Post Corona...

[SirRumpole]

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]

I love stupid questions and Im good at them.

So who are the lenders?

 

[Smurf1976]

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]

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]

So who are the lenders?

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

 

[Sdajii]

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?

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]

*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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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.

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]

@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.