FWIW this is not uncommon with pandemics. For example, WHO[0] says "During the post-peak period, pandemic disease levels in most countries with adequate surveillance will have dropped below peak observed levels. The post-peak period signifies that pandemic activity appears to be decreasing; however, it is uncertain if additional waves will occur and countries will need to be prepared for a second wave."
For example, during the spanish flu, the second wave was far deadlier than the first. But there were additional factors (WWI and a mutation that made it more dangerous to the young).
This can continue until enough of the population has been infected that we have herd immunity. This is why there's long-term estimates of 20-60% of population being infected[1][2]
[0] http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/communicable-diseas...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/world/europe/coronavirus-...
[2] https://www.axios.com/congressional-physician-predicts-75-15...
"On Thursday, China said it had just 15 new coronavirus cases and 11 deaths over the previous day." See: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/12/world/coronavirus-news.ht...
China has controlled the problem. By taking drastic measures the rest of the world will too. In a couple of months the virus will be under control. The stock market will not recover as quickly as it crashed, but it will recover! How do I know that? Because crashes have happened in the past, and the world didn't collapse and disappear. A single company can collapse and disappear but not the entire stock market.
The only question is, how long will it take to recover. I think it will take 2 to 3 years. People who sold during the financial crisis of 2008 did not get to participate in the recovery that followed. There isn't an email or a notification that goes out when the market starts to recover. Attempting to time the market is futile. Staying out of the market will only mean that you will miss out on the largest portion of the recovery.
Are personal costs of the pandemic encouraging people to support subsidised healthcare, and therefore a left-wing party?
Or is the xenophobic rhetoric of "blame China/Europe/travellers/etc" causing people to support a right-wing party?
I also haven't seen a full discussion of the chain of cause and effect. There was a shift from the primary sector to tertiary services, which led to urbanisation to find demand for services. Young people living in cities can make more friends than before, and this is good! It also means that there are more people living in close quarters, who can spread disease more effectively. I'm willing to face the risks of urban life instead of subsistence farming, but I wonder if other generations resent that.
There’s been some yelling at trump over his poor handling but it’s mostly just virtue signaling at this point. When the elections come around for real we will probably see something of this if/when it has evolved into something more serious here.
I say this in Boston, just a few degrees of separation from some of the COVID confirmed individuals.
You may not agree with his style (I don't) or his personality (hate it) but the guy has to be minimally intelligent to make it as far as he has. At the very least he knows how to work a crowd and spot opportunity.
Yes, and in light of anecdotes of how decisions are made in the current administration: double yes
The sky is mostly empty space and landing zones are clearly marked and purpose built. You don't have to worry about any pedestrians or unpredictable drivers or roads.
The initial cover up didn't help either. Once they instated the lockdown, they could test the backlog of people. That took quitea while. But now the spread has pretty much stopped, while everywhere else on this planet it increases day by day.
After the initial cover-up got public, the West couldn't get enough of reporting about it, and how this is the reason it could spread so fast, how irresponsible it was, and how it's typical for evil China. Now we have that virus here, plus two month of knowledge about it, and we're still mostly being reactive instead of proactive. In China's defense, when they tried to cover it up, much less was known about the disease, like it's asymptomatic spread. Now the cards are on the table and we're being ignorant, as if ignoring a problem makes it go away. But hey, when things are getting really really ugly for us, we can still go back to blaming China for their initial cover-up.
Watch Italy closely the next days, and compare it to China when they were at a similar stage. It will tell you what's to come in your country too. Another thing that's suspicious about Italy is the high CFR of around 6%. It most likely means they're not doing enough testing, only the severe cases, so the rest wanders around the country happily spreading it further.
It’s Simpson’s paradox
Especially to downplay a possibly valid concern of an individual of your supposed group