardy make that argument

 

[comelately]

this abstracted idea of some utilitarian generational choice on the table between minimising the economic fallout, inconvenience on the young and “saving a 91 year old who would have died in 6 months” is worth unpicking before it becomes a slogan. corse we all know its not a mutually exclusive choice if it exists at all

I think broadly it is a mutually exclusive choice, and I think the choice does exist in a sense worth talking about. It's not *my choice* to make, or anybody's here, but realistically it is a choice that certain people and groups will make.

To the extent it's not a mutually exclusive choice, it's because actually not trying to minimise the economic fallout may actually do fairly little to minimise the deaths, and the associated human cost.

and with this kind of abstract choice, we obviously know its not just a case of 91 year olds getting wiped off an electoral register. it’ll be people left to die in corridors, and the human cost of that experience that most people in western europe havent felt for many generations.

Absolutely - there will be trauma, there will be human costs beyond the deaths. But we'll know what they are.

and as far as inconvenience on the young, well maybe this will sound flippant, but right after the election people were talking about 10 years of tory rule, dismantling of the nhs, anyone under 40 getting shafted for the long term.

and whilst and i doubt we have any illusions about the likelihood of the Grand Commune being established in the wake of all this, that sense of stasis (which again might only be particular to certain people on twitter) seems a little less certain for better or worse.

But I don't think the breaking of this stasis is necessarily dependent on whether we minimise the economic fallout or don't tbh. I think you could easily make the argument that 'taking it on the chin' is more likely to lead to Luka's erotic society or whatever. I don't think the causal chain is remotely as clear as you present it to be.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

it’ll be people left to die in corridors

at this point that will almost certainly be happening no matter what we do

locking down is about hopefully less people dying in corridors/their homes/nursing homes etc, not avoiding it. we're already sacrificing. and, OK.

it's only abstracted if you abstract it; the evidence of how damaging the economic fallout could be is in, you know, the Great Depression.

it is not an abstract choice. it is triage at a societal level.

I'm not against lockdown. I wish we'd had started sooner to minimize the pain on all levels, but we didn't. we are where we are now.

people who aren't sick or at high risk will mostly tolerate it until temporary UBI/other forms of relief/savings run out.

I keep saying this: sacrifice is one thing. acute existential uncertainty another.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I think you are allowed to focus on the economic over the health crisis.

At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, an economic crisis is a health crisis.

 

[luka]

At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, an economic crisis is a health crisis.

Follow the argument please Harris.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

but i havent seen any doctors in lombardy make that argument

the arguments of people who aren't yet in the midst of the crisis will look ridiculous in retrospect

but the idea that there will be is some economy vs health inflection point - or many of them, rather - won't

it is already happening - the safest course of action solely in terms of public health would be to lock everything down until there's a vaccine

no one is going to do that. everyone's plan is to bear the economic pain somewhere in as long as they can and/or as necessary, which hopefully coincide.

we will accept the certainty of at least some deaths, and the possibility/likelihood of widespread resurgences, in return for less grisly economic damage.

 

[comelately]

but i havent seen any doctors in lombardy make that argument

Unfortunately we don't have a time machine to go and see how people in the Erotic Society feel when they're barely eating and dying of what are now treatable illnesses. But I think we can use our imagination.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

obviously some people here have hope for a somehow better world emerging from the ashes

it's fine to have hope. I don't think it's a ridiculous hope. I think it's unlikely, which is different. either way, I don't want to remove your hope.

 

[luka]

I personally dont want to abandon all hope before its strictly necessary. I can still see possible positive outcomes in the medium to long term.

 

[comelately]

I have hopes of a similar vein, but I don't think reducing everything to ashes is the way to get there.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

but it seems absolutely crazy to me to on the one hand attack the economic argument as abstract utilitarianism

and on the other view this as a silver lining of breaking up the stasis

everything I know about human behavior, and human history, including the last 15 years or so of it, does not suggest a positive outcome

luka says I'm a pessimist. I suppose that is subjective.

either way, I cannot imagine how a brutal recession - if we're fortunate and it's not just Great Depression II: Terrible Boogaloo - will lead to anything positive

jesus christ, look at the fucking 1930s. I mean, what are we doing here.

 

[luka]

I'm not advocating reducing everything to ashes! I just think societies have a duty of care towards the vulnerable and abandoning that is dangerous. Obviously there is a tension here between caring for the sick now and avoiding a catastrophic economic collapse somewhere down the line (not very far down the line) which would also cause directly and indirectly massive death tolls and suffering.

It's obviously not easy and it's made more difficult by not knowing if or when a cure/vaccine might present itself. Or at least some way of keeping people alive and preferably out of hospital while they are sick. In that sense everything is a gamble.

 

[droid]

The 30s also gave us the new deal.

Everything we have been told is impossible has now suddenly become possible. The neo liberal consensus has been completely shattered.

Obviously the outcomes will be different in different places, but 'normal' is now gone for good and there's a million potentialities out there.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I can still see possible positive outcomes in the medium to long term.

sure. many things are possible in times of great upheaval.

perhaps in 10 years we'll all have a good laugh about how wrong I was as we hang out in fully automated luxury communism, or some realistic version thereof

 

[luka]

The 30s also gave us the new deal.

Everything we have been told is impossible has now suddenly become possible. The neo liberal consensus has been completely shattered.

Obviously the outcomes will be different in different places, but 'normal' is now gone for good and there's a million potentialities out there.

Yay! Droid is on my side!