Coronavirus

[nige1]

Past flu-epidemics killed millions.The Chinese government tried to contain the latest virus outbreak by restricting travel and quarantining victims.

Other countries decided to spread it quickly and widely, flying potential victims all over the world :(

In spite of our best efforts, the UK has only 4 cases, so far :)

 

First reactions to HIV/AIDS were even dafter. Sadistic political-correctness triumphed over common-sense.

Africans, drug-innoculators and male-homosexuals weren't targeted. No isolation. No immigration restrictions. Many died unnecessarily.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kveooWmqqr8l

[hrothgar]

Past flu-epidemics killed millions.The Chinese government tried to contain the latest virus outbreak by restricting travel and quarantining victims.

Other countries decided to spread it quickly and widely, flying potential victims all over the world :(

In spite of our best efforts, the UK has only 4 cases, so far :)

 

First reactions to HIV/Aids were even dafter. Sadistic political-correctness triumphed over common-sense.

Africans, drug-innoculators and male-homosexuals weren't targeted. No isolation. No immigration restrictions. Many died unnecessarily.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kveooWmqqr8l

 

Its long been said that, "in Washington, the definition of a scandal is when someone says the hidden part out loud"...

Its this example, its when Nigel uses the word "targeted", clearly demonstrated what an odious, homophobic, racist piece of ***** he is.

 

FWIW, I very much hope that BBO keeps this post around so we can hang it around his head each and every time he posts his insufferable moralistic crap.

[barmar]

Richard, are you denying that HIV/AIDS significantly affected gay men and drug users, and the government didn't focus on these groups? In fact, for a while they didn't even consider it a serious problem because they didn't even care about them.

 

The problem was that the medical community was homophobic, and Nigel seems to be pointing that out.

[hrothgar]

Richard, are you denying that HIV/AIDS significantly affected gay men and drug users, and the government didn't focus on these groups? In fact, for a while they didn't even consider it a serious problem because they didn't even care about them.

 

The problem was that the medical community was homophobic, and Nigel seems to be pointing that out.

 

Barry, go back and read Nigel's post

 

He is complaining that the government wasn't sufficiently zealous in "targeting" homosexuals, Haitians, etc...

[cherdano]

Yes, HIV/AIDS spread much more than it should have because governments were too concerned about gay people.

 

It's a strange world you live in Nigel.

[barmar]

Barry, go back and read Nigel's post

 

He is complaining that the government wasn't sufficiently zealous in "targeting" homosexuals, Haitians, etc...

Targeting them for research and treatment is how I interpreted it. What do you think he meant by it?

[hrothgar]

Targeting them for research and treatment is how I interpreted it. What do you think he meant by it?

 

Locking them up in camps (I believe that quarantine is the euphemistic term)

 

When people frame their argument around "political correctness" , they aren't talking about spending more money on research and treatment.

[y66]

From As Asia Panics, One Country Wins Praise for Approach to Virus by Philip Heijmans and Jason Gale February 10, 2020, 7:19 AM EST

 

As governments in Asia struggle to reassure their populations over the coronavirus, public health experts say Singapore’s approach in communicating to the public is providing a model for others to reduce panic, rumors and conspiracy theories.

 

In a nine-minute recorded message on Sunday, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said “fear can do more harm than the virus itself” amid reports of long lines and hoarding at local supermarkets. He then laid out steps residents can take to help prevent the spread of the virus, like exercising good hygiene, while assuring them that the city had enough supplies of enough goods.

 

Moreover, he reassured Singaporeans that the virus didn’t appear as deadly as the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome in 2003, meaning that most people would likely experience a minor illness. He also said the government would change its approach if the virus became widespread to avoid overwhelming hospitals, adding he would keep them “informed every step of the way.”

 

The speech, posted on social media in three languages, appeared to have an immediate impact: The long queues at supermarkets throughout the city-state on Friday night returned to normal levels as of Sunday. That alone proved notable in a region where governments have struggled to get the message right, spurring panic buying and confusion over how to protect themselves from the outbreak.

 

Mixed Messages

 

In Hong Kong, leader Carrie Lam’s mixed messages on wearing masks and shutting the border with mainland China has stirred mistrust. Nurses have gone on strike and residents have violently opposed quarantine sites, while residents have struggled to buy toilet paper, hand sanitizer, rice and other staples for more than a week.

 

In Thailand, meanwhile, Health Minister Anutin Charnvirakul issued an apology after saying foreigners should be “kicked out of Thailand” for refusing to wear face masks.

 

Singapore, which has 5.7 million people, has 45 confirmed cases of the virus. That’s the second-highest outside China, excluding a quarantined cruise ship off the coast of Japan.

 

Lee’s speech “was a pretty outstanding example of very good risk communication,” said Claire Hooker, a senior lecturer at the University of Sydney’s Center for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, who has studied the public responses to epidemics and infectious disease for about 20 years. “It gave people very concrete actions” that “handed back a measure of control to people whose sense of control will feel threatened,” she said.

 

Thomas Abraham, author of “Twenty First Century Plague, the Story of SARS,” and a risk communication consultant for the World Health Organization, said the speech worked because of the high level of trust Singaporeans have in the competence of the government -- as well as the transparency.

 

“Prime Minister Lee does not hide any facts,” Abraham said. “Nor does he hesitate to talk about how the situation might worsen.”

 

Singapore’s next general election must be held by April 2021, though the ruling party has called for early polls in recent cycles. It’s unclear how the coronavirus outbreak will affect the timing of the vote.

[Elianna]

Targeting them for research and treatment is how I interpreted it. What do you think he meant by it?

 

Look at his post. He first commends China for restricting travel and "containing" the virus and then scorns other countries for flying citizens out of China (though from what I read, at least some are quarantining them when they get home).

 

He then says that reaction to AIDS/HIV was even worse. He even specifies: "Africans, drug-innoculators and male-homosexuals weren't targeted. No isolation. No immigration restrictions. Many died unnecessarily." (My bolding). I'm not sure how you get targeted for research and treatment as the meaning, when he clarifies what he meant in the next two sentences.

 

I agree that treatment could have been more targeted (and should have started much earlier, and victims been treated much better), but that's not what was said and not what I (and my guess is, other people) are reacting to.

[cherdano]

Targeting them for research and treatment is how I interpreted it. What do you think he meant by it?

Come on Barry, give it a rest. Maybe you didn't read all of Nigel's post first time around. Fine, happens to all of us. No need to embarrass yourself by making another reply without reading the OP.

[nige1]

Its long been said that, "in Washington, the definition of a scandal is when someone says the hidden part out loud"... Its this example, its when Nigel uses the word "targeted", clearly demonstrated what an odious, homophobic, racist piece of ***** he is.

Richard, are you denying that HIV/AIDS significantly affected gay men and drug users, and the government didn't focus on these groups? In fact, for a while they didn't even consider it a serious problem ....

Thank you Barmar. IMO, when a pandemic threatens humanity, the authorities should consider a fresh approach ...

• Engage in truthful public education.
• Focus treatment and research on those at risk.
• Quarantine infectious people..
• Restrict immigration from infected areas.

Yes, HIV/AIDS spread much more than it should have because governments were too concerned about gay people. It's a strange world you live in Nigel.

In other topics, a few commentators attributed weird opinions to me that I repudiated. Then subjected me to gratuitous insolence :(.

 

I'm sad that Cherdano is among those who upvoted Hrothgar's post, quoted above :(

. .

Here, IMO, our early blinkered approach took avoidable risks.

I admit that is my view. I recognize, however, that it's controversial. :)

[helene_t]

Nigel, I am sure you meant to say that the government (or whoever implemented HIV policies) should have done whatever it takes to prevent people from getting infected, which would obviously primarily be in the interest of risk groups. But there are two problems with your post:

 

"Political correctness": This is a terrible expression which you shouldn't use unless you are communicating to people who you know will interpret the term the way you intend it. To many people (including me) , "political correctness" is an expression used to justify discrimination against minorities.

 

"Isolation": It is a very oppressive thing to do to force people into isolation. You should really think twice before you suggest such a thing. If you talked to some people who have been involved in the work on containing HIV in the 90s, they would be able to explain you why isolation (with the exception of some extreme cases such as imprisoned HIV-positive serial rapist) would not only be inhumane but also completely contraproductive. But that's not so much the point. The point is that it is offensive.

[nige1]

Nigel, I am sure you meant to say that the government (or whoever implemented HIV policies) should have done whatever it takes to prevent people from getting infected, which would obviously primarily be in the interest of risk groups.

Yes. That is what I said.

But there are two problems with your post: "Political correctness": This is a terrible expression which you shouldn't use unless you are communicating to people who you know will interpret the term the way you intend it. To many people (including me) , "political correctness" is an expression used to justify discrimination against minorities.

I respect your opinion, Helene_T, Nevertheless, IMO, in some circumstances, authorities are right to discriminate in favor of minorities.

"Isolation": It is a very oppressive thing to do to force people into isolation. You should really think twice before you suggest such a thing. If you talked to some people who have been involved in the work on containing HIV in the 90s, they would be able to explain you why isolation (with the exception of some extreme cases such as imprisoned HIV-positive serial rapist) would not only be inhumane but also completely contraproductive. But that's not so much the point. The point is that it is offensive.

IMO, at the start of the AIDS/HIV disaster, it would have been better for everybody, if authorities had undertaken a truthful public education program, targeting homosexual males and drug-users, with quarantine facilities, condoms, clean needles, etc.

 

A modern analogy. if (when?) I'm diagnosed with Coranavirus, I hope that I'm treated appropriately, isolated from family and friends, while infectious. Arguably, had we repatriated fewer British from China, the virus might have spread more slowly, giving experts more time to investigate and develop an effective treatment.

[barmar]

OK, I understand that I misunderstood Nigel the first time.

 

The question is: are you suggesting that they should have quarantined all gay men, because some of them might have been infected, or just the ones who had been diagnosed?

[nige1]

OK, I understand that I misunderstood Nigel the first time. The question is: are you suggesting that should have quarantined all gay men, because some of them might have been infected, or just the ones who had been diagnosed?

OK, I was surprized when you agreed with me, Barmar :)

 

As I've already written, IMO authorities should make quarantine facilities available to infectious patients as soon as possible.

 

I'm sorry Helene_t finds that offensive. In the light of Helene_T's reaction, I'm unsure whether quarantine should be made compulsory, especially if that would make it less effective.

 

For other friends, however, there would be no real choice: they would willingly accept quarantine facilities rather than expose others to contagious life-threatening infection.

[pilowsky]

Here is what my friend David gozal. Professor of respiratory medicine just posted.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/RC1Xddd3L2BJqjNX7

The problem with opinions is that they are not facts.

[helene_t]

For other friends, however, there would be no real choice: they would willingly accept quarantine facilities rather than expose others to contagious life-threatening infection.

Imagine you have been diagnosed with a disease that only transmits to other people if you have unprotected sex or share needles. You have two options:

 

1) Lifelong detention

2) Not having unprotected sex and not sharing needles

 

Now someone says that since you are unable to suppress your urge to have unprotected sex and share needles, you need to opt for 1). I am not arguing whether that assessment is correct or not (obviously it depends on the individual HIV patient), I am just asking you to imagine your reaction to such an advice/command to chose isolation under these circumstances.

 

Would you follow that advice, as an HIV patient?

Would you disclose your HIV status to anyone, given that the policy is that you should then be isolated for the rest of your life?

 

Comparing this completely insane policy to the very sensible policy of isolating coronavirus patients for two weeks is just far out.

[y66]

That's an interesting post by Prof Gozal, especially his last 2 points:

 

• The panic and hysteria that's happening is fueled by racism and xenophobia, not evidence or practicality. Nothing justifies being rude to others.
  
• Misinformation and racism is more dangerous than any virus. Check for references and look for evidence, not ideology.

I appreciate his candor.

[nige1]

Imagine you have been diagnosed with a disease that only transmits to other people if you have unprotected sex or share needles. You have two options:

 

1) Lifelong detention

2) Not having unprotected sex and not sharing needles

 

Now someone says that since you are unable to suppress your urge to have unprotected sex and share needles, you need to opt for 1). I am not arguing whether that assessment is correct or not (obviously it depends on the individual HIV patient), I am just asking you to imagine your reaction to such an advice/command to chose isolation under these circumstances.

 

Would you follow that advice, as an HIV patient?

Would you disclose your HIV status to anyone, given that the policy is that you should then be isolated for the rest of your life?

 

Comparing this completely insane policy to the very sensible policy of isolating coronavirus patients for two weeks is just far out.

A misunderstanding. I advocated an initial quarantine period (for HIV I mentioned that treatment might include education, condoms, and clean needles). The dictionary says Quarantine is derived from the Italian quaranta giorni, 40 days. It doesn't entail life-long detention.

[hrothgar]

I advocated a quarantine period (for HIV I mentioned that treatment might include education, condoms, and clean needles). The dictionary says Quarantine is derived from the Italian quaranta giorni, 40 days. It doesn't mean life-long detention.

 

Nigel, I suspect that this will all come as a surprise to you, but people don't like be put into quarantine.

 

In general, people don't like being taken away and separated from their families and friends. In the case of homosexuals, where there are well documented cases of government persecution, forced conversion therapy, and even concentration / death camps within living memory the associations are even more problematic.

 

Setting up class based systems to target and lock away the infected is a phenomenally good way of making sure that anyone who is unlucky enough to disclose their status will hide that fact at all costs.

[pilowsky]

This may come as a surprise to you but nobody likes to die of preventable diseases such as Ebola, coronavirus and so forth. Please stop converting oxygen into carbon dioxide with arguments that make no scientific sense. The problem at hand has nothing to do with homosexuals Jews or left handed tennis players. Where do these red herrings come from?

[hrothgar]

This may come as a surprise to you but nobody likes to die of preventable diseases such as Ebola, coronavirus and so forth. Please stop converting oxygen into carbon dioxide with arguments that make no scientific sense. The problem at hand has nothing to do with homosexuals Jews or left handed tennis players. Where do these red herrings come from?

 

Nigel directly stated that classes of people "Gays", "Haitians", etc should have targeted and locked up to prevent the spread of AIDs

(Note that said classes are ones that are already broadly discriminated against by society)

 

Thats where these "red herrings" are coming from

 

My assumption is that he is currently advocating locking up anyone from China or some such

[Winstonm]

How will quarantines help stop a virus that is passed for days when no symptoms are showing? Knowledge will help. Quarantines, not so much.

[barmar]

This may come as a surprise to you but nobody likes to die of preventable diseases such as Ebola, coronavirus and so forth. Please stop converting oxygen into carbon dioxide with arguments that make no scientific sense. The problem at hand has nothing to do with homosexuals Jews or left handed tennis players. Where do these red herrings come from?

The difference is that HIV/AIDS is not transmitted through casual contact. There's no need to separate AIDS sufferers from society. You can shake hands with them, hug them, and even live with them for years and there's no danger. You have to exchange certain bodily fluids, which generally means having sex or sharing hypodermic needles.

 

There's no need to quarantine people infected with HIV, and even less justification for quarantining everyone in the most susceptible communities.

 

Coronavirus is completely different.

[y66]

Absolutely amazing thread. To put this thread in perspective, realize that China has now locked down 10% OF ALL THE HUMANS ON THE PLANET.

 

 

To stop the spread of the coronavirus much of China has effectively shut down. What’s not been fully appreciated is how extensive the closures are. By our calculations 760 million are living under some kind of residential lockdown. https://nytimes.com/2020/02/15/business/china-coronavirus-lockdown.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share