• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Covid-19 Outbreak of new SARS-like coronavirus (Covid-19)

Status
Not open for further replies.
With a population as large as the US would one not expect to at least match Italy's fatality rates?
Perhaps I'm not as surprised as you. In fact I'm surprised it's not much worse. Let's hope this continues to be true.

Exactly this is why the per capita figures are the only ones I bother checking when comparing countries.
 
Didn't think I'd agree with a NYT reporter for a while

This Alex Berenson seems a bit ignorant of the nature of SARS-CoV-2 in that it has been shown to be asymptomatically transmitted and younger humans are most likely to present asymptomatically. Viruses already spread like wildfire in schools and nurseries (I have nephews and nieces, can confirm) and the danger of having kids picking up the virus at school, transmitting it amongst each other like mad, and then bringing it home to their elders, who are more at danger isn't exactly something to flippantly overlook.

Though, I suppose having a NYT personality's stance pointed out as being ignorant of fact jives well with your opinion of the newspaper, no? :)
 
Alex Berenson left the New York Times a decade ago.

that explains why he's talking sense now. There's no room for that at the New York Times.

The CEO of the NYT Mark Thompson was head of the BBC while they were covering up for Jimmy Savile while he was raping hundreds of children
 
Last edited:
5760.jpg

A volunteer sorts food donations for at-risk people in Barcelona, Spain.


The EU's new coronavirus relief deal is a gift to Europe's enemies

by Yanis Varoufakis | The Guardian | 11 April 2020

Ignore the headlines about €500bn to rescue Europe. Refusing to share debt across the eurozone threatens the union’s future.

Europe suffered a historic defeat on Thursday night. After weeks of impasse, the Eurogroup gathering of finance ministers, whose countries share the euro, reached a decision on their collective response to the coronavirus pandemic’s economic impact. Besides constituting an epic dereliction of duty, the Eurogroup’s decision dealt a decisive blow to the foundations of the European Union – much to the delight of Europe’s critics and enemies.

Most of continental Europe using the euro is in lockdown. The economic shockwaves caused by a lockdown do not care what currency we use. Just as in the United Kingdom, the United States or Japan, the precipitous falls in private incomes must be counterbalanced by substantial increases in public expenditure. If governments fail in this, the sum of private and public expenditure (which equals aggregate income) will crash even faster, bankruptcies will burgeon and government tax revenues will collapse further in the medium turn.

The challenge facing the 19 countries of the eurozone is unique. The massive boost in public debt that is now so necessary is hampered by the quaint arrangement of sharing a central bank that, on the one hand, has no common treasury to lean against and, on the other, is banned from backing directly the 19 treasuries that must borrow in euros to fight the crisis. The euro crisis that began in 2010 stretched this monetary architecture to its limits. The coronavirus recession is now pushing it beyond them.

With the countries worst hit by Covid-19, such as Italy, being the most indebted and thus the least able to shoulder the necessary new debt, an impossible conundrum emerges: the new debt needed to revive the private sector will push the state into default, so destroying the banks whose capital is mostly government debt and, in short order, the rest of the private sector. The only way out of this trap is for the new debt not to fall on the weak shoulders of the most indebted eurozone countries but to be shared across the eurozone. Except that this debt-sharing is banned by the treaties that created the eurozone, at the insistence of the northern european countries running a trade surplus with the rest.

It is in the shadow of this riddle that the Eurogroup met on Thursday night. To counter the oncoming tsunami of bankruptcies, they had to emulate the British, American and Japanese stimuli programmes by channelling approximately 8% of total eurozone income (€1tn) into fresh public expenditure, while also setting aside another such sum for an investment fund to power up the post-Covid-19 recovery. And they had to find a way to avoid circumventing the ban on debt-sharing without which an additional €2tn public expenditure would crush members such as Italy, Spain and Greece thus reviving the spectre of disintegration.

On Thursday night, impasse gave way to an agreement. While you may be reading headlines of an impressive sum of €500bn to rescue Europe, the truth is far less heroic. In fact, the price of reaching the agreement was impotence. Instead of the 16% of total eurozone income (€2tn) stimulus needed, the eurozone will throw a derisory 0.22% (€27.7bn) at the crisis. To make the numbers sound better, and reach the magical €500bn figure, they will extend credit lines to countries such as Italy, via Europe’s bailout fund (the European stability mechanism, or ESM), to the tune of 2% of a recipient country’s national income. And they will allow for more loans, of about €100bn, to the social security systems of countries whose unemployment benefit bill spikes more than others – on condition that the monies will be returned when unemployment subsides.

Before the Eurogroup met, hope was in the air that Europe would, at last, change its rules to save its greatest creation: the European Union. Unlike in 2015, when I was alone in the Eurogroup in demanding a common instrument for restructuring public debt, in the past few weeks the governments of eight southern states, plus France, demanded a rethink on debt-sharing without which the eurozone will remain an iron cage of austerity for most and a source of economic stagnation for everyone. Belatedly, but correctly, they demanded a so-called “eurobond”: a common debt instrument that allows total long-term debt to shrink by transferring a portion of it from member states, which have a lot of debt, to the eurozone, which has none.

This debate is now dead in the water, killed off by the Eurogroup’s decision to rely almost entirely on new debts falling squarely on the member states’ weakened shoulders. The only concession to the nine governments suggesting debt-sharing was that the new ESM loans will have no strings attached to them. This is, alas, a red herring as the conditions will come later, once the eurozone’s fiscal rules bite again.

The message today to Italians, Spaniards and Greeks is: your government can borrow large amounts from Europe’s bailout fund. No conditions. You will also receive help to pay for unemployment benefits from countries where employment holds up better. But, within a year or two, as your economies are recovering, huge new austerity measures will be demanded to bring your government’s finances back into line, including the repayment of the monies spent on your unemployment benefits. This is equivalent to helping the fallen get up but striking them over the head as they begin to rise.

The EU is, of course, a lot more than a monetary area. It is a peace project, a realm of shared culture, a source of identity and an opportunity to stem toxic nationalism. Nonetheless, if its economic foundation buckles, powerful centrifugal forces already in play are ready to tear the union apart. Thursday’s Eurogroup verdict, besides being macroeconomically insignificant, was politically irresponsible and a fantastic boon for Eurosceptics in Europe, the UK and indeed in the White House.

 
  • Like
Reactions: CFC

^^That was from CFC in the UK back on March 30, about the same time this occurred in Vermont.

Walmart Told to Halt In-Store Sales of Non-Essentials in Vermont

Dated April 1
The state on Tuesday ordered Walmart Inc. and other big-box retailers to halt the sale of “non-essential” products in their brick-and-mortar locations to reduce the potential spread of the coronavirus.

executive order from Governor Phil Scott that said state businesses should suspend in-person business operations. The order excluded retailers “serving basic human needs” such as grocery stores and pharmacies, recommending only that they conduct business online and through curbside pickup “to the extent possible.”

The list of restricted items includes clothing, consumer electronics, books and sporting equipment, according to a statement from the agency. Such items must be removed from the sales floor or be otherwise closed off to shoppers, who can still purchase them online or via curbside pickup.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: CFC
Fauci says the government is considering giving out COVID-19 'immunity cards' as part of push to reopen the economy

-------------------------
Here's an example of why this hype is disingenous, fabricated bullshit:

During the summer of 2003 the heatwave killed 20,000 French elderly simply because the nursing homes were not equipped with air conditioning. At the time the politicians promised that it would never, ever happen again - every nursing room was going to be equipped with A/C ASAP.

17 years later the elderly are still waiting for their A/C unit. As the french saying goes: "the only ones committed to promises are the ones who believe them". We could add "especially when the promises are made by politicians".



------------------------------

According the Berlin Police, about 350 participants of an unauthorized demonstration have gathered at Rosa- Luxemburg-Platz (at the "Volksbühne" theater). The group "Communication Center Democratic Resistance" had been calling for a so-called "hygiene demo" this Saturday afternoon. They are criticizing that the Corona measures would restrict basic rights. The police dissolved the demonstration. The association commented on the "Corona package" bill, which was passed on March 25th, as follows: "The German Bundestag passes its "Enabling act".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CFC
Article on someone who was on a ventilator...

I spent six days on a ventilator with covid-19. It saved me, but my life is not the same.

By
David Lat
April 9, 2020 at 10:59 a.m. PDT

The ventilator has become an object of national fascination — and controversy. The previously obscure medical device, which mechanically helps patients to breathe, has shot to worldwide fame during the coronavirus pandemic. Many patients with serious cases of covid-19 suffer respiratory failure and will die if they can’t be connected to ventilators.
I should know. I spent six days on a ventilator, in critical condition in the intensive care unit at New York University Langone medical center in New York City. I would not be here today without a ventilator.

On March 16, I was admitted to the hospital with the coronavirus. I had a number of flu-like symptoms, including fever, chills, aches and fatigue. But my most serious complaint — as someone who suffered from asthma as a child and has exercise-induced asthma as an adult, albeit managed well with an inhaler — was difficulty breathing.

I spent my first few days in the hospital in stable condition, receiving supplemental oxygen. But on the evening of March 20, I took a turn for the worse. Late that night, I learned that I would need to be intubated, or placed on a ventilator.
This terrified me. A few days earlier, after my admission to the hospital, my physician father had warned me: “You better not get put on a ventilator. People don’t come back from that.”

As the nurses prepared me for the intubation, I thought to myself: It’s not my time to die. My husband and I have a 2-year-old son. I want to see him graduate from high school, graduate from college. If he gets married or has kids of his own someday, I want to be there. I started praying the Hail Mary, over and over.
I have hazy memories of the intubation. My anesthesiologist was a woman with a slight Caribbean accent and an authoritative, reassuring demeanor. In my overwhelmed state, it seemed that a dozen people were in the room, when, in reality, it was probably just a handful. Aided by anesthesia, I soon fell asleep.

I spent the next six days basically asleep, under sedation, the ventilator serving as my lungs. I remember nothing from this period. I have since learned that some patients have nightmares or hallucinations while on ventilators, so I view myself as very fortunate.

Eventually, my doctors faced a choice: take me off the ventilator and see if I could breathe on my own, or give me a tracheostomy, which would have required an incision into my neck to insert a breathing tube directly into my windpipe. After conducting tests to assess my ability to breathe on my own, the doctors decided to take me off the ventilator or extubate me. The extubation succeeded. With the aid of supplemental oxygen, I could breathe independently again.
As a patient whose life was saved by a ventilator, I believe it is an outrage and an embarrassment that a nation as wealthy as ours is even discussing possible ventilator shortages. Thankfully the United States has managed to avoid widespread rationing partly due to ventilators being sent from places of low need to places of high need. We need to make sure that every patient who needs a ventilator can get one so that as many of them as possible can survive.

This is especially true because survival rates of ventilated patients are low. My father’s dark comment reflected a grim reality: 40 percent to 50 percent of patients with severe respiratory distress do not survive being on ventilators. In New York City, where I was hospitalized, 80 percent or more of coronavirus patients who end up on ventilators have died.

For those of us lucky enough to get off ventilators, our lives are not the same. Many patients who come off ventilators suffer lasting physical, mental and emotional issues, including cognitive deficits, lost jobs and psychological issues, such as depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.
For me, my lungs must rebuild their capacity. I experience breathlessness from even mild exertion. I used to run marathons; now I can’t walk across a room or up a flight of stairs without getting winded. I can’t go around the block for fresh air unless my husband pushes me in a wheelchair. When I shower, I can’t stand the entire time; I take breaks from standing to sit down on a plastic stool I have placed inside my bathtub.

Being on the ventilator for almost a week damaged my vocal cords, and now my voice is extremely hoarse. My speech pathologist expressed optimism that the damage is not permanent. Only time will tell.

I’m not complaining. I am incredibly grateful to be alive. And for that, I have the ventilator to thank.


I'm pretty sure I would rather meet my end with a self inflicted gunshot at home if things got that bad tbph. Fuck dying alone on a ventilator in a hospital. No thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CFC
5760.jpg

A volunteer sorts food donations for at-risk people in Barcelona, Spain.


The EU's new coronavirus relief deal is a gift to Europe's enemies

by Yanis Varoufakis | The Guardian | 11 April 2020

Ignore the headlines about €500bn to rescue Europe. Refusing to share debt across the eurozone threatens the union’s future.

Europe suffered a historic defeat on Thursday night. After weeks of impasse, the Eurogroup gathering of finance ministers, whose countries share the euro, reached a decision on their collective response to the coronavirus pandemic’s economic impact. Besides constituting an epic dereliction of duty, the Eurogroup’s decision dealt a decisive blow to the foundations of the European Union – much to the delight of Europe’s critics and enemies.

Most of continental Europe using the euro is in lockdown. The economic shockwaves caused by a lockdown do not care what currency we use. Just as in the United Kingdom, the United States or Japan, the precipitous falls in private incomes must be counterbalanced by substantial increases in public expenditure. If governments fail in this, the sum of private and public expenditure (which equals aggregate income) will crash even faster, bankruptcies will burgeon and government tax revenues will collapse further in the medium turn.

The challenge facing the 19 countries of the eurozone is unique. The massive boost in public debt that is now so necessary is hampered by the quaint arrangement of sharing a central bank that, on the one hand, has no common treasury to lean against and, on the other, is banned from backing directly the 19 treasuries that must borrow in euros to fight the crisis. The euro crisis that began in 2010 stretched this monetary architecture to its limits. The coronavirus recession is now pushing it beyond them.

With the countries worst hit by Covid-19, such as Italy, being the most indebted and thus the least able to shoulder the necessary new debt, an impossible conundrum emerges: the new debt needed to revive the private sector will push the state into default, so destroying the banks whose capital is mostly government debt and, in short order, the rest of the private sector. The only way out of this trap is for the new debt not to fall on the weak shoulders of the most indebted eurozone countries but to be shared across the eurozone. Except that this debt-sharing is banned by the treaties that created the eurozone, at the insistence of the northern european countries running a trade surplus with the rest.

It is in the shadow of this riddle that the Eurogroup met on Thursday night. To counter the oncoming tsunami of bankruptcies, they had to emulate the British, American and Japanese stimuli programmes by channelling approximately 8% of total eurozone income (€1tn) into fresh public expenditure, while also setting aside another such sum for an investment fund to power up the post-Covid-19 recovery. And they had to find a way to avoid circumventing the ban on debt-sharing without which an additional €2tn public expenditure would crush members such as Italy, Spain and Greece thus reviving the spectre of disintegration.

On Thursday night, impasse gave way to an agreement. While you may be reading headlines of an impressive sum of €500bn to rescue Europe, the truth is far less heroic. In fact, the price of reaching the agreement was impotence. Instead of the 16% of total eurozone income (€2tn) stimulus needed, the eurozone will throw a derisory 0.22% (€27.7bn) at the crisis. To make the numbers sound better, and reach the magical €500bn figure, they will extend credit lines to countries such as Italy, via Europe’s bailout fund (the European stability mechanism, or ESM), to the tune of 2% of a recipient country’s national income. And they will allow for more loans, of about €100bn, to the social security systems of countries whose unemployment benefit bill spikes more than others – on condition that the monies will be returned when unemployment subsides.

Before the Eurogroup met, hope was in the air that Europe would, at last, change its rules to save its greatest creation: the European Union. Unlike in 2015, when I was alone in the Eurogroup in demanding a common instrument for restructuring public debt, in the past few weeks the governments of eight southern states, plus France, demanded a rethink on debt-sharing without which the eurozone will remain an iron cage of austerity for most and a source of economic stagnation for everyone. Belatedly, but correctly, they demanded a so-called “eurobond”: a common debt instrument that allows total long-term debt to shrink by transferring a portion of it from member states, which have a lot of debt, to the eurozone, which has none.

This debate is now dead in the water, killed off by the Eurogroup’s decision to rely almost entirely on new debts falling squarely on the member states’ weakened shoulders. The only concession to the nine governments suggesting debt-sharing was that the new ESM loans will have no strings attached to them. This is, alas, a red herring as the conditions will come later, once the eurozone’s fiscal rules bite again.

The message today to Italians, Spaniards and Greeks is: your government can borrow large amounts from Europe’s bailout fund. No conditions. You will also receive help to pay for unemployment benefits from countries where employment holds up better. But, within a year or two, as your economies are recovering, huge new austerity measures will be demanded to bring your government’s finances back into line, including the repayment of the monies spent on your unemployment benefits. This is equivalent to helping the fallen get up but striking them over the head as they begin to rise.

The EU is, of course, a lot more than a monetary area. It is a peace project, a realm of shared culture, a source of identity and an opportunity to stem toxic nationalism. Nonetheless, if its economic foundation buckles, powerful centrifugal forces already in play are ready to tear the union apart. Thursday’s Eurogroup verdict, besides being macroeconomically insignificant, was politically irresponsible and a fantastic boon for Eurosceptics in Europe, the UK and indeed in the White House.


This whole thing has seriously showed the EU up for being a slow, inefficient, bloated bureaucratic mess. It took them months to actually do anything for their member states and they're still not doing very much. €500 billion is less than the UK alone is spending to help people and businesses. And that €500 billion comes three months late, as Italy and Spain are past the worst of things already, and is shared across 27 countries.

In the UK we had remoaners criticising the government for setting up contracts to buy ventilators from British companies instead of joining the EU ventilator scheme. Looks like the government made the right call since that EU ventilator scheme as of yet has not delivered any ventilators.


Once this is over I would not be surprised if more countries started to leave the EU. Italy would likely be first, their PM has already talked about it, and who can really blame them?
 
This whole thing has seriously showed the EU up for being a slow, inefficient, bloated bureaucratic mess. It took them months to actually do anything for their member states and they're still not doing very much. €500 billion is less than the UK alone is spending to help people and businesses. And that €500 billion comes three months late, as Italy and Spain are past the worst of things already, and is shared across 27 countries.

In the UK we had remoaners criticising the government for setting up contracts to buy ventilators from British companies instead of joining the EU ventilator scheme. Looks like the government made the right call since that EU ventilator scheme as of yet has not delivered any ventilators.


Once this is over I would not be surprised if more countries started to leave the EU. Italy would likely be first, their PM has already talked about it, and who can really blame them?
Not really on topic of what you’ve wrote but what do you think of virgin making the ventilators and formula 1 making cpap devices?
where I’m living we have normal people making face shields for frontline staff and people sewing scrubs. How mental is it that this even needs done? How are factories not able to up production for things like ventilators and PPE. I’m so confused.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top