Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, YouTube > YT Clips about Problems with Current Response to COVID-19 Pandemic

YT Clips about Problems with Current Response to COVID-19 Pandemic

Here are a couple of interesting YouTube clips about the absolute inadequacy, and highly magical thinking underlying, current official responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. In the first clip, Kim Iversen, correctly makes the case that the virus in question is already so well distributed in global human population that it is impossible to contain it without an effective vaccine- which won’t be available for at least a few months or a year. Her point is that you just cannot shutdown entire countries without very serious, and far worse, collateral damage to the lives of everybody else and the economy. It seems she got a lot of flack from virtue-displaying dumbfucks aka modern western nosy leftists aka proto-SJWs for pointing out the obvious.

Clip #1: Is THIS Really Our Strategy?

The second clip is about whether we should do a cost-benefit analysis for measures to control this pandemic, especially given its rather low mortality (at the population level). She correctly points out the hospitals and doctors who spend all their time on trying to help COVID-19 patients are doing so by neglecting others with much worse illness- from heart attacks and strokes to cancers. She also points out that short of shutting down the world economy till we develop a vaccine is a really bad idea with even infinitely worse consequences. Similarly the bullshit idea known as “social distancing” does not help in the long term- and, in fact, might make acquisition of herd immunity much harder. Some of you might like it, but she is correct. FYI- one of my degrees is in Microbiology and a lot of the stuff pushed by so called “experts” about controlling this pandemic has always sounded like a lot of wishful aka magical thinking to me.

Clip # 2: Plan B For #COVEXIT

What do you think? Comments?

  1. P Ray
    March 28, 2020 at 6:28 pm

    A lot of “optimism” comes when people don’t actually understand the reality,
    and the “facts” come from people who are “optimistic” – i.e. they have to sell a mitigation method, and the only way to do that is to project the idea that the situation can be properly handled.

    Much like how a lot of society is primed against the young, who want a share of the cake they helped to bake, now we have a bunch of people whose office politics create official policy.

    In short, to advance their careers, a bunch of healthcare professionals gave really bad advice, believed that things couldn’t get worse (because they know everything), and don’t want to acknowledge other methods are better (despite being proven).

    When office politics meets official policy, you get the death of the person in the street.

  2. hoipolloi
    March 29, 2020 at 3:55 am

    Wow! She is a killer beauty. A man eater with a matching brain. Yeah, I am talking about KIm Iversen.

    • Yusef
      March 29, 2020 at 8:54 am

      I couldn’t help drooling myself.

  3. HarshCritic
    March 29, 2020 at 6:13 am

    10% of people in the workforce can facilitate the indefinite quarantine of the rest 90% of people. They would just have to live with the basics: food, energy, medicines, internet and a monthly basic income.
    All the cry about “muh economy” that is supposedly ruined is complete blackmailing bullshit.

    What is exactly ruined in the short term:

    – vanity narcissistic projects (fashion shows, concerts, sports etc)

    – lifestyle choices (nightclub going, cinemas, travelling etc)

    – the delusional goals of men who dream to become beta bucks/sugar daddies by hoarding wealth

    – braindead consumerism

    • P Ray
      March 29, 2020 at 7:15 am

      The deaths of many people will open up jobs, land and sexual opportunities.

      Plus as the blackpill spreads more men will be less willing to spend money on ethots.

      And divorces due to being together will let more men know that “they were only attractive … when they allowed their wives to spend their money while they were away”.

      There’s going to be a boom in sex for rent.

      And not enough people to whiteknight for women.

      It’s certainly a balancing of the scales, and I won’t be surprised to learn that having STDs severely weakens the immune system to the point CoViD-19 becomes deadly.

      But of course, to expose that, a woman doctor will have to present it … haha!

      • doldrom
        March 29, 2020 at 10:42 pm

        How many sexual opportunities will be opened up by a disproportionate numer of 82 year old men passing away while venting?

      • P Ray
        March 29, 2020 at 11:05 pm

        I prefer to think about the 10-20-30 year olds passing away.

        There are quite a few of them already.

    • Yusef
      March 29, 2020 at 8:48 am

      “They would just have to live with the basics: food, energy, medicines, internet and a monthly basic income.”

      The devil is in the details, though. How exactly will people procure these basics in a society such as ours? Don’t you understand the point here is that we don’t have a good strategy for dealing effectively with this crisis, not that there is no crisis? If you actually listened to this woman, she pointed out already there are Americans going hungry. She gave the example of single moms, living paycheck to paycheck, now unable to work, whose children eat lunch– because there are still free school lunch programs (for the time being)– but not dinner. That’s right now! This will get much, much more serious. And it is a serious problem. It has to be dealt with realistically, practically.

      Wave a wand and provide your “monthly basic income”. In case you haven’t noticed this idea has not found purchase in America previously and it is not being widely discussed now. It isn’t going to happen soon enough or well enough to effectively prevent catastrophe. Also, vis a vis the current crisis, what does a monthly basic income provide in a thoroughly disrupted economy which may not be able to produce and distribute food, energy, medicines and so on? Not that I have any faith your sort of shrill, hysterical, womanish variety of flake has ever, or can now, grapple with a difficult problem in a way which can solve it.

      • HarshCritic
        March 29, 2020 at 9:17 am

        Ok retard. Are you aware what percentage of the population works in the agriculture? It’s around 4% in Europe and I assume it’s not very different in the US. Let’s say it’s another 6% those who work to complete the chain of supply (processing, supermarkets, transportation, oil refineries, etc).
        Some questions for you genius: Where does the money paying the salaries of the paparazzis come from? Can the state provide them with a basic income so they don’t die from hunger since they can no longer indulge in their meaningless profession? You know that their income is derived purely from symbolic exchange without them producing nothing valuable to society?

      • Yusef
        March 29, 2020 at 11:00 am

        Ok retard. Put up your dukes. Your figures are meaningless. It might be a smaller percentage of the population in the U.S. work in agriculture. I tag it at 1.5%. So you think that means this small per centage, along with “another 6”, which by the way you “assume” to be the right number, which is idiocy, can keep everyone else alive while they are unemployed. While they have no money.

        I’ll drop my objection to your silly assumptions. Let’s just call them “good enough.”

        Now, this 10% is going to go to work. (Why? Why should they put their lives on the line? Because they’re nice guys?) How are they going to get paid if the goods and services they provide can’t be paid for because the others don’t have any money? How are the companies which employ them going to stay in business to keep employing them? And why? They are going to start losing massive amounts of money operating in a situation where they can’t anticipate pay. If I was them, I would just shut down to avoid the losses. That is the way businesses work in this country. Decisions are based on how to make the most money, or sustain the least possible loss if there must be loss. This is the reality.

        The only way society could reorganize quickly and effectively enough to suddenly allow 10% to maintain the other 90% in lockdown at all would be under martial law. Societies can’t stop and turn on a dime. They can’t. You don’t know what you are talking about. This society and the people who think like you have attempted to stop society, but what you’ve done is crash society. You’ve made a bad situation much worse than it had to be, likely disastrously so. You’ve been thoughtless and hysterical.

        I don’t even think you know how to think. You know how to be shrill.

        “Some questions for you genius: Where does the money paying the salaries of the paparazzis come from? Can the state provide them with a basic income so they don’t die from hunger since they can no longer indulge in their meaningless profession? You know that their income is derived purely from symbolic exchange without them producing nothing valuable to society?”

        Okay, I get it now. You’re not only a retard, you’re on acid. The shift to now wanting to discuss the income of paparazzi is the tip off. But let me explain to you. The way the paparazzi get their income is a variation on the way business makes money. (Or at least did when there was free enterprise or remnant thereof.) They produce something which they sell for more than it cost to produce. They produce something other people are willing to purchase. In this sense it doesn’t matter what it is, whether it is tacos or celebrity photographs. You must think we don’t need paparazzi, so we can close them down. Well, there are a lot of things we don’t (arguably) need, and we can shut them down, too. Yet like it or not, shutting things down has economic consequences which are staggering. Are you even aware unemployment has staggering consequences? This woman mentioned the number of people who died in the last recession because they couldn’t afford medicines. (Did you care to notice?) The sudden high unemployment and inability to get people working again is what made the Great Depression into a protracted struggle for America. Now you, oh mighty pompetus of tomfoolery, are actually prescribing it for people.You talk this way. Someone whose job and livelihood has been destroyed by this (because actually, see, your side won. We have shut down and we don’t even really know for how long. So these negative consequences of your actions will accrue and there will be some people looking to lash out at) may very well hunt you down and beat the piss out of you.

    • doldrom
      March 29, 2020 at 10:47 pm

      I gather that you can die of Corona if more than 2% of your cells are affected, even if the other 98% are still doing well ….

      • Yusef
        March 30, 2020 at 9:07 am

        That’s right. These people do not have any understanding of the way modern production lines are integrated networks extending in all directions, nationally, internationally, and globally. It is probably, except as a convenience, wrong to speak in terms of specific economic sectors. This kind of thinking is obsolete.

        These great geniuses assume some parts of the web are “unnecessary” and can be shut down or severed without effect to other parts. We can close Silicon Valley down without affecting agriculture. We can close dentistry down without affecting health care overall. This isn’t true. Agriculture is computerized, as is virtually every other part of the world economy. There are microchips in most machinery these days, including farm machinery. Information technology is used to manage and track agricultural production. If it can’t be serviced and maintained, there will be problems, potentially leading to large reductions in the food supply. I can say something similar about the way closing down dentistry has an affect on health care in general, but hopefully you get my point. (Not that you don’t.)

        Closing down information technology will affect energy production. Think of nuclear power plants and what happens if “the computers go down” and there aren’t functioning backup systems or enough new computers to expediently replace the dysfunctional ones.

        The whole economy worldwide is interlinked. There are too many links and relationships to even begin to name. Cascading effects of bottlenecks, delays, and glitches, and being worldwide, can lead to jams of epic proportions never seen before. Imagine not being able to see all of this isn’t going to kill, or severely harm people. Under any other circumstances we would likely understand the effects of severing production links on this order of magnitude would induce depopulation we’ve not seen in modern times.

      • P Ray
        March 30, 2020 at 10:19 am

        Closing down information technology will affect energy production. Think of nuclear power plants and what happens if “the computers go down” and there aren’t functioning backup systems or enough new computers to expediently replace the dysfunctional ones.

        Hee hee hee, I’m very certain the nuclear power plants don’t actually have the ability to be fully functional with new computers.
        People like me can and do have access to all the old operating systems (plus even the “specially upgraded” revisions supporting lots of modern hardware) … but we don’t have security clearance … you know, because of racism …

        The reality is the tide of “progress” driven by shareholders and shysters (in total, around a maximum of ~50% performance improvement over single CPU cores from 2013 to 2020) … and dopey people who think new is always better and you can always get backward compatibility … are going to make a lot of industrial equipment unusable in the future as things break down, plus people pay for idiots who don’t have proper experience.

    • P Ray
      March 30, 2020 at 5:03 am

      This is an interesting development:
      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8167051/Handshakes-public-hugs-extinct-pandemic-ends-scientists-warn.htmlHandshakes and public hugs could go extinct in human society when the coronavirus pandemic ends, scientists warn
      A greater awareness of hygiene may mean handshakes and hugs are replaced
      The longer the pandemic the more likely to physical contact could be threatened
      Scientists warn that this may have long-term emotional effects on young people
      Coronavirus symptoms: what are they and should you see a doctor?

      PUBLISHED: 11:58 BST, 30 March 2020 | UPDATED: 12:40 BST, 30 March 2020

      The coronavirus pandemic could spell the end of hugging and handshakes for years to come, social scientists warn.

      Measures to prevent the spread of coronavirus, including bans on physical contact, could change human behaviour in social situations, they say.

      A heightened awareness of infections after the pandemic could mean the so-called COVID-19 generation may be nervous about physically greeting friends and family.

      Experts say the long-standing handshake could be replaced by an awkward nod or elbow bump in all settings, including professional settings such as business meetings and conferences.

      They’re leaving out 3 things:

      1)Only Chad Thundercock will be allowed to hug

      2)Other guys will be the ones who are left out

      3)It will make very clear who the outcasts are

      Expect more lovely violence in the future – remember the line from “Black Panther”: “The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth” – African proverb

    March 29, 2020 at 10:12 am

    • Yusef
      March 29, 2020 at 11:34 am

      Nice video and it is reassuring to see someone else thinks the way I do. I have to say, though, we’ve lost. There’s no meaningful discussion of tactics available. Things have shut down and will remain shut down now, perhaps indefinitely. We lost and the other side won. They wanted the train wreck and they got it, smooth as silk. Smooth as silk for them, a train wreck for us.

  5. Suhaib
    March 29, 2020 at 1:17 pm

    Been following your blog for some time now – I don’t mean to sound harsh – but it’s disappointing to see such nonsense being peddled here. FWIW, Taleb is one of the foremost advocates of “social distancing” – which you term “BS” [never mind you like Taleb – so might as well check out what he’s gotta say]. Also, your microbiology degree is not applicable to this domain – this is basic statistics/growth problem (Vaclav Smil wrote an excellent treatise on the topic, released in 2019). Hopefully you’ll revise your views on the topic (I understand you’re a contrarian, don’t get me wrong, so am I, but being a contrarian and being bull are different).

  6. Yusef
    March 29, 2020 at 1:51 pm

    “– this is basic statistics/growth problem

    Your whatever degree is not applicable to this domain and to make that statement. The collection of the applicable and accurate data which might allow statistics/growth models to be used is not there yet. Much of what we’ve been working from has been exaggerated terribly, so far. For example, If you use a mortality rate of 15% or so, which was a number tossed around and apparently taken seriously earlier, instead of 3% or 1% or 0.2%– whichever number– it matters. The wrong number invalidates the conclusions to be drawn. Do you understand this? Garbage in, garbage out. In the case of garbage out– and there has been garbage coming out– our society has shut itself down on the basis of garbage. This time, hopefully, the garbage-strewing media will be held accountable later. Besides, do you not see we are not following the advice of our experts, by which I mean epidemiologists, not politicians, celebrities, or rich businessmen. Have you noticed? I’m sure you’re right Vaclav Smil wrote an excellent treatise in 2019. He is not the only one. On the “basic statistics/growth problem” level, the math and computations have been in place a long, long time. The people with the best expertise on applying the math and computations to this, in 2020, are expressing doubts about the way it has been applied by the sorts of people I’ve just mentioned. Or, if you will, find me a creditable epidemiologist’s treatise here and now about this specific situation, to refute my claim there aren’t many, if any. (I should note I don’t accept some medical doctor’s word. As if the medical doctors just by being medical doctors were authoritative. No, I want to see the data used, know how it was collected and by whom, how it was confirmed, how it was plugged in, how it was processed, and then the reasoning behind any public health policy proposals arrived at.)

    A shelter in place order has just gone out where I live, so I am not in the best mood to people passing over any concern over “our strategy” as bull and nonsense being peddled.

  7. Rio
    March 30, 2020 at 10:32 am

    Looks like Ann Coulter was right after all. This was exactly her view and she got thrashed for it.

  8. wmws
    March 30, 2020 at 9:54 pm

    AD, have you considered that some of the people who do recover from corona may actually end up with severely reduced lung capacity, thereby potentially hampering their employment prospects down the road? The basic premise of weighing economic impact vs. virus impact I agree with, but the alarming reduction in lung capacity among survivors should be taken into account.


  9. bonzo
    March 31, 2020 at 12:48 am

    Society has gone mad, but maybe there’s is method in the madness. Shutdown will affect the lower echelons primarily, and when they riot, they can arrested fur gathering, then hauled away to quarantine camps and their bodies cremated when they die, so no evidence left behind. No journalists allowed at the quarat camp or cremation facilities because of risk of corona.

    Like that ethnic cleansing in Rwanda when one tribe suddenly attacked the urge and killed like 10% of the population overnight, then another 10% killed in subsequent months. Or like the sudden madness that gripped Europe in August 1914 and lasted 4 years. Expect all sorts of enemies of current rulers to be exterminated in various African countries. India might be affected worst: 500 million Muslims, maybe 400 million more despised lower castes, all ripe for extermination in the name of saving the world from corona. Or maybe like in Rwanda they’ll kill the men and rape the women.

    • hoipolloi
      March 31, 2020 at 5:03 pm

      Your quoted Indian Muslim population of 500 million is outside the range. It is close to 200 million from different sources on internet. The lower castes number of 400 million is close to the mark.

      • April 1, 2020 at 2:27 am

        Indian Muslim population could be well 700 million. Non-Muslims in India have several advantages over non-Muslims in Europe and especially America that enable them hold power in spite of a unfavorable demographic balance…

  1. April 1, 2020 at 2:27 pm
  2. April 13, 2020 at 3:18 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: