RE: RE: Council on Foreign Relations Discusses COVID-19 on Feb. 13 2020.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Council on Foreign Relations Discusses COVID-19 on Feb. 13 2020.

Words
310
Reading
2 min
Listen
Play
7y

Multiple medical researchers and directors have indicated that the viral infection rate will likely slow during the summer months. I fail to understand how that statement is "propaganda" or malicious. They are correctly addressing the problems of globalised economy that results in over-dependence on one region for resources and manufacturing needs. Also, the panel addresses potential problems that could result from ludicrous anti-vax conspiracy nonsense that could hinder life-saving medical intervention. The medical specialist addresses the new form of RNA vaccine that could have some unexpected problems and ethical dilemmas. He also addresses the necessity of increasing availability of respiratory support machines and increasing the number of respiratory support staff. Also, the woman correctly points out that continuing vaccine and medical intervention post-epidemic would be necessary to fully control the disease.

The panelists correctly address the ability of the CCP to be able to institute longer-term monetary policy to alleviate the economic crisis resulting from the quarantine and isolation. The panel is observing that state control of economic infrastructure does have advantages in crisis situations; even the free 'Murica has provisions for the executive to nationalise critical industries and institutions in times of crisis. The reason that rational humans live in hierarchal social organisation is for survival during the times of crisis. The panel correctly addresses that the West has inadequate surveillance and prevention infrastructure to control and contain epidemics, thus the West must increase investment in prevention infrastructure.

The economist is not laughing at the fact China has and will have negative economic impact from the epidemic. They are laughing at the comment by the moderator stating the obvious. The economist was addressing that the question of interest is how much will the Chinese economic contract, not whether it will. This discussion is not some evil conspiracy that you attempt to portray, but merely informative panel to answer questions.