BF2S Forums Pandemic thread

Dilbert_X wrote:

Larssen wrote:

You could say the EU forms a more or less technocratic layer on top of that

Except it wasn't so much, just another bunch of morons with an agenda.

Morons like this guy?

I knew that would ruffle some feathers.

Srs: The commission's policies and recommendations are much less subject to political considerations than any other government body. Its selection process is also notoriously difficult and you can safely assume that the vast majority of the people working there are exceedingly competent in their domains. As a body it's very capable of formulating and sticking to very long term policy goals.

The council is also capable of much more stable leadership as it isn't dependent on the political reality in a single member state. Together these institutions are quite technocratic in nature.

Last edited by Larssen (2020-04-02 04:29:24)

So on the one hand you lament the bureaucratic power of the commission against the helpless individual yet two pages back rail against hairdressers and grocers being politically active.

Wrong on both counts, but I'm starting to see why you can't be decisive.

you are having a hard time following my point. my point about the hairdressers and grocers wasn't being bothered that they had a vote or a political opinion, it's that they are evidence that people have been brought to great levels of passion and anger about 'issues' and events which heretofore they didn't give a fig about. that's my point about the perils of your much-vaunted 'political commitment'. i don't see much to applaud in a world where people who were never much bothered about politics are suddenly whipped into an anti-EU or anti-migrant frenzy by facebook ad campaigns, suddenly becoming obsessed with something like the EU when for decades prior, of literally much the same thing, they didn't care at all. but you seem to think having an out-and-out political conviction is great.

you are propped up in this thinking by ridiculously naive and jejune thinking by people like rorty, written no doubt in the 1970s or the 1990s or something and echoing many fine and noble sentiments by the likes of habermas and, yes, kant before it. it has very little purchase in the way electoral politics are conducted (and influenced) in 2020. we don't have the same public sphere, the same stable fourth estate and independence of fact/truth, or the same liberal 'sensus communis' (if you really want me to get into kant). god knows why you keep banging on about 'edifying exchanges' and dialogue like some undergraduate at the debating society. how much edification goes on between the remainers and brexiters, do you think?

the EU is a done deal, i give it the decade to die out or else convulse into something else other than its current form. once merkel goes, france and germany will soon be butting heads again, much to the expense of the other paltry powers left in the bargaining ring. not only are they age-old economic rivals, but now they are forced into contrary ideological positions vis-a-vis europe and hot issues like migration: macron going for a unifying approach but the germans being forced into making concessions to, quelle surprise, anti-migrant right populism. you have lean years of recession ahead with leaders merely paying lip service to the 'ideals' of the union, an empty rhetorical exercise but with no one daring to leap into the abyss. enjoy!

it'll be interesting seeing how many southern states have to be bent to the whip in response to coronavirus. those sensible northern banks are going to have a feast of it!

Last edited by uziq (2020-04-02 05:35:13)

my point was the changeability, not that they have an opinion. we all know that you want a white ethno-state dilbert, you don't have to keep going on about it. in opinion polls the topic of the EU went from about 8th on a list to the top concern of many britons, almost overnight. the entire topic for decades was solely confined to internecine conflicts in the loony-right faction of the tory party, considered one for madhatter millionaires and eccentrics. that doesn't reflect an 'organic' change of opinion or response.

the point was any political commitment is not ipso facto a 'good thing'.

Last edited by uziq (2020-04-02 05:49:47)

uziq wrote:

he entire topic for decades was solely confined to internecine conflicts in the loony-right faction of the tory party, considered one for madhatter millionaires and eccentrics.

Nope, just because you want something to be true doesn't mean it is.
Anti-migration and anti-EU policies were centrepieces of Labour policy for decades, and to some extent Tory too.
Blair changed everything around and look how that worked out.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-04-02 05:54:57)

While announcing a statewide shelter-in-place order on Wednesday, Georgia governor Brian Kemp, a Republican, said that he had just been informed that asymptomatic individuals could spread the coronavirus.

The illness “is now transmitting before people see signs….Those individuals could have been infecting people before they ever felt [symptoms],” Kemp said at a press conference. “We didn’t know that until the last 24 hours.”

Good stuff.

Which would be worse? Lying or stupidity?

uziq wrote:

i honestly don't care to discuss brexit with you or larssen again.

LMAO

I got to watch Cuomo banter with his reporter brother on TV today for a good 15 minutes. They were telling each other what a wonderful job each of them is doing. I wanted to throw shit at the TV but I was in a pizza place and that would've been rude.

I just want to know what the endgame is. They keep calling this a war, well, ok, the biggest criticism with Bush was always that he never had any clearly defined end state. When do you pull out? When do you declare victory? What's the criteria? You can't just keep everyone locked in their homes until a vaccine is formulated and distributed to everyone. That's neither realistic or acceptable. Don't sit there bullshitting with your brother on national TV. Start talking about substance. I don't give a fuck how eloquent you are, if you've got no substance you're useless. Telling everyone we're all in this together and that it's going to go on as long as it has to is not a plan. Start letting people get back to work and build up that herd immunity. What we're doing now is just going to cause a massive spike when these people are all released.

Jay wrote:

Start letting people get back to work and build up that herd immunity.

So now that you are sick you think everyone else should get sick too? Big yikes.

Jay wrote:

I just want to know what the endgame is. They keep calling this a war, well, ok, the biggest criticism with Bush was always that he never had any clearly defined end state. When do you pull out? When do you declare victory? What's the criteria? You can't just keep everyone locked in their homes until a vaccine is formulated and distributed to everyone. That's neither realistic or acceptable. Don't sit there bullshitting with your brother on national TV. Start talking about substance. I don't give a fuck how eloquent you are, if you've got no substance you're useless. Telling everyone we're all in this together and that it's going to go on as long as it has to is not a plan. Start letting people get back to work and build up that herd immunity. What we're doing now is just going to cause a massive spike when these people are all released.

Here it's pretty clear: reduce the number of ICU admissions to remain below maximum capacity in order to avoid an overload of the system & mass deaths. Meanwhile try and control the spread as much as possible.

In the best case this could mean restrictive measures for a couple of months, worst case until there's a vaccine.

You have to realise that in an uncontrolled situation the virus can wreak havoc for a couple of years before really slowing down. It's unclear if people who have had it get 'immunity', or rather maybe just some resistance. Perhaps it's also quick to mutate if it can spread as much as possible, who knows.

Last edited by Larssen (2020-04-03 00:19:38)