221–230 of 560 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This won't be it. For one thing, China is quite technically competent.
Current China is not the USSR for sure, still I wonder if this will not shift people away from cheap chinese products long term. You know with the end of globalization this might give a little more push towards local/safer productions.
Are you implying that globalization is in decline? If so, why do you think this?
My response was exponential growth of viruses and mutation into something very deadly.
China is taking the outbreak seriously, locking down large and high population regions. I wondered if some of that is PR since after a previous outbreak they were accused of covering up (if I remember correctly).
China = 20% of global GDP -> shutdown until Feb 17th. China = ??% of global supply chain -> shutdown until Feb 17th. This is the current status quo. If the situation isn't controlled by Feb 13th you can kiss at least 1/3 of global GDP goodbye. And, don't get me started on possible outbreaks elsewhere.
Stop spreading FUD. There have been a couple hundred deaths. Even if the numbers have been minimized, compare this to the 40'000 deaths due to the flu in the US every year ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Current China is not the USSR for sure, still I wonder if this will not shift people away from cheap chinese products long term. You know with the end of globalization this might give a little more push towards local/safer productions.
>with the end of globalization Are you implying that globalization is in decline? If so, why do you think this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Katrina was when I realized how silly it is to think our government would ever deal effectively with a major disaster and how vulnerable we are.
By "our government" do you just mean the Federal government? Or do you mean all levels of government? The mayor of New Orleans had parking lots full of empty school buses and claimed he had no way to evacuate citizens. The governor of Louisiana whined and wrung her hands instead of doing anything. The Federal response was far from perfect but it was much more effective than the state or local response.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are downvoting the parent, but he/she is correct. So many people misunderstand these masks. Surgical masks protect other people from your coughing / breathing -- they do nothing for you. N95 masks are notoriously difficult to actually fit correctly. A mask with a filter needs to be completely sealed around your face. You should not be able to get any airflow in from the sides. The elastic is usually too weak,…
So I'm 100% in agreement with everything you said, but it still sounds like it's a decent idea for people in really crowded areas to wear masks to: 1. Not infect others during the period while they feel fine but are actually spreading the virus 2. As a more effective means of preventing spread via coughing and sneezing.
Let's be realistic here -- when the public is in a panic, their behavior gets worse, not better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Katrina was when I realized how silly it is to think our government would ever deal effectively with a major disaster and how vulnerable we are.
By "our government" do you just mean the Federal government? Or do you mean all levels of government? The mayor of New Orleans had parking lots full of empty school buses and claimed he had no way to evacuate citizens. The governor of Louisiana whined and wrung her hands instead of doing anything. The Federal response was far from perfect but it was much more effective than the state or local response.
That just sounds like a sensational headline lacking in context and details. For example, with Hurricane Harvey in Houston they had to weigh calling mass evacuation against the ability of the road system to handle that much traffic. It doesn't matter how many buses you have in a parking lot if they can't leave the city. I'm not saying that was the case in New Orleans, but I'm certainly not going to assume the worst from "parking lots full of empty school buses".
Honestly, is there even a known good example of how the response to Katrina should have been? Most people's complaints about it seem so shallow in their analysis as to appear a projection of their distaste for the Bush administration or the local politicians; nearly 15 years later.
Edit: Could you imagine an NTSB report on an airplane crash: "Air traffic control had three empty runways but said they had no way to land the plane! If they hadn't just whined and wrung their hands, perhaps everybody would have survived that flight.."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe, maybe not. I think the contrast to past epidemics is stark and shows the government is willing to learn and improve. In any case, the comparison to Chernobyl and 80s USSR is pretty off-base, wouldn't you agree?
The comparison fits in that a tendency to hide bad news (i.e. swallow errors and suppress warnings) erodes trust in (edit: and effectiveness of) the system.
Yes, there are certainly similarities between the USSR and China. But if we are to be objective and fact-oriented here, comparing China today to the USSR in the 80s and its response to this epidemic to the USSR's in Chernobyl, is a big stretch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're arguing with an incomplete explanation of how many economists believe stimulus spending works. I'm no economist, but a Keynesian would, I think, say that government stimulus is fine when the economy and demand are lagging. Doing it when the economy is strong encourages capital misallocation and the problems OP mentioned.
The Uber vs Lyft market share wars are a great example of this misallocation. Due to all of the VC money sloshing around both companies are forced to raise and spend ungodly amounts of money in order to fight for market share. In a more rational monetary environment raising money would be more difficult and both companies would be more focused on profitability instead of market share. The primary risk of this misallo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.livescience.com/face-mask-new-coronavirus.html A regular surgical face mask doesn't protect. A more specialized mask, known as an N95 respirator, can protect against the new coronavirus, also called 2019-nCoV. The respirator is thicker than a surgical mask
The NIH study I linked says that they found "no significance difference" between N95 Respirators and surgical masks. LiveScience.com looks like some kind of popsci website. Not sure I would take their word over a study published in a medical journal. Edit: For the unfamiliar N95 is a NIOSH standard that dictates the percentage of particulates that are filtered and if the filter is rated for environments with presence…