[arcturus17]

> Looking at how we handled the pandemic, I don't think we'll manage.

Amidst the chaos, humanity has been able develop a wide range of therapeutics and public healthcare prevention protocols, research and deploy vaccines at global scale in under a year, all while avoiding total economic collapse.

What outcome would've given you hope in humans' ability to solve complex and chaotic crises?

[nicbou]

It showed us that most people are unwilling to accept even the slightest inconvenience to save lives and help an unpleasant situation pass faster.

Yes, the scientific community has done the impossible, but us laymen have failed to do even the possible, even when it was easy.

We can solve problems, no doubts, but perhaps we aren't so good at collective, sustained efforts. Climate change will not come to pass like the pandemic. It will last generations if we're lucky.

[missingrib]

>It showed us that most people are unwilling to accept even the slightest inconvenience

By slightest inconvenience you mean complete social isolation for an entire year, right?

[blooalien]

Or maybe wearing a freakin' mask and washing hands a little more frequently, like people freely and willingly do every flu season? Or once a vaccine was available, getting a little jab in the arm instead of starting mass disinformation campaigns to scare stupid people away from it?

Both ultra-simple and only slightly inconvenient actions, but both would have made a huge difference in the outcome and timescale of this whole mess. Of course humans can't be bothered to give a rat's ass about other humans (or even about themselves) if even the slightest inconvenience is involved. Nope. Humanity deserves what's coming. Humanity is a planetary cancer, and we've brought this all upon ourselves by our own actions.

[michaelt]

The pandemic showed us making and using a silver bullet in record time - when a silver bullet is possible.

But the pandemic also showed us a large % of the American population are reluctant to make even minor, temporary sacrifices to protect their country. And that a decent fraction of American political leadership are happy to close their eyes to factual reality.

[emerged]

Protecting your country is a considerably more complex and nuanced goal than “save as many lives as possible no matter what” especially since secondary effects of lockdown also cause deaths.

Long term economic effects for example, and the ability to remain globally competitive economically and in other ways.

[michaelt]

The people who opposed lockdowns but were first in line for the vaccine, sure. Maybe they're just in a hurry to get the economy up and running again.

But there are people declining a free a pinprick jab that's been given to billions of other people already, when there's clear evidence it's good for both the nation's interest and their own? The country's not asking us to charge Nazi machine gun nests on the beaches of Normandy here.

[sitkack]

Pharma CEOs got billions richer as folks in the developing world die. The pandemic is far from over while variants mutate against vaccinated people.

The first world response against the vaccine is selfish and short sighted in the same ways that make solving global warming incredibly difficult socially.

The vaccine recipes should be free, the raw materials should be coordinated so that vaccine production is maximized. Just like global warming, no one is safe until everyone is, we are from it yet have the capability to do so. Yet we do not, we finagle to ensure profit over life.

Our collective COVID response is exactly why the climate crisis is so hard.

Our problems are not technological.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/21/business/covid-vaccine-billio...

[thrashh]

Americans acted the way they did because of bad leadership. A lot of people high up sowed the idea that getting a vaccine is not worthwhile and that masking up was an immediate threat to our freedom, and naturally a lot of people heard that and ran with it.

Those Americans aren’t any different from you and me: they just got their news from different sources — sources that shouldn’t be saying what they said.

[tobias3]

Sure, if a technological solution like a vaccine gets developed I'd be optimistic (cold fusion?). But I currently estimate the probability of that really low.

What made me pessimistic about climate change w.r.t. COVID-19 was that most countries only did something once the population was sufficiently affected, even when the consequences of doing nothing were perfectly clear and immediate. W.r.t. climate change most countries won't be affected much or it will be hard to attribute to climate change and the consequences will be hard to predict and delayed.

COVID-19 was the easiest case of a global tragedy of the commons problem and we failed w.r.t. to a globally coordinated solution. Climate change is much harder. Doesn't give me much cause for optimism.

[llampx]

I think most countries only did something when the populace was affected because it is extremely hard to get buy-in from people when they don't see any negative effects of continuing as they are.

However I also see the role of the government as educating the population about the negative effects the population is not seeing yet so I don't use that to excuse the government.