[hither2]

A few weeks. This is an over-reaction.

The push for suppressing entire populations for months and years are coming from those that want to dis-empower these populations the rest of the time.

If by "normal" you mean the neo-liberal/neo-marxist agenda "progressing"... that is increasingly unlikely

[Tepix]

Hardly an over-reaction with 100.000 expected deaths. Of course earlier actions might have prevented this tragedy.

[thu2111]

No, that's still an open question.

We won't really know until much more analysis is done, but there's a ton of reasons to suspect an over-reaction now. See some of the daily update links here:

https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/

The basic problem is confused data e.g. 100,000 deaths expected from what? Given how often COVID-19 seems to give people a little push over an edge they were very close to anyway, it's extremely hard to even define what a C19 death means, let alone do so in a way that's comparable across countries.

Meanwhile healthcare systems have been scaling up a lot but actually the projected collapse isn't close to being here even in Italy, where many hospitals are still mostly empty outside the core hotspots (leading to a question of whether it's not ventilator capacity that's needed but patient transfer capacity). And where hospitals are under pressure it may be partly due to huge numbers of staff isolating themselves as they tested positive, sometimes with no symptoms (i.e. could be false positives?). Hospitals can be overwhelmed even by normal admissions if 30% of the staff are gone due to self-isolation.

[Tepix]

If you disregard people dying from COVID-19 because they would have died anyway within a few years, then you may come to that conclusion.

I don't consider it ethical to do that. Quite the contrary.

[hither2]

Yes, earlier actions definitely should have been taken.

Interestingly, there seems to be a collective delusion developing about when the action could of/should of been taken. Late January...early February...really? That long?

[maest]

What is the neo-liberal/neo-marxist agenda?

Also, the state of quarantine is happening at a global level, not just the US.

[hither2]

I'm not in the U.S. And I'm not interested in starting a flame-war. By all means, research these ideologies yourself.

I was answering the poster's question with my opinion. You do not have to like it.

[maest]

> not interested in starting a flame-war.

Me neither - my intention was to pose a neutrally-worded question, which I think I did.

[seattle_spring]

Ah, the tried and true method of bringing up an extremely controversial opinion and then gaslighting people who respond into thinking they're the ones starting a flame war.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> the neo-liberal/neo-marxist agenda ... And I'm not interested in starting a flame-war.

Non-sequitur.

[atemerev]

“Liberal” and “marxist” in a single sentence... What gives.

[hither2]

At least 150 years of politics.

[Benjmhart]

The neoliberals and neomarxiists want opposite things.

[Der_Einzige]

Wow a textbook example of dog whistling on HN of all places! I never thought I'd see the day...

[hither2]

The comment is not dog whistling...people need to stop misusing political terminology. It renders words meaningless. Considering that you depend upon hiding behind words, it is best not to deconstruct your own shield.

[Der_Einzige]

Conflating neoliberalism and neomarxism together is textbook dog whistling. I don't know of anyone on earth who even identifies as a "neomarxist" but we all know what using those terms interchangeably means for ones held political ideology...

[hither2]

Oh, what textbook are you reading?

You not being aware of something does not mean it does not exist.

What is this political ideology of mine you are identifying?