The coronavirus that causes the COVID-19 illness is not "just the flu, bro", and I would advise against taking this position, at least for now. We do not have enough information from the
death rates, but that is not the only thing we need to be considering.
First, we need to consider the long-term consequences of COVID-19. Are those consequences really the same as the seasonal flu, or does this virus behave more like the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), even leaving behind signs of damage to the body?
Doctors reportedly discovered reduced lung function among patients who have recovered from COVID-19. Some of those who have recovered from COVID-19 also show evidence of kidney, heart and other damage. And then there's the issue of reduced immune system functionality over time - the very thing HIV became notorious for. We do not know for sure, but there has been speculation that COVID-19 may have this effect as well. If so, clearly this is not "just the flu."
But there are other distinctions we are seeing; for example, the COVID-19-causing coronavirus is said to be spread much more easily than the flu. We are also told that thousands of people are getting oxygen for several weeks on end. Does this sound like the flu to you? If these details are true, and continue to be an issue, there could be major consequences; when thousands of people who contract this coronavirus are in the hospital for weeks on end, other people, including elders at the hospital who have the flu or those who need to get to the hospital for whatever reason, are affected. For starters, they face overcrowded facilities, delays, shortages and overworked staff who are more prone to make mistakes. But more importantly, recent studies show that up to 75% of surfaces in some hospitals could be contaminated due to COVID-19 coronavirus patients. That said, people in the hospital are affected by their proximity to this coronavirus and their likelihood to contract it in a compromised state, which can yield to potentially fatal results. Note the correlation between the number of COVID-19 deaths and those with underlying health conditions; America's hands are full in this regard, which is one reason why the number of deaths is likely to surge in the coming weeks:
Due to the presumed contagiousness of this coronavirus, hospital staff can also very easily become "superspreaders", passing this coronavirus to everyone they encounter. Meanwhile, exposure to the coronavirus has consequences when suddenly ordinary, working people are disappearing from the workforce en masse for a time, followed by their replacements succumbing from the illness, too. That leads to delays, shortages and all kinds of economic unpredictability, which would be devastating to the economy and businesses in ways that the flu is not. Moreover, had ordinary business operations continued and ordinary people continued to act without concern - like during the regular flu season - those delivering necessary and life-sustaining services would have been much more likely exposed to the virus in their daily contact. Of course, this would be an issue for those who supply life-sustaining services or have highly-critical jobs, where replacements are difficult to find and compromised abilities, under the influence of the virus, put others at risk.
Many Americans have these underlying conditions.— Balaji S. Srinivasan (@balajis) April 2, 2020
Diabetes: 10.5%
Lung Disease: 13.4%
Cancer: ~4.8%
Immunodeficiency: 2.7%
Heart Disease: 12.1%
Hypertension: 45% (!)
Asthma: 7.7%
Kidney Disease: 15%
GI/Liver Disease: 1.8%
Some have more than one. But they aren’t that rare. 🧵 https://t.co/dDXuQlB8g8
Due to the presumed contagiousness of this coronavirus, hospital staff can also very easily become "superspreaders", passing this coronavirus to everyone they encounter. Meanwhile, exposure to the coronavirus has consequences when suddenly ordinary, working people are disappearing from the workforce en masse for a time, followed by their replacements succumbing from the illness, too. That leads to delays, shortages and all kinds of economic unpredictability, which would be devastating to the economy and businesses in ways that the flu is not. Moreover, had ordinary business operations continued and ordinary people continued to act without concern - like during the regular flu season - those delivering necessary and life-sustaining services would have been much more likely exposed to the virus in their daily contact. Of course, this would be an issue for those who supply life-sustaining services or have highly-critical jobs, where replacements are difficult to find and compromised abilities, under the influence of the virus, put others at risk.
It is true that the flu can also put people out of commission and compromise their functionality. But there is already a flu vaccine and no uncertainty as to how to treat the flu virus. By contrast, COVID-19 does not have a 99% effective cure, and its properties are still being revealed.
Then there is another related point to consider, which is that this coronavirus has mutated at least eight times since its discovery. Sure, there are strong flu seasons and various levels of severity from case to case, but that is generally within a known scale and threshold, whereas this coronavirus is not charted to a known degree, and neither are its mutations. And, as suggested earlier, we still do not know the long-term consequences of COVID-19 for internal organs, not to mention compromised immune systems.
That brings us to the hysteria surrounding the virus, which is blamed on the mainstream media. I have heard that, because of the failed "Russian collusion" investigation, the COVID-19 hysteria and potential economic fallout it may bring is part of a massive effort to bring down U.S. President Donald Trump (1, 2, 3, 4). The contention is that the mainstream media now sees an opportunity to whip up a state of mass hysteria that would grind the economy to a halt, making it harder for Trump to win the election. The idea here is that Trump was likely to campaign on how good the economy was, and incumbents have generally fared well and won a second presidential term when they can make such a claim. Under the circumstances, it makes sense for the press to play up the threat of COVID-19.
On the other hand, whereas the "Russia collusion" investigation may have worked towards the goal of removing Trump before his term was up, the "benefit" of bringing the economy down is probably inferior to the "cost" of giving Trump a war to fight against a virus (given that war-term presidents typically do well as incumbents, too). You see, it is fairly certain that every exaggeration and hysterical headline is now a double-edged sword for those who oppose Trump; if COVID-19 is, as it is now being reported, "the biggest crisis of the century" (1, 2), the people may rage about the lack of preparation or reaction, which falls on Trump's lap in many ways. Still, the hysteria means the public is more likely to go overboard with its precautions against the virus, thereby mitigating the spread and impact of the virus; moreover, if all this happens, the more impressive a successful stand against the virus will appear - which is what Trump will certainly take credit for, just prior to the U.S. Presidential Election in November 2020. Think about that.
It has also been suggested that perhaps the media could play the hysteria card hoping Trump would take the opposite position, underestimate the virus and take few actions amidst blaring headlines, thus setting himself up to be easily ridiculed as the virus spun out of control.
But it is not true that the mainstream media has been 100% alarmist. Take, for example, this article on CNN's website downplaying the virus' ability to mutate. Or this article in the Washington Post, suggesting that the virus is not the Black Plague, and it is dangerous to assume it is. And then there are all of these articles to consider:
So the theory is flawed. Moreover, in some respects, Trump responded to the crisis in a way that a narrative building on his dismissal of the crisis does not hold. For example, he acted quickly to implement a travel ban on flights from the original epicenter of the virus in Wuhan, China at a time when few others were doing the same:
While Trump failed to implement mandatory quarantines for all guests and did not stop flights from China early on, he can always point the finger at the World Health Organization (WHO) for its declaration that there was "no evidence" of human-to-human transmission as late as January 14 - see above. Perhaps more importantly, Trump's opponents cannot make a stand on the issue of not enforcing stricter travel bans and the like, both for ideological reasons (as open-trade globalists) and due to their own protestations against even the slightest variation of such bans that Trump did implement, calling travel bans 'xenophobic'. True, the reports about shortages and ill-preparedness could come back to haunt Trump. But all of this is up in the air, and depends on what happens next. There is a lot of history to be written.
So, should we believe the media's entire presentation of COVID-19? Certainly not. The mainstream media functions on hysteria. Once upon a time, this was to sell papers. But increasingly, sensationalism is the product offered to direct the public to set political conclusions. Even if that were not the case, the media has a long history that should call into question its credibility (1, 2). There are plenty of reasons to be suspicious of the press, especially in view of all that came to pass in 2016 concerning media donor rolls, planted questions and rollover campaign staff, pointing towards a political agenda.
That brings us to the hysteria surrounding the virus, which is blamed on the mainstream media. I have heard that, because of the failed "Russian collusion" investigation, the COVID-19 hysteria and potential economic fallout it may bring is part of a massive effort to bring down U.S. President Donald Trump (1, 2, 3, 4). The contention is that the mainstream media now sees an opportunity to whip up a state of mass hysteria that would grind the economy to a halt, making it harder for Trump to win the election. The idea here is that Trump was likely to campaign on how good the economy was, and incumbents have generally fared well and won a second presidential term when they can make such a claim. Under the circumstances, it makes sense for the press to play up the threat of COVID-19.
On the other hand, whereas the "Russia collusion" investigation may have worked towards the goal of removing Trump before his term was up, the "benefit" of bringing the economy down is probably inferior to the "cost" of giving Trump a war to fight against a virus (given that war-term presidents typically do well as incumbents, too). You see, it is fairly certain that every exaggeration and hysterical headline is now a double-edged sword for those who oppose Trump; if COVID-19 is, as it is now being reported, "the biggest crisis of the century" (1, 2), the people may rage about the lack of preparation or reaction, which falls on Trump's lap in many ways. Still, the hysteria means the public is more likely to go overboard with its precautions against the virus, thereby mitigating the spread and impact of the virus; moreover, if all this happens, the more impressive a successful stand against the virus will appear - which is what Trump will certainly take credit for, just prior to the U.S. Presidential Election in November 2020. Think about that.
It has also been suggested that perhaps the media could play the hysteria card hoping Trump would take the opposite position, underestimate the virus and take few actions amidst blaring headlines, thus setting himself up to be easily ridiculed as the virus spun out of control.
But it is not true that the mainstream media has been 100% alarmist. Take, for example, this article on CNN's website downplaying the virus' ability to mutate. Or this article in the Washington Post, suggesting that the virus is not the Black Plague, and it is dangerous to assume it is. And then there are all of these articles to consider:
So the theory is flawed. Moreover, in some respects, Trump responded to the crisis in a way that a narrative building on his dismissal of the crisis does not hold. For example, he acted quickly to implement a travel ban on flights from the original epicenter of the virus in Wuhan, China at a time when few others were doing the same:
While Trump failed to implement mandatory quarantines for all guests and did not stop flights from China early on, he can always point the finger at the World Health Organization (WHO) for its declaration that there was "no evidence" of human-to-human transmission as late as January 14 - see above. Perhaps more importantly, Trump's opponents cannot make a stand on the issue of not enforcing stricter travel bans and the like, both for ideological reasons (as open-trade globalists) and due to their own protestations against even the slightest variation of such bans that Trump did implement, calling travel bans 'xenophobic'. True, the reports about shortages and ill-preparedness could come back to haunt Trump. But all of this is up in the air, and depends on what happens next. There is a lot of history to be written.
So, should we believe the media's entire presentation of COVID-19? Certainly not. The mainstream media functions on hysteria. Once upon a time, this was to sell papers. But increasingly, sensationalism is the product offered to direct the public to set political conclusions. Even if that were not the case, the media has a long history that should call into question its credibility (1, 2). There are plenty of reasons to be suspicious of the press, especially in view of all that came to pass in 2016 concerning media donor rolls, planted questions and rollover campaign staff, pointing towards a political agenda.
But, while it is foolish to believe everything the press says, it is just as foolish to be a contrarian and, regardless of the facts, take the opposite position of the press every time and make that your truth. Perhaps you have lost sight of what really matters if that is your position. Your commitment should be to tell the truth; even if you were not inclined to tell the truth just on principle alone, know that, without truth, you will eventually lose credibility. And, over time, truth tends to prevail, and carries more weight than sensationalism unless there is certain social machinery in place to change that dynamic.
Taken as an absolutism and natural rule, there is no truth in the suggestion that the media is always lying. And, as shown, there major disadvantages to cementing ourselves to a platform that suggests the media is always lying - perhaps we see that only now, and for the first time.
With "it's just the flu, bro", I am fairly certain it is a flawed narrative. I get that, if one decides the COVID-19-causing coronavirus is just the flu, he or she may become angry about the hysteria and, as some are suggesting, blame the mainstream media sources now pushing it. But one loses all the advantages of that strategy if it turns out that, indeed, this pandemic is more than "just the flu".
In the meantime, we are taking a position that actually helps to keep the machinery in motion that keeps this system in motion. Here, I speak of Wall Street and the political-corporate apparatus, neither of which have anything to lose
when people demand the economy "open up" so as to work as
plantation slaves until they fall ill and are replaced by the next crop as the economy rolls on. What is more, when right-wingers push for the economy to open up again, now that political-corporate class has no culpability for doing so. It is
merely giving the public what it wants.
Perhaps the people who downplay COVID-19 are promoting a 4-D chess move where everyone disregards any danger and acts in a way that spreads the COVID-19-causing coronavirus far and wide, jarring things so wildly that there is a possibility of a "ground zero" for real political change. A lengthy shutdown and economic collapse would put those who are distracted by wealth and comfort on ice and eliminate the distractions of career preoccupation. It could also lead to a situation where bored kids from urban schools begin looting, a Trayvon Martin 2.0 situation arises, and everyone is at hand to take to the streets in protest, creating a powder keg situation as the police try to shut things down for health and safety reasons that just explodes. Or maybe the Antifa would see the situation, riot in defense of Martin 2.0, and that would be the trigger. Come to think of it, maybe that is exactly what the "it's just the flue, bro" crowd is gunning for. Maybe 4-D chess is more than just a meme, after all.
