Jump to content

The State of Global Politics Today


Shoblongoo
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Jason-SilverStarApple said:

Can I take a vacation in your world? It sounds nicer than reality. Because in reality, the pro gun lobby is infamously unsuccessful in America. Do you have any idea how many compromises have been forced upon them by the anti-gun rights lobbyists? And they have gained nothing in return for these compromises. Seriously, have you seen what Cursed Gun nonsense Californians are forced to do to their guns to comply with this month's nonsense regulation until they can afford to move out of that state? You can't justify that. That's why you skipped my "Justify commiefornia's nonsensical arbitrary limitations on gun rights" challenge.

I wouldn't go on vacation to my world. Its chuck full of Corona these days.

The pro gun lobby is successful because guns are still widely in circulation. School shooting after school shooting and everyone can still have their guns. Most countries would have taken measures after just the one school shooting. 

Its quite easy to justify. Guns aren't toys. They kill people, its what they are designed to do. So if you have a weapon that can kill by just pointing at people and pulling a trigger you need some extremely tight regulations to go along with them. Or just don't let the general public have them at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 317
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

17 minutes ago, Jason-SilverStarApple said:

Seriously, have you seen what Cursed Gun nonsense Californians are forced to do to their guns to comply with this month's nonsense regulation

From my point of view it's easier to buy a gun than the necessities during this pandemic. I also don't know what kind of regulations you're talking about because no government official has knocked on our door to check on our gratuitous stockpile. Gun owners only think they're under attack when the tv says so. Meanwhile these toys just collect dust as they should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Etrurian emperor said:

I wouldn't go on vacation to my world. Its chuck full of Corona these days.

The pro gun lobby is successful because guns are still widely in circulation. School shooting after school shooting and everyone can still have their guns. Most countries would have taken measures after just the one school shooting. 

Its quite easy to justify. Guns aren't toys. They kill people, its what they are designed to do. So if you have a weapon that can kill by just pointing at people and pulling a trigger you need some extremely tight regulations to go along with them. Or just don't let the general public have them at all. 

Oh, now I get it!

It's fine, I talked someone through figuring this stuff out before. I know how to stay calm and help you understand this.

Firstly, you know how shops have money, right?

You know how sometimes, criminals will rob stores to get their money, right?

Well, criminals don't try to rob gun stores. And you already know why: Because good people have access to guns at gun stores. One criminal with a gun would get shot and die if he tried robbing a gun store. That's why criminals prey upon easier targets. Helpless, unarmed ones.

Secondly, you know how criminals don't follow the laws, and that's what makes them criminals? All the anti-gun laws in the world couldn't stop them. But gun rights can arm their victims, and make predators think twice.

If you outlaw knives, only criminals will have and use knives. If you outlaw guns, only criminals have and use guns. In some crappy parts of the UK, police are confiscating kitchen knives from law-abiding citizens, but that won't do anything to stop the machete-swinging rape gangs over there.

Now, please don't take this as a personal attack against you or the anti-gun religion. It's never too late to realize whoever talked you into fearing/hating guns was just trying to use you.

Remember that time a mass shooter attacked some church in Texas, and was immediately stopped and shot by some old man with a big iron on his hip? A Sig Sauer, if I recall the Big Iron parody song sung about him correctly. Just one good man with a gun shot the criminal, saved a ton of lives, and saved the day.

Remember that time a gay nightclub called Pulse got shot up by a homophobe in Orlando, Florida? Omar Mateen. His name is remembered because he successfully killed people. And if one person in that club had a gun, that one person could have shot the criminal and saved the day.

You can't blame the tool for what people choose to do with it. And getting rid of a tool won't get rid of evil people who'll use anything to help them kill/rob/rape whoever they want. If people started killing other people with machetes or hammers or baseball bats or tire irons or shoes, would you lobby for them to be banned, too?

Plus, America is full of guns. Many of those guns have their serial numbers filed off and can't be traced. They're already distributed throughout the criminal underworld, so trying to get California to ban the legal sale and legal ownership of guns with more than eleven bullets and trying to get Idaho to ban guns guns with more than twenty won't save anyone. Making life harder on honest people won't affect or harm criminals, it'll just make their lives easier.

Besides, "gun control" laws blatantly don't work. Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, yet the hellhole is still full of violence and gun crime and theft and so on. You're fighting a losing battle against an enemy you can't beat because you're not fighting it correctly. Gun Control laws don't hurt criminals, they help them by disarming their prey. Fight for harsher punishments for mass shooters, and fight for the right for mentally-sound people to own guns.

Once upon a time, I was an asshole. I hated guns and I hated people who liked guns even more.

That all changed when I met a certain friend of mine.

He carries a gun.

And once, I asked him why.

He told me it's because if some criminal ever shows up and starts killing people, he's willing to put his life on the line to save innocents, even though he doesn't know them and even though he doesn't have any reason to care about them.

That changed my perspective on gun ownership, because up until then, my view of gun-owning people was shaped entirely by what the lefty facebook pages I followed chose to show to me. I saw idiots at the gun range injuring themselves, I saw bad people shooting each other, and I'd never seen a good person with a gun before.

But then I realized, I had seen a good person with a gun before. And it was that man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shrimperor said:

When a passport/ID is stolen it get's reported to the police then to the relevant authorities.

Who then would share that information with the database airports and border crossings use. That's what I mean. If that information is not cross referenced then it's a major weakness of security. If traveling out of the Schengen area you're European National Identity card has to be scanned for viability with the travelling noted on the database. Otherwise the UK would be part of Schengen.

2 hours ago, Shrimperor said:

1. UK was added to the ban, last i checked.

Oh, I didn't know that. I've been trekking in the outback that last few days, so a bit out of the loop!

2 hours ago, Shrimperor said:

 

3. Why would i ever visit the USA in it's current State?

Haha. Touche.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jason-SilverStarApple said:

You know how sometimes, criminals will rob stores to get their money, right?

Well, criminals don't try to rob gun stores. And you already know why: Because good people have access to guns at gun stores. One criminal with a gun would get shot and die if he tried robbing a gun store. That's why criminals prey upon easier targets. Helpless, unarmed ones.

Gun stores get robbed too-- people steal guns from them, and then sell them. There are also a lot of different stores that sell guns but have lax security. Sporting good outlets, Walmarts, etc.

1 hour ago, Jason-SilverStarApple said:

Secondly, you know how criminals don't follow the laws, and that's what makes them criminals? All the anti-gun laws in the world couldn't stop them. But gun rights can arm their victims, and make predators think twice.

If you outlaw knives, only criminals will have and use knives. If you outlaw guns, only criminals have and use guns. In some crappy parts of the UK, police are confiscating kitchen knives from law-abiding citizens, but that won't do anything to stop the machete-swinging rape gangs over there.

 

This is fallacious thinking. All laws have an effect at deterring criminal behavior or inhibiting a person's capacity to carry out crimes. Gun laws wouldn't stop 100% of gun violence, but would make it harder to acquire guns, or bring them into places where they can hurt more people.

1 hour ago, Jason-SilverStarApple said:

Now, please don't take this as a personal attack against you or the anti-gun religion. It's never too late to realize whoever talked you into fearing/hating guns was just trying to use you.

Used in what way? Meanwhile, it's very clear why the gun lobby and NRA try to convince people that lax gun control is good, as they directly profit from it.

1 hour ago, Jason-SilverStarApple said:

You can't blame the tool for what people choose to do with it. And getting rid of a tool won't get rid of evil people who'll use anything to help them kill/rob/rape whoever they want. If people started killing other people with machetes or hammers or baseball bats or tire irons or shoes, would you lobby for them to be banned, too?

The problem with this thinking is that guns are designed primarily to inflict damage on people, property, etc, and they do so extremely well, often accidentally. Hammers, baseball bats, etc have primary purposes and using them for violence is not what they are made for. The difference in how much damage they can inflict is pretty stark too; pulling a trigger on a gun is easy enough for a child to do by accident and is regularly lethal, while it takes a degree of strength and intent to swing a bat or a hammer with lethal force.

1 hour ago, Jason-SilverStarApple said:

Plus, America is full of guns. Many of those guns have their serial numbers filed off and can't be traced. They're already distributed throughout the criminal underworld, so trying to get California to ban the legal sale and legal ownership of guns with more than eleven bullets and trying to get Idaho to ban guns guns with more than twenty won't save anyone. Making life harder on honest people won't affect or harm criminals, it'll just make their lives easier.

You have to remember that the police confiscate guns when they are used in crimes. Having stricter gun laws means reducing the number of guns out there even when they're not being used in crimes. In other words, it's preventative instead of responsive; an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as they say.

1 hour ago, Jason-SilverStarApple said:

Besides, "gun control" laws blatantly don't work. Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, yet the hellhole is still full of violence and gun crime and theft and so on. You're fighting a losing battle against an enemy you can't beat because you're not fighting it correctly. Gun Control laws don't hurt criminals, they help them by disarming their prey. Fight for harsher punishments for mass shooters, and fight for the right for mentally-sound people to own guns.

Chicago's gun laws are ineffectual because they don't apply to surrounding areas. People simply bring them in from other places. The problem is that the laws are not widespread enough to do anything.

1 hour ago, Jason-SilverStarApple said:

Remember that time a mass shooter attacked some church in Texas, and was immediately stopped and shot by some old man with a big iron on his hip? A Sig Sauer, if I recall the Big Iron parody song sung about him correctly. Just one good man with a gun shot the criminal, saved a ton of lives, and saved the day.

Remember that time a gay nightclub called Pulse got shot up by a homophobe in Orlando, Florida? Omar Mateen. His name is remembered because he successfully killed people. And if one person in that club had a gun, that one person could have shot the criminal and saved the day.

--------------------------------------------[putting these together because they're related, hope that's ok]-----------------------------------------

Once upon a time, I was an asshole. I hated guns and I hated people who liked guns even more.

That all changed when I met a certain friend of mine.

He carries a gun.

And once, I asked him why.

He told me it's because if some criminal ever shows up and starts killing people, he's willing to put his life on the line to save innocents, even though he doesn't know them and even though he doesn't have any reason to care about them.

That changed my perspective on gun ownership, because up until then, my view of gun-owning people was shaped entirely by what the lefty facebook pages I followed chose to show to me. I saw idiots at the gun range injuring themselves, I saw bad people shooting each other, and I'd never seen a good person with a gun before.

But then I realized, I had seen a good person with a gun before. And it was that man.

A "good guy with a gun" is actually really, really bad for something like an active shooter situation. Police and other responders can't quickly and safely distinguish between the shooter and someone trying to help. Furthermore, most active shooters are packing more than a hand gun, so you'd likely be out-armed. There's also an issue of accuracy-- more likely that a "hero" would miss and hit someone else, assuming they get close enough to take a shot. Ultimately everything about it goes against the best practices for safely managing such an incident, which is to just get as many people out of there, safely and quickly, and not have more gunfire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, I'm up for a good old gun debate (in my country not even the police carry guns, imagine that), but this strictly a US issue. Other countries dont have this conversation. So with that in mind, shouldn't the talk be moved out of the global state of the world thread? I think the whole viral pandemic that's infecting the planet is a bit more pertinent an issue to be discussing in these particular parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jotari said:

Hey, I'm up for a good old gun debate (in my country not even the police carry guns, imagine that), but this strictly a US issue. Other countries dont have this conversation. So with that in mind, shouldn't the talk be moved out of the global state of the world thread? I think the whole viral pandemic that's infecting the planet is a bit more pertinent an issue to be discussing in these particular parts.

Bingo.  Which means it's time for me to start handing out warnings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If nothing else this virus exemplifies how different countries can be presented with the exact same stressor, and how wildly results will vary based on the effectiveness of the government response 

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Johann said:

Gun stores get robbed too-- people steal guns from them, and then sell them. There are also a lot of different stores that sell guns but have lax security. Sporting good outlets, Walmarts, etc.

This is fallacious thinking. All laws have an effect at deterring criminal behavior or inhibiting a person's capacity to carry out crimes. Gun laws wouldn't stop 100% of gun violence, but would make it harder to acquire guns, or bring them into places where they can hurt more people.

Used in what way? Meanwhile, it's very clear why the gun lobby and NRA try to convince people that lax gun control is good, as they directly profit from it.

The problem with this thinking is that guns are designed primarily to inflict damage on people, property, etc, and they do so extremely well, often accidentally. Hammers, baseball bats, etc have primary purposes and using them for violence is not what they are made for. The difference in how much damage they can inflict is pretty stark too; pulling a trigger on a gun is easy enough for a child to do by accident and is regularly lethal, while it takes a degree of strength and intent to swing a bat or a hammer with lethal force.

You have to remember that the police confiscate guns when they are used in crimes. Having stricter gun laws means reducing the number of guns out there even when they're not being used in crimes. In other words, it's preventative instead of responsive; an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as they say.

Chicago's gun laws are ineffectual because they don't apply to surrounding areas. People simply bring them in from other places. The problem is that the laws are not widespread enough to do anything.

A "good guy with a gun" is actually really, really bad for something like an active shooter situation. Police and other responders can't quickly and safely distinguish between the shooter and someone trying to help. Furthermore, most active shooters are packing more than a hand gun, so you'd likely be out-armed. There's also an issue of accuracy-- more likely that a "hero" would miss and hit someone else, assuming they get close enough to take a shot. Ultimately everything about it goes against the best practices for safely managing such an incident, which is to just get as many people out of there, safely and quickly, and not have more gunfire.

Well, I tried.

Let the record show that I tried.

edit: Wait, one more try before I make a thread about gun control.

Do you understand why what you just said is laughably wrong?

"A "good guy with a gun" is actually really, really bad for something like an active shooter situation." indeed. Christ, that's right up there with "If you kill your enemies they win".

You look at the two examples I brought up and tell me if the police showed up in time to save anyone. Then you tell me if the straws you're grasping at have any worth.

Gun control laws don't stop gun crime, they just make life worse for law-abiding citizens. Stop supporting gun control laws, and stop trying to make life worse for law-abiding citizens.

Edited by Jason-SilverStarApple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

If nothing else this virus exemplifies how different countries can be presented with the exact same stressor, and how wildly results will vary based on the effectiveness of the government response 

Do you have any examples towards this? Because most countries seem to be following very similar models with how they're dealing with it. Namely restricting travel from infected areas, encouraging selfisolation, shutting down most businesses and public gatherings and then a border shut down. With the exception of Iran (still trying to figure out why they got hit so hard and the surrounding regions didn't), the spread seems more based on the frequency of international travel destinations given how Africa is almost completely unaffected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jason-SilverStarApple I'll wait to see what happens in the thread you made before responding. If the mods keep it closed, I'll respond in the US Politics thread. Hope you don't mind the delayed response, but continuing the discussion here would directly contradict @eclipse's post.

35 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Do you have any examples towards this? Because most countries seem to be following very similar models with how they're dealing with it. Namely restricting travel from infected areas, encouraging selfisolation, shutting down most businesses and public gatherings and then a border shut down. With the exception of Iran (still trying to figure out why they got hit so hard and the surrounding regions didn't), the spread seems more based on the frequency of international travel destinations given how Africa is almost completely unaffected.

It's mostly about how some countries responded with immediate action (testing, closures, etc), while others acted like it wasn't an issue (little or no testing, downplaying the impacts). This is deliberate in an effort to seem like there's no problem, that they've got it all under control, and that they wouldn't have to do the hard but necessary actions like closing schools and businesses. Basically, it's that sort of "tough guy" ineffectual leadership.

Here's a timeline for COVID-19 events in Iran, if that helps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Excellen Browning said:

No. Gun control laws do stop gun crime, as shown by every country on the planet except the US.

Sources, please. If you're going to make positive claims, you need to back them up with evidence if you want anyone to take them seriously. You need higher-level arguments.

Gun control laws DO NOT stop gun crime. You used Italics when you made your statement, but I used italics and all-caps when I made mine. Ha ha, I win.

But in all seriousness, if gun control laws stopped gun crime, Chicago wouldn't have so much gun crime. I wish you understood things like that.

Is this the part where you say "Well they get the guns illegally from other places! We have to stop guns being sold legally there, too!" without noticing what's wrong with that logic?

I don't know why anti-rights activists get so heated and salty whenever good people like me make calm and logical arguments in favour of having human rights.

Speaking of human rights... I know I should probably wait until the thread gets unlocked, but there's something I need to say before I get back to what I was doing.

To quote user "Shoblongoo" here. https://forums.serenesforest.net/index.php?/topic/91083-usa-gun-rightsgun-control-discussion-thread/&tab=comments#comment-5586454

See Again (And I use the phrase 'modern take on gun control laws,' because the American opposition thereto is primarily steeped in 18th century political theory. Which the 'gun rights' crowd purports to be infallible and something we can never update or advance beyond, no matter how society develops and the needs of public policy change)  

We've made major changes to the Constitution as necessary to correct founding-era deficiencies before. (Slavery. Women's Suffrage. Birthright Citizenship. Etc.) 

Honestly--if the second amendment at this point serves only to prevent us from having the same legal regulations of firearms that have been successfully implemented in other nations as a remedy to major gun violence.

Then the second amendment no longer has any legitimate function and is bad law. 

Imagine not understanding the difference between granting human rights to people enslaved in their home countries and sold to America like cargo, granting women the right to vote, granting anyone born in America the right to be called an American, and trying to strip away a fundamental human right of absolutely everyone in America.

I'll never understand how people can keep that misunderstanding in their heads for so long. It's good to give people rights, and bad to strip those away. Human rights are good. Giving voting rights to women was good. Violating someone's human rights is bad. Why muddy the water with this "The constitution has been changed before so it should be changed now" talk? The constitution was written to codify what fundamental human rights an American citizen is owed by their government. It codifies what rights the police and government are there to protect.

Speaking of that thread, I hope it doesn't get locked forever or deleted. We need a place where this topic can be discussed peacefully without the thread getting derailed with whatever unrelated thing happened in the US this week. If the topic is discussed for long enough, every left-wing anti-rights talking point will be thrown out and debunked.

Also I'll politely overlook that one guy who insinuated that I'm a racist who supports drug use. He's probably going through some hard times, it wouldn't be right to make fun of him for being like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Johann said:

@Jason-SilverStarApple I'll wait to see what happens in the thread you made before responding. If the mods keep it closed, I'll respond in the US Politics thread. Hope you don't mind the delayed response, but continuing the discussion here would directly contradict @eclipse's post.

It's mostly about how some countries responded with immediate action (testing, closures, etc), while others acted like it wasn't an issue (little or no testing, downplaying the impacts). This is deliberate in an effort to seem like there's no problem, that they've got it all under control, and that they wouldn't have to do the hard but necessary actions like closing schools and businesses. Basically, it's that sort of "tough guy" ineffectual leadership.

Here's a timeline for COVID-19 events in Iran, if that helps

Again I don't think many countries are being different in that regard. There are big economic repercussions to those decisions (closing borders also means closing imports and exports which have massive consequences for the economy) and I think most countries are aware of that and are putting it off until the virus is an apparant threat. Some countries like Taiwan are acting quicker (and bloody Kiribati, I was refused entry on a trip I booked ten months ago, still pretty salty about it) but that seems like the outlier. For the most part the pattern seems to be the same. Put it off until the problem is guaranteed and then ease slowly into a quarantine.

1 hour ago, Jason-SilverStarApple said:

Sources, please. If you're going to make positive claims, you need to back them up with evidence if you want anyone to take them seriously. You need higher-level arguments.

Gun control laws DO NOT stop gun crime. You used Italics when you made your statement, but I used italics and all-caps when I made mine. Ha ha, I win.

But in all seriousness, if gun control laws stopped gun crime, Chicago wouldn't have so much gun crime. I wish you understood things like that.

Is this the part where you say "Well they get the guns illegally from other places! We have to stop guns being sold legally there, too!" without noticing what's wrong with that logic?

I don't know why anti-rights activists get so heated and salty whenever good people like me make calm and logical arguments in favour of having human rights.

Speaking of human rights... I know I should probably wait until the thread gets unlocked, but there's something I need to say before I get back to what I was doing.

To quote user "Shoblongoo" here. https://forums.serenesforest.net/index.php?/topic/91083-usa-gun-rightsgun-control-discussion-thread/&tab=comments#comment-5586454

 

 

Imagine not understanding the difference between granting human rights to people enslaved in their home countries and sold to America like cargo, granting women the right to vote, granting anyone born in America the right to be called an American, and trying to strip away a fundamental human right of absolutely everyone in America.

I'll never understand how people can keep that misunderstanding in their heads for so long. It's good to give people rights, and bad to strip those away. Human rights are good. Giving voting rights to women was good. Violating someone's human rights is bad. Why muddy the water with this "The constitution has been changed before so it should be changed now" talk? The constitution was written to codify what fundamental human rights an American citizen is owed by their government. It codifies what rights the police and government are there to protect.

Speaking of that thread, I hope it doesn't get locked forever or deleted. We need a place where this topic can be discussed peacefully without the thread getting derailed with whatever unrelated thing happened in the US this week. If the topic is discussed for long enough, every left-wing anti-rights talking point will be thrown out and debunked.

Also I'll politely overlook that one guy who insinuated that I'm a racist who supports drug use. He's probably going through some hard times, it wouldn't be right to make fun of him for being like this.

I don't want to continue this conversation (there's a viral pandemic, that's pretty interesting guys, we should talk about it instead), but come on now. Are you trolling? More rights = inherently good, less rights = inherently bad. You know that logic doesn't work. Otherwise you should be supporting the criminals who are expressing their right to steal and kill whomever they want. Infinite freedom and rights is anarchy where anyone can do anything. Our right to do somethings has to be suppressed to have a functioning society in this world. What those things are needs be discussed but more rights being automatically good is ludicrous thinking.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jason-SilverStarApple said:

Sources, please. If you're going to make positive claims, you need to back them up with evidence if you want anyone to take them seriously. You need higher-level arguments.

Gun control laws DO NOT stop gun crime. You used Italics when you made your statement, but I used italics and all-caps when I made mine. Ha ha, I win.

But in all seriousness, if gun control laws stopped gun crime, Chicago wouldn't have so much gun crime. I wish you understood things like that.

Is this the part where you say "Well they get the guns illegally from other places! We have to stop guns being sold legally there, too!" without noticing what's wrong with that logic?

I don't know why anti-rights activists get so heated and salty whenever good people like me make calm and logical arguments in favour of having human rights.

Speaking of human rights... I know I should probably wait until the thread gets unlocked, but there's something I need to say before I get back to what I was doing.

To quote user "Shoblongoo" here. https://forums.serenesforest.net/index.php?/topic/91083-usa-gun-rightsgun-control-discussion-thread/&tab=comments#comment-5586454

 

 

Imagine not understanding the difference between granting human rights to people enslaved in their home countries and sold to America like cargo, granting women the right to vote, granting anyone born in America the right to be called an American, and trying to strip away a fundamental human right of absolutely everyone in America.

I'll never understand how people can keep that misunderstanding in their heads for so long. It's good to give people rights, and bad to strip those away. Human rights are good. Giving voting rights to women was good. Violating someone's human rights is bad. Why muddy the water with this "The constitution has been changed before so it should be changed now" talk? The constitution was written to codify what fundamental human rights an American citizen is owed by their government. It codifies what rights the police and government are there to protect.

Speaking of that thread, I hope it doesn't get locked forever or deleted. We need a place where this topic can be discussed peacefully without the thread getting derailed with whatever unrelated thing happened in the US this week. If the topic is discussed for long enough, every left-wing anti-rights talking point will be thrown out and debunked.

Also I'll politely overlook that one guy who insinuated that I'm a racist who supports drug use. He's probably going through some hard times, it wouldn't be right to make fun of him for being like this.

Double post. My bad. Adding another quote to a posted comment is very troublesome on mobile.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Again I don't think many countries are being different in that regard. There are big economic repercussions to those decisions (closing borders also means closing imports and exports which have massive consequences for the economy) and I think most countries are aware of that and are putting it off until the virus is an apparant threat. Some countries like Taiwan are acting quicker (and bloody Kiribati, I was refused entry on a trip I booked ten months ago, still pretty salty about it) but that seems like the outlier. For the most part the pattern seems to be the same. Put it off until the problem is guaranteed and then ease slowly into a quarantine.

It basically comes down to how quickly they were on top of the problem. Some governments went all in on it immediately, while others waited for it to spread thoroughly before admitting it was a problem and doing anything about it. Slower responses lead to a wider outbreaks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Johann said:

It basically comes down to how quickly they were on top of the problem. Some governments went all in on it immediately, while others waited for it to spread thoroughly before admitting it was a problem and doing anything about it. Slower responses lead to a wider outbreaks.

The timeline of events has been pretty crazy. Speaking for my own area, a week ago there was still just idle chatter about the possibility of some things shutting down or if any of us have to lose work. And now we're on functional lockdown prohibiting gatherings of any size as of today. On one hand, I'm glad we're past the compromise phase when it comes to nipping this issue where it hurts. On the other hand, how long did we wait to result in such whiplash in response intensity?

Edited by Glennstavos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 3/3/2020 at 8:41 AM, XRay said:

I do not mind making that bet, but you do realize the United States have a really strong advantage here, right?

Not only are we more spread out which makes spreading disease a little more difficult, but we are also more alert and are more prepared since we know it is coming. We are also 4 times smaller than China population wise, so even if we have the same percentage of deaths, we would still have smaller death numbers.

 

On 3/3/2020 at 10:03 AM, Jotari said:

That is really unlikely imo. There's likely to be a vaccine available before the end of the year. One thing I can say about China is that their desire to keep the rest of the world closed out and handle things themselves has been a hindrance and that's not something that's likely to be replicated in western countries (though heavens help them if something like this happens to break out in an African country where the rest of the world likely won't care all that much, ebola's a pretty good example of that).

 

On 3/3/2020 at 12:46 PM, eclipse said:

Can i ban you if the US winds up with a smaller death toll?  Because if you're going to make stupid comments like this, then you shouldn't be in this thread.

You know, the death cases number in USA is now 10 times more than in China, while in Europe, it is 30 times more.

It doesn't matter if you keep blaming China for everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tetragrammaton said:

You know, the death cases number in USA is now 10 times more than in China, while in Europe, it is 30 times more.

It doesn't matter if you keep blaming China for everything.

I think it's cute that you think that China's being truthful.  And in the weird alternate reality that they were, there would STILL be cases unaccounted for early-on.  So yeah, that was basically a bet that couldn't be won by you.  Ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

China did everything wrong to stop this from turning into a global pandemic.

America and Western Europe then did everything wrong to prepare and protect against it, once we were out on notice that a global pandemic was spreading. 

The East Asian democracies (Taiwan, South Korea, Japan) prepped adequately + are getting through this with minimal loss of life and economic disruption.

And Taiwan in particular is where u wannabe paying attention to what’s going on if you’re looking for the gold standard of quick, effective, normalcy-maintaining government responses.

That’s the level of competence we should be aiming for and the model we wanna be following next time.

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tetragrammaton said:

You know, the death cases number in USA is now 10 times more than in China, while in Europe, it is 30 times more.

Lost that bet. Unfortunately we grossly mishandled it. While I do not trust their statistics, we had months of warning and preparation so we could have prevented the spread much sooner.

1 hour ago, Tetragrammaton said:

It doesn't matter if you keep blaming China for everything.

I am not letting them off scot free though. I will still blame them for mishandling the crisis too and hold them accountable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

China did everything wrong to stop this from turning into a global pandemic.

America and Western Europe then did everything wrong to prepare and protect against it, once we were out on notice that a global pandemic was spreading. 

The East Asian democracies (Taiwan, South Korea, Japan) prepped adequately + are getting through this with minimal loss of life and economic disruption.

And Taiwan in particular is where u wannabe paying attention to what’s going on if you’re looking for the gold standard of quick, effective, normalcy-maintaining government responses.

That’s the level of conference we should be aiming for and the model we wanna be following next time.

As someone on the ground level in Japan I can say they really haven't been doing enough at all. They've basically gotten lucky that it hasn't majorly broken out here yet. Up until recently the government has practically been in denial because they really didn't want to cancel the Olympics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, I never trust China, I didn't bet on their successful in the war against COVID19.

I only bet on how badly the West can fail.

If you know how many people die every year just because of common flu in USA, you would not surprise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we pretend the flu is just as contagious, then it would mean that we're looking at somewhere between two and three times the number of deaths from the flu a year.  According to this, the upper range of deaths from the flu during the 2017-2018 season is 61,000 for the US.

We're at a little over 59,000 deaths from COVID-19.  This is way worse than the flu, and I don't think we've hit the point where triage is necessary (someone correct me if I'm wrong).  We don't shut everything down for the flu, we vaccinate and deal with it.  Except we can't vaccinate for the current pandemic.  So yeah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to be able to produce enough PPE that everyone in the country can go about their regular daily routine wearing face masks. And you need to be able to produce enough test kits to have them in every public building and transit hub.

That’s what the countries that handled this correctly did from the start; that’s what you need to do to get everything open and running again without an undue public health risks.

 (After 3 months America isn’t even close, and our federal leadership is serving as an impediment rather than as an asset to getting it done)

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...