My Name is Inigo Montoya

Various people are arguing that we should let Wuflu rip ( for the economy !), eschewing strategies that would likely get it under control at fairly high economic cost.  This would  ending up causing the death of  a lot of people’s parents and it’s at least possible that some wouldn’t understand and accept that it was all for the greater good. Some people are just soreheads, impossible to please.

I’m just saying.

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

48 Responses to My Name is Inigo Montoya

  1. Frau Katze says:

    I notice that even the Chinese didn’t go that far. You need a really good reason to get the Chi-Coms to care about a population subset.

    Or the South Koreans, who used GPS location to figure out where someone testing positive went. It sounds like the entire population was being tracked by GPS because they could identify the infected person’s contacts, since everyone’s position was known.

    The SK method sounds pretty bad to Westerners but would they prefer to just let it burn through the whole population?

    In fact, weren’t the Brits toying with the idea of letting it burn through the young and healthy population? The idea was to keep the vulnerable sheltered in this stage. By the time it burned through the young & healthy, herd immunity would hopefully kick in.

    They abandoned the idea.

    I speak as someone who is considered vulnerable, although I don’t want to admit it.

    One addendum: In reading tales of those killed by the virus, I found several examples of people who had had cancer that were quite young. That seems to be a vulnerability that’s affects even the young. Just anecdotal observation, I know.

  2. Frau Katze says:

    Dr. Seheult (who makes the MedCram videos seems pretty sharp. His Mar 22 vid is linked below.

    For one thing, it seems the current test is pretty inaccurate. Work needed there.

    He also notes how extremely useful it would be have a reliable test for antibodies. If we had an accurate test for them, and if it the case that one attack confers immunity, such people could be employed in the more risky positions.

  3. James says:

    It is not that simple. As Mr. Carvalho, one of Brazil’s President Captain Bolsonaro’s top advisers pointed out, it is not clear yet an epidemics is ongoing. It is possible it is simply a flu whose effects abe being overemphasized by the mainstream media. Panicking and throwing away our economy will not help.

    • dearieme says:

      Lay off, Thiago.

    • Toddy Cat says:

      For God’s sake, aren’t we past this “It’s just the flu” BS? I yield to no one in my dislike of the MSM, but some things are true, even though CNN says them. If you want to see how to fight this thing without destroying your economy, look at Japan and Taiwan. It’s not an either/or situation…

    • rsl says:

      According to Bolsonaro, yes. When you made your original post, there were about 2500 cases, now there’s 3900 and it’s doubling every 4-5 days. Three doublings takes it to 20,000, 6 more doublings to over a million. Shall you repost in 3 weeks, to show how this is working out?

  4. gkai says:

    It’s not a simple flu, and when the virus is prevalent enough you can see the spike in death rates…
    But on the other hand I do not see the kind of lockdown we have now in Europe tenable more than a few weeks, without transitioning to police states.
    I do not think examples from WW1 or WW2 contradict that, because during a war all states turn into police states, that’s what martial law is. Also, the time is different, rule of state was really something during WW1 (so much that the soldiers stories at that time seems alien to me, like if it happened in another world).
    WW2 seems less alien, but western state were still more powerfull and hierarchies more explicit and generally acknowledged. After, not so much. When was conscription last used by a modern state? Vietnam kind of prove my point, Falklands maybe? not even sure it was conscripts on the Bristish side….
    So yes, the government/populations today are not the one of the 40s, they probably can not get into martial law as easily, and once in, not sure they can get out as easily either….

    • Firebrand says:

      “When was conscription last used by a modern state? Vietnam kind of prove my point, Falklands maybe? not even sure it was conscripts on the Bristish side….”

      Depends of what ounts as a modern state? Does the Soviet Union/Russian Federation qualify? Afghanistan, Chechnya. I don’t think the South Koreans or the Taiwanese would have many problems using conscription at war. They probably are better prepared to use policial measures than most developed democracies.

      • gkai says:

        If you are from one of the western state (europe, USA, Canada, Australia,….) obviously Russia do not count, and is well into police state if not a full blown dictature. Didn’t you listen to MSM?
        South Korea and Taiwan are debatable. I have been there far too little to have a good judgement, but they certainly feel like much more authoritarian and more tightly integrated than the western states. South Korea is still officially at war (with N. Korea), and Taiwan probably is also, not sure what there offical status is (with China), so there that also. Ditto for Israel.

        • gkai says:

          Among western state I would have bet on the Swiss to maybe be able to do a real lockdown for a while. Apparently not, they are even on the slow side.
          Maybe Norway?
          Will be interesting to see how a soft military junta (Thailand) will do. They are quite dependent on tourism and assembly industry, the junta is fragile but the country is (I think) self sufficient for food and quite nationalistic.

    • dearieme says:

      “Falklands maybe? not even sure it was conscripts on the Bristish side….”

      No: conscription in Britain ended in 1960 having been introduced in 1939 (in the teeth of opposition from the Labour Party, which changed its mind only after the German invasion of Poland!)

  5. Difference Maker says:

    There would be a backlash against the Chinese.

    It would be a whole new world, with increased life tempo. It would be best to meet someone good now, and have babies

    Still in the midst of morning reverie, so I’ll just quote myself:
    An alternative to crashing the economy with no survivors is quarantining at risk categories only (elderly, comorbidities etc)

    Perhaps we can do so and also treat infections effectively with hydroxychloroquine and the like so there’ll be no sequelae

    I too give this a timeframe of several months in the best case scenario, with improvement beginning in several weeks if ’15 days to slow the spread’, hydroxychloroquine work

    Until effective vaccines / herd immunity + border control and inspection / testing, the virus will continue to rebound and reemerge in encores, perhaps to meld into the seasonal background of our regular endemics

  6. Gladly Wistle says:

    Thanks, but I do not think the plague is the better time for bringing children to this world.

  7. gothamette says:

    “sorehead”

    Some of these people haven’t got the humanity of a Neanderthal.

    In Italy, they can’t bury the dead. Can’t give a proper Catholic funeral to these grandparents, some of whom died horribly, and alone.

    This is inhuman. We accept that death is a part of life. Giving the dead a dignified goodbye, in your culture’s religious norms, is part of being human.

  8. ASR says:

    I’m 72 going on 73, with diminished immune response and hypertension, all risk factors. I’m not counting on my O blood type countering that. So, when I advocate for more moderate policies of epidemic control than those currently being put in place, it’s not at all out of selfish self-interest.

    To control the epidemics in the USA, it should be sufficient to encourage – and enforce as much as possible: (1) the practice of standard personal hygiene; (2) the wearing of mouth and nose masks in public [a leaky condom is better than none at all]; (3) avoiding physical contact; (4) separating from strangers by six feet or so; (5) banning mass gatherings; (6) closing venues where persons might be in close contact and breathing the same air for any extended time period. e.g., schools, sports and entertainment events, movie houses, and sit-down restaurants; and (6) forcibly quarantining all known infected persons.

    These measures have proven effective in the past. Going to the extreme of closing all “non-essential” businesses may ultimately have economic effects almost as disastrous as the projected epidemics we are trying to control.

    Two side notes:

    (1) An obvious economy-boosting policy would be to use presidential powers to divert manufacturers int the production of essential and unavailable medical supplies with guaranteed immediate payment. At the end of the epidemic, surpluses can form the foundation for a federal emergency supply system, permanently availbale in the event of another public health crisis like this one.

    (2) Can someone give me a plausible and rational reason why the Governor of Massachusetts has declared that liquor stores are as “essential” as health care facilities and food stores?

    • gkai says:

      (2) he have some drinking issue?

      More seriously, I think that the extreme measures (I am from Europe, and most European countries are in effective lockdown, there are nuances but the day-to-day life of many european is quite similar now: assigned to residence, with some still working outside depending on country and type of work. We can still go buy essential stuff, but partial supervision is already in place for some and spreading. I guess shopping is still allowed just because food delivery is hard and costly.)
      Those extremes measures do not seems the best looking at effectiveness/annoyance ratio but I think have two reasons, one official and one I think is more important, but that you will never hear officially:
      The first is that states are forced to do that, because the only way to reduce contact is to force simple rules on everybody and make exemplary punishing until the amount of rule-breaking is low enough.
      It’s probably true, even if I think it can be improved. But this reason is less important than the second one: By forcing stupid rules and constantly reminding that people are not respecting them, you can blame the public if shit hit the fan (R0 stays too high, or the measures were too late).

    • Thersites says:

      Hardcore alcoholics have a nasty habit of dropping dead from the DTs if they get cut off suddenly. Not good to have them all going through withdrawal simultaneously just as hospitals are filling up with Wuflu patients.

    • glenndc says:

      I have read that the virus resides in the soft palate and throat slowly makes its way to the lungs, and vamonos! So Bourbon gargles ought to work…
      You asked for it

  9. jbbigf says:

    Here is what is bothering me. However bad this turns out to be, the people who advocate for massive government intervention in every aspect of our lives will claim that their massive interventions were the only thing that kept it from being much worse. And if it turns out to be no big deal, they will take the credit. In short, anything that happens will be taken as evidence that the totalitarians are right. .

    • j says:

      jbbigf, do you need more evidence than the China vs Covid19 encounter that the totalitarians are right? They reacted immediate and massively and suffocated the epidemic as soon as it was identified. While democracies are still debating and infighting. China deserves respect. Old Europe’s decadence is now more than evident. My hope is America, the world is desperte for the vaccine.

  10. SamGamgee says:

    Are you talking about the idea we should isolate the elderly and immuno-compromised but let other demographics carry on as before to avoid economic fallout? David Katz penned an op-ed in the Times about this: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/opinion/coronavirus-pandemic-social-distancing.html

    Would be good to get your feedback on his op-ed.

    • dearieme says:

      I can see how to isolate the old who are well enough to live in their own homes. Isolating the old in hospitals, nursing homes, and care homes is a bit of a challenge, as people euphemistically say.

    • Frau Katze says:

      The herd immunity plan. I think the Brits were going to try it but changed their minds. Not enough hours in the day to follow the politics in every country but economic hit of closing everything down is a great concern everywhere.

      A test to see who had antibodies to the disease would be extremely useful, to find people who could back to work safely. True, we don’t know if one attack confers immunity but we will never know without a test, It should be very high priority.

      Dr Seheult notes this in his video above. Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying discuss this at length in their new video. Heather suspects she may have already had it. We need a test.

  11. tc says:

    Masks, masks, masks. It’s beyond crazy that the authorities in the West have not instructed every family to make their own mask at home.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s