I will start with two stories. Both of them are examples of the denial of the fact that humans are a part of Nature, the ecosystem, and the environment. Let me remind you that humans are actually mammals and they have evolved from common ancestors with apes and monkeys – those ancestors looked almost like the modern apes or monkeys themselves.
Jehovah's publications are the best illustrations of people's belonging to the ecosystem (of the paradise, in this case). Please ignore the captions LOL.
As recently as two decades ago, the appreciation of this statement – humans are animals and metaphysically the same as other animals – was one of the sources of pride of the folks who called themselves leftists. It was them who "inherited" Darwin's theory while the stupid conservatives are those who denied such things (mostly for religious reasons, at least in the U.S.). Times have changed a lot.
It's the current postmodern, radical left that is the main denier of the notion that the laws of Nature – and the laws governing ecology and life on Earth – apply to humans, too. They deny the well-definedness of the biological sex. They deny the differences between groups – defined by their sex or race or other things. The two stories I promised you are
* a shocking criminal complaint about a female lawmaker who wrote about invasive species and migration a year ago
* the arrogant assumption of some people that they are entitled to be immortal...
Days ago, we learned that Ms Karla Maříková, a blonde and young lawmaker from the Carlsbad Region representing the SPD, the main Czech nationalist party, has received a criminal complaint. The police has asked the Parliament to strip her of immunity – which, I hope, will be rejected by a very clear ratio. Why? Because someone – we don't know who (but I would classify that individual as ultimate human trash) – filed a criminal complaint against her one-year-old Facebook status where she wrote that the migrants from the Muslim world are on par with invasive species (of plants and animals) and the EU should protect itself from them for analogous reasons. EU has a regulation against invasive species.
She was surely not the first one to bring this application of ecology to the politics of migration. In 2016, both the journalist Mr Jiří X. Doležel and ex-politician Mr Miroslav Macek wrote texts with the same basic content. Macek immediately bragged about it when Maříková was threatened by police in this way. His pride indicates to me that he has also talked to a lawyer about the technicalities of the libel law and learned that one can't prosecute texts that are older than 3 years. ;-)
OK, what can you do? The Wikipedia starts as follows:
An invasive species is a species that is not native to a specific location (an introduced species), and that has a tendency to spread to a degree believed to cause damage to the environment, human economy or human health.Great. Now try to ask whether the exotic migrants to Europe obey this condition. Think about the terrorist attacks, harassment about clothes and mundane things, or the stunning yet persuasive claim that the patient zero in Italy was a Pakistani migrant who simply "refused" to self-isolate and was spreading the virus in a Chinese restaurant and than as a distributor of the Chinese food, from one consumer to another! You can easily infect hundreds of people if you "work hard" in this sense.
I think that your answer will be unambiguous. Well, perhaps with the difference that we're really talking about subspecies (or races) in the case of migration of cultures. But invasive subspecies are discussed in the context of non-human organisms, too. You may also follow a convention that such terms don't apply to humans. That's a nice convention but the laws of Nature actually do apply to humans and indeed, the consequences of such events seem analogous.
All Czechs who follow politics and the European issues in particular (and who aren't brain-dead) are shocked by this criminal complaint.
The second "humans are animals after all" example revolves around the new cough. An ex-ambassador Craig Murray wrote
He shows a childhood photograph on which he and 3 siblings are smiling nicely while they had the Hong Kong flu (now: H3N2) exactly 50 years ago (i.e. exactly in between the Spanish flu and Covid). There was no hysteria about that even though it had similar R0 and CFR etc. parameters as Covid-19 and was more deadly than Covid-19 so far: the Hong Kong flu has killed 1-4 million people, including 15% of folks in Hong Kong (that's more than 3500 so far, indeed). While he sends some compassion to the affected ones, he finds out that the hysteria surrounding the new cough boils down to the many people's feeling that they're entitled to be immortal.
Exactly, that's what is going on.
People have been so increasingly spoiled and given all kinds of new "rights" that aren't really rights at all (usually some socialist privileges, entitlements, restrictions of other people's freedom, and services "for free") that many of them find it appropriate to demand the ultimate human right: to be immortal (it's a divinity's right, not a human right, but who cares). For the first time in their life, these stupid and arrogant people may have realized that – with Covid-19 as the eye-opener – they may fail to be immortal. And they must blame this scandal on someone. Ideally Donald Trump. What are you doing, you, the scandalous orange man bad, that you're putting our immortality at risk?
Well, let me share a secret with you. You're not immortal. In fact, people who emit similar complaints are both mortal and already brain-dead. You have always been mortal and the chances that you contract flu and die of flu by the end of March are still globally vastly higher than in the case of the new cough (although in Italy separately, the ordering may be permuting approximately now). About 150,000 people die globally every day. There are lots of reasons why they do. No one can guarantee people's immortality.
But Murray goes further, of course. Not only it is impossible at this moment to make the people immortal. It is almost certainly undesirable, too. Would a world dominated by people above 100 years of age be really better? They're uglier and grumpier (although one may doubt this statement with some Millennials in mind). They're more likely to be bored because they have already done everything that can be realistically done and that they wanted to do.
What is the cost of the human lives that Covid-19 will claim if it simply spreads to everyone and tries to kill everyone? The survivors probably have good enough antibodies that protect them for many years if not decades (we have a cold more often because many virus types exist and different antibodies are needed for each; note that 2 types of Covid-19 are known now, however). If you are offended by the quantification of human lives, please stop reading right now.
You won't change the fact that such a quantification is needed to design sensible policies and insurance companies work with a similar number often, too.
Well, there's a problem. Agencies totally disagree what the price of a human life actually is. Surgeons and similar physicians tend to start at $50,000 or $129,000 per life and... if you get to the EPA, it may be $9.1 million dollars (and those were 2012 dollars which is why you might double the figure).
This discrepancy is not surprising. Surgeons understand that a human is another animal or a biological engine, after all. And they understand that it's not so hard to create a new human – and many people even consider the required work pleasant. Bureaucrats from bodies that only restrict everybody love to emit clichés about the precious human lives and lots of comments that are detached from reality.
Let's pick a geometric mean, one million dollar per life. It's comparable to what a human earns during the lifetime. Generously, let's count the third world population equally (although only 2 billion people are "rich" like Westerners). So the price of the human lives on Earth is some $8 quadrillion. Some journalists recently "argued" that $500 million is enough to give $1 million to every American ;-) so I must remind you that a quadrillion is more than a trillion and is equal to million of billions (in English where the European intermediate words such as milliard have been removed, even in Britain).
This is the stupidest thing that has ever aired on television. Congratulations to all involved. pic.twitter.com/vARi9yQ0Bv— Timothy Burke (@bubbaprog) March 6, 2020
The stupidity in the video above is amazing. Do you agree that the lady in the video didn't understand that the calculation and therefore the conclusion is completely wrong? And it wasn't two journalists (the talking lady above and the female tweeter). If you research it, you will conclude that a majority of staff in some "elite" media sources had to buy the idea that $500 million over 327 million equals $1 million or so. And it's not just an arithmetic error. These people misunderstand what is actually happening with the campaign money and other things. People who take these media seriously are being manipulated by extraordinary morons, indeed.
The annual global GDP is over $80 trillion so the value of the human lives is some 100 years of the GDP which sounds "nice" from some viewpoint. What are the damages caused by the complete penetration of Covid-19 to all humans? Well, the death rate is about 1% and 1% of $8 quadrillion is $80 trillion or so, conveniently close to one world's annual GDP.
However, I am confident we must recalculate the number due to the correlation between the age and the death rate. A huge fraction of the people who die are old people. And it makes sense to consider the survival of a 85-year-old to be "less valuable" than the survival of a 20-year-old simply because the expected number of years in front of the 85-year-old is smaller (well, subjectively, they may value their lives more because they are often richer – why don't you just pay your money to cancel events then? – but I am evaluating the value of lives from some external perspective). It's smaller roughly by one order of magnitude. On the other hand, the death rate of the younger people is lower by an order of magnitude relatively to the "overall" case fatality rate, too. Children up to 15 seem to survive Covid-19 so far.
You get approximately a reduction by one order of magnitude both for the young and very old people. It means that with my $1 million lives, the overall damage caused by the complete penetration of Covid-19 isn't quite $80 trillion but, because it mostly kills people who are likely to die rather soon, anyway, just $8 trillion or so. It's close to one month worth of the global GDP.
And that's already a small enough number that you may imagine. It happens to be equal to the loss of the global stock markets during the first truly hysterical Covid-19 week. Again, it's one month of the GDP. So with my numbers, you may say that if your "cure" to fight against the infection is worse than the equivalent of stopping the whole world economy for one month (or reducing the economic activity by 1/2 for 2 months), then the cure is worse than the disease.
We're almost there. Surely the proposals from many people how to "fight the contagion" would bring bigger losses than the equivalent of 1 month of lost global GDP. But there's the other side. Most of those proposals don't really work. Most of them cost tens of trillions of dollars while only delaying the contagion by modest periods of time.
There simply is a moment at which the frantic fight against the disease may become counterproductive. It's not a complete collapse of the human society, just a reminder that the laws of Nature are ultimately standing above the laws (and especially bizarre postmodern "rights" and "entitlements") that the humans have just invented.
Italy has already become the country with the highest percentage of infected population, surpassing China. There are places in the red zone where it simply makes sense to let the people fight for their life. In a highly infected village, the infection rate may be 5% or so. When it's this high, you should really do everything you can to shield yourself from the contact with others, before things really calm down. But it doesn't have make too much sense to precisely trace "who infected whom" in such a village because the number of possibilities is probably too high. It's a general widespread risk.
Even in these places affected by the most brutal infection, there will still be 99% people who will survive. It's natural that we don't want to travel to these Italian red zones and politicians are telling us that we shouldn't (18 out of 19 mild Czech infections are imported from Italy and/or from Italy through one close person, 1 is from Boston – 5 people got it at a Biogen conference, that's quite ironic). On the other hand, "the end of the world" doesn't occur even locally in the worst Italian villages. You get a 1% death rate, mostly the elderly. That's very far from "the end of the world".
The same point is made e.g. by Czechia's #1 (celebrities') heart surgeon Jan Pirk who says that the disease isn't serious except for elderly and/or sick who are just sometimes "finished",
the politicians' overreaction is a matter of populism, Nature is trying to regulate China's overpopulation, and all of us should contract it (surely Pirk would be cancelled for this "heresy" by the "progressive" media in the Anglo-Saxon world).
To compare, the Czech village of Lidice was burned out as a revenge for the execution of Reinhard Heydrich. Over 100 men were immediately shot, women were sent to concentration camps, many kids to gas chambers, just seven kids were adopted by German families. All the cattle, poultry etc. was eradicated, the trees were cut, all houses were burned... and the village was erased from all geographic, administrative, and historical documents that the fudged up Germans had access to! You may see the characteristic German "perfectionism". It was the first Nazi genocide ever that they bragged about. The global emotional shock ultimately turned Germany to "self-evident evil", returned the Czechoslovak government in London on the map, pushed the U.K. to revoke the Munich Treaty, and allowed us to plan the expulsion of Germans when the war is over. And yes, the newly monstrous Germany started to lose most of the key battles in the same year of 1942.
(Not even this "perfectionism" was enough for a complete end of the world, even at the level of the village. As accurately shown in the 2011 film "Lidice", Mr František Šíma was lucky because he had recently killed his son during a brawl in the pub and he was arrested in a Prague prison. When he was released, they didn't tell him what has happened to Lidice so he had to discover it empirically. Heartbreaking, indeed. After the war, his survival became inconvenient for the nice and tidy story that all the men of Lidice had been shot dead.)
Italy has a few hundred casualties and it will likely grow to a thousand or a few thousand in foreseeable weeks or months. But there's some likely hierarchical containment and even in the most infected red areas – where everyone "tastes" the virus – it's just 1% death rate, not the "end of the world". The fact that the world "didn't end in those villages" is something that the red color on the map distorts. The health care systems have "failed" to protect the humans' immortality because that immortality hasn't ever existed, anyway.
Even if these red areas where "everyone tastes it" extend to the whole world, the transformation of the world will be very far from "the end of the world". Nature simply has the upper hand. She has the right to run similar "natural eugenics programs" to occasionally lower the average age of mankind. And even if you buy 500 rolls of toilet paper, you won't wipe this right from Nature's bottom. Again, it's ironic that the leftists have to be reminded that "Nature simply has the upper hand" because that's exactly the kind of a meme that they have (demagogically) used in the context of the climate hysteria.
But in the case of infections, it's a very important and tangible fact that Nature has the upper hand. The healthcare systems, the community of the world politicians etc. cannot fight for the survival of everyone at any cost. A deep shutdown of the global economy wouldn't be just an economic loss. Such an economic loss would unavoidably lead to lots of fatalities, too. Just realize why the rich countries have a higher life expectancy than the poor ones. The survival is greatly affected by the wealth of the societies, whether the unhinged "money hating" (often just hypocritically) far leftists love to deny this fact or not.
If we allow much of the travel industry to go bust, some food production and distribution companies will follow and there will be food shortages, hysteria, and cases of starvation. The money isn't just some dirty word. It's a material that keeps the rich world rich and safe in a very physical sense.
My point is that the "health insurance" cannot be "absolute" or "unlimited", either. The health insurance covers some expenses that should better be limited. Days ago, a foreigner complained on Quora that the Czech healthcare system doesn't allow unlimited expenses for non-residents who pay their health insurance. What a shock. This kind of generosity would obviously be abused all the time. All expensive surgeries would be "outsourced" to Czechia where the given person would pay a health insurance for a month and get much more in exchange, according to the plan. The healthcare system must be designed in a financially non-suicidal way so of course such things have to be prevented.
When hospitals' capacities are saturated, too bad. Priorities are decided who will be admitted and the fatality rate will probably go up. In the case of an unexpected new infection, it's not a scandalous failure of a politician. It's just a reminder of Nature's power and of the finiteness of the human power! It is extremely bad when people fail to be humble enough to admit their own mortality and similar elementary facts about mankind's relationship to Nature, diseases, life, death, and eternity.
And that's the memo.