Sort of, but not really.

Oculus Spirit [97729]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 64865

Joined: 7/13/02

May 6, 2020, 10:13 AM

We already know how this generally goes, overall. The trend is consistent, and has been for thousands of years. The experiment part of it is to see how we manage it. We are much more connected and knowledgeable now than 100 years ago. As such, we have access to science at and above levels leaders did 100 years ago, unfiltered. So you have science directly impacting people, whereas in the past, the leaders ran the response.

100 years ago you had leaders declaring the pandemic over as cases declined. People went back to work, and it then got much worse. Today you have scientists saying there has been no significant decline but we have controlled it (at great economic cost), and as we go back to work it will get worse. Then you still have leaders saying there's nothing to worry about. The experiment is to figure out how much MORE we can function and work while keeping medical care available.

The Spanish flu wasn't Spanish. Americans suffered as much or more than any other country on Earth back then. We were #1 in 1918. We're #1 today. But overall, our response to this has been much stronger than 1918. In 1918, people got their news from leaders, mostly local, and news was sparse, and people were not connected like today. As such, our leaders knew more going in, and people knew less going in. And we responded at a weaker level because news was controlled and we were not connected like today. At no time in 1918 was there any discussion of partially reopening quarantines to allow some work, while making sure there was no second wave. The "news" back then was it's over, go back to work, reopen 100%, and it roared back, worse in most places. Our leaders (Trump included) don't have that luxury today. People are more connected. People know history far better. Scientists know pandemics far better. But the issues are still very much the same. The process of dealing with this is very much the same. The problems both economically and politically are much the same.

The experiment is in our management of things. We know we can control it, but we also know we can't cause cases to decline significantly or to stop. We know it's worse than the 1918 flu in terms of infectiousness. We are still arguing about the deadliness of it though. But we also know we can function more economically than we are now and still minimize deaths. But history has also shown us that leaders, when confronted with bad news, tend to fall into two camps. Those who ignore it, minimize it, and carry on, and those who acknowledge it, and figure out how best to deal with it. Trump is in the first camp, Como in NY is in the second category. Our aversion to masks will cost our economy trillions, and countless thousands of lives. That's one example of an area where economic output could be increased, while infections could be managed. If you wear a standard surgical mask, you cut your exposure by up to 50%. If everyone else wears a surgical mask, they cut their emissions by 50%. That's 50% more GDP, 50% more productivity. 50% more labor, 50% more money earned. 50% less jobs lost. Everyone wears a mask you combine the benefits, and MUCH of "normal" work can get done. Stop hand shakes. Keep 6 feet apart. No large events or crowds in enclosed spaces. All things that help. Testing helps. Contact investigations help. The leaders in the deal with it best camp should make every effort to combine all possible measures. The leaders in the denial/ignore it camp, just want to let it burn and carry on as normal. We say masks don't help, and have for many, many years. Why? Because we also know there's no money to be made (normally) manufacturing masks. We long ago farmed that cheap labor off to poor countries. So when this happens, those poor countries have masks, and the infrastructure to make them, and we have a shortage and no way to make more easily. So the best way to handle that is to say they're worthless. We have medicine shortages now because much of our cheaper and more common medicines are made overseas. We only make/create the profitable medicines that the most people can take daily. Which is why there are more antibiotic-resistant bacteria now. We stopped making new antibiotics because they're not a money maker like statin drugs, etc. So we stopped funding research into new antibiotics. History will show many of the things we take for granted, that have made us the wealthiest country on Earth, also have made us vulnerable in many ways to what we're faced with now. Plenty of ammo for the denial/ignore camp of leaders to use to deny and/or ignore.

So yes, we're in an experiment, but overall the story, the lines, the battles, the politics, and the responses are predictable.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

Are we in an experiment?

Re: Are we in an experiment?

No

Re: No

The Matrix***

Take the blue pill

Ignorance is bliss.

Sort of, but not really.

Holy wall of text

Yeah. Wanted to put yall to sleep.***

I think the one thing our country is lacking is large

Yo mane, you forget about bears?

If they'd get their lazy ##### out of the mountains and

Sounds like a pretty good life.

I hope they do, I fear that area is primed for a Tom Winkopp

I bet Tom has a very attractive wife who's closet space is

Built a condo in there

He'd probably sublet his wife's closet space to Cartels

Probably, we've got some friends down there.

Port St. Joe is about to get "progress", I think

Holy crap!

dood I think I watched an episode of those animal fight

Beat a shark?

what if it was on land?***

I could beat a shark on land.

Re: I think the one thing our country is lacking is large

We're in a culling. Mother Nature (and China) are cruel AF.***

TigerBoard POTD