News COVID-19 pandemic

What will happen after the Corona epidemic?

  • The population of Asia will be reduced, accelerating the sustainable development.

    Votes: 14 30.4%
  • The major civilizations will collapse.

    Votes: 12 26.1%
  • The human race will end.

    Votes: 20 43.5%

  • Total voters
    46
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Face

Well-known member
Orbiter Contributor
Addon Developer
Beta Tester
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
4,390
Reaction score
577
Points
153
Location
Vienna
If you say so.
Erm. You wrote the things I've quoted.

What you are doing here is really just ranting, not discussing, because besides name-calling you seem to have run out of arguments.

All the things you interpreted into my sentence there are just straw mans, I never wrote anything like that. I stated what every media here is conveying: our youth is having psychological issues due to the measures, but not due to the disease. You acknowledged yourself, that they have a dark future. Economy is having a very hard time due to the measures, this is also a quite established fact, now that the figures for last year are out. The quip about hugging a virus was really stupid, because nobody was even proposing such Darwinism.

I have 3 kids, and I see what the circumstances do to them, even so we try to compensate things for them with family tours into the nature (that we are fortunate to have in the neighborhood) and optimistic talks about how it will get better again. I cared about my children in the past and will continue to do so in the future. What you try to imply is simply bollocks.

It almost seems like you are triggering on certain words in this context, like "totalitarian" or "economy". That's sad. It also seems like you are one of the proponents of Zero-Covid, which I strongly oppose, but that is totally fine in itself. Just dial your emotions down a bit, please.
 

N_Molson

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
9,271
Reaction score
3,244
Points
203
Location
Toulouse
Is egoism the pinnacle of human evolution? Is that what liberalism is about? Being free to harm others?

There's a bit of that, yes. Great liberty comes with great responsability. Now are most people fully responsible citizens ? Probably not. Can we do something about it ? Not by force, else what you call liberalism ceases to be. By education. Never give up on that.
 
Last edited:

N_Molson

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
9,271
Reaction score
3,244
Points
203
Location
Toulouse
Not just by COVID-19. Everytime we lie, we incur a debt on the truth. Sooner or later, this debt is repaid.

"Come on, a bit of cough. You're delusional. Nothing bad, nothing terrible, I've seen worse."

?
 

Face

Well-known member
Orbiter Contributor
Addon Developer
Beta Tester
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
4,390
Reaction score
577
Points
153
Location
Vienna
There's a bit of that, yes. Great liberty comes with great responsability. Now are most people fully responsible citizens ? Probably not.

Indeed. Then there is the question at which point you are fully responsible. Does it have to be "fully" to work? As I see it, there always is a grey spectrum, never really black and white. However, in the context of COVID-19, you either are an egoist or fully responsible, always depending on which side you happen to be. Sure, it is easy to see the world like that, but I'm pretty sure it won't help the situation.

That is also where my pessimistic perspective comes from at the moment: people tend to get more emotional, more polarized, get triggered all the time. Sides are building up, accusing each other of being full-scale idiots (normal idiot is not good enough, see?), demanding authority to suppress the "wrong" side, which they often do out of sheer despair. On both sides, more and more. I really don't see a peaceful end to this social dynamics.

It is frightening that this "one of the least deadly pandemics the world has experience over the last 2000 year" (before anybody tries to kill me for these words: they are not mine, it was written by the head of the WEF) is nevertheless capable of shaking up the world structure as much as it does.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,588
Reaction score
2,312
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
It almost seems like you are triggering on certain words in this context, like "totalitarian" or "economy". That's sad. It also seems like you are one of the proponents of Zero-Covid, which I strongly oppose, but that is totally fine in itself. Just dial your emotions down a bit, please.

Take your own recommendations seriously. Like, for example, not misquoting people intentionally for looking at least superficially smart. I at least still realize, when I am emotional and venting off steam. Its sad, how much intelligence sometimes gets wasted that way, what a potential to make the world a little bit better, only used for making a single person look better for 5 minutes...

And yes, after watching for a while, where "Think about the economy" has bought us, I am absolutely pro Zero-COVID. Nothing is worse for business as being unable to plan what you are doing next month. And that huge uncertainty is what we are currently in. We gain nothing by letting the virus spread, we will only lose. We will only prolong a fight against the epidemic which only helps the virus to survive longer, mutate more, infect more, kill more. That isn't emotional, that isn't a guess. Thats plain, simple math. No magic, no macro-economics, no fatalism. Just one of those few certainties we have.

And instead of being able to leave the uncertainty without getting the incidence to nearly zero, we only create more. The next uncertainty will not be the new mutations we know. It will be those we don't know yet. It won't be the damages we know yet. It will be the damages that we are not aware of. There is no return to normality that permits a high incidence of this virus. Even if we assume to reach herd immunity one day - we have no reason to assume it be a long calm and we will pay a huge price for this. Not just in human lives, not doing anything at all will also harm the economy. Dead people don't consume. Chronically ill people won't work. And with some more math, you can even calculate how big the impact on the economy will be, if you just let 1% of the population die in a year. Yes, that is just old people dying sooner than usual - instead of contributing to the economy as usual. That is a huge debt, you are going to incur on economic growth, just by ignoring what the economy actually is: Its the people.

SARS-CoV-2 is not evil. It just shows us all the small and big errors we have made so far.

If you think, this is overly emotional and needs to be dialed down, well....... ever dared to take a look into the mirror?
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,588
Reaction score
2,312
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
It is frightening that this "one of the least deadly pandemics the world has experience over the last 2000 year" (before anybody tries to kill me for these words: they are not mine, it was written by the head of the WEF) is nevertheless capable of shaking up the world structure as much as it does.

Ever considered thinking that medicine got better in 2000 years, not the virus less dangerous?
 

Face

Well-known member
Orbiter Contributor
Addon Developer
Beta Tester
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
4,390
Reaction score
577
Points
153
Location
Vienna
I'll skip the repeated personal attacks because commenting on them is really not helping the discussion. Please don't misinterpret this as misquoting.

Nothing is worse for business as being unable to plan what you are doing next month. And that huge uncertainty is what we are currently in.

Hey, I think we can agree on that!

And instead of being able to leave the uncertainty without getting the incidence to nearly zero, we only create more. The next uncertainty will not be the new mutations we know. It will be those we don't know yet. It won't be the damages we know yet. It will be the damages that we are not aware of. There is no return to normality that permits a high incidence of this virus. Even if we assume to reach herd immunity one day - we have no reason to assume it be a long calm and we will pay a huge price for this. Not just in human lives, not doing anything at all will also harm the economy. Dead people don't consume. Chronically ill people won't work. And with some more math, you can even calculate how big the impact on the economy will be, if you just let 1% of the population die in a year. Yes, that is just old people dying sooner than usual - instead of contributing to the economy as usual. That is a huge debt, you are going to incur on economic growth, just by ignoring what the economy actually is: Its the people.

Here I think the problem of Zero-Covid is that it sees people as instruments. They should consume, they should work, not get ill, because they are the economy. But people don't think about that, they just live their lives. And if you demand them to stop that, even for just some weeks, in order to reach an abstract goal, they will riot... they will be disobedient. And then your super hard short lock-down will have to be repeated. Perhaps even harder. And then again. And oh there are those mutation uncertainties, which will need yet another Zero-Covid lock-down. Never ending story. The proposal is in essence fighting people, not the virus.

Don't get me wrong: I understand the mathematical idea. I understand the model. I'm just sure that it won't work with real people. And I'm also sure that it would do even more harm, because every rest of civilization will be blown away if you don't let people go out, work or even buy food. And I don't want people to experiment with society, who already exposed such a poor performance on decision making lately.

Therefore I think the best coarse of action is to drop the lock-down method, and instead open up as much as possible, alas with safety measures in place. We will have to learn to live with the disease. Nothing stops us from working on medicine and vaccines for it, of course.
 

Face

Well-known member
Orbiter Contributor
Addon Developer
Beta Tester
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
4,390
Reaction score
577
Points
153
Location
Vienna
Ever considered thinking that medicine got better in 2000 years, not the virus less dangerous?
Well, tell that to Mr. Schwab. I was just quoting it to underline that it has a huge effect although some respected people think it to be "less deadly".
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,588
Reaction score
2,312
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
Well, tell that to Mr. Schwab. I was just quoting it to underline that it has a huge effect although some respected people think it to be "less deadly".

So, should it better be more deadly?
 

Face

Well-known member
Orbiter Contributor
Addon Developer
Beta Tester
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
4,390
Reaction score
577
Points
153
Location
Vienna
So, should it better be more deadly?
Well, perhaps you would like to see it being more deadly to better convince people of your plan of shutting everything down for good to save them, I don't know. I certainly don't.
Again: my point is that it is frightening for me to see it having such a huge effect, although even respected people think it to be less deadly.
Is it not frightening for you?
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,588
Reaction score
2,312
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
Well, perhaps you would like to see it being more deadly to better convince people of your plan of shutting everything down for good to save them, I don't know. I certainly don't.

Why are you so obsessed with this being a conspiracy to harm you more than it does me?

First of all, again, its all simple math: A number of people get infected, a number of those get ill, a number of those will be treated or will get more ill, currently 2/3 of the latter will survive and the other third will die.

Which variable do you want to change, so it stays that low with more freedom?

  • How many people get infected? That is what we did so far with social distancing, but as we see, there is only a little margin for failures.
  • How many people get ill? That is what we want to influence with vaccination, but its not the problem of politics, if the pharmaceutical companies are only able to deliver 8% of what they planned to deliver last summer - that was their planning, politics did a lot there to remove impediments.
  • How many people will get into hospital or ICU? That is what we currently try to keep as low as possible, by all medical technology we have available and all the personel we have available. If we could get more people there, it would be fine, but there are not more people around.
  • How many people die in ICU? Again, that is at the best possible already that we can do without hoping for better technology. Maybe somebody invents something more clever to prevent the damage by SARS-CoV-2, but so far there is no reason to assume it will get much better than what we already learned last year.


As you might see, there are MANY ways left to make sure more people die, but only very few options to reduce lethality a bit. And these variables are not very flexible as well, because if you let more people get ill and let more people require help in a hospital to survive, the earlier you will exceed the capability of the ICUs and people will die. Simply because nobody is there to prevent it.

What makes the disease the (maybe) least deadly pandemic of all times is plainly simply because we did fight against letting it (maybe) become the most deadly pandemic of all times.


And finally: What are we comparing with? The Influenza epidemic of 1968 happened at a time for example, when Germany was unable to even gather basic data on how many people had been infected and we only estimated how many people died (excess mortality of 40000) - of COVID-19, we already had 65000 confirmed deaths. 1957 did cost us 30000 in excess mortality.

So, by just looking into some history books we can find out, that your respected person did, what even the most respected persons can do: He said something stupid. It is not the least deadly pandemic of all times. From what we know, it seems to be even high on that list in modern times.

Do you want to compare things to medieval times? In that case we have more problems with the accuracy of historic information, but can at least say for certain, that COVID-19 must be in the 20 most deadly pandemics in the past 2000 years. And not even in the 20 least deadly pandemics or the least deadly pandemic.

And that despite all the medical technology we have, despite all the good health care system we have, despite all the knowledge that enabled us to produce a vaccine in mere months, than years.
 

jedidia

shoemaker without legs
Addon Developer
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
10,842
Reaction score
2,105
Points
203
Location
between the planets
Well, I for one think it's just about the most insiduous thing about covid that it is in a balance. If it were more deadly, or less, we wouldn't need to do math to try to decide on what the best course of action is. The biggest challenge is having to do math, and then assigning a value to the numbers we get out. How much is a human life worth? But then again, if the economy takes too much damage, how many lives might that cost? What value does civil liberty have? And how does that value change if it needs to be restricted not for weeks or months, but years?

The disagreement, in the end, is not so much about the numbers we get out of calculations. It's about what weight we give to different numbers. If the death toll was heavier, or lighter, it would be easier to argue for one side or the other. But we're stuck in this uncomfortable twilight that makes the morality of things pretty murky any way you turn it.

I know I'm not exactly helping, since I'm not really giving an opinion on anything. I have just found that understanding that the mediocre morbidity of COVID-19 is exactly the problem that makes things so hard to judge, helps me stay somewhat more relaxed in debates.
 

Face

Well-known member
Orbiter Contributor
Addon Developer
Beta Tester
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
4,390
Reaction score
577
Points
153
Location
Vienna
Why are you so obsessed with this being a conspiracy to harm you more than it does me?

How come you think that? You are the one bringing up wanting it to be more deadly. You are the one writing about conspiracy.

First of all, again, its all simple math: A number of people get infected, a number of those get ill, a number of those will be treated or will get more ill, currently 2/3 of the latter will survive and the other third will die.

Which variable do you want to change, so it stays that low with more freedom?

That was my point before: Zero-Covid sees it as a mere math problem, as the need to find an algorithm that just calculates the right variables. I understand that this is attractive to you, because you are thinking in technical terms.

However, the situation is about people. People live lives. People die. You can't calculate with them like with some computer variables. They will make their own decisions, they will not obey your CPU instructions. To think that you can somehow still force them is the fallacy in Zero-Covid.

And finally: What are we comparing with? The Influenza epidemic of 1968 happened at a time for example, when Germany was unable to even gather basic data on how many people had been infected and we only estimated how many people died (excess mortality of 40000) - of COVID-19, we already had 65000 confirmed deaths. 1957 did cost us 30000 in excess mortality.

So, by just looking into some history books we can find out, that your respected person did, what even the most respected persons can do: He said something stupid. It is not the least deadly pandemic of all times. From what we know, it seems to be even high on that list in modern times.

Do you want to compare things to medieval times? In that case we have more problems with the accuracy of historic information, but can at least say for certain, that COVID-19 must be in the 20 most deadly pandemics in the past 2000 years. And not even in the 20 least deadly pandemics or the least deadly pandemic.

And that despite all the medical technology we have, despite all the good health care system we have, despite all the knowledge that enabled us to produce a vaccine in mere months, than years.

I'm not comparing it. If you refer to the Schwab citation, he compared it like follows:
At the end of June 2020 (at a time when the outbreak is still raging in Latin America, South Asia and much of the US), COVID-19 has killed less than 0.006% of the world population. To put this low figure into context in terms of lethality, the Spanish flu killed 2.7% of the world’s population and HIV/AIDS 0.6% (from 1981 to today). The Plague of Justinian from its onset in 541 until it finally disappeared in 750 killed almost one-third of the population of Byzantium according to various estimates, and the Black Death (1347-1351) is considered to have killed between 30% and40% of the world population at the time. The corona pandemic is different. It does not constitute an existential threat, or a shock that will leave its imprint on the world’s population for decades.

It is interesting that you're judging his words as stupid, even before I cited them here. It seems that many world leaders take him seriously and refrained from such quick judgement. Do you think that is a mistake they are making?
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,588
Reaction score
2,312
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
Again - so you think it should be MORE deadly, before we react, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy because THEN it will be more deadly. Notice your fallacy?

And maybe you noticed (I doubt it): Schwab talked about it at a time, we barely even knew about how many will be dead at the end of the pandemic, and compared it to pandemics, where we even don't know how many really died. And still: Why do you think, just because there had been worse pandemics in long human history, this one is the least deadly, if as shown, this isn't even true?

And I should be reading Schwabs real, but still wrong argument instead of how you use it in support of your own flawed argumentation?

Also, your constant attempts to make this personal are annoying. If you want to celebrate your favorite conspiracy theory (How Urwumpe created the COVID-19 pandemic to become king of England, or what the heck), there are better places around - and I don't need to take part in this. There is also a real world out there.
 

Face

Well-known member
Orbiter Contributor
Addon Developer
Beta Tester
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
4,390
Reaction score
577
Points
153
Location
Vienna
Again - so you think it should be MORE deadly, before we react, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy because THEN it will be more deadly. Notice your fallacy?

Boy oh boy. You are the one telling me what I am thinking. Where did I write that?

And maybe you noticed (I doubt it): Schwab talked about it at a time, we barely even knew about how many will be dead at the end of the pandemic, and compared it to pandemics, where we even don't know how many really died. And still: Why do you think, just because there had been worse pandemics in long human history, this one is the least deadly, if as shown, this isn't even true?

It is a citation of a book I bought in September. I know that the numbers were lower back then, he wrote about 0.006%, whereas it is now at roughly 0.03%. No need to get again personal. His point still stands, though. I quoted it to underline the argument, that despite it being so, it still has huge impacts.

And I should be reading Schwabs real, but still wrong argument instead of how you use it in support of your own flawed argumentation?

So now you are accusing me of manipulating the statement? That's really low. The quoted statements literally are next to each other. And yes, you should read the book, it is called "COVID-19: The Great Reset". (EDIT: You can find it here. Just as a note to other readers of the thread: this book is not about how COVID is a fake or some other such BS, it is simply pointing out that it showed the problems in our society and how the crisis should be used as a chance to re-model the economy for a better world. Controversial? Yes! Stupid? No!)
What "argumentation" do you even mean? That I am frightened that it has a huge impact, although people like that think it to be less deadly? Really, that's what you see as "argument"?

Also, your constant attempts to make this personal are annoying. If you want to celebrate your favorite conspiracy theory (How Urwumpe created the COVID-19 pandemic to become king of England, or what the heck), there are better places around - and I don't need to take part in this. There is also a real world out there.

The only one making it personal is you. And yes, this is annoying. Again you are talking about conspiracy, where there is none. But getting out into the world is a brilliant idea, here we can agree again.
 
Last edited:

Challenger007

New member
Joined
Oct 27, 2020
Messages
28
Reaction score
17
Points
3
Location
Springfield
Again - so you think it should be MORE deadly, before we react, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy because THEN it will be more deadly. Notice your fallacy?

And maybe you noticed (I doubt it): Schwab talked about it at a time, we barely even knew about how many will be dead at the end of the pandemic, and compared it to pandemics, where we even don't know how many really died. And still: Why do you think, just because there had been worse pandemics in long human history, this one is the least deadly, if as shown, this isn't even true?

And I should be reading Schwabs real, but still wrong argument instead of how you use it in support of your own flawed argumentation?

Also, your constant attempts to make this personal are annoying. If you want to celebrate your favorite conspiracy theory (How Urwumpe created the COVID-19 pandemic to become king of England, or what the heck), there are better places around - and I don't need to take part in this. There is also a real world out there.

Let me make the following judgment. I think that the COVID pandemic did not cause as many deaths as the same Spanish flu, not because the virus is less dangerous, but because our medicine has stepped forward, which allows us to save millions of lives. Had such a situation happened 50 years ago, the statistics would have been monstrous. Unfortunately, the idiots who to this day did not believe in the seriousness of the situation are unlikely to draw other conclusions after reading your arguments or the words of other people who soberly assess the current problem. Is it worth wasting your moral strength in trying to argue with limited people?
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,588
Reaction score
2,312
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
Let me make the following judgment. I think that the COVID pandemic did not cause as many deaths as the same Spanish flu, not because the virus is less dangerous, but because our medicine has stepped forward, which allows us to save millions of lives. Had such a situation happened 50 years ago, the statistics would have been monstrous.

I absolutely agree there - alone the positive effect that science had on the lethality of the disease after 6 months of pandemic, how quickly the chance of survival increased as people learned how to prevent the worst damage, is a good indicator, that our medicine is a very powerful tool there.


Unfortunately, the idiots who to this day did not believe in the seriousness of the situation are unlikely to draw other conclusions after reading your arguments or the words of other people who soberly assess the current problem. Is it worth wasting your moral strength in trying to argue with limited people?

Well, you know, you can lead the horse to the water, but you can't force it to drink.

I am still sure, it can drink. On another day.
 

Face

Well-known member
Orbiter Contributor
Addon Developer
Beta Tester
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
4,390
Reaction score
577
Points
153
Location
Vienna
Let me make the following judgment. I think that the COVID pandemic did not cause as many deaths as the same Spanish flu, not because the virus is less dangerous, but because our medicine has stepped forward, which allows us to save millions of lives. Had such a situation happened 50 years ago, the statistics would have been monstrous. Unfortunately, the idiots who to this day did not believe in the seriousness of the situation are unlikely to draw other conclusions after reading your arguments or the words of other people who soberly assess the current problem. Is it worth wasting your moral strength in trying to argue with limited people?

Let's see the other side of the argument - perhaps this time giving "moral" a little rest: if we put the COVID situation in a time not having our medics standards, the age distribution of the population would be quite different. As we know now, at least the "Wuhan" strain (which was active during the time the quoted comparison was done) showed to affect old people the most. Therefore, with less older people due to the medics standards of older times, a COVID situation could well be even less serious - even with worse medics - as it is for us with modern medics, but more older people.

I think (not judging him!) that Klaus Schwab compared it that way because he wanted to compare situations as a whole, not only the medical view of it. The implications of losing 30% to 40% of the population in contrast to lets say 1% are certainly more serious. I also don't think that he is an idiot, and that he soberly assessed the current problem.

I admit that I did not check, but I'm pretty sure he is also no horse ;) .
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,588
Reaction score
2,312
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
I wonder how you would argue if your own life would be the first in line.

And BTW, is it correct that Schwabs book from 2020 contains exactly the stuff he repeats since 2003? Its the major criticism of his book, that it just changes the reasons why is proposes things, but not what he proposes (and thus it also changes little how economists thought about his proposals for the past 17 years)
 

Face

Well-known member
Orbiter Contributor
Addon Developer
Beta Tester
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
4,390
Reaction score
577
Points
153
Location
Vienna
I wonder how you would argue if your own life would be the first in line.

And BTW, is it correct that Schwabs book from 2020 contains exactly the stuff he repeats since 2003? Its the major criticism of his book, that it just changes the reasons why is proposes things, but not what he proposes (and thus it also changes little how economists thought about his proposals for the past 17 years)

See, I am not even arguing anything! You try to put words in my mouth, like with the "it should be more deadly" quip, and then get upset about how dare I'm thinking about such things, when I never even did that.
For Challenger's statement, I simply presented the other side of the argument, and as far as I remember, this "less older people" idea was also mentioned in that book. And I specifically wrote "giving moral a little rest", yet you come with the moral argument of being personally affected.
And besides that: who tells you that my life isn't in the first line to begin with?

Yes, I agree with you that Schwab's book tries to put forward an agenda: the great reset, as he calls it. Yes, this idea definitely circled in his head for many years. I am NOT saying that I find his ideas the best thing since sliced bred, far from it. But I also don't say he is an idiot, just because I'm not having the same opinion.
I read it because many of the people you see on demonstrations quickly come up with this "Great Reset Conspiracy" (at least on TV), and I was curios what they even meant with that, besides the usual Gates and chipping crap. So I got the literature, looked into it, and found no "conspiracy" whatsorever. All his ideas are out in the open, and he also openly discusses them in his World Economic Forum.
Of course he sees this crisis as an opportunity to realize his stakeholder capitalism, and I wouldn't be surprised if he tries to urge politicians - he regularly meets up with - to work into the direction of his ideas. But conspiracy? Certainly not. Although I won't recommend doing the things he writes about, I can recommend reading that book to every interested person, because it widens the perspective on the bigger implications this crisis can have (or not have).

My point was, that even this person - which gets under constant attacks by critics - compares the situation like he did, and still the world struggles. Beyond all moral implications, this is what frightens me the most, because it demonstrates the delicate balance we have in our society, and how easily it is thrown aside.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top