Behind the curve. The mathematics of deaths.
Zig the N.g
ziggerjoe at yandex.com
Thu Mar 12 19:41:13 PDT 2020
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 02:25:37AM +0000, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
> On 12/03/2020 23:56, Zig the N.g wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 09:54:54PM +0000, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
> > > Please recirculate freely.
> > > as recent evidence shows that the Chinese have
> > > managed to slow it almost to a stop using strong confinement.
> > > - whereas if the present UK policy
> > > is continued then at some point a majority of people in the UK will catch the
> > > disease, and a million people will die unnecessarily .
> > And you're holding that to be a bad thing, even if it does happen?
> > [Damn! Did I just ask that? Talk about effective long term propaganda ...]
> Maybe not (and now you may see my true colours, though they were never
> hidden). The UK has a large proportion of older people. Older people who need
> extensive healthcare, expensive pensions, who tie up a lot of wealth and
> property - of the predicted million deaths about 900,000 would be older types.
> This clearing away of unproductive and expensive (and wealthy) population
> would more than balance the budget, would release several hundred thousand
> badly-needed homes (and cause a property price crash; the UK needs about 1
> million homes, which is why UK property is so expensive. I have been trying to
> work out the price elasticity of housing in the UK if several hundred thousand
> properties became available, but it is hard) and would provide a more balanced
> population pyramid.
> For the UK as a nation it would not be a bad thing (ignoring the deaths), and
> I fear some politicians think "Hey, it's just the useless oldies, who cares?".
> But I care. Where there is life there's hope, and the biggest fuck-you you can
> give is to death. Do not go gentle and all that crap.
> But even the Chinese didn't do that. Initially they didn't realise, later,
> well, perhaps they revere the old more, perhaps it's just because they have
> less old people.
> And yes, that is probably a bit racist, but after Tiananmen and forced
> abortions we westerners have the impression that the Chinese have a lower
> respect for life than we do.
> Which is probably nonsense, it's just the Japs who're like that.
I am, astounded.
Notwithstanding, what the UK really needs is a lot (!) more infiniggimmigration, to finally fill up the demand for employees in the tech sector and increase the high-income tax base (upper middle class) from the government can draw abundant funds for such things as further housing, health and other programs needed by the elderly.
You really gotta get with the program.
> We will then have a still-vulnerable population, whereas those other countries
> will not, we will have a lot of expensive-to-keep old people; comparatively as
> a country we would be disadvantaged if not to say fucked.
> At least until someone develops a vaccine or a cure. Only took ten years for
> > > We should be taking extreme measures to get that figure of new infections per
> > > case down to less than 1.
> > How extreme?
> > I hear a bullet can reduce the areal transmission boundary for an individual...
> Yes, sometimes that extreme. If they are going to kill other people if you
> don't shoot them, and they refuse a reasonable alternative, then you may have
> to shoot them.
HIV is a far greater problem I say, especially in infants up to 6 months old - mandatory 0-day vaccinations are a must, and, as always, the UK must lead the empire like a bull by the nose.
I agree that bullets should only be reserved for those who fail to comply.
> But beware, bullets can spread viruses in blood spatter etc.; and they don't
> always kill or even prevent areal spread of infected people.
Science will invent better bullets, fer sure!
And you UKians can test 'em for us, eh?
More information about the cypherpunks