When the curve flattens: What's next?

[Heathen Hammer]

This thread is for discussion on what should be done in the future, once the pandemic is over.

So sooner then later, economies will come out of lockdown and life will move on.

With hundred thousands dead and likely more on the way (with likely much higher overall number including death tolls in countries with poor healthcare systems) we are facing quite the extensive loss of life
On top of massive death toll, we are also looking at unprecedented economic damage to pretty much most of the world. Think of something dumb and stupid our governments did, like Canada's carbon tax or America's "war on terror" and multiply it several times and you'll get the basic figure of by how much are our economies in a hole. Somebody has to be held responsible.

With more information coming out on the nature of virus being an escaped bioweapon and further information on Chinese mishandling and cover-up of the outbreak, Chinese government is without a doubt responsible for it.

Its culprit and collaborator is WHO, which not only withheld crucial information, it made false statements throughout the months leading up to the pandemic, preventing timely international response that would have reduced both the massive death toll and the economic damage.

Then we have our own political establishments, that actively neglected the upcoming crisis, and overall neglected basic common sense in favor of doing everything to uphold "muh global free trade". That also applies to those that impose irrational and blatantly unnecessary restrictions when pandemic happen, only adding more scrutiny to their own already vulnerable population. Politicians like Macron, Trudeau and Merkel quickly come to mind as well as governor of Michigan and New York. perfect examples of leaders of state that botched timely response.

So the question we should be asking is what should be done about those that caused this pandemic? How should countries of the West react to a foreign communist regime and international health body causing deaths of tens of thousands citizens and economic damage measured in trillions? What about our own politicians, which neglected their duties in favor of virtue signalling and made crisis worse by imposing harmful and unnecessary restrictions that violate basic individual freedoms?

The neoliberal response would be "to just move on". In a political movement where only international conglomerate profit margins matter, deaths of tens of thousands isn't a valid reason to end otherwise profitable trade relations with China or start halting the gravy train of foreign aid that WHO and other UN-based groups are happy to receive. If anything, they took the virus as excellent opportunity to impose censorship on viewpoints critical of neoliberalism and extend authoritarian measures over the population. So it makes sense that they will try and present is as some kind of unavoidable tragedy, while in reality it was an entirely avoidable catastrophe, caused by corruption, incompetence and greed of the globalist elites as well as international organizations.

We can already kind of see that narrative emerging in neoliberal media, implying how this was unavoidable and nobody is really to blame, peppered with feelgood stories about "individual heroism" and "everyone coming together". Instead of addressing the cause, we will be encouraged to hold hands (oh wait) and sing "Imagine" as we put our trust in the same individuals and groups that got us into pandemic to begin with.

Without a doubt, the ongoing pandemic is a clear vindication to anti-globalists, survivalists, euro-skeptics, nationalists, preppers and "conspiracy theorists" everywhere that were smeared and demonized by the same media outlets that praised the policies that caused this pandemic to happen to begin with. It has shown how previously thought as impregnable institutions like EU and UN fold like houses of cards at the slightest blow.

I for one agree with what Japan is doing, with paying its companies to sever relations with China. Trump's decision to cut funding to WHO was also timely and wise. What other measures should be taken? Should Chinese government be allowed to remain in power after its de-facto act of bioterrorism?

Should WHO be defunded now that we know that it doesn't really serve its basic purpose? Should its officials be held criminally responsible for misinformation that WHO helped spread?

Would that be enough, or should we perhaps re-think the notions and ideas we took as correct-by-default in the past 30 years? Perhaps, we should probably re-think why are we so dependent on corporations and governments and seek more self-reliance? Would a society where people can grow their own food and other necessities be more healthy?

What other measures should be taken to prevent this from happening in the future?

[Derc]

Long story short: The good ol' golden twenties will repeat themselves.

[antaeus]

You leave out one possibility.

That this particular virus inspires similar long term immune responses to related common cold strains - weak and short lasting. In this situation if a vaccine or good treatments aren't developed we'd be left dealing with flare-ups for years, until it evolves out of it's deadlier phase - if it evolves that way.

Really, it's too early to draw any conclusions from this situation. Any attempt to right now is just an exercise in cognitive bias.

This thread could perhaps be placed into the Ethos, so we can discuss the ethics of how countries move forward.

[PointOfViewGun]

With more information coming out on the nature of virus being an escaped bioweapon and further information on Chinese mishandling and cover-up of the outbreak, Chinese government is without a doubt responsible for it.

Its culprit and collaborator is WHO, which not only withheld crucial information, it made false statements throughout the months leading up to the pandemic, preventing timely international response that would have reduced both the massive death toll and the economic damage.

Many countries failed to respond properly regardless of what China or WHO did. Currently, they're being used as scapegoats.

Then we have our own political establishments, that actively neglected the upcoming crisis, and overall neglected basic common sense in favor of doing everything to uphold "muh global free trade". That also applies to those that impose irrational and blatantly unnecessary restrictions when pandemic happen, only adding more scrutiny to their own already vulnerable population. Politicians like Macron, Trudeau and Merkel quickly come to mind as well as governor of Michigan and New York. perfect examples of leaders of state that botched timely response.

When should they have acted?

We can already kind of see that narrative emerging in neoliberal media, implying how this was unavoidable and nobody is really to blame, peppered with feelgood stories about "individual heroism" and "everyone coming together". Instead of addressing the cause, we will be encouraged to hold hands (oh wait) and sing "Imagine" as we put our trust in the same individuals and groups that got us into pandemic to begin with.

Where is that narrative? Show us.

Without a doubt, the ongoing pandemic is a clear vindication to anti-globalists, survivalists, euro-skeptics, nationalists, preppers and "conspiracy theorists" everywhere that were smeared and demonized by the same media outlets that praised the policies that caused this pandemic to happen to begin with. It has shown how previously thought as impregnable institutions like EU and UN fold like houses of cards at the slightest blow.

It's really none of that. There is not an ounce of intelligent thought in saying that it somehow vindicates those groups.

Should WHO be defunded now that we know that it doesn't really serve its basic purpose? Should its officials be held criminally responsible for misinformation that WHO helped spread?

Except we do now that it serves its basic purpose. You just don't know what that is apparently.

What other measures should be taken to prevent this from happening in the future?

If you can't get the basic tenets of an issue right how do you expect to address it properly?

[Heathen Hammer]

You leave out one possibility.

That this particular virus inspires similar long term immune responses to related common cold strains - weak and short lasting. In this situation if a vaccine or good treatments aren't developed we'd be left dealing with flare-ups for years, until it evolves out of it's deadlier phase - if it evolves that way.

Really, it's too early to draw any conclusions from this situation. Any attempt to right now is just an exercise in cognitive bias.

This thread could perhaps be placed into the Ethos, so we can discuss the ethics of how countries move forward.

The question is ultimately political. While it will still flare up, economies will have to re-open in very foreseeable future, so it makes sense to discuss what steps should be taken about groups that caused this (China, WHO, neoliberal elites) as well as perhaps more fundamental questions on how to avoid this from happening in the future.
One thing is certain - a lot will have to change, as international organizations have proven to do more harm then good for what they are worth, while economic dependence on China by Western states is not an acceptable situation.

It's really none of that. There is not an ounce of intelligent thought in saying that it somehow vindicates those groups.

"This is bad argument, because I disagree with it". Good for you, but if you don't have a counter-argument, your response isn't really worth much.

[PointOfViewGun]

"This is bad argument, because I disagree with it". Good for you, but if you don't have a counter-argument, your response isn't really worth much.

Said Heathen Hammer after completely failing to address over 80% of my post... There isn't much counter-argument one can provide for that particular part anyways though since you provide no rationale or substance of any shape or form.

[Heathen Hammer]

Said Heathen Hammer after completely failing to address over 80% of my post...

That's because there was nothing to address. Calling someone's opinion idiotic without explaining why is it idiotic, is just a veiled attempt at ad-hominem attack. Those are boring and not interesting to address, nor do they add anything to the discussion.

[Diamat]

Personally, I hope citizens of various Western countries begin to seriously talk about natural rights and safeguards against government power, even in the US, the last true beacon of freedom in the West. Because we have lived so comfortably for decades, without any major crisis that put citizens in direct confrontation with government, we have become overly passive vis-a-vis our governments. The Cold War also seems like a distant past, and young people do not even know what Communism or Marxism-Leninism really is (nor do many conservatives). This crisis has shown us the Leviathan that had been slumbering beneath our feet. Now it's time to cage it up.

[antaeus]

Any attempt to right now is just an exercise in cognitive bias.

Well that didn't take long.

I'm going to try to be constructive and put on my fantasy hat because otherwise this thread is going to be ruined by it's author very quickly.

Firstly, responses to the crisis have been so different around the world, that it is almost impossible to predict what the political outcome will be. So it is pointless theorising about the future of the WHO or whether this authoritarian or that open democracy will be better off.

In my opinion, there is really a couple of definers as to how the world comes out of this, and when. Firstly: when we have a firm idea on the likely immunity after recovery. Secondly: whether we develop an effective vaccine or other therapy that reduces the burden on health care systems.

this offers several scenarios (there are more, but I'm trying to keep it simple):

Scenario 1: There is sustained immunity after recovery, and we develop an effective vaccine or therapy.
Scenario 2: There is sustained immunity, but we don't develop an effective vaccine or therapy
Scenario 3: There is no long term effective immunity, but we develop an effective therapy or vaccine
Scenario 4: There is no long term effective immunity, and we don't develop any effective therapy or vaccine.

In scenario 1,
In developed countries,increasing numbers of people will be able to return to their normal lives, and eventually we will be able to ease off restrictions on those who are at greatest risk. In this scenario countries who have been weak on lockdowns, or had outbreaks that couldn't be prevented will be able to get their economies going faster - particularly in Europe where close knit markets will come back online quickly. But some will come under intense criticism for unnecessary loss of life - this may eventually sway elections. I can't imagine a Swedish government surviving this scenario, but the Italians and Spanish may get a pass. They may also have had repeated outbreaks that cause economic shocks and stutter any recovery.

Countries which locked down quickly and thoroughly may come out without unnecessary loss of life if they can sustain their bubble, and will have already have opened their economies within their regional bubbles. But they will be living with constant vigilance until the vaccine comes online which will hamper their recovery.

In scenario 2,
Countries that have had sustained outbreaks will come back online as more people recover, and there may be some level of vindication for countries who have tried to manage outbreaks such as Sweden. Countries who didn't manage their outbreaks effectively will still face a reckoning for the unpreparedness or for their poor management leading to unnecessary deaths (USA, UK). Countries who have had no major outbreak, such as New Zealand or Taiwan will at some point need to follow the Swedish model to manage exposure over the longer term. This will be difficult for them, being the victim of their own success.

In scenario 3,
Countries who have had major outbreaks will have a reckoning - based on their poor responses and lack of effective response. This will cost those national leaders their jobs. Swedish leaders will be lucky they live in mild society because their gamble would have failed and they would only be losing their jobs, not their heads. Italian and Spanish leaders might get a pass because they had no chance to respond. The leaders of countries with fewer, better managed outbreaks will emerge strongly with enhanced reputations and far less long term disruption.

In scenario 4,
It's a blank slate. The game will become managing long term extra health care requirements. Some parts of the world will become very unpleasant indeed with hunger and multi disease complications - and a lack of help from developed countries will become problematic. Countries who haven't yet experienced large outbreaks will be best suited to manage exposure and increase health care capacity for the long term. Those who have already experienced both crippling health and economic outcomes will struggle for a while, chasing their tails and being unable to prepare. Large decentralised countries could suffer repeated devastating outbreaks as the disease bounces about like a pinball game. Countries with stronger central governments or stronger federal systems will be able to effectively manage ongoing outbreaks better, as well as the centralisation required for a major reorganisation of health care networks.

In every scenario there will be intense economic pain. Economies of countries have been trashed and no country no matter how well they manage will come out of this unscathed. Some countries may collapse entirely - particularly fringe developed/authoritarian regimes or poorer countries.

I'm curious to see how globalisation comes out of this. My gut feeling is that even now in the depths of the epidemic, we have a surprising amount of international trade going on. I used the example of sitting here in Australia eating food grown in India and shipped after their national shutdown. But I imagine certain sectors will be thoroughly de-globalised. I'm thinking anything strategic - health care manufacturing for example.

I'd like to think that the sudden and shocking loss of casual workers around the developed world - and the sudden expense that they have now presented governments - might lead to a de-casualisation of the work force, but I'm already hearing inklings of the opposite - with leaders signalling the need to "remove red tape" It seems that even being faced with having to support billions of people, governments are still keen to privatise profit and socialise loss.

As for debt... we really are in uncharted waters. Magic money is being invented all over the show right now. But economies have been so unusually and unevenly affected (total collapse of restaurants, growth in supermarkets), I really have no idea what will happen to pay all that make believe money back. China is tinkering with digital currency and money that expires if not used quickly. Spain is toying with UBI. Australia has subsidised large chunks of the workforce.

How long is a piece of string?

[Mayer]

Long story short: The good ol' golden twenties will repeat themselves.

I think the liberal dream of a return of the mythical Golden Twenties has been mercilessly crushed. The economic repercussions of 2020 rival those of the Great Depression, it's an end of an era, the liberal world oder of global markets, free movement of goods and people is gone. If anything the 30s will repeat themselves, statism will prevail.

We can already kind of see that narrative emerging in neoliberal media, implying how this was unavoidable and nobody is really to blame, peppered with feelgood stories about "individual heroism" and "everyone coming together". Instead of addressing the cause, we will be encouraged to hold hands (oh wait) and sing "Imagine" as we put our trust in the same individuals and groups that got us into pandemic to begin with.

Incredible, but this seems to work, like Merkel who is praised and her approval ratings go up despite the delays and denials of the government in the early days of the pandemic, now she doesn't even want to talk about relaxation of the lockdown(Merkel: "opening discussion orgies") despite the economic livelihood of people being at stake, despite having swore an oath to protect and serve these people.
Credible epidemic historians say it clear, everyone could have known it and be prepared. Covid-19 is SARS-2, everything was known.

Without a doubt, the ongoing pandemic is a clear vindication to anti-globalists, survivalists, euro-skeptics, nationalists, preppers and "conspiracy theorists" everywhere that were smeared and demonized by the same media outlets that praised the policies that caused this pandemic to happen to begin with. It has shown how previously thought as impregnable institutions like EU and UN fold like houses of cards at the slightest blow.

The West is in hysteria, people getting hounded and laughed at for warning early. When it's actually the failure of the West to act aproppiately in a time of crisis.

[PointOfViewGun]

That's because there was nothing to address. Calling someone's opinion idiotic without explaining why is it idiotic, is just a veiled attempt at ad-hominem attack. Those are boring and not interesting to address, nor do they add anything to the discussion.

When you try to present a post that contained 3 questions, 1 argument, and 2 counter claims as if it only called your opinion as idiotic, sure, you wouldn't find anything to address. Why did you think it is necessary to alter or just ignore simple stuff like that? We do see you not having a proper response. You do know that, right?

[Muizer]

It's an end of an era, the liberal world oder of global markets, free movement of goods and people is gone.

What do you base that on?

[Heathen Hammer]

When you try to present a post that contained 3 questions, 1 argument, and 2 counter claims as if it only called your opinion as idiotic, sure, you wouldn't find anything to address. Why did you think it is necessary to alter or just ignore simple stuff like that? We do see you not having a proper response. You do know that, right?

Proper response is warranted for... proper argument, which you haven't made. Veiled ad hominem attack with literally no substance to it will deservedly receive condescending remarks and an eye-rolls. Let us know when you come up with something that actually warrants addressing.

Incredible, but this seems to work, like Merkel who is praised and her approval ratings go up despite the delays and denials of the government in the early days of the pandemic, now she doesn't even want to talk about relaxation of the lockdown(Merkel: "opening discussion orgies") despite the economic livelihood of people being at stake, despite having swore an oath to protect and serve these people.
Credible epidemic historians say it clear, everyone could have known it and be prepared. Covid-19 is SARS-2, everything was known.

Its the combination of neoliberal "let them eat cake" mentality with incompetence caused by negative selection within the globalist elites.

The West is in hysteria, people getting hounded and laughed at for warning early. When it's actually the failure of the West to act aproppiately in a time of crisis.

Most importantly it was the failure of the globalist governments, most of which knew of what was going to happen, but didn't act on it. For example, Canadian intelligence was ringing alarm bells months before the numbers jumped and lockdown became inevitable - Trudeau continued saying that virus is a nothingburger and acknowledging it is racist against China, for months until it started rising exponentially and his own family became infected.

[PointOfViewGun]

Proper response is warranted for... proper argument, which you haven't made. Veiled ad hominem attack with literally no substance to it will deservedly receive condescending remarks and an eye-rolls. Let us know when you come up with something that actually warrants addressing.

You made it way too obvious that you are trying to deflect from responding to a post properly and avoid dismantling your own position. You can't turn it from that.

[antaeus]

What do you base that on?

This...

Most of the world's leaders have been at pains to ensure that the free movement of goods continues even in shutdowns. I had South American coffee beans in the coffee I bought yesterday, and the Pakistani dates I'm currently snacking on align with this view as well, as does the imported toilet paper I currently using (not literally). A number of governments are subsidising airlines to fly empty flights in order to ensure trade continues - goods fly in the holds of passengers planes.

I think for those out there who dislike the free movement of people and goods, a temporary closing of borders to unnecessary travel can seem like a victory. But other than the localising of strategic production, there is hardly any demand for localising of production of everything, and the nature of the complexity of the products we use - including the laptop I'm on right now, mean that de-globalising supply chains for every product is all but impossible without giving up on much of the good stuff. Countries who attempt this would be at a distinct disadvantage in virtually every respect, and become much poorer for it.

Certainly there probably has to be a change to the "world designs and China makes" paradigm... and that will require some kind of shake up in how currency markets can be manipulated. But I wouldn't mistake this shift for 'de-globalisation'

[Cyclops]

In Australia there's definitely a shift toward "autarky" as it was conceived pre WWI, that is self sufficiency if not in all things then at least in essentials like food supplies certain medical and military equipment. It used to be done with trade barriers and colony acquisition.

Funnily enough I feel like this move threatens US hegemony at least as much as Chinese. China makes a lot of consumer crap but can't touch the US for top end military and engineering manufacture with its colossal technological and infrastructure advantages. Imagine if no one bought Boeing?

If we shift to 3D printing, local manufacture then the US will want to have its IP laws locked in to at least take a percentage. Trump scotched the TPP which would have been a big step in securing this region even more securely to US patent law (local music and other arts creators breathed a sigh of relief when he did that, staved off Disney's complete domination for one term at least).

I don't think we can recreate an Australian car industry for example, but there's an opportunity to build up some local automated manufacture capacity. Given our small size that means a small dent in world trade, and protection for the local producers, reducing overall world wealth (the recent decade of "buzz" in Wall Street is effectively globalisation redirecting local wealth to New York via Amazon and other on line service providers). However if enough nations stake out and ring fence a bit of local capacity that's a cumulative loss for Bezos and his friends.

The flip side is autarky is another word for reintroducing the kind of separate existence that made WWI and WWII possible. As long as we are all connected to the US juggernaut it makes no sense to have a world war. The EU made another Franco German war impossible by integrating the two coal and steel systems, the current globalised system is the same thing writ large. Trump and China can posture all they want, the conflict can't get much further than a tariff battle because the billionaires won't accept the margin hit, and their portfolios straddle the borders.

So this may lead to a poorer and less integrated world more ready to go to war.

[Heathen Hammer]

I think 3D printing will be a defining feature of post-corona economy, as well as resulting disintegration of major manufacturing conglomerates. Why sell a product, when you can sell a copyrighted blueprint for a product? And then there will be blueprint piracy. Of course people who like gun control and government authority overall will be up for a rude awakening when they find out that now everyone has access to scary weapons, hehe.

[Mayer]

Most of the world's leaders have been at pains to ensure that the free movement of goods continues even in shutdowns. I had South American coffee beans in the coffee I bought yesterday, and the Pakistani dates I'm currently snacking on align with this view as well, as does the imported toilet paper I currently using (not literally). A number of governments are subsidising airlines to fly empty flights in order to ensure trade continues - goods fly in the holds of passengers planes.

What a beautiful world, the South American and Pakistani slave at terrible work conditions and low wage for the unhealthy western diet, products and resources wastefully transported over vast distances, while the multi-national conglomerates run by the elite rake the profits for the shareholders. And rubbish airlines are the most exploitative and evironmental hazardous businesses, good waste of tax payer money.

I think for those out there who dislike the free movement of people and goods, a temporary closing of borders to unnecessary travel can seem like a victory.

It's a monumental victory for nations, people, culture, the environment. It should be permanent. I don't need to travel to Mallorca to be an intoxicated moron.

But other than the localising of strategic production, there is hardly any demand for localising of production of everything, and the nature of the complexity of the products we use - including the laptop I'm on right now, mean that de-globalising supply chains for every product is all but impossible without giving up on much of the good stuff.

The good stuff, like stealing the water supply of indians to get on the lithium. Ahh, western civilization.

Countries who attempt this would be at a distinct disadvantage in virtually every respect, and become much poorer for it.

It's the myth of free markets taken to the extreme. Global welfare =/= welfare of the people

In Australia there's definitely a shift toward "autarky" as it was conceived pre WWI, that is self sufficiency if not in all things then at least in essentials like food supplies certain medical and military equipment.

Which i predict will be the new normal in a Post-Globalized world

Imagine if no one bought Boeing?

Old News. That's already happening thanks to idiotic business decisions /737 Max failure.
I'd actually like to have a national aviation industry again, Airbus is too french oriented.

Trump scotched the TPP which would have been a big step in securing this region even more securely to US patent law (local music and other arts creators breathed a sigh of relief when he did that, staved off Disney's complete domination for one term at least).

I applaud Trump for killing TPP. The Disney company in contrast stands for all that is wrong with America.

Given our small size that means a small dent in world trade, and protection for the local producers, reducing overall world wealth (the recent decade of "buzz" in Wall Street is effectively globalisation redirecting local wealth to New York via Amazon and other on line service providers). However if enough nations stake out and ring fence a bit of local capacity that's a cumulative loss for Bezos and his friends.

Indeed, we need local competitors to defend against the global dominance of companies like Amazon. The german traditional mail order companies like Neckermann and OTTO were too slow to get into the online marketplace. As it stands the only serious rival for Amazon is chinese Alibaba.

The flip side is autarky is another word for reintroducing the kind of separate existence that made WWI and WWII possible. As long as we are all connected to the US juggernaut it makes no sense to have a world war.

I disagree. WWI was the result of Imperialism and the drive of capitalism to open more markets by force. WWII was a battleground of ideologies over dominance. The very nature of world wars is globalized. The US juggernaut fights senseless battles in the Middle East, to protect global markets.

The EU made another Franco German war impossible by integrating the two coal and steel systems

That's a massive overrating of the importance of the European Coal and Steel Community, which predates the EU. The history of the EU is a mess, german chancellor Adenauer wanted to align with the West at any cost (The Soviets were willing to allow a free and independent Germany if they weren't part of NATO), France just wanted to posture as a Great Power and keep Germany weak, Britain was the only one who actually wanted a common market.

[antaeus]

Way too many quotes

I believe the saying is "throw the baby out with the bath water"

Just because you don't like British tourists, doesn't mean you should Thanos snap the world. It means you should do something about British tourists.

[Muizer]

What a beautiful world, the South American and Pakistani slave at terrible work conditions and low wage for the unhealthy western diet, products and resources wastefully transported over vast distances, while the multi-national conglomerates run by the elite rake the profits for the shareholders. And rubbish airlines are the most exploitative and evironmental hazardous businesses, good waste of tax payer money.

I see. So when I asked earlier what you based this on:

I think the liberal dream of a return of the mythical Golden Twenties has been mercilessly crushed. The economic repercussions of 2020 rival those of the Great Depression, it's an end of an era, the liberal world oder of global markets, free movement of goods and people is gone. If anything the 30s will repeat themselves, statism will prevail.

That was just wishful thinking.

Also
US: 9,147,590 km2, Population of 328 million
Belgium: 30,689 km2 Population of 11.46 million

Both happen to be nations, but looking at this figures, how could you possibly argue both of them are the right size for an economic/political unit? If the EU is too large, with governments remote from its people, then I take it you're also an advocate of the dissolution of the US into independent states.