# Post Corona...



## MovingAverage (31 March 2020)

How's it going everyone...hope your managing to stay corona free.

Governments worldwide are resorting to unprecedented measures to keep the global economy grinding along. There's no such thing as a free lunch, right? So what the hell is the economy going to be like once we get this corona virus under control and start resuming a normal life again. There will be a price that we will all pay as a result of governments around the world running their "money printing" at rates never ever seen before and there will be implications, very serious implications, that will flow from this.

So what do you reckon the global economy will look like when this **** is over and what is the price we (and indeed our future generations) will pay for this?

Stay safe everyone.


----------



## Dona Ferentes (31 March 2020)

wow, the only thing I know is that all the sure fire *scarios *(I like that! 'Twas meant to be *scenarios*, but keyboard took over) postulated after the GFC never came to bear. Rampant inflation was one of the biggest. then along came QEZIRMMPPT from various Central Banks - just getting in ahead of Invest Oh Boy - and we had a huge asset bubble.

Now, Moving on, you pose two questions 







> what the hell is the economy going to be like once we get this corona virus under control and start resuming a normal life again



 or at least make a few points. But, are the mutually exclusive, is one dependent on the other or, in a worst case set of circumstances, will either happen? The actions governments have taken have avoided the 1930's problems but, necessarily, replaced them with other problems. DEBT DEBT and more DEBT

As to paying for it, there was always going to be a reset; Covid-19, has brought it along faster and in a more ugly way than we could ever imagine. TAXES TAXES and more TAXES
We also sit at the time of transformational change in technological and medical advances. These come at a cost, too, and the other great poser here is if everyone will have fair access to them; to date, it has not been the case.


----------



## SirRumpole (31 March 2020)

I think there will be agreements for global debt writeoffs, otherwise the world economy will never recover.

Virtually every country in the world will introduce measures that will cost them so much that they will never be able to pay for it with their own resources, so the reasonable thing to do is to write off their debts.


----------



## Knobby22 (31 March 2020)

Bit of a mini depression but will clear out the deadwood + lessons on supply chains, people learning a bit of reality and government managing crises will in my view create a rosy period which might last 5 years.

The big worry is the continuing racking up of debt especially in the USA and Europe. The USA scares me and Europe is going to have to bite the bullet. I can see that is where the next disaster might come.


----------



## Dona Ferentes (31 March 2020)

On a more petty level, I think travel is going to be 'revisited' Cruise ships? Nah. Air tix that have no flexibility or, worse, bullsh1t insurance have to change. Hotels without openable windows? Not for me.

Think local, stay local


----------



## MovingAverage (31 March 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> I think there will be agreements for global debt writeoffs, otherwise the world economy will never recover.




I think that will be a given, but the issue with "writeoffs" is that there will be a loser so I do wonder how the loser will manage that writeoff as it will have very serious implications.


----------



## MovingAverage (31 March 2020)

Dona Ferentes said:


> just getting in ahead of Invest Oh Boy - and we had a huge asset bubble.




I love watching the love hate relationship you two have


----------



## qldfrog (31 March 2020)

Between no cash accepted , gun and ammo sales forbidden, and other laws going one, another set of screwing of our liberties and more reason to seize assets and move toward socialism heaven in the economic field while the nations will take over the globalists in geopolitic, immigration
In one word, national socialism
1933 again...


----------



## MovingAverage (31 March 2020)

Dona Ferentes said:


> The actions governments have taken have avoided the 1930's problems but, necessarily, replaced them with other problems. DEBT DEBT and more DEBT




I personally think that the current actions of governments (while completely understandable) are merely kicking the can down the road. You said it...DEBT DEBT and more DEBT. You just can't keep writing off debt with out implications. There is no free lunch my friends...no free lunch.


----------



## MovingAverage (31 March 2020)

qldfrog said:


> In one word, national socialism
> 1933 again...



 So China's cunning plan is working out perfectly


----------



## qldfrog (31 March 2020)

MovingAverage said:


> So China's cunning plan is working out perfectly



When you can plan for the next 50y while the democracies plan for the next election in 2 y, while needing to satisfy 50pc or more of the population self interest
Not very hard to be a winner
the Han uberall


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 March 2020)

One thing I'll predict is higher rates of taxation overall.

There's a debt to be repaid, there's a society to be rebuilt and most of those who would typically argue against tax and government are unlikely to do so going forward given the sheer number of both individuals and businesses who are now on welfare of some sort.

The question is what gets taxed not whether there's going to be more tax collected. 

That re-writes the entire political and economic agenda really.


----------



## MovingAverage (31 March 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> One thing I'll predict is higher rates of taxation overall.
> 
> There's a debt to be repaid, there's a society to be rebuilt and most of those who would typically argue against tax and government are unlikely to do so going forward given the sheer number of both individuals and businesses who are now on welfare of some sort.
> 
> ...




I’ll agree with you on that smurf but I will say that is a very Australian way of viewing things. You can build a strong economy with lower tax rates—take Singapore for example. But Australian government left, right or centre are incapable of thinking beyond just raising tax rates


----------



## qldfrog (31 March 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> One thing I'll predict is higher rates of taxation overall.
> 
> There's a debt to be repaid, there's a society to be rebuilt and most of those who would typically argue against tax and government are unlikely to do so going forward given the sheer number of both individuals and businesses who are now on welfare of some sort.
> 
> ...



National socialism
Allende's government in Argentina: basically communism,  massive exodus  of anyone brighter than the average,seizure of assets, currency devaluation every 10y until coup d etat or friendly help from the Han brothers


----------



## MovingAverage (31 March 2020)

Timely article: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03...lar-coronavirus-stimulus-be-paid-for/12105774


----------



## satanoperca (31 March 2020)

MovingAverage said:


> So China's cunning plan is working out perfectly




Not cunning, brilliant!

Just our dumb arse leaders and the rest of society who has no ability to understand the card that has been played.


----------



## satanoperca (31 March 2020)

qldfrog said:


> National socialism
> Allende's government in Argentina: basically communism,  massive exodus  of anyone brighter than the average,seizure of assets, currency devaluation every 10y until coup d etat or friendly help from the Han brothers




Agreed, we can never repay.

When will people stand up with some conviction and fight


----------



## Knobby22 (31 March 2020)

It could be paid easily. The super wealthy would just need to pay their share of taxes.
Of course they don't want to do that so will use their influence to distract the peasants.

You are all getting carried away.


----------



## matty77 (31 March 2020)

When this is all over..

The rich will be far richer
The poor will be far poorer
Government will have far more control over our daily lives.

The world will be a worse place, but at least Greta has been quiet for few months so there are some positives.


----------



## wayneL (31 March 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> One thing I'll predict is higher rates of taxation overall.
> 
> There's a debt to be repaid, there's a society to be rebuilt and most of those who would typically argue against tax and government are unlikely to do so going forward given the sheer number of both individuals and businesses who are now on welfare of some sort.
> 
> ...



GST 20% for a start IMO


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 March 2020)

MovingAverage said:


> I’ll agree with you on that smurf but I will say that is a very Australian way of viewing things. You can build a strong economy with lower tax rates—take Singapore for example.



I'm consciously focusing on the Australian perspective and looking at what's likely to actually happen rather than what I think should or shouldn't happen. 

What I'm foreseeing is that no politician will dare even suggest cutting hospital budgets for a very long time and that this whole thing will bring about at least a partial shift in the thinking of the general population. 

I also think we'll see a lot of the long running issues finally resolved. Among others I'm seeing manufacturing, protectionism / free trade, welfare payment rates and climate change in that category. If the current situation doesn't prompt a change then nothing will, either way the debate will be brought to an end.


----------



## IFocus (31 March 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> One thing I'll predict is higher rates of taxation overall.
> 
> There's a debt to be repaid, there's a society to be rebuilt and most of those who would typically argue against tax and government are unlikely to do so going forward given the sheer number of both individuals and businesses who are now on welfare of some sort.
> 
> ...




The politics is fascinating, a Coalition government going completely socialist way beyond Labor who would have thought.

After campaigning for no new taxes the Coalition will need to raise revenue with great big taxes. Cutting expenditure will be unlikely due to the fragility of any recovery and yes the rich and super rich both individuals / corporations will have to cough up......maybe  Wealth is power.

As for the Australian and world economy growth and its structure who knows.

Globalisation / neoliberalism drove us to where we were, is that where the future generations want to go again?

Given the amount of capital destruction debt overhang, excess labour, high unemployment and high unemployable, social disruption, damaged psychologies will the peasants ever spend again just for starters.

Don't mention the war.

A lot will be dependant on the period of lock down (no brainer) 

I image the other side (as it is now called besides death) would likely to be a very slow grind with a lack of confidence. 

Look forward to others to comment their ideas.


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 March 2020)

IFocus said:


> Globalisation / neoliberalism drove us to where we were, is that where the future generations want to go again?




That's another one for the now or never list.

If the magnitude of this shock does not prompt a change then it'll be clear to anyone who's arguing for change that doing so is pointless. Either way the debate ends, either there's a change or the issue is dead.

Not I'm not saying should or shouldn't, just seeing it as something that will be settled one way or the other in the fallout from this. If those who argue against globalisation can't win the argument now then it would seem unlikely that they'll ever win. Either way the issue ends up settled. This will trigger many things like that I expect.


----------



## So_Cynical (1 April 2020)

The EU has over 350K confirmed cases, the US 160K so it's a runaway train there, i'm thinking that all or most of the govt COVID19 bonds issued will be bought by
other govts, like a mega currency debt swap meet, i buy your debt and you buy mine and then inflate it away, the world really needs some inflation, it's way overdue.

Maybe they all get together and like collateralize all the debt into low fixed interest multi currency bonds and issue them in lieu of real payment...

Issue bonds instead of tax returns, here cop this.


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 April 2020)

The significance I see in the following is not so much what it says but that it's published in the Age not something anyone would generally accuse of being politically "Right" and and it sure isn't mincing words.



> We need to take a long cold look at the world and recognise that the Chinese Communist Party is a strategic threat and that, in a crisis, the United States will look to its own interests first and they might not align with ours.
> 
> The pandemic has shown us that when a crisis hits we are alone. So we need to be able to tend to our needs and defend our interests, alone.




Things are about to get more interesting I think and this will have far reaching implications for Australian business and indeed everyone. I've been expecting to see that sort of thing, but not quite so soon and bluntly as this one puts it. 

https://www.theage.com.au/national/...ds-to-change-most-of-all-20200331-p54fk3.html


----------



## qldfrog (1 April 2020)

Knobby22 said:


> It could be paid easily. The super wealthy would just need to pay their share of taxes.
> Of course they don't want to do that so will use their influence to distract the peasants.
> 
> You are all getting carried away.



the beauty of left thinking; so easy...Allende's mindset already
I have not done it again here in Australia but please do:
what about you take the current debt; then all the assets of the Rina, Packer etc still under Australia rules
Then just check if it remotely fits..
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE not a link of the quartian, just basic numbers from ATO/ABS data

I doubt it is anywhere like enough so where would the "super wealthy" need to start? 80k a year?I am not actually joking
Obviously this will be a one off, Slalin style so next year NDIS cost?
Tell us who you would need to put in camp to get back these trillions of debt we now have in Australia by seizing it from the "Rich"


----------



## Knobby22 (1 April 2020)

Business in Australia is pushing for this.
We in Australia can pay this off as our debt isn't high. 

In the USA, debt was rising rapidly before this occurred due to tax cuts at the top end. A study was done which I posted a few years ago, that showed at that time that if the wealthy(earning over 1 million a year) played the same tax rate as the middle class then the debt would be wiped out in 3 years.

Call me left but I along with Buffet think it's ridiculous that he pays less total tax than his secretary without him engaging in tax minimization.

I am a capitalist, I invest in the share market and hate communism or socialism as occurring in France. I am a huge fan of Thatcher and what she did for GBR.

But why should I subsidise the super wealthy? Why can't they pay their share?
As Wayne intimated, we know what they will ask for, a big increase in the GST rate.
I'm not their bunny.


----------



## MovingAverage (1 April 2020)

Knobby22 said:


> we know what they will ask for, a big increase in the GST rate.
> I'm not their bunny.




I hate GST, it’s a broad based indiscriminate tax that hurts the poor far more than the wealthy.


----------



## qldfrog (1 April 2020)

Knobby22 said:


> Business in Australia is pushing for this.
> We in Australia can pay this off as our debt isn't high.
> 
> In the USA, debt was rising rapidly before this occurred due to tax cuts at the top end. A study was done which I posted a few years ago, that showed at that time that if the wealthy(earning over 1 million a year) played the same tax rate as the middle class then the debt would be wiped out in 3 years.
> ...



Fair,  we agree with you in the US but we are not in the US, we are already one of the highest taxed nation on earth..not comparing to Zimbabwe etc but among major economies
Yes we will be taxed, and worse they will not tax income but assets too
But even so, here and elsewhere the ONLY way out is with inflation
So low interest rates to avoid bankruptcy and gov bond failure, but inflation to reduce relative weight of debt
For Australia, this is easy: currency devaluation vs yuan/USD
We import everything and sell everything
So crash the AUD et Voila
Easier said than done but that is our answer
Will also boost local re manufacturing etc etc
Note this is also a terrible wealth destroyer and we will need protective regulations otherwise China will buy us out even more.

Why is this Argentine model always popping up..
Model being in no way a role model but a vision on where we will probably land


----------



## Knobby22 (1 April 2020)

Yea, can't see inflation in the near future. The bond rates are low though so we could pay it off if we act sensibly. Not like I've been seeing any signs of a tax cut anyway.

Also I will quote famous investor John Hempton again (look on other thread) in this case regarding the future.
_I regard the current course of English speaking democracies (other than New Zealand) as mass murder by the political elite. I think history will regard it that way too._


----------



## MovingAverage (1 April 2020)

Knobby22 said:


> Yea, can't see inflation in the near future.




what do you think will be the catalyst for inflation to take off? After the GFC I was really expecting inflation to take off given governments around the world injected so much more cash into the system. I’m no economist but I am puzzled as to the exact factors required to get inflation to take off, but my layman’s understanding it that lots and lots of cheap money is a key catalyst.


----------



## Knobby22 (1 April 2020)

The cheap money has to get to the people. Wage rises have to occur. Tax cuts have to occur.


----------



## Sdajii (1 April 2020)

satanoperca said:


> Agreed, we can never repay.
> 
> When will people stand up with some conviction and fight




The Australian government seems to expect some Australian civilians to do so, putting military out to patrol the streets today and preparing to issue police with semiautomatic rifles to replace their pistols.

I'm not sure at what point it will become clear enough for most people to see that this is not about the virus and that these actions are going to cause far more death and destruction than the virus itself ever would have.


----------



## jbocker (1 April 2020)

Sdajii said:


> The Australian government seems to expect some Australian civilians to do so, putting military out to patrol the streets today and preparing to issue police with semiautomatic rifles to replace their pistols.
> 
> I'm not sure at what point it will become clear enough for most people to see that this is not about the virus and that these actions are going to cause far more death and destruction than the virus itself ever would have.



Sdajii, I am not sure I follow you?


----------



## Sdajii (1 April 2020)

jbocker said:


> Sdajii, I am not sure I follow you?




Destroying the economy, causing millions of people to lose their jobs, businesses, hobbies, relationships, etc, forcing people to stay inside with people and causing a dramatic increase in domestic violence etc (even at the best of times domestic violence involves physical assault and murder, and this will dramatically increase it), massively increased rates of depression due to lack of vocation and socialisation, etc etc etc, is very clearly going to cause far more damage in terms of both death and suffering than the virus ever would, let alone the difference between whatever the virus would have caused and what it will cause with these draconian measures.

To look at the maximum possible benefit, we have to say what was the worst case scenario of the virus itself (generally said to be a 3.4% death rate of those who get infected, and obviously not everyone would get infected). We're not going to reduce the impact to a 0% infection rate or 0% fatality rate, so the damage mitigation of the virus is dramatically lower than that. The vast majority of people who would have been killed by the virus were elderly folks not long for this world anyway. Now, as it is, we're still going to have a percentage of people getting the virus including those elderly people etc. But, we are forcing literally everyone to suffer, most dramatically. Children, teenagers, young adults and every other demographic will be suffering from psychological depression, many from domestic violence, financial distress which will cause long term financial suffering, educational disruption, no doubt some of those elderly and other vulnerable folks have already died due to logistical difficulties, the economic destruction is going to cause hospitals etc to lose funding and become less effective (causing deaths from all causes, not just the virus)...

In short, I was saying over a month ago that the human reaction was going to cause far more harm than the virus, but it is now utterly obviously that the absurd reaction will cause far, far more harm, and despite how obvious that is, we are being expected to anticipate and want draconian rules for an extended period of time.

It's a sad display of human stupidity that most people can't see it already, but my question was: at what point will it be obvious to most people that these measures are causing more harm than good?

By all means, encourage good hygeine etc. We shouldn't be shaking hands, we should cough into our elbow, etc etc, but to destroy the economy and take such crazy action, causing far more death and suffering than it prevents is insane, and we need to be asking why this is happening.


----------



## barney (1 April 2020)

Sdajii said:


> at what point will it be obvious to most people that these measures are causing more harm than good?




I think a lot of us understand the sentiment behind your suggestion Sdajii  …… but, and its a big but …. 

The problems associated with not curtailing the rate of spread (had we gone down that path) are exponentially exacerbated by the likely outcomes.

When the virus is out of control, death rates rise to over 10%. (Most likely much higher once the mathematics kick in. 

It is generally accepted that if the V was left to its own devices, likely 50% of the population would contract it …. 

Australia as a test case: 12 million people would become infected; 1.2 million will die.  That in itself is a problem, but when we consider a high % of those dying will likely be medical people who are most at risk, followed by other occupations who have greater contact with people in general, we would then have a massive social problem.

The economic impact is dire but the alternative could escalate into total anarchy …. I really believe Society could fall apart if the measures to slow this down were not taken.  We simply cant afford to have half the world sick simultaneously.  Cheers.


----------



## Sdajii (1 April 2020)

barney said:


> I think a lot of us understand the sentiment behind your suggestion Sdajii  …… but, and its a big but ….
> 
> The problems associated with not curtailing the rate of spread (had we gone down that path) are exponentially exacerbated by the likely outcomes.
> 
> ...




It's difficult to quantify these things, and this being the case we will likely have to disagree without being able to provide anything solid to back ourselves up.

I think it's fair to say that if medical professionals get sick they should get first priority access to medical care. The disease is mostly a problem for the elderly and most medical practitioners are not elderly.

Even if you want to flatten the curve, etc, medical practitioners are going to be constantly exposed to the virus through the entire course of events anyway. Social distancing and isolation etc works for regular people, but the sick ones in bad condition still go to the hospital, exposing medical staff. They are the ones who don't benefit from these measures anyway.

We have how many cases in Australia now? Bugger all, effectively. If we stop all social distancing, the virus will go through the community and run its course and we can get back to normal while living relatively normal lives in the meantime. As it is, social distancing and a shutdown of the economy will need to last indefinitely. It won't completely eliminate the virus, it will just keep it at a very low level. What's the long term plan then? To keep us in isolation without the ability to work, study, socialise, date, have normal hobbies and freedom of movement, for as long as it takes for a medical miracle which provides a silver bullet cure? It makes no sense. Even if it was just a tiny handful of cases in Australia, as soon as we went back to normal it would spread, so, either we go back to normal now or we continually destroy the economy, mental health, etc etc (worse than an unbridled wave of the virus IMO, and I think this will be overwhelmingly clear within a month or two) while merely delaying the inevitable anyway.

Look at the winners and losers of all this and ask yourself if there's a motive the winners may have for engineering this incredibly destructive situation, which really doesn't seem to be providing any benefits.


----------



## matty77 (1 April 2020)

Increasing the tax on the rich (and trying to make the rich poorer) to subsidize the less wealthy people is not the way to go. What you need to do is increase the wealth of the middle class and drag the poor up with the middle class. The super rich can stay super rich, who cares if the middle class and poor are also doing better?

I dont care about how much money or little tax these super rich people pay, what annoys me is the influence these people have over the politics of the country. The other thing that grinds me is companies that manage to push all profit overseas and out of Australia and avoid tax - these companies we need to sort out and make sure they are paying tax into Aus.

The Government is in a hard place at the moment, they have no choice but to run the country like a socialist government for the moment, albeit a temporary measure I am sure is the intention at this stage, but do you honestly think they will be willing to give up the power they have now obtained?

I can see it a mile away... $10k cash transactions already banned, in 12 months time it will be $5k, then in 2 years it will be $1k, then it will be banned completely due to "safety concerns cash spreading virus", electronic transactions only = government and big brother tracking you 24/7. Google, banks, facebook selling your data. I could go on but I will go down a long road......

Is this the start of UBI? The problem with UBI is it gives nobody an incentive to work hard or achieve, the problem with taxing the hell out of the super rich to pay for the poor is it gives no incentive to achieve and be rich in the first place. Also what do you do when the rich run out of money and you have nobody else left to tax?

Sounds like a Bernie Sanders run government to me...

We need to get back to basics in AUS, create or produce something, manufacture something we can sell to other countries, stop letting countries like China buy us out with printed money, stop giving away our dirt in the ground so cheap... but I fear its already too late.

Post Corona - we will ALL be far far worse off long term and we wont even know it.


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 April 2020)

Sdajii said:


> what was the worst case scenario of the virus itself (generally said to be a 3.4% death rate of those who get infected



That is the death rate if hospitals have capacity.

Let it rip uncontrolled, run out of capacity, then it ends up circa 10%. Hence Italy currently at 11.7% and Spain at 8.9%.

Then there's those who live but with lung damage. There doesn't seem to be a figure for that but it won't be zero.

I could be wrong but I do have serious doubts that Australians would accept circa 1 million deaths, and however many more in ongoing poor health for life, even if doing so did bring about whatever benefit in economic or practical terms. It's just too far against Australian culture to accept that.


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 April 2020)

matty77 said:


> We need to get back to basics in AUS, create or produce something, manufacture something we can sell to other countries, stop letting countries like China buy us out with printed money, stop giving away our dirt in the ground so cheap... but I fear its already too late.
> 
> Post Corona - we will ALL be far far worse off long term and we wont even know it.




I personally don't think it's past the point of no return but it's a given that we'll be poorer, the question being whether we've got enough about us to get on with rebuilding a sound economic base.


----------



## qldfrog (2 April 2020)

Sdajii said:


> It's difficult to quantify these things, and this being the case we will likely have to disagree without being able to provide anything solid to back ourselves up.
> 
> I think it's fair to say that if medical professionals get sick they should get first priority access to medical care. The disease is mostly a problem for the elderly and most medical practitioners are not elderly.
> 
> ...



@Sdajii in french hospitals, 33 pc of people in ICU are less than 60y old
Not just elderly or do you consider anyone above 40/50 useless to society
These die if the medical system collapses


----------



## jbocker (2 April 2020)

Sdajii said:


> Destroying the economy, causing millions of people to lose their jobs, businesses, hobbies, relationships, etc, forcing people to stay inside with people and causing a dramatic increase in domestic violence etc (even at the best of times domestic violence involves physical assault and murder, and this will dramatically increase it), massively increased rates of depression due to lack of vocation and socialisation, etc etc etc, is very clearly going to cause far more damage in terms of both death and suffering than the virus ever would, let alone the difference between whatever the virus would have caused and what it will cause with these draconian measures.
> 
> To look at the maximum possible benefit, we have to say what was the worst case scenario of the virus itself (generally said to be a 3.4% death rate of those who get infected, and obviously not everyone would get infected). We're not going to reduce the impact to a 0% infection rate or 0% fatality rate, so the damage mitigation of the virus is dramatically lower than that. The vast majority of people who would have been killed by the virus were elderly folks not long for this world anyway. Now, as it is, we're still going to have a percentage of people getting the virus including those elderly people etc. But, we are forcing literally everyone to suffer, most dramatically. Children, teenagers, young adults and every other demographic will be suffering from psychological depression, many from domestic violence, financial distress which will cause long term financial suffering, educational disruption, no doubt some of those elderly and other vulnerable folks have already died due to logistical difficulties, the economic destruction is going to cause hospitals etc to lose funding and become less effective (causing deaths from all causes, not just the virus)...
> 
> ...



Thanks Sadjii for clarifying. Just wondering what your view would be if for some reason 20-40 year olds were the greater % of deaths. Or if it were equally weighted across all the generations.
I appreciate that the measures are unprecedented but I would be surprised to think that there will be more deaths than the 10s of thousands we already lost to the virus. I trust that the human spirit will prevail, and if it don't then maybe we are gone regardless what measures are made.
I am sure we will develop a far better way to deal with this before the next time something like this happens, that wont be so draconian. In the meantime while we are in this fight we should do what we can to keep people in good spirit, ease their stresses. I am not denying we will have ongoing problems.


----------



## jbocker (2 April 2020)

qldfrog said:


> @Sdajii in french hospitals, 33 pc of people in ICU are less than 60y old
> Not just elderly or do you consider anyone above 40/50 useless to society
> These die if the medical system collapses



I hate to think they are useless to society. Maybe our future answer lies in Soylent Green. (a '70s movie that was set in *2022*) and maybe then many will become runners as in Logans run (A later '70s movie)


----------



## jbocker (2 April 2020)

jbocker said:


> I am not denying we will have ongoing problems



There is something that really is worrying me, far more than dying (I think). if it should happen to me in this environment, I will leave my loved ones in illness then probably never get to see or touch my wife the kids and grandies. Finally in your last days surrounded by medical people dressed in plastic bags. Your family are left without their goodbyes and attend a cold funeral without the presence and loving support of friends.
It is gut wrenching to think of this happening to younger casualties. What devastating effect is this on poor medical staff.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 April 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> That is the death rate if hospitals have capacity.
> 
> Let it rip uncontrolled, run out of capacity, then it ends up circa 10%. Hence Italy currently at 11.7% and Spain at 8.9%.
> 
> ...




I agree.

If the virus is allowed top run its course, the medical system will be overwhelmed. People who need medical treatment for other problems won't get it because all the beds will be serious covid patients.

It's just not in our psyche to deny people medical attention just because they are old, if people need urgent medical attention, they get it.

It's a tough time but as has been said before, it could well make us stronger in terms of what we can do for ourselves and a more realistic appraisal of our international relations.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 April 2020)

Sdajii said:


> What's the long term plan then?




The long term plan is to produce a vaccine and or other treatment to lessen the effects or reduce the spread.

So it may not happen for a while, but with the resources put in it's likely it will happen, maybe within a year.


----------



## qldfrog (2 April 2020)

Agree with you within year. Sadly not within 3 months


----------



## matty77 (2 April 2020)

It will be 12 to 18 months for a vaccine, and then it needs to be administered. There are still arguments on if you can catch it twice or not - so if we get a vaccine will it really work or is this going to be a seasonal death flu?

The medical system in Italy has been overwhelmed and they just cant keep up with the number of cases and also the medical staff are getting sick as proper protection was not done early enough. Also Italy Dr have confirmed they are having to choose who to save - elderly are not on that list and if its between an 80 year old that has a 50/50 chance to live with a miracle and a young person with 90/10 then are not treating the old person. Think about this.... its like a war time scenario...

You would never think that would happen in AUS but when you have no choice hard decisions need to be made lets hope it doesnt get to that here and we flatten the curve. We are doing better then Italy at this stage, but South Korea are doing even better...




s: https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/heal...irus-cases-rising-slower-than-europe-c-769440

I just hope "post corona" comes sooner rather then later.


----------



## barney (2 April 2020)

Sdajii said:


> we will likely have to disagree without being able to provide anything solid to back ourselves up.  It won't completely eliminate the virus, it will just keep it at a very low level.




I understand your sentiment … how long do we keep countries "shut".  Its a difficult question.

In the short term, finding out how much restriction is needed to keep the infection rates manageable is the priority in Aus.  (We don't want to risk turning into Italy (6-800 deaths per day for nearly two weeks … scary stats)

Once they have control of the rate of infection, I imagine the social belt will probably be loosened a bit and monitored to see the effect. (That would probably get a very mixed reaction in itself) However, as you say, we cant simply shut the country down for an extended period without some serious problems developing.  

Without medications to fight the V, we have to accept that it will continue to spread … Our only defence is trying to control how quick. 

The level of social restriction vs the manageable level of infection relative to the economic and social impact on communities is a tough balancing act.  As a community I think we have to accept that the number crunchers are making what are hopefully the right decisions as it all unfolds. ​


----------



## Bazzi (2 April 2020)

We hope this virus goes away the soonest. With the racked debt across multiple countries the obvious long term solution is recovering the money through higher taxes in different categories but curious on thoughts if with this debts are we going to enjoy more peaceful years ahead with no war between countries (to not rack more debt due to war cost) or this situation could fuel a war to recover money from somewhere?
I pray it is the rosy world for our future generation...


----------



## MovingAverage (2 April 2020)

Bazzi said:


> the obvious long term solution is recovering the money through higher taxes in different categories




The amount of money being pumped into global economies is absolutely staggering and of a scale never ever seen before. I just can't see how raising taxes will ever repay the debt in a palatable time frame--the sun will have burnt out by the time this debt is repaid. This is the level of debt that can only ever be payed over many many generations. The other big issue with raising tax (and I'm no economist) is that it is a double edge sword...raise taxes too high and you will absolutely hold back economic growth and make the country unattractive to foreign investment. You can't grow an economy by jacking up taxes. My predication on the tax issue (I know nothing so pay no attention to me) is that unless countries around the world all agree on a common "global" tax structure, you will get countries aggressively competing against each other to reduce their tax structures (corporate) to attract foreign investment and businesses. This has already occurred (Ireland in the 90s, Singapore and all of the remote islands we affectionately call tax havens) and I think it may occur post corona but at a level we haven't seen before. I doubt we will ever see countries agree on a global tax structure so I reckon we will see a lot of countries in a race to reduce their corporate tax rates for foreign countries.


----------



## matty77 (2 April 2020)

A silly question this might be, but why does the debt actually need to be paid back? And what happens if it isn't paid?


----------



## basilio (2 April 2020)

matty77 said:


> A silly question this might be, but why does the debt actually need to be paid back? And what happens if it isn't paid?




Not a silly question at all... The answers depend on who one speaks to and how the question is framed.

I'll throw my two cents in.
For the next 6-8 months many governments madly create credit to keep businesses alive, people in their homes, food on the table. These monies end up being in the trillions - say 25% of GDP.

So after 8 months every countries  Reserve bank has bought multi billion dollars of Government bonds. 
So I suggest they just write them off as bad debts or perhaps good debts...

*Coronavirus: RBA to buy government bonds to dodge recession*
The Reserve Bank made two extraordinary moves today, firing its last bullets in an attempt to pull our economy back from the brink of recession.
https://www.news.com.au/finance/eco...n/news-story/923705e7d0e691fc23c47bc45e5359fe


----------



## MovingAverage (2 April 2020)

basilio said:


> Not a silly question at all... The answers depend on who one speaks to and how the question is framed.
> 
> I'll throw my two cents in.
> For the next 6-8 months many governments madly create credit to keep businesses alive, people in their homes, food on the table. These monies end up being in the trillions - say 25% of GDP.
> ...



So who on earth will buy a government bond if you know it will never be repaid. Perhaps I’m over simplifying things, but would you by shares in a company if you know you could never ever sell them and that advertised dividends would never be paid. The current situation isn’t that different...what country or organisation would buy Aust government bonds if they knew they were never going to be repaid. Not repaying government bonds will have a major impact on our credit rating and that will have significant major street level consequences for all of us—I’m sure that will kickstart inflation as our dollar would really be worthless. Must admit I don’t fully understand how all this money is circulating the global but one thing I suspect is that the simplistic approach of just writing off debt will have major implications. We are indeed heading into extremely complex economic times.


----------



## MovingAverage (2 April 2020)

matty77 said:


> A silly question this might be, but why does the debt actually need to be paid back? And what happens if it isn't paid?



It’s not that different to your personal circumstances...what happens if you don’t pay your gas, electricity, mortgage, credit cards etc. you’ll get a pretty **** credit history and no one will lend you money or give you credit and if on the off chance someone is brave enough to loan you money or give you credit you’ll pay a hefty interest rate and you’ll have offer some serious security. It’s not that different for countries


----------



## basilio (2 April 2020)

So what happes if the Reserve Bank just buys Government Bonds  (as I suggested )  There are no private bond holders here.

I agree it is all very hard to work out.  Clearly it is much simpler to put a few million people out of work onto the streets and collapse the banking system into the process. 
Perhaps ?


----------



## MovingAverage (2 April 2020)

basilio said:


> So what happes if the Reserve Bank just buys Government Bonds  (as I suggested )  There are no private bond holders here.
> 
> I agree it is all very hard to work out.  Clearly it is much simpler to put a few million people out of work onto the streets and collapse the banking system into the process.
> Perhaps ?



Where does the reserve bank get the money from...does it literally fire up the money printing factories (that will fuel inflation and potentially devalue our dollar) or does it raise the money by selling government bonds—if so we better repay them otherwise no one will buy them? We are in unchartered waters that is for sure.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 April 2020)

matty77 said:


> A silly question this might be, but why does the debt actually need to be paid back? And what happens if it isn't paid?




It always amuses me (in a sarcastic sort of way), that when financial crises occur the Australian dollar plummets because people take money out of the Australian economy towards the "safer" waters of the US, a country which has a debt to GDP ratio of 105% , compared to Australia at 40%.

Of course these figures would be substantially changed now, but it looks like the US will never "repay" its debt, while Australia under Howard/Costello at least made an effort.


----------



## matty77 (2 April 2020)

While I agree Howard/Costello made an effort they did it by selling a lot of assets, short term gain for long term pain?

My question was more the scenario that, if you took Australia and the USA right now, you could pretty much say both counties will never repay debt, ever. But does this actually matter or is this just the new norm?


----------



## MovingAverage (2 April 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> a country which has a debt to GDP ratio of 105% , compared to Australia at 40%.




IMHO the debt to GDP ratio is not really an indicator of a country’s ability to pay down its debt. Not sure if it’s relevant, but just think about the mindset of those involved in the management of serious smart money/assets...they often take a very dim view of entities/companies (think countries) with low debt but good cash flow. Maybe that’s why in times of global economic uncertainty the money flows out of Oz and into the US. Just a thought.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 April 2020)

matty77 said:


> While I agree Howard/Costello made an effort they did it by selling a lot of assets, short term gain for long term pain?
> 
> My question was more the scenario that, if you took Australia and the USA right now, you could pretty much say both counties will never repay debt, ever. But does this actually matter or is this just the new norm?




Well, lenders have the choice not to lend to countries that can't or won't repay, but otherwise I doubt if bond holders are going to force countries into liquidation, at least not powerful countries.

So does it matter ? Yes and no.


----------



## matty77 (2 April 2020)

I love stupid questions and Im good at them.

So who are the lenders?


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 April 2020)

matty77 said:


> A silly question this might be, but why does the debt actually need to be paid back? And what happens if it isn't paid?



If you lend me money and I later inform you that I won't be repaying it, and this becomes known to effectively everyone, then what happens next time I want to borrow?

Another example is that the banks have a debt, your deposits, and should they decide that they won't be repaying this then I doubt you'd make any further deposits and nor would anyone else.

Etc.


----------



## sptrawler (2 April 2020)

matty77 said:


> While I agree Howard/Costello made an effort they did it by selling a lot of assets, short term gain for long term pain?
> 
> My question was more the scenario that, if you took Australia and the USA right now, you could pretty much say both counties will never repay debt, ever. But does this actually matter or is this just the new norm?



Not a silly question matty, from memory it happened in the late 60s early 70s, with the South American countries and brought about the 1970s Lima agreement.
Well worth a read.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 April 2020)

matty77 said:


> So who are the lenders?




Banks and other institutions , pension funds and Reserve banks of other countries that buy government bonds.


----------



## Sdajii (3 April 2020)

A lot of people quoted my post regarding the number of deaths and damaged caused vs. prevented. I can't quote all, so I'll respond in a post here.

Worst case scenario is supposedly about half the population gets it and about 10% of them die. I don't think it's that bad, but let's run with it.

Most of the deaths won't be people in their 40s and 50s. The majority will be people in their 70s and 80s, and the majority of the others will be people with HIV, cancer and other serious diseases (which generally/often would have killed them anyway), heavy smokers with seriously affected lungs, etc. Realistically (and this is a situation where we need to be realistic and pragmatic rather than idealistic and emotional), the virus wouldn't actually end that many years of life. If you're already old or if you're about to die of cancer, being killed doesn't deprive you of many years of life. If you commit suicide at 40 because you lost your business/job and can not support your family, it's a far worse tragedy than dying at 75. Worst case scenario with no measure taken is supposedly around 5% of the population dying and some other people having significant lung damage. I wouldn't for a moment suggest zero measures taken. I think good hygeine, no hand shakes, and all reasonable measures which don't affect the economy or mental health of the population should be taken. This surely would reduce the issue from worst case scenario at least a little bit.

Look at what we are doing now. We are not going to reduce the death rate from worst case scenario of 5% of the population (primarily the elderly and sick) down to zero. We are still going to have the virus go through old folks home etc, the most at risk will still be at risk anyway. We are mostly protecting the young and healthy, most of whom would just get something between zero symptoms and a nasty flu they'd recover from anyway (a nasty flu can give you scarring on the lungs too, it's not like the scaremongering media which makes you believe that you're going to completely struggling to breathe for the rest of your life is giving you the right idea. Most cases of lung scarring will be negligible, just like many people reading this now already have lung scarring from the flu and don't even notice and will never know unless they have a thorough medical investigation into their lung health).

What does utterly destruction of the economy cause? Even at the best of times we have domestic abuse including murder. Even at the best of times we have poverty causing crime including murder. Even at the best of times we have clinical depression, suicide and all manner of mental health issues due to loneliness. Add a huge amount of poverty to that mix, people forced to stay with their dysfunctional households unable for the woman to run off to stay at her friend's home and the man is unable to go have a beer with his mate or down at the pub to cool off. He can, however, drink at home. The destruction of mental health is going to be extreme because of this. These issues primarily affect younger people. I don't for a moment think that removing an elderly person's final year or two at a nursing home isn't tragic, but it doesn't compare to the death of someone in their 30s who leaves their family behind in a horrible, socially and economically dysfunctional world. Not to mention the fact that even the people who do manage to psychologically and financially cope through all of it are having their basic human rights removed. Our right to move about freely. Our right to socialise. Our right to have sex. Our right to sit down in a public park. We have had wars where young people in their prime willingly chose to sacrifice their lives for the sake of their community to have human rights and freedom.

...and what's the long term plan?



SirRumpole said:


> The long term plan is to produce a vaccine and or other treatment to lessen the effects or reduce the spread.
> 
> So it may not happen for a while, but with the resources put in it's likely it will happen, maybe within a year.




So, we are currently being told that we are going to remain in this insane way of life until a vaccine or other treatment comes along. *THERE HAS NEVER EVER BEEN A VACCINE OR TREATMENT EFFECTIVE AGAINST ANY CORONAVIRUS*

So we are going to sit around indefinitely, with all these problems, waiting for the medical equivalent of cold fusion or warp drive. We don't even know if it is theoretically possible for a vaccine to be effective against a coronavirus. Some viruses can not be prevented with a vaccine. Think about HIV - it is a virus which incredible research efforts have gone into, the HIV vaccine is like the holy grail or cold fusion of medicine, but it is probably never going to be possible. The common cold is a coronavirus, the world has worked on a vaccine for it for longer than I've been alive, again, they have failed, it simply may not be possible. If this was a task which was going to be possible within a fortnight or month, sure, okay, maybe it would be worthwhile, but this is something which is definitely not going to come soon and may never be possible at all. 

A year of living like this is definitely going to be far worse than 5% of the population being killed by a virus, and even after a year of living like this, a lot of that 5% is going to be dead anyway! And after a year... well, we probably still won't have a vaccine, and even if they do get a vaccine worth bothering to give people, you can guarantee that the vaccine is not going to be anywhere near 100% effective for a coronavirus, so a lot of the remainder of that 5% is still going to die (and we probably won't be able to create a usable vaccine anyway!). Our best bet of treating this virus is probably with antiviral drugs, and even they will presumably only be partially effective.

I don't know how obvious things need to get before people realise that the cure is far worse than the disease, but it's already very obvious to anyone of anything not too far below average intelligence who bothers to put some serious thought into it and not just blindly follow the official narrative.

Also if you can't see that every government has extreme propaganda machines working harder than ever before, you are utterly blind. I have been to Asia twice this year (and would have been back two weeks ago if not for the travel restrictions). I am still in contact every day with multiple people from many countries all over the world, especially Asia, and the propaganda narratives differ radically between them. It is so obvious that what's going on is not fundamentally stemming from the virus. The virus is being used as an excuse to enact these measures. Some governments (China probably being the best example) understand the situation, and others like Australia seem to be run by utter morons who are stupid enough to go along with the advice of the WHO, which is clearly in China's pocket and leading Australia up the garden path, but even countries like Australia are probably looking at this as an opportunity to expand on the nanny/police state model while they do what they are being told is essential.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 April 2020)

Sdajii said:


> *THERE HAS NEVER EVER BEEN A VACCINE OR TREATMENT EFFECTIVE AGAINST ANY CORONAVIRUS*




There was never a vaccine for smallpox untill one was found.

With the techniques available today the chances of finding a vaccine for covid are better than they ever have been.

Do you suggest we just lie back and die or let others die ?


----------



## satanoperca (3 April 2020)

*Wow, say it how it is, Sdajii.
*
_"this is a situation where we need to be realistic and pragmatic rather than idealistic and emotional"_

Agree, face the truth, rather than the idea of everything is going to be alright as the world is wrapped in cotton wool.

_"We are not going to reduce the death rate from worst case scenario of 5% of the population (primarily the elderly and sick) down to zero. We are still going to have the virus go through old folks home etc, the most at risk will still be at risk anyway."_

Don't use common sense, that is not how are populous works, and not our elected officials. We should be rather thinking everyone is going to be 100% okay, but life as we know it or have know it, doesn't matter as long as we keep everyone, and I mean everyone, the healthy, the sick and the elderly alive at any cost, everything will turn again into sunshine and lollipops. (sarc)

*F---k that*, let it rip, the *strong will survive*, the only constant that has been with all living entities throughout the dawn of time.

_"cure is far worse than the disease" _these dumb witted govnuts have taken the only civil liberty I care about, to go fishing, spear fishing and to swim in the ocean. F---k them, lock me and my son up, we will continue to do one basic activity that we like.

_"nanny/police state model while they do what they are being told is essential."
_
The strong will survive and revolt against the week, we are not China, we are Australians, time to stand up for our rights and civil liberties.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 April 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> There was never a vaccine for smallpox untill one was found.
> 
> With the techniques available today the chances of finding a vaccine for covid are better than they ever have been.
> 
> Do you suggest we just lie back and die or let others die ?




Once you start making judgements about who should live or die based on your perception of their value to society you are on a slippery slope. Every retired person would be for the chopping block because they are a drag on society because they don't produce anything.

Are you prepared to top yourself when you get to 65 ?


----------



## SirRumpole (3 April 2020)

Sdajii said:


> but even countries like Australia are probably looking at this as an opportunity to expand on the nanny/police state model while they do what they are being told is essential.




There is just no political capital in creating a police state in a country like Australia simply because of the resentment it causes.

No politician in hi/her right mind would do it if they didn't have to . Governments want people happy not resentful.


----------



## Knobby22 (3 April 2020)

You are just believing the excuses for the USA stuffing up and losing 2 million citizen, Sdajii.

Quoting Oscar Wilde

_He knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing._


----------



## satanoperca (3 April 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> There is just no political capital in creating a police state in a country like Australia simply because of the resentment it causes.
> 
> No politician in hi/her right mind would do it if they didn't have to . Governments want people happy not resentful.



Remove the cotton wool from around your body, you live in a false world.


----------



## basilio (3 April 2020)

There is nothing new about Survival of the Strongest.
It was the siren call of the Conquerors  in whichever time they roamed. Might is Right. The weak are too weak to survive and pity is wasted on them. The strong  need to survive.

Darwinism brought it to the 19th Century.  Eugenics was the call sign of  people who believed the weak and feebleminded shouldn't be allowed to procreate.

Nazism decided that for the good of the Fatherland  the sick, old, infirm and feebleminded should be eliminated.  Along of course with the usual range of Enemies of the People.

Old ideas  New times.


----------



## qldfrog (3 April 2020)

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/na...worst-option-on-covid-19-20200403-p54gq8.html
a summary probably right of the options, as for vaccine, do not dream, as I said before, AIDS has killed millions and 40y later, we still are no where near a vaccine.
at best we will have a flu like vaccine which will try to hit a moving target, 30 to 50% efficiency, required yearly, we will not be able I am afraid, to stop the initial wipe out.
But we can lessen casualties with treatment: anti malarial product seems quite efficient indeed, and capacity in the hospital system to provide respirators and care when needed

There is a difficult choice ahead, not facilitated in a strange and vicious way, by the fact that the death rate here in Australia is well below the overseas one, without any real understanding of why....
Japan has half the case, double the casualties..age etc smoking etc, that does not explain the lot
So Scomo has a better casualty figure but a lose lose situation, we have not flatten the curve, we just grind it to a slow pace , so while we could treat thousands more, the beds are empty..great BUT
*Relax too quickly, we could be swamped and the initial lock down would have been useless..yet costly in both $ and society strains
*Keep locked and we could have just a few cases popping up here and there but the economy is f***ed and we can not reopen at all maybe even EVER without being decimated
I would not like to be in his shoes


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 April 2020)

basilio said:


> There is nothing new about Survival of the Strongest.




A specific issue in this case which is not applicable to most circumstances is that intelligence plays no known role in survival if someone becomes infected. It's unlike most other forms of danger where a smart person would seek to avoid the hazard or out maneuver it, that doesn't work when you can't see or even hear the threat.

A survival of the fittest approach would favour those physically strongest and in the best health but not necessarily those most useful to society or strongest in any way other than physically, and even there it's a narrow definition of physical health.


----------



## barney (3 April 2020)

Sdajii said:


> Worst case scenario is supposedly about half the population gets it and about 10% of them die. I don't think it's that bad, but let's run with it.




@Sdajii  ….. I gave your post a "like" because you have obviously put a lot of thought into the ramifications of this whole scenario on a 'wider level', and I respect that.

You are obviously a lot younger than I am but I suspect not 'young' young (ie. I would imagine by your comments you are likely between 25- 35 years old (ish)?.  That is in no way a judgement as I have a Son in that age range  ... and I like him

As I said earlier, I totally understand your comments and stance on the possible way to deal with this awful scenario … but in all respect (based on my Son's similar reactions), that we average punters likely have no real concept of the possible effects on Society, if we simply let the "strong survive". 

The strong surviving is an archaic from of human existence … 'Survival of the fittest' does not give credence to the importance of intellect in modern society.

Letting the weak die first (even on a small and possibly un-noticed scale) goes against the fabric of a modern and caring society, and could regress to a dog eat dog mentality very quickly. 

As a society, I think our decisions should be more concerned about how they will affect our children/future generations.  There is no question that letting the V run would certainly weed out the weak, but the social impacts of going down that track may well turn out to be far worse than the short term financial impacts turn out to be. 
Cheers.


----------



## Sdajii (4 April 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> There was never a vaccine for smallpox untill one was found.
> 
> With the techniques available today the chances of finding a vaccine for covid are better than they ever have been.
> 
> Do you suggest we just lie back and die or let others die ?




A smallpox vaccine actually did exist before humans did. The first vaccine which protected humans from smallpox was cowpox, a naturally occurring virus which affects cows. The term 'pretty as a milkmaid' comes from milkmaids being exposed to cows thus contracting the mild disease cowpox which protected them from smallpox (smallpox leaves survivors with disfiguring scars).

Smallpox was one of the first vaccines ever to be made. Smallpox is a terrible disease but very simple to make a vaccine for (so easy that a natural one already existed). We were using this one when such technology was in its utter infancy. Today, medical and genetics technology is far, far ahead, yet despite this and despite huge resources going into an attempt at developing them, some viruses can't possibly have vaccines (HIV is likely an example - huge resources have gone into attempting it for almost more than half of my lifetime and will probably never be successful). It's a similar situation with coronaviruses. It's all well and good to say that everything isn't invented until it's invented, so have faith that it will be invented, but this is something (a coronavirus vaccine) which has already had a huge amount of resources poured into it and quite likely is literally impossible. It is very unlikely to have a high level of effectiveness (even the flu vaccine is only around 75% effective, and that's after decades of it being used, tested, adjusted, improved, etc). Even if it is theoretically possible to have a vaccine which works anywhere near that well, it is unlikely we'll have it within years, and the world can't exist like this for years.

No, I'm not suggesting the world lays back while people die. That's what you are advocating! The cure is worse than the disease. It will kill more people than the disease. Destroying the economy, enforcing restrictions which will be disastrous for mental health, removing human rights and other terrible measures will cause more deaths and more suffering. 'Laying back and doing nothing' (staying at home and watching Netflix) is going to literally kill many people. And frankly, even if the number of deaths was going to be equal, I would rather see people with freedom die from a disease than imprisoned people dying due to government-imposed restrictions.


----------



## Sdajii (4 April 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> There is just no political capital in creating a police state in a country like Australia simply because of the resentment it causes.
> 
> No politician in hi/her right mind would do it if they didn't have to . Governments want people happy not resentful.




Maybe you fell into a coma in the 1950s and just woke up yesterday and haven't checked the news.

*Australians are literally embracing the nanny/police state*

*Australians are now literally begging for human rights and freedom to be taken away*

The propaganda efforts have been so successful that a large proportion of the Australian population literally wants more legal restriction on their rights.


----------



## Sdajii (4 April 2020)

barney said:


> @Sdajii  ….. I gave your post a "like" because you have obviously put a lot of thought into the ramifications of this whole scenario on a 'wider level', and I respect that.
> 
> You are obviously a lot younger than I am but I suspect not 'young' young (ie. I would imagine by your comments you are likely between 25- 35 years old (ish)?.  That is in no way a judgement as I have a Son in that age range  ... and I like him
> 
> ...




Your condescending tone has hopefully increased with age; I'd hate to think you were this arrogant during your entire life. I'd also hope that when younger you weren't so prone to missing the point before deciding to smugly respond.

I'm not advocating any strategy which increases the number of human deaths. I'm not advocating a cull, passive or by design. I never said anything of the sort. We can go about our lives and have the virus kill some people, or we can choose to enforce rules which will cause a greater number of total deaths. You are advocating a course of action which will cause deaths and suffering due to the choice of humans. I am advocating a course of action which will cause our civilisation to continue as best it can, with fewer deaths, and a greater proportion of those fewer deaths being caused by a disease we had no say in rather than choices that we make or accept.

Absobloodylutely, our decisions should consider our children/future generations. We are going to have a generation of people who watched the economy destroyed, businesses fail, unemployment skyrocket, socialisation literally banned and all these things causing depression to soar and mental health with permanent effect soar. Isolation is one of the worst forms of human torture. The disease only affects us physically, but taking away peoples' jobs, businesses, interpersonal relationships, their freedom to literally move about, that is deleterious to their minds, and it is being inflicted by a government claiming to be helping them, and a community fooled by the propaganda. If I am to be harmed I would rather be harmed by something we all consider to be an enemy while we are still allowed to actively help each other as a community, not by a government claiming to care about me and a community which thinks that we need to be locked away from each other in isolation without the freedom to pursue goals. Not to mention the fact that giving the government unprecedented control over us including the ability to remove our right to do things as basic as going on a date or visiting a friend or sitting in a park will no doubt lead to tighter controls after the virus is gone. Or, if the virus can't be eliminated, this will all have been for nothing anyway.


----------



## jbocker (4 April 2020)

@Sdajii I sense that you believe this pandemic is being used as an excuse to create a nanny state. Could you suggest by whom? As I see it vast majority of politicians seem to be singing from the same song sheet.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 April 2020)

By the way Sdajii, is not just old people dying from covid, there was a 19 year old girl in Britain, and several working doctors in a number of countries have died from it.

I'd be careful if I were you.


----------



## macca (4 April 2020)

There was a time that I was of the "tough it out" view but the vital part of that is to minimise the spread of the virus.

The country that has done the best is Taiwan, they are used to these virus' that mysteriously keep arriving from nearby countries

They notified WHO of the virus months before WHO admitted it existed and was dangerous

Taiwan immediately mandated face masks for everyone when in public, free temperature checks and if you are hot then you have to go home and stay there.

WHO is still telling people not to wear face masks, why not ?  WHO also says that the disease is spread through exhalation of moisture in our breath, I find it very suss , spread by breath, don't mask up to stop it ?

Obviously, the Western world cannot continue like it is now, if we do then the richest country in the world will gleefully buy up distressed assets like a vulture.

We need to question just why WHO does not want us to limit the transmission of this virus. 

To me it is a no brainer, the Govt has ordered a lot of limitations on us, both business and socially, many people would gladly accept wearing a mask in public in exchange for a more normal life.

That is what Taiwan did from the start, they are coping better than anywhere, must be a message there somewhere


----------



## macca (4 April 2020)

macca said:


> There was a time that I was of the "tough it out" view but the vital part of that is to minimise the spread of the virus.
> 
> The country that has done the best is Taiwan, they are used to these virus' that mysteriously keep arriving from nearby countries
> 
> ...




Further to this as of yesterday Taiwan is still open for business, a clip from online

<<So this is a case of, during special times, the government started to manage the capacity of critical supplies for people who are fighting in the frontlines. And I think this is very important. I think it’s because of experience. They experienced SARS, so they know that there’s going to be a shortage of PPEs very soon, and people are going to start hoarding masks. So, right now if you are in Taiwan, you could take your National Health Insurance card, and you could get masks. You could get 10 masks per week. So normal citizens could get 10 masks per week. So you could still go to school. You could go to work. You could take the Metro. And you can’t hoard masks, because you have to use your insurance card to get them

Sorry, I cannot get the link to work

But we can still do this, we are making millions of them now, issue the masks, make them mandatory in public for Everyone, it has been proven to slow the spread.

Once under control, we can go back to work still wearing masks as a first step, then build on that


----------



## Some Guy (4 April 2020)

I think the following main things could happen:

We go more socialist in the next election, I think labor will actually win this time and update it's polices to be more socialist in general. I'm not saying doomsday everything going communist level.

There will be tax adjustments due to both increased national debt and demand for greater subsidised services. If I had to take a gamble I don't think they'd up our already high base tax rate. They'd probably implement some of the following: Other countries charge a tourist tax, why not us?, tax loop holes such as negative gearing & franking credit rebates, taxing homes vacant for long periods of time etc.


The government may use this pandemic as a post COVID-19 scare campaign against physical cash. The amount of cash we can physically withdraw and the amount of cash we can pay for a job, item or service may be lowered more than it already is. Like certain other countries we may start seeing more cash only stores and bank branches trialing out being cash free. This would mean less cash jobs and more tax paid by default, certain things may or may not increase in price because of this. I say this as some who rarely uses physical cash. 


I think people will become greatly reliant on free childcare for the following reasons:
Free child care is a great way to close the gender pay gap and get more women into work in any field both in the long term and short term. Women tend to either take part time jobs, compromise career drive or leave the workforce for the short or long term due to kids. Free child care helps fix this to an extent. It does this without imposing quotas which can encourage unqualified token hires and sometimes loosening key entry requirements to get more women in.   

I strongly believe that this is one of the most dignified ways to help fix the gender pay gap and will prove it's self as been capable of doing this during the COVID-19 Pandemic, It also benefits a lot of society and doesn't just single out women.

People will become reliant on it, the whole getting a costumed to a certain standard of living phenomenon.


The economy and peoples jobs and past incomes are not gong to just come back because COVID-19 has been dealt with.

There will be to many benefits to having free child care, all families can earn more if it's feasible for both to work full time and have free childcare for the kids which doesn't eat up most of a modest wage etc.


----------



## barney (4 April 2020)

Sdajii said:


> Your condescending tone has hopefully increased with age; I'd hate to think you were this arrogant during your entire life. I'd also hope that when younger you weren't so prone to missing the point before deciding to smugly respond.




Geez @Sdajii  I am seriously a bit shaken after reading your post .... no joke!  After your comments, I went and re-read my post a couple of times to see how it was interpreted differently to how it was intended.  

Given all the recent posts and tone of the thread over the last couple of days, I can see how my words could have been interpreted incorrectly, particularly if read from a different perspective. That interpretation was 100% not intended I can assure you, and I apologise unequivocally that it came across that way. The thought of appearing condescending, arrogant or smug makes me feel very disappointed as I am none of those. I will endeavour to write my posts clearer in future.  

If I could rewind a bit and try and clarify what I was saying above ... hopefully I can word it better this time.

Firstly, I "liked" your previous post …. As I said earlier, I understand your points and actually agree with the essence of your view re not shutting the country down for an extended period … finding the right balance between amount of lock-down vs amount of infections is a tough job of course.

The reference to you being younger (like my Son) was not meant to condescending.  It was more of an observation when you mentioned "having sex" ….. I thought, "he must be young cause I don't get to put that near the top of my list anymore!"  … I tried to imply humour with the 2 Smilies to ensure it was taken the right way. 

My Son and I have had discussions over the effects of the V both economically and socially. His views are similar to yours … Initially his views were a little more radical in suggesting just let the V run its course etc etc.  I think most people agree that, that would be a recipe for global disaster.

I appreciate you are advocating sensible health and work practices, … but with the knowledge that there will likely be more virus related fatalities if we do 'relax' the social restrictions.  Given we don't and won't have a vaccine for some time yet, how much social restriction that should be in place is an unknown quantity … but I do agree that the social impacts of long term shut down may have other dire consequences for many.  Again, its a difficult balancing act.

My reference to "survival of the fittest" was not directed at your views personally. (More related to my Son's earlier thoughts, and a few others, who still suggest that we should 'let the V run'. (I didn't explain that in my earlier post which is one reason why the post was not as clear as it should have been.  My error, and apologies. 

Hopefully the above is more representative of my thoughts etc.  Cheers.


----------



## qldfrog (4 April 2020)

Some Guy said:


> I think the following main things could happen:
> 
> We go more socialist in the next election, I think labor will actually win this time and update it's polices to be more socialist in general. I'm not saying doomsday everything going communist level.
> 
> ...



I genuinely believe free childcare will not be that important as there will be no jobs.....


----------



## barney (4 April 2020)

macca said:


> Once under control, we can go back to work still wearing masks as a first step, then build on that




Just on that point Macca .... (probably shouldnt be posting this but what the hell)

I know of someone who works in a high risk area (virus cases are involved)  They were told by their superior ... you don't need to wear a mask .... Supplies are short and we need to save them for "more at risk" staff 

Hopefully "supplies" are improving because if at risk staff are being rationed, its not a great senario for the wider community.


----------



## Some Guy (4 April 2020)

qldfrog said:


> I genuinely believe free childcare will not be that important as there will be no jobs.....



At first but there is a long term and we will eventually recover. Also eliminating free child care could cut further jobs whilst the economy is recovering. This could look bad for the politicians, although I would't put it passed them.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 April 2020)

Some Guy said:


> The economy and peoples jobs and past incomes are not gong to just come back because COVID-19 has been dealt with



The details are far from certain but this basic concept seems a given in my view.

This is not like a blackout, once the power’s back on everything’s back to normal. It’s more like an earthquake, it’ll be a slow return and it’s going to take a very long time cleaning up and rebuilding.


----------



## satanoperca (4 April 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> By the way Sdajii, is not just old people dying from covid, there was a 19 year old girl in Britain, and several working doctors in a number of countries have died from it.
> 
> I'd be careful if I were you.




You sound like the media, that is not a stat worth evening mentioning. Big whoopty. 

How many people under the age of 20 in Australia die every year?

Actually how many people under the age of 20 die in the world population every year?

Give you a hint it is greater than 10,000


----------



## macca (4 April 2020)

barney said:


> Just on that point Macca .... (probably shouldnt be posting this but what the hell)
> 
> I know of someone who works in a high risk area (virus cases are involved)  They were told by their superior ... you don't need to wear a mask .... Supplies are short and we need to save them for "more at risk" staff
> 
> Hopefully "supplies" are improving because if at risk staff are being rationed, its not a great senario for the wider community.




Hi Barney,

The masks in question are simple cloth masks designed to be used then discarded, they get 10 free ones each week, the aim is to stop the flow of air when we exhale from carrying the virus to the next person.

They are not the medical ones needed for close work by medical staff, I agree that they need to be reserved for anyone doing close up work


----------



## matty77 (4 April 2020)

I can only assume when this mess starts to come to an end they will ease up on restrictions, stage 4 back to 3 and so on. I think this will be done state by state, no doubt VIC/NSW/QLD will be in pain the longest.

Then I can see certain social distancing staying in for a long time, 12 months or longer, also anybody traveling into Australia will need to go through extensive testing, even traveling interstate will be the same.

Possibly we could see restrictions even down to a local level or suburb if there is an outbreak.

Its just a matter of holding out for a vaccine and then we should be right, but nothing will be anywhere near close to normal until that happens I think.


----------



## Sdajii (4 April 2020)

jbocker said:


> @Sdajii I sense that you believe this pandemic is being used as an excuse to create a nanny state. Could you suggest by whom? As I see it vast majority of politicians seem to be singing from the same song sheet.




I think the powers that be would always like more power and will opportunistically take any opportunity to gain more and this one presents itself as an opportunity. I think this is obvious, and doesn't really require much comment, surely? As for the public, I am surprised and honestly disgusted at the extent to which Australians, particularly in Melbourne and Sydney, are so desperate for our rights to be taken away.


----------



## qldfrog (4 April 2020)

matty77 said:


> I can only assume when this mess starts to come to an end they will ease up on restrictions, stage 4 back to 3 and so on. I think this will be done state by state, no doubt VIC/NSW/QLD will be in pain the longest.
> 
> Then I can see certain social distancing staying in for a long time, 12 months or longer, also anybody traveling into Australia will need to go through extensive testing, even traveling interstate will be the same.
> 
> ...



Please please please, could everyone stops assuming a vaccine ..a working one..will ever exist?
It is NOT a given,we are not even sure we can not be infected twice, that would mean no vaccine..ever
Would be nice BUT...


----------



## Sdajii (4 April 2020)

matty77 said:


> I can only assume when this mess starts to come to an end they will ease up on restrictions, stage 4 back to 3 and so on. I think this will be done state by state, no doubt VIC/NSW/QLD will be in pain the longest.
> 
> Then I can see certain social distancing staying in for a long time, 12 months or longer, also anybody traveling into Australia will need to go through extensive testing, even traveling interstate will be the same.
> 
> ...




Everyone is talking about a vaccine as though it is a given that it will happen. A vaccine for a cononavirus has never been made. It has been attempted for decades but never accomplished. We can make a vaccine for some herpesviruses (such as chickenpox) with no trouble. We can't make a vaccine for other herpesviruses (such as Herpes simplex/coldsores or Herpes complex/genital herpes - it seems effectively impossible, it has been attempted by labs all over the world but there has never been a vaccine or cure). There are viruses like HIV which have had incredible amounts of research go into, and it is highly unlikely we'll ever get a vaccine. Human coronaviruses have been causing sickness in humans since before the advent of medical science, and it is in one of the categories for which there has never, ever been any vaccine worth using for any of them. If we are holding out for a vaccine for Mr. Corona COVID-19 China Wuhan Deathlab Virus, we are not holding out for something tangibly achievable, we are hanging out for one of the greatest ever medical miracles of medical science, which may be literally impossible. This isn't another strain of flu, and even flu vaccines, which are for flu, a totally different category of virus which is far, far easier to treat with a vaccine and vaccines are still not very effective.

It is insane to hold the country (or any other country) in this state waiting for such a thing.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 April 2020)

Sdajii said:


> I am surprised and honestly disgusted at the extent to which Australians, particularly in Melbourne and Sydney, are so desperate for our rights to be taken away.



I'm not seeing anything to suggest that people are keen to have their rights taken away.

It's COVID-19 they want taken away not the kids playground, the tourism and hospitality industries or their job. That said, they want COVID-19 gone without killing random people all over the place in order to do it.

Thus far, the death toll globally is equivalent to having crashed over three hundred fully occupied Boeing 737-800's straight into a mountain killing all passengers and crew. If anything like that happened with aircraft then nobody would think twice about grounding the entire fleet indeed it only took two fatal crashes to actually ground the 737-MAX fleet globally. 

Let it spread uncontained and it's entirely plausible that the death toll ends up substantially larger than World War 1 and 2 combined. That wouldn't be good.....


----------



## Sdajii (5 April 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> By the way Sdajii, is not just old people dying from covid, there was a 19 year old girl in Britain, and several working doctors in a number of countries have died from it.
> 
> I'd be careful if I were you.




You say this like I don't know.

If I point out a single suicide due to losing a job or business due to the lockdowns as though you are unaware they are occurring (though not being reported by the mediaas suicides almost never are), does that totally disprove your argument? Obviously not, which is why I'm not doing it.

Cherry picking individual cases is not relevant. If we were to do such a stupid thing we would be calling to ban motor vehicles, showers, eating with cutlery, having pet cats and growing rosebushes.

The relevant thing, which you seem to be missing, is that *more people* are going to die and be harmed by going down the path we are going than if we did nothing. I'm not at all suggesting we do nothing, I'm suggesting we go to the greatest extent possible without actively destroying people's lives.

I've personally already had multiple friends lose families, businesses (I've personally lost mine, I'm wiped out, it has destroyed everything I spent the last 3 years working on and will prevent me from living where I wanted to live, with the people I wanted to live with, my pets are dying slow horrible deaths and I'm prevented from being able to deal with that personally, when I last saw them I assumed I'd be back shortly. I have friends and loved ones I did not say goodbye to and I will be unable to see indefinitely, and some I will probably never see again, my life has gone from fantastic to a living nightmare and I friends in worse situations than mine, all absolutely caused by these measures and not the virus itself). My own personal situation is not relevant, there will always be individuals doing well and poorly, but it's now overwhelmingly obvious that more harm is being caused by these measures than prevented.

When someone loses their business, especially if they were at an early stage where they were in debt as many businesses are early on (thankfully I've only been wiped to zero, I have no debt), they can no longer care for their family. Their employees lose their ability to care for their families. Those people are no longer spending money which means they are not supporting other businesses. Even people who still have money become reluctant to spend. The contagion (economic, I'm not talking about the virus) is going to be huge. The virus is not going to eliminated by this anyway, only part of the damage caused by the virus will be mitigated. It is not a difference between no virus damage and 5% of the world's population dying (worse case estimate which is probably much higher than we'd see anyway). I have many friends in Asia who have lost their jobs or their family breadwinner has lost theirs, I've had many begging me to come and save them or help them to come to Australia so they can be safe, which of course I can't do. Many of them were already on the poverty line before this. Not to mention the change in attitude. Due to government scare propaganda designed to encourage people to comply with these ridiculous draconian measures, people are viciously blaming innocent fellow human beings. I've been in perfect health since before the patient zero got the virus, but while in Asia (I left in late February) I had people horribly verbally abusing me while walking down the street in neighbourhoods where previously everyone knew me and had always been lovely and friendly. In Australia you just need to jump on social media or to talk to people to see plenty of hatred towards people who express that they would like to visit a friend, go to a park, go to work or buy something. This isn't the attitude we should have towards fellow human beings who want to do the most basic things humans need to be happy and functional. Suicides have already started, lives have already been ruined, and we're still planting the seeds of a forest which is going to be growing for a long time.

But hey, one 19 year old died. I had absolutely no idea this virus had killed anyone, thanks for the heads up.


----------



## Sdajii (5 April 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'm not seeing anything to suggest that people are keen to have their rights taken away.
> 
> It's COVID-19 they want taken away not the kids playground, the tourism and hospitality industries or their job. That said, they want COVID-19 gone without killing random people all over the place in order to do it.
> 
> ...




Jump on social media and you'll see plenty of people furiously, often very angrily calling for our rights of privacy and movement to be taken away. It's littered all over social media.

To say it's the equivalent of aeroplanes flying into mountains is simply an emotional way of putting it. Obviously those deaths are tragic, I am in no way wanting to play them down. I am not denying they exist. The death and suffering caused by the cure (which isn't even a cure) are worse. If I was to play similar emotional games to highlight the death and suffering caused by the choices our governments are making it would be similarly horrific and similarly invalid as an argument.

Obviously if actual planes were flying into mountains we would ground them. This would be because it would directly stop those lives being lost and cause few if other deaths. It would be quick and exact to put into place, it would not cause horrific death and suffering of its own, it would not have long term effects. That's why we would not think anything of doing it and why I would fully agree with the decision.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 April 2020)

Sdajii said:


> The death and suffering caused by the cure (which isn't even a cure)




It may not be an actual cure but new cases diagnosed in Australia on 3 April were 76% down on the peak recorded on 22 March.

Assuming the data's accurate, that would seem to be an improvement.


----------



## Sdajii (5 April 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> It may not be an actual cure but new cases diagnosed in Australia on 3 April were 76% down on the peak recorded on 22 March.
> 
> Assuming the data's accurate, that would seem to be an improvement.




Sure, I'm not saying there will be zero mitigation of the problem. Obviously if you shut down the whole system you're going to have an effect on the spread of the virus. That's great. I've never ever said that won't happen. Again, this is like me pointing out the increase in domestic violence, suicide, business failures and saying "Assuming the data is correct, that would seem to be a problem"

I am saying the problems caused will be worse than the problems prevented, not that no problems will be prevented.

Keep in mind also, that even the 'flatten the curve' concept does not claim to significantly reduce the number of people who will eventually get the virus, it seeks to stagger them out over time. Yes, that's a good thing, I understand that and you don't need to explain it to me like you felt the need to explain that diagnosed cases are down as though I didn't already know, but it means the benefit is not as good as you are suggesting. If it needs saying, yes, people who get it later rather than now will be more likely to get hospital treatment, and yes, that's good. You don't seem to want to acknowledge my point though, which is that we are actively causing a massive problem which we didn't have to. That problem has only just started and is definitely going to get worse. I have friends who have had their families broken up (both due to travel restrictions and due to domestic violence) and in the usually quiet neighbourhood I'm currently trapped in I have been hearing an increased number of arguments from nearby homes. Usually I wouldn't hear any.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 April 2020)

Sdajii said:


> You don't seem to want to acknowledge my point though, which is that we are actively causing a massive problem which we didn't have to. That problem has only just started and is definitely going to get worse. I have friends who have had their families broken up (both due to travel restrictions and due to domestic violence) and in the usually quiet neighbourhood I'm currently trapped in I have been hearing an increased number of arguments from nearby homes.




There was a point where we didn't have to, agreed there, but we let that slip away. It was an option then, once China locked down Wuhan we should have taken aggressive action there and then. We failed to do so, that option is now gone.

On the issue of violence etc I don't disagree, it's likely going to result in significant harm, but I'll argue that someone being locked down with their partner, kids or whoever does not _cause _them to become violent. If it comes to that point then there's more to it than just the virus situation. I agree it will cause a rise in problems but realistically it's likely to be bringing them forward far more than it's actually causing them. If a relationship falls apart or turns to violence because of an external situation then it wasn't too sound to start with.


----------



## qldfrog (5 April 2020)

@Sdajii  first sorry to hear about your personal position.i get your feelings,  i will most probably never ever see any of my Chinese colleagues,friends again
As explained in the past, i am part of a start-up 8n Shenzhen mainland China.Income this financial year: 0,, future...probably company bankrupted
Own finances: i saw this coming..due to the Chinese link so i am back to 01/07/2019.great but. Unable to sell investment industrial property or find a tenant, airbnb with no income anymore and my ppor for sale currently will be hit
Just the RE part of it, i assume a minimum 20pc hit so: Easiiy 10 to 15pc of our whole life saving in smoke with no time to rebuild
I am angry against the initial absence of proper reaction but done is done, I'm also angry against corrupt organisation like WHO, the way the EU so blatantly reveal its disdain of its own citizen with countries left to fight on their own.
UK is lucky
Here overall compared to the rest of the west we did not too badly but what is coming will stun Australia in term of economic hit.many still in denial
*But i see this crisis as exposing what was there already*
An economy and financial world  which was sick already: domestic violence appearing now, mental issues,suicides which are pushed and triggered all in one go.
A big wash 
Many many innocent bystanders wiped too.
The real issue is how to quickly restart..when i saw that we still have recommendation against the use of mask, i am doubtful of any great story here , and the fact after more than a month, we still have no mask making factory restarted here


----------



## SirRumpole (5 April 2020)

Sdajii said:


> Suicides have already started, lives have already been ruined, and we're still planting the seeds of a forest which is going to be growing for a long time.




Large amounts of money have been set aside for mental health programs and for helping people cope with isolation.

Maybe this situation is also a "test of strength" which you seem to advocate. There is physical strength and there is mental strength. They are both equally important imv. In these situations those with mental strength do what they can to help others in the same situation. That's how societies show what they are made of. You don't throw people on the scrapheap for physical 'weakness'. As others said before, mental capability is just as important.

Coming through adversity makes people and societies stronger, improves their capabilities and resolve, forces them to do things that they haven't done before and find ways around it. Ignoring adversity does none of these things it just makes people lazy and complacent.

Of course we all wish this virus never happened, but just maybe it will make us think about our own place in the world and why we shouldn't rely on others for some of our basic needs.


----------



## qldfrog (5 April 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> it will make us think about our own place in the world and why we shouldn't rely on others for some of our basic needs.



Fully agree, but obviously if it applies to nation, you also agree it applies to individuals?
I was initially puzzled to read this from you @SirRumpole  as i read it that second way 

The universal way it goes in the west is quite puzzling. 
would it be too far to go to conspiracy theories and think the West is actually creating purposely a government recession?
.is that what had to be done to create inflation after 13 y of failing to do so?and reset the system?
Or is it the master plan revenge from China?


----------



## SirRumpole (5 April 2020)

qldfrog said:


> Fully agree, but obviously if it applies to nation, you also agree it applies to individuals?
> I was initially puzzled to read this from you @SirRumpole  as i read it that second way
> 
> The universal way it goes in the west is quite puzzling.
> ...




I think it may be used by some to push for "world government" and "common currency" both socialist type systems which undermine national interests. I hope we and other western democracies don't fall for that, because it will be dominated by countries that don't have our values.

As for western governments deliberately creating the situation, they would have rocks in their heads if that was the case, too politically and economically risky so no way imv. As for a master plan by China, they will take advantage of the situation for sure, but I don't believe they deliberately engineered it.

I would say individual self reliance is good as far as it goes, but really can households produce all the food they need from a window box or in their back garden ? We need to rely on the food production and distribution systems and that means reliance on other people. So self reliance is probably better carried out on a national scale.


----------



## basilio (5 April 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> I would say individual self reliance is good as far as it goes, but really can households produce all the food they need from a window box or in their back garden ? We need to rely on the food production and distribution systems and that means reliance on other people. So self reliance is probably better carried out on a national scale.




Perhaps on a more local level ? The conversation about what world we re construct when  ( if..  ) we get out of this mess has started. I suggest elements of simplicity, local self reliance  and greater national self reliance will be high on the agenda.

The current economic  model is  about creating endless increasing demand for product, finding the cheapest way of making it and  then selling it to make the highest profit. It also ignores all externalities ( pollution, health risks, sovereign risks) and takes no responsibility for anything that can go wrong ie another epidemic. I don't believe it can stand up to the post COVID 19 reality.


----------



## qldfrog (5 April 2020)

basilio said:


> Perhaps on a more local level ? The conversation about what world we re construct when  ( if..  ) we get out of this mess has started. I suggest elements of simplicity, local self reliance  and greater national self reliance will be high on the agenda.
> 
> The current economic  model is  about creating endless increasing demand for product, finding the cheapest way of making it and  then selling it to make the highest profit. It also ignores all externalities ( pollution, health risks, sovereign risks) and takes no responsibility for anything that can go wrong ie another epidemic. I don't believe it can stand up to the post COVID 19 reality.



Wish too but I am afraid we will be back within 3y to get more money, open "refugee doors" to ensure cheap labor and outsourcing to the cheapest etc all in front of the allmighty dollars while taxing home small business and individuals..captive target..to the hilt


----------



## basilio (5 April 2020)

qldfrog said:


> Wish too but I am afraid we will be back within 3y to get more money, open "refugee doors" to ensure cheap labor and outsourcing to the cheapest etc all in front of the allmighty dollars while taxing home small business and individuals..captive target..to the hilt




Perhaps... The fact is there are big conversations on  what the new society will look like. This government, UK, Europe have all decided that keeping people fed and housed is now a priority - even if they have to open the purse strings.
They have also appreciated the critical importance of a public health system that cares for peoples health as priority rather than simply a way of making bucket loads of cash.  I think it will be very hard to just ignore these learnings.  For example can this government go back to paying unemployed people the pittance they were on a month ago ?  

When we pass through this crisis we will have far higher unemployment simply becasue many businesses will not recover.  If a government attempted to reintroduce the strictures it had last year the ramifications for banks and the housing market alone would be horrendous.  

There are some conversations on this topic already.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...e-coronavirus-if-were-willing-to-fight-for-it

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...n-its-back-to-tax-cuts-and-smaller-government


----------



## basilio (5 April 2020)

While we are looking at what a post corona society looks like consider how this direction would help the environment as well as jobs and industry.

* Australia’s path to net-zero emissions lies in rapid, stimulus-friendly steps *
The opportunity to meet the target by 2035 is within our grasp – thanks to much cheaper technology – but we must be ready

Nearly two years ago, ClimateWorks Australia set out to test whether the implied goal agreed by world leaders at the Paris climate conference – cutting greenhouse gas emissions to “net zero” by 2050 – was still possible in Australia. They weren’t certain it would be. They were pleasantly surprised by the result.

“We found not only is it not yet out of reach in Australia, but it can be achieved using technologies that are mostly already mature and available,” says Anna Skarbek, the chief executive of the not-for-profit that was established in 2009 to fill a gap between climate research and action.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...issions-lies-in-small-stimulus-friendly-steps


----------



## basilio (5 April 2020)

Everyone is wondering where we go next 

* It's time to challenge everything, so what will we create from this savage lesson? *
We are learning new ways to live, to be, to think. Maybe that’s the gift as well as the challenge
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...o-what-will-we-create-from-this-savage-lesson


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 April 2020)

basilio said:


> While we are looking at what a post corona society looks like consider how this direction would help the environment as well as jobs and industry.



The technical aspect is somewhat complex but very doable.

It’s our self-inflicted need to compete on price with third and especially second world countries which has thus far been the stumbling block. Remove that problem and the rest is very doable.

If one piece of good comes out of this  it’ll be the end of the so-called “level playing field” and acceptance of the reality that just about everyone tilts it in their favour which is what we need to do also.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 April 2020)

basilio said:


> When we pass through this crisis we will have far higher unemployment simply becasue many businesses will not recover. If a government attempted to reintroduce the strictures it had last year the ramifications for banks and the housing market alone would be horrendous.




I doubt if the Coalition will do it, but they should be thinking of a permanent 20% wage subsidy financed by taxes on computers, machines and software.

The economy needs consumers that spend, we also need machines and software but they don't currently pay tax, maybe it's time they did.


----------



## Sdajii (5 April 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Large amounts of money have been set aside for mental health programs and for helping people cope with isolation.
> 
> Maybe this situation is also a "test of strength" which you seem to advocate. There is physical strength and there is mental strength. They are both equally important imv. In these situations those with mental strength do what they can to help others in the same situation. That's how societies show what they are made of. You don't throw people on the scrapheap for physical 'weakness'. As others said before, mental capability is just as important.
> 
> ...




So if someone kills themself because they've lost everything, they failed the stoicism test so that's okay. If some woman gets bashed up because her partner is in a difficult situation and is unable to go blow off some steam with his mates or at the pub, well, she failed the 'how to deal with it' mental test, so she deserves it too, I guess. If the economy is ruined and our schools and roads and hospitals aren't up to scratch, well, as a community I suppose we deserve is because we failed the... however Sir Rumpole wanted to spin it. But if a virus kills you, well, that's something we can't accept.

You make a good point, we should probably have destroyed the economy and imposed all these measures years ago. Psychological torture and economic distress is going to bring overdue benefits to our community.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 April 2020)

Sdajii said:


> If some woman gets bashed up because her partner is in a difficult situation and is unable to go blow off some steam with his mates or at the pub, well, she failed the 'how to deal with it' mental test




No, he failed the human being test.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 April 2020)

Sdajii said:


> So if someone kills themself because they've lost everything, they failed the stoicism test so that's okay.



I thought you were the one arguing "survival of the fittest"?



Sdajii said:


> If some woman gets bashed up because her partner is in a difficult situation and is unable to go blow off some steam with his mates or at the pub




If someone of either gender decides to bash someone else up because they can't go to a pub well then at most the lockdown has brought forward the inevitable but that person was always going to pose a danger to their victim.

A pandemic is not an excuse for violence against anyone or anything.


----------



## Sdajii (5 April 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> No, he failed the human being test.




So you're saying that makes the innocent woman an appropriate victim??? If not, what is your point? You are for some reason downplaying the human suffering being caused by these deliberately enforced measures.


----------



## Sdajii (5 April 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> I thought you were the one arguing "survival of the fittest"?




The you believe it despite the fact that I've never said anything along those lines and indeed have been making entirely the opposite point!




> If someone of either gender decides to bash someone else up because they can't go to a pub well then at most the lockdown has brought forward the inevitable but that person was always going to pose a danger to their victim.




Absolute nonsense. We have a background rate of domestic violence, and that rate increases or decreases according to many external variables. Poverty is one. Tick (loss of jobs and business). Loneliness/frustration is another (big tick). Being cooped up together is another (I think you can see the pattern here). This is not just bringing forward the inevitable, and your assertion of such suggests that you believe all domestic violence is inevitable and unavoidable. This is nothing like reality.



> A pandemic is not an excuse for violence against anyone or anything.




I agree 100% which is why it's a huge problem that we are taking measures to induce it! And this is by no means one of the biggest problems caused by these ridiculous measures we're having imposed on us, it's just one of a great many.


----------



## barney (5 April 2020)

I think it would be counterproductive if this thread ended up being a slagging match when it doesn’t need to be.

In the end I’m pretty sure most of us have a similar agenda on what path we would prefer the current scenario to follow.

ie. For the Country/communities to get back to as close to ‘normality’ as soon as is possible/practical for the benefit of the majority of people.

1)      The suggestion that ‘locking down’ a high proportion of regular people’s ability to generate a livelihood will cause dire follow on effects to society is valid and probable. (ie. Increased suicide rates, criminal activity and family breakdowns)


2)      The suggestion that ‘locking down’ as above will also cause a more manageable spread of the Virus over a longer time period is also valid. (Health care system remains effective. Higher survival rates. Financial assistance can be targeted to the needy in an orderly fashion)  


Assuming that the above are not mutually exclusive, my question would be …  

Can an effective balance of both be achieved?  

 ie. Can we get people back to work yet still keep the infection rate (3-10% death rate) under control??  

Rather than beating each other up over unknown potential statistics … Is it possible we can offer suggestions in how to achieve a balance which is socially acceptable to the majority?

Cheers.


----------



## Sdajii (5 April 2020)

barney said:


> I think it would be counterproductive if this thread ended up being a slagging match when it doesn’t need to be.
> 
> In the end I’m pretty sure most of us have a similar agenda on what path we would prefer the current scenario to follow.
> 
> ie. For the Country/communities to get back to as close to ‘normality’ as soon as is possible/practical for the benefit of the majority of people.




Indeed, and if this is our objective then it's very clearly obvious that literally no restrictions at all would be better than the current situation. Life would go back to normal for most people relatively quickly. In the current arrangement we are being locked down indefinitely! Waiting for a vaccine or treatment the likes of which the world has literally never seen, and for all we know are theoretically impossible.



> 1)      The suggestion that ‘locking down’ a high proportion of regular people’s ability to generate a livelihood will cause dire follow on effects to society is valid and probable. (ie. Increased suicide rates, criminal activity and family breakdowns)
> 
> 
> 2)      The suggestion that ‘locking down’ as above will also cause a more manageable spread of the Virus over a longer time period is also valid. (Health care system remains effective. Higher survival rates. Financial assistance can be targeted to the needy in an orderly fashion)
> ...




The short answer is no. An attempted balance gives you most of the bad from both sides and little of the benefits of either side. A lockdown is only going to be effective if it is highly destructive to the economy and long term. Doing so short term (as is being proposed) will destroy the economy (the longer we wait the worst it'll get and it's already extreme) and as soon as you try to go back to normal it's as though you never did anything, the virus will spread... like... a highly contagious virus. If you're not going to do the lockdown properly there's no point doing it, and if there's no end goal (a tangible vaccine or cure with a tangible completion date, neither of which is the case) there is no point.



> ie. Can we get people back to work yet still keep the infection rate (3-10% death rate) under control??




10% would be far worse than worst case scenario predictions with zero measures taken!



> Rather than beating each other up over unknown potential statistics … Is it possible we can offer suggestions in how to achieve a balance which is socially acceptable to the majority?
> 
> Cheers.




No hand shaking, encourage personal hygeine etc, public education about transfer of viruses, put laws in place forbidding the approach of non consenting people, encourage social distancing etc, but put no restrictions on business or freedom of movement or consenting socialisation. Accept it as the worst cold/flu season of our lives and carry on. This will allow the least economic destruction, the least death and the least human suffering. It does not preclude any search for a vaccine or cure (a stronger economy will assist in finding one if it is even possible).


----------



## basilio (5 April 2020)

Sdajii said:


> I agree 100% which is why it's a huge problem that we are taking measures to induce it! And this is by no means one of the biggest problems caused by these ridiculous measures we're having imposed on us, it's just one of a great many.



Sdajii I can appreciate the awful stress  the COVID 19 shutdown has had on you, your family and of course the millions of other people who lost their jobs and businesses. You accurately point out that this problem is far starker in Asia than Australia.

Your argument is that you see the economic and personal freedom consequences far outweighing the risk to human life.  You suggest this is a serious problem but not serious enough to warrant the current response.

*The trouble is no one yet knows what the final consequences of letting COVID 19 rip will be. *They Chinese made a grave mistake in allowing it to get out control in Wuhan  province. They finally had to lock down the entire province as well as the remainder of China to bring it under control. During that time the hospitals were overwhelmed, people died in their homes on the streets in hospital waiting rooms. It was bedlam.

Overall there  were 80,000 reported infections (probably many more unreported) in a population of 1.5 Billion. What would have happened if they had let it rip ?

Well we might have the opportunity to see that play out in the US. Currently 320,000 infections with a rocket and multiple infection sites. I can see the following consequences of letting it rip.

1) A complete collapse of the health system. It will be unable to cope with the millions of seriously ill people
2) Widespread deaths in the community that create terror and disease as bodies are not cleared quickly enough and create biological hazards.
3) A breakdown of all industry and commerce as these effects continue unchecked.
4) The spread of secondary diseases associated with breakdowns in systems like water, power, sewerage and health. Cholera, hepatitis,
5) The risk of total breakdown of civil society in some areas. Add in multi million assault rifles in the hands of very angry people and it all goes up in smoke.

The projected direct consequences of letting COVID 19 rip unabated is around 3 million  direct deaths. Think 1% of 300 million people.
But in fact the 1% death rate is dependent on a functioning health system that can effectively treat the 20% who fall seriously ill and save basically 95% of them. If it all goes to hell then we would see this figure escalate to a 3-5% mortality *- 9-15million people.
*
Is this the risk we want to take?


----------



## Sdajii (5 April 2020)

basilio said:


> Sdajii I can appreciate the awful stress  the COVID 19 shutdown has had on you, your family and of course the millions of other people who lost their jobs and businesses. You accurately point out that this problem is far starker in Asia than Australia.
> 
> Your argument is that you see the economic and personal freedom consequences far outweighing the risk to human life.  You suggest this is a serious problem but not serious enough to warrant the current response.




No, that is not my argument. The number of human deaths will be greater this way than with no measures taken. 

*



			The trouble is no one yet knows what the final consequences of letting COVID 19 rip will be.
		
Click to expand...


*


> They Chinese made a grave mistake in allowing it to get out control in Wuhan  province. They finally had to lock down the entire province as well as the remainder of China to bring it under control. During that time the hospitals were overwhelmed, people died in their homes on the streets in hospital waiting rooms. It was bedlam.




I'm disappointed that you believe the Chinese propaganda so completely. It is very obviously false, it was clearly designed to illicit an emotional response from the public and a tangible reaction from the governments. Do you really think they locked down the entire country of China? All those people in all that area in all the different circumstances? This didn't actually happen.



> Overall there  were 80,000 reported infections (probably many more unreported) in a population of 1.5 Billion. What would have happened if they had let it rip ?




Are you honestly naive enough to think these figures are remotely true? And, if they are, it is worse, because the only way they could be remotely representative of the reality would be if China was secretly giving a treatment/vaccine to most of the population. I'm not suggesting I know that to be the case, but it's the only way their figures could be accurate or remotely in line with the general pattern.



> Well we might have the opportunity to see that play out in the US. Currently 320,000 infections with a rocket and multiple infection sites. I can see the following consequences of letting it rip.




It's going to be interesting. With a couple hundred countries in the world, some taking no action and many taking all sorts of measure of various types, we will indeed have many case studies to prove ourselves right and wrong with.



> 1) A complete collapse of the health system. It will be unable to cope with the millions of seriously ill people
> 2) Widespread deaths in the community that create terror and disease as bodies are not cleared quickly enough and create biological hazards.
> 3) A breakdown of all industry and commerce as these effects continue unchecked.
> 4) The spread of secondary diseases associated with breakdowns in systems like water, power, sewerage and health. Cholera, hepatitis,
> 5) The risk of total breakdown of civil society in some areas. Add in multi million assault rifles in the hands of very angry people and it all goes up in smoke.




You say this as though we have an alternative of simply sitting inside watching Netflix for a couple of months and entirely avoiding it.



> The projected direct consequences of letting COVID 19 rip unabated is around 3 million  direct deaths. Think 1% of 300 million people.
> But in fact the 1% death rate is dependent on a functioning health system that can effectively treat the 20% who fall seriously ill and save basically 95% of them. If it all goes to hell then we would see this figure escalate to a 3-5% mortality *- 9-15million people.
> *
> Is this the risk we want to take?




Absolutely. I don't think it would actually be anywhere near that bad, and even with draconian measures it won't be avoided to the extend you are assuming. Even if you are correct about the 9-15 million people dying, it's not like the destruction of the economy and mental health and family structure and education and associated deaths and suffering will prevent those 9-15 million people dying. Most are going to die anyway, and they'll do it in a world where we have chosen to cause all these additional problems. Even if you ignore all the deaths and suffering we will cause by the isolation measures and even if we would see 15 million deaths with no measures, we have no hope of saving all of those 15 million people. Most will still die. The only way it will be avoided is if the most unlikely medical miracle since penicillin is found within the next few months. It's remotely possible but it's not a good bet.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 April 2020)

Sdajii said:


> your assertion of such suggests that you believe all domestic violence is inevitable and unavoidable. This is nothing like reality.



That is not what I am saying at all.

I am saying that there is no situation which warrants bashing someone, either female or male, other than as a genuine last resort option in self defence.

Actions being taken by governments in relation to the pandemic do not come anywhere close to justifying assault.

To the extent that the current situation prompts violence, and I do acknowledge that will be the case in practice, it is exposing a flaw which was always present. If it wasn't in 2020 due to the COVID-19 issue then it would have been at some other time due to some other trigger.

If someone bashes their partner due to spending too much time together then as a couple they've got far more problems than government ordering the pubs shut, indeed alcohol is the last thing they need.

I could likewise say that the situation seems to be encouraging some to drive dangerously. Suffice to say I'd be willing to bet that this isn't the first time those individuals have driven well over the legal speed limit on a public street and it won't be the last. It's just encouraging stupid behaviour by those already prone to it but the rest of us have no difficulty driving normally and sensibly.


----------



## Sdajii (5 April 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> That is not what I am saying at all.




...except that it is, and you go on to say it again (I'll quote below).



> I am saying that there is no situation which warrants bashing someone, either female or male, other than as a genuine last resort option in self defence.
> 
> Actions being taken by governments in relation to the pandemic do not come anywhere close to justifying assault.
> 
> To the extent that the current situation prompts violence, and I do acknowledge that will be the case in practice, it is exposing a flaw which was always present. If it wasn't in 2020 due to the COVID-19 issue then it would have been at some other time due to some other trigger.




So here you acknowledge that I'm right (these measures will indeed cause assault to occur), and you then go on to repeat your assertion that this assault is inevitable. No, I do not accept that, these assaults are not inevitable. Happy people in good circumstances commit less assault throughout their lives. The are born, they live, they die, having committed a certain amount of assault during that time. No individual case of assault is inevitable. It is very tangibly possible to increase or decrease the amount of assault which occurs. It is possible to entirely prevent an assault from occurring, or to induce an assault which otherwise would not have occurred. Surely you can see that this is going to increase the total amount of domestic violence which will occur in this world. It won't simply cause inevitable assault to happen sooner (there may be individual cases of that, sure), it will definitely cause assault to occur which otherwise would not.




> If someone bashes their partner due to spending too much time together then as a couple they've got far more problems than government ordering the pubs shut, indeed alcohol is the last thing they need.




So what? The reality is that bad people do exist in this world, and the government is putting in place a situation which will cause more of these people to inflict more violence upon innocent people. Spin it however you like, this is the unfortunate reality you are for some reason trying to pretend is not the case.



> I could likewise say that the situation seems to be encouraging some to drive dangerously. Suffice to say I'd be willing to bet that this isn't the first time those individuals have driven well over the legal speed limit on a public street and it won't be the last. It's just encouraging stupid behaviour by those already prone to it but the rest of us have no difficulty driving normally and sensibly.




Strange off topic paragraph.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 April 2020)

Sdajii said:


> So what? The reality is that bad people do exist in this world, and the government is putting in place a situation which will cause more of these people to inflict more violence upon innocent people. Spin it however you like, this is the unfortunate reality you are for some reason trying to pretend is not the case.



If someone cannot resolve issues without resorting to violence then it takes a pretty big leap of faith to think that having government shut down the pubs and cinemas and so on really is the only trigger that person will ever face and without it they'd never be violent.

My argument is that they would in practice still commit the crime and that all this is really going to do is bring forward the timing.

Between legal issues, divorce, business, witnessing or being a victim of crime, accidents, illness, encountering sociopaths, bullies and so on there's a pretty substantial chunk of the population who will go through some very dark days at some point in their lives. It's not as though the current situation will be the worst thing that ever happens to them.


----------



## Sdajii (6 April 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> If someone cannot resolve issues without resorting to violence then it takes a pretty big leap of faith to think that having government shut down the pubs and cinemas and so on really is the only trigger that person will ever face and without it they'd never be violent.




Its not a leap of faith, it's merely either looking at the tangible, predictable reality that environmental influences do indeed cause increases in domestic violence, or simply using common sense to see that obvious reality.



> My argument is that they would in practice still commit the crime and that all this is really going to do is bring forward the timing.




Your argument flies in the face of actual reality. That's a bit of a snag.



> Between legal issues, divorce, business, witnessing or being a victim of crime, accidents, illness, encountering sociopaths, bullies and so on there's a pretty substantial chunk of the population who will go through some very dark days at some point in their lives. It's not as though the current situation will be the worst thing that ever happens to them.




For some people it will be, for most it won't, but this is irrelevant. To say that something is not the worst thing a person will ever go through is reason to dismiss it as unimportant is so far off the absurd chart you should be ashamed of even trying to make the point. Inflicting suffering on millions of people is not a trivial thing even if it wasn't going to the worst thing of their lives for any of them.

And again, domestic violence is just one small part of the problem being caused. I'm not sure why you're making it your major focus.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 April 2020)

Sdajii said:


> Its not a leap of faith, it's merely either looking at the tangible, predictable reality that environmental influences do indeed cause increases in domestic violence, or simply using common sense to see that obvious reality.




Happy and close families don't commit violence under any circumstances. 

DV is symptomatic of a lot of other problems in society that were around before covid.

A lot of businesses and systems do "stress testing" to find out if they are up to the task of handling adverse circumstances. If they don't pass the test of the current circumstances then maybe they should be thinking that they should make other arrangements when the crisis is over.

Anyway, the government has acknowledged the stress that the measures cause and has set aside money for mental health and dv victims.

https://probonoaustralia.com.au/new...mental-health-and-domestic-violence-services/


----------



## qldfrog (6 April 2020)

While not denying the effects on social, etc, i also believe it is revealing more than creating.

Wrong partner, excuse to steal or commit violence, or depression
I genuinely doubt they would not have surfaced at a later time anyway
We are in a phase which is *speeding* events: authoritarian gov, cash suppression, broken marriages, DV, forbidding gun sales
We are seeing the worse of humanity and governments
 no surprise there, and we haven't been hit..yet..by the actual deaths vague, we can not even counterbalance this with the solidarity or self sacrifice seen in nurses medics on the fighting front.
In Australia, we have to elevate supermarket cashiers to the rank of heros when they get abused by some dimwits..as they were already a year ago
We found plenty of villains the hoarders, a bit of racism with some pictures of Asians full trolleys, the partying backpackers or the lovers meeting in secluded location: " if i can not have good sex and have to hear my wife winging all fay, why should they have fun"

Not nice..but was there before and would have popped up anyway.
By breaking marriages now, we may even save many unborn childs and parents from  future broken family misery
DV as long as not terminal will hopefully allow people to separate early and give the victims more years to recover.
Let's hope..


----------



## qldfrog (6 April 2020)

Let's be positive
Anyone seeing some new opportunities ahead..not talking share market, but more new business opportunities , even if it could be home security or welfare providers for previously self funded retirees
Anyone from latin America able to draw parallels with Chile, Argentina and leverage experience there?


----------



## IFocus (6 April 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Happy and close families don't commit violence under any circumstances.




Yep my mob drink like there is no tomorrow but never ever any hint of DV every one values each other to highly as crazy as some are.


----------



## matty77 (6 April 2020)

DV is just wrong, from both sides, and there are no excuses, ever. 

Yes this pandemic will put peoples relationships under more pressure then ever before therefore DV will rise, financial pressure, health pressure, death, bordem etc its all there and going to contribute to the woes of society. 

Post Corona, I can see the divorce rate going up, but at the moment people are kinda stuck with each other, or a positive spin could be it could make relationships stronger as people get to spend more time at home together..


----------



## Sdajii (6 April 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Happy and close families don't commit violence under any circumstances.




This would be relevant if all families were happy and close.

In actuality, we live in the real world where such a fantasy is not relevant.


----------



## Sdajii (6 April 2020)

IFocus said:


> Yep my mob drink like there is no tomorrow but never ever any hint of DV every one values each other to highly as crazy as some are.




Wow! I am at no risk of being a perpetrator or victim of domestic violence either! I suppose that means it's not a problem we should care about! Hooray!


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 April 2020)

Sdajii said:


> Wow! I am at no risk of being a perpetrator or victim of domestic violence either! I suppose that means it's not a problem we should care about! Hooray!




The debate's more about whether the shutdown will increase it as such or just bring it forward?

You seem to be in the camp which says an outright increase. It will cause incidents that otherwise would not have occurred. There will be people bashed etc during the lockdown who would never have had that occur without the lockdown.

I'm in the camp which says it will bring forward what was going to happen sometime anyway. That is, if person A bashes person B during the lockdown but whilst the lockdown might be the direct trigger, if that triggered physical violence then sooner or later something else would have triggered the same response so it was only a matter of time. Person A was going to assault person B, the only question was when and with what excuse.

In truth there'll probably be some of both so it's a question of which is more dominant.


----------



## basilio (7 April 2020)

qldfrog said:


> Let's be positive
> Anyone seeing some new opportunities ahead..not talking share market, but more new business opportunities , even if it could be home security or welfare providers for previously self funded retirees
> Anyone from latin America able to draw parallels with Chile, Argentina and leverage experience there?




Indeed there are  business opportunities during this crisis. One  such opportunity is to become  reseller of masks, disinfectant and other essential PPE .

There is an Australian company offering just that opportunity... Just check out the prices on their products however.  Certainly plenty of margin..

https://www.livingstone.com.au/Prod...FACE-MASK-EAR-LOOP-3PLY-BLUE-PFE-BFE-99-50-BX

https://www.livingstone.com.au/#/Pages/Careers
https://www.livingstone.com.au/Pages/bereseller


----------



## jbocker (7 April 2020)

I was initially drawn to this by the detail on the left but more and more looking more at data the RH columns. I have been watching the positioning of the nations on the 'ladder'. Originally Brazil and Australia because we kept jostling at 19 and 20. But an interesting one is Sweden who have adopted more of an approach what @Sdajii discusses. Be interesting to watch Norway and Sweden who share the same land mass geographically. Albeit need to review Norways approach to lock down and appreciate that Norway has 1/2 the population of Sweden who have less than 1/2 the population of Australia.


https://virusncov.com/
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/coro...-social-obedience/ar-BB12ey5E?ocid=spartanntp


----------



## IFocus (7 April 2020)

Sdajii said:


> Wow! I am at no risk of being a perpetrator or victim of domestic violence either! I suppose that means it's not a problem we should care about! Hooray!




Your response is illogical.


----------



## basilio (7 April 2020)

IFocus said:


> Your response is illogical.




And the problem with that is ???


----------



## barney (7 April 2020)

basilio said:


> Just check out the prices on their products however.  Certainly plenty of margin..




I see your point (from the other thread) now Bas ……  

Opportunists cashing in on fear … sometimes human behaviour is pretty ordinary


----------



## spooly74 (9 April 2020)

Long Copper in the Brave New World that awaits?

https://www.fastcompany.com/90476550/copper-kills-coronavirus-why-arent-our-surfaces-covered-in-it

https://cuverro.com/products/antimicrobial-copper-iphone-case


----------



## basilio (9 April 2020)

spooly74 said:


> Long Copper in the Brave New World that awaits?
> 
> https://www.fastcompany.com/90476550/copper-kills-coronavirus-why-arent-our-surfaces-covered-in-it
> 
> https://cuverro.com/products/antimicrobial-copper-iphone-case




Excellent story and a very good website. It's absolutely clear that copper or copper brass are excellent bacteria killers. I can certainly see a very quick return of copper with the legitimate concerns about continuing infectious outbreaks.


----------



## jbocker (10 April 2020)

spooly74 said:


> Long Copper in the Brave New World that awaits?
> 
> https://www.fastcompany.com/90476550/copper-kills-coronavirus-why-arent-our-surfaces-covered-in-it
> 
> https://cuverro.com/products/antimicrobial-copper-iphone-case



Maybe one reason why coins have had such a high copper content historically, albeit not the main reason. Money has always been labelled a 'dirty' transmitter of diseases, I guess the copper has insufficient contact with the nasty little bacterii when transferred from one hand to another.
Interesting, maybe surfaces particularly taps and door handles may start to return to copper or brass.

*Think about this and spread the message (I don't see it much in the clean hands procedure).* Before and after washing your hands for 20 seconds thoroughly you touch the SAME tap. The bugs are put on the tap then wait there while you clean your hands and jump back on (figuratively speaking) when you turn off the tap. 
Give the tap a wash or wipe with sterilizer too.


----------



## jbocker (10 April 2020)

In case you are now wondering about copper content in our coins...(ok ok you weren't)...
_Right now all circulating Australian coins are made of two different metal alloys. 5 cent, 10 cent, 20 cent, and 50 cent coins are silvery grey in colour and made from an alloy of 75% copper and 25% nickel. This alloy is typically referred to as Copper/Nickel or sometimes CuNi. The other two coins you’re going to find in your change the one dollar and two dollar coins and are pale gold in colour. These are made from alloy of 92% copper and 8% aluminium which is called Aluminium Bronze or AlBr.

https://www.australian-coins.com/collecting-coins/what-are-australian-coins-made-of/_


----------



## Joules MM1 (10 April 2020)

good to see the strong uptick in recovery rate locally (delayed)



Dutch team go detective to find early warning of the virus in wastewater, that way a neighbourhood could be narrowed down as a source (?) 
https://twitter.com/i/moments/1248117154559307776


----------



## sptrawler (10 April 2020)

jbocker said:


> In case you are now wondering about copper content in our coins...(ok ok you weren't)...
> _Right now all circulating Australian coins are made of two different metal alloys. 5 cent, 10 cent, 20 cent, and 50 cent coins are silvery grey in colour and made from an alloy of 75% copper and 25% nickel. This alloy is typically referred to as Copper/Nickel or sometimes CuNi. The other two coins you’re going to find in your change the one dollar and two dollar coins and are pale gold in colour. These are made from alloy of 92% copper and 8% aluminium which is called Aluminium Bronze or AlBr.
> 
> https://www.australian-coins.com/collecting-coins/what-are-australian-coins-made-of/_



If we do end up with cash less or even coinless currency, I wonder if there will be a noticeable drop in demand for copper and nickel.


----------



## sptrawler (10 April 2020)

jbocker said:


> *Think about this and spread the message (I don't see it much in the clean hands procedure).* Before and after washing your hands for 20 seconds thoroughly you touch the SAME tap. The bugs are put on the tap then wait there while you clean your hands and jump back on (figuratively speaking) when you turn off the tap.
> Give the tap a wash or wipe with sterilizer too.



My other half is an ex nurse, she was talking to me about that exact problem and showed me how to overcome it, I have forgotten what she said, actually I don't think I was listening very well at the time.


----------



## matty77 (10 April 2020)

wash your hands like normal and when they are dry use hand sanitiser.

then wipe the hand sanitiser bottle with sanitiser wipes as the bottle is now infected.

then wash the sanitiser wipes container with soap as that is now infected.

then you need to sanitise the taps now, cause you just used them again.. woops. maybe use the sanitiser wipes again to clean the tap, then sanitise your hands.

woops, your pockets were dirty where you kept the hand sanitiser, take your pants off and sanitise your pant shorts and you should be good to go.

woops you just used that hand sanitiser again, maybe wash that one more time to be sure.

now go to your front door and out you go. damn it you touched the door handle and forgot to put your pants on... ffs.

go back to the bathroom and start again.


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 April 2020)

The solution for the tap problem in public toilets and so on is to simply have a sensor in the tap which automatically switches the water on when hands are placed under.

That works provided that the temperature and flow rate are set properly and not to a cold, miserly drizzle by those who prioritise saving a few $ over people washing their hands properly.

Have the doors so that they open outwards and can be foot operated, no touching required, or better still sliding door that opens automatically.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 April 2020)

I'll simply say that a definite pattern is forming in Victoria and that something is seriously wrong when individuals are being directed by police to not engage in lawful activity, failing to do which then leaves them exposed to substantial costs financially.

https://www.realestate.com.au/news/...t-homes-still-ok/?rsf=syn:news:nca:hs:article

Fair enough it's an emergency and so on but to the extent there's an excuse it's for failing to enforce a new law due to lack of awareness, not for enforcing laws which have never existed.

My thinking is it'll go one of two ways. Either Victoria achieves a substantially superior medical outcome and the means of achieving it is overlooked or the heavy handed "guilty until proven innocent, take us to court" enforcement approach ends up as a political and economic problem in the absence of clear benefits compared to the approach taken in other states.


----------



## Knobby22 (12 April 2020)

We are the world's leading nanny state Smurf....as you have observed by the signage at the State borders. 

We seem to love being one. Friends of ours two days ago had a lane party where they blocked off the lane behind their house and everyone celebrated by partying in their section of the lane, whete their particular house is, for a 60th birthday.

Someone told the police! They all got their names taken and warned.


----------



## Humid (12 April 2020)

The lost souls of the AFL


----------



## hja (12 April 2020)

Knobby22 said:


> We are the world's leading nanny state Smurf....as you have observed by the signage at the State borders.
> 
> We seem to love being one. Friends of ours two days ago had a lane party where they blocked off the lane behind their house and everyone celebrated by partying in their section of the lane, whete their particular house is, for a 60th birthday.
> 
> Someone told the police! They all got their names taken and warned.



You may snicker but most of the usual libertarians are actually happy with the measures taken, with the exception of the odd (and oddball) ones displayng a "Free the refugees" in relation to rents.

Duh well what do you expect? Then "everyone" else would start doing it and our nanny state would end up looking like a Ruby Princess party for 60 year olds trying to catch their breath.


----------



## Humid (12 April 2020)

Everyone knows Victorians are special


----------



## Dona Ferentes (12 April 2020)

""The crisis is set to amplify three trends. *First*, a _quicker adoption of new technologies_. The planet is having a crash course in e-commerce, digital payments and remote working. More medical innovations beckon, including gene-editing technologies. *Second*, _global supply chains will be recast_, speeding the shift since the trade war began. Apple has just 10 days’ worth of inventory, and its main supplier in Asia, Foxconn, 41 days. Firms will seek bigger safety buffers and a critical mass of production close to home using highly automated factories. Cross-border business investment could drop by 30-40 per cent this year. Global firms will become less profitable but more resilient.

The *last long-term shift* is less certain and more unwelcome: a _further rise in corporate concentration and cronyism_, as government cash floods the private sector and big firms grow even more dominant. Already, two-thirds of US industries have become more concentrated since the 1990s, sapping the economy’s vitality. Now powerful bosses are heralding a new era of co-operation between politicians and businesses — especially those on the ever-expanding list of firms that are considered “strategic”.

Voters, consumers and investors should fight this idea since it will mean more graft, less competition and slower growth.""

_The Economist_


----------



## IFocus (12 April 2020)

Knobby22 said:


> We are the world's leading nanny state Smurf....as you have observed by the signage at the State borders.
> 
> We seem to love being one. Friends of ours two days ago had a lane party where they blocked off the lane behind their house and everyone celebrated by partying in their section of the lane, whete their particular house is, for a 60th birthday.
> 
> Someone told the police! They all got their names taken and warned.




Knobby dont know about Vic but WA has taken it seriously couldn't actually image its happening here


----------



## Humid (13 April 2020)

https://www.dailyexaminer.com.au/news/premier-loses-it-over-kebab-question/3988941/


----------



## So_Cynical (13 April 2020)

Dona Ferentes said:


> *Second*, _global supply chains will be recast_, speeding the shift since the trade war began. Apple has just 10 days’ worth of inventory, and its main supplier in Asia, Foxconn, 41 days. Firms will seek bigger safety buffers and a critical mass of production close to home using highly automated factories. Cross-border business investment could drop by 30-40 per cent this year. Global firms will become less profitable but more resilient.




The supply chains are not the problem, it's the "just in time" part of the supply chain that has proven to be the problem, easy fix is hold more stock.


----------



## satanoperca (13 April 2020)

So_Cynical said:


> The supply chains are not the problem, it's the "just in time" part of the supply chain that has proven to be the problem, easy fix is hold more stock.



Sounds great, but why hold more stock, less stock, increased profit and cash flows. 

Stock holdings, have always been a balancing act, nothing has changed.

And who cares, if you cannot buy a iphone for the next 2 years, how is that going to impact on society?

I guess, it will make the appreciate what they have and that is not the latest phone, that for all intensive purposes does the same as the last 3 generations of phones.


----------



## Dona Ferentes (22 May 2020)

Ross Garnaut’s ‘RESET’ lectures describe the pandemic and its economic impact; the challenges that Australia, developed democracies and the international community carried into the pandemic; and lays out alternative paths forward for Australia in the challenging post-pandemic world. 

https://fbe.unimelb.edu.au/alumni/events/public-lectures/ross-garnaut-reset-lecture-series


----------



## Dona Ferentes (23 August 2020)

an interesting experiment to see how we can function in a Covid world.

*Coronavirus: Germany puts on crowded concerts to study risks*



> Scientists in Germany have held three pop concerts in a single day to investigate the risks posed by mass indoor events during the pandemic. About 1,500 healthy volunteers aged between 18 and 50 - only a third of the expected number - took part.
> 
> But the head of the study, which was carried out in Leipzig by Halle University, said he was "very satisfied" with how the event unfolded.
> Singer-songwriter Tim Bendzko agreed to perform at all three successive gigs.





> The first of Saturday's three concerts aimed to simulate an event before the pandemic, with no safety measures in place. The second involved greater hygiene and some social distancing, while the third involved half the numbers and each person standing 1.5m apart.
> 
> All participants were tested for Covid-19 before taking part, and given face masks and tracking devices to measure their distancing. Researchers reportedly also used fluorescent disinfectants to track which surfaces audience members touched the most.


----------



## basilio (4 October 2020)

Another perspective on post covid community.

*Welcome to the 21st Century*
       How To Plan For The Post-Covid Future









						Welcome to the 21st Century: How To Plan For The Post-Covid Future - O'Reilly Media
					






					www.oreilly.com


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 October 2020)

satanoperca said:


> Sounds great, but why hold more stock, less stock, increased profit and cash flows.
> 
> Stock holdings, have always been a balancing act, nothing has changed.
> 
> And who cares, if you cannot buy a iphone for the next 2 years, how is that going to impact on society?



The third sentence feeds into the first two.

If goods aren't readily available then all of a sudden everyone from tradies to cafes finds it necessary to maintain their own stocks since without it they suffer an even greater loss in not being able to serve customers and generate revenue.

If a phone's a difficult item to obtain then I'd be wise to own a spare one in case of failure. That passes the cost onto me and, if I'm running any sort of business, I'll then pass it onto customers. Etc. Anything in short supply will tend to be hoarded.


----------

