Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Filippo

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

Just checked, and the UN say 25,000 die each day from lack of nutrition.  That's over 9 million a year and is a shameful statistic.  

Another shameful statistics is those, mainly in the third world and underdeveloped countries, who die or are maimed every years by illness that could be easily vaccinated away.

Fixation on Covid, with exclusion of other health concerns, is particularly absurd for those countries.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/4/2020 at 6:08 PM, Happier diner said:

I agree that the figures don't do us any favours. What you don't say is what you would have done differently or more correctly what the hell did Hong Kong do differently other than 'prepare'. What was this preparation. Not being arsey, I would genuinely like to know as I am baffled.

On 4/22/2020 at 5:17 AM, Filippo said:

The title of the posting makes it clear where I stand; I see the lockdown as a politically motivated act of social and economic vandalism. There is little evidence that the lockdown is achieving much as concerns limiting the direct damage from the pandemic: countries that have introduced social-distancing on a mostly voluntary basis (Sweden, The Netherlands, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea) while keeping most of their economies open and afloat are having much lower Covid-19 deaths per-capita than us. It tells about the competence (or lack thereof) of our authorities to achieve anything apart from crashing the economy and depleting public coffers.

The evidence of that bonehead failure is staggering (figures as of the 20th of April):

                              Cases     Deaths
    Isle of Man       300           9
    Singapore         8,014       11
    Hong Kong       1,206        4

The population of Hong Kong is 7.45 million versus 86K on this island. It means that on this island, the per-capita fatality of Covid-19 is 7,450 / 86 x 9 / 4 = 195 times that of Hong Kong. Same virus, but nearly 200 times more deadly on these shores! Hallelujah.

Yes, I know that IOM’s population is older on average. But also note these other circumstances. In Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea the pandemic started nearly two months before us; the authorities here had nearly two months to prepare, and did nothing or very little about it. Furthermore, it is enormously more difficult to control a pandemic in such densely populated regions as Hong Kong and Singapore (the land surface of this island is nearly as much as Singapore’s, think). In Singapore, most of the contagion has come from immigrants’ dormitories where ten people sleep in a room; we don’t have here that kind of unmanageable problems on the IOM. It should have been comparably much easier for us.

Basically, the authorities here have been good at crashing the economy and stopping us from living our lives; while achieving very little as concerns mitigating the direct damage from the pandemic. They have little to show for the sacrifice imposed on us.

Listen to the pathetic speech of our politicians: I protect the island, I protect the island and I protect the island. Brainless. Brainless justification for trashing civil liberties, endangering our economic, physical and mental well-being, imposing on us a busybody police state. The politicians succeeded in positioning themselves such as to deflect or take the least blame for the situation of the pandemic. The police succeeded in jailing for months some low-lifers for having parties (keep reading about those sentences nearly every day now on IOM Today and Manx News and it makes me cringe). Good job.

 

On 11/5/2020 at 12:33 PM, Filippo said:

[...] In case of the Isle of Man, I will describe in the following the three main alternatives.

The first option is what IOMG has done. Clear the virus from the island at huge cost; keep the border closed to prevent any resurgence of community spread; eradication, swift punishment of dissidents. Yes, I know the border is only closed up to a certain point. It is closed enough to prevent all routine back and forth travel. The winners are  those suffering from Covid phobia and the few parts of the hospitality industry (pubs and discos) that could have had some restrictions placed on them (minor restrictions in specific case of Jersey). The losers are all residents who needs to travel and, in various degrees, all businesses that are not entirely island-based.

The second option is what Jersey has done. Manage an open border through extensive testing and tracking. We know for sure, from the fact that Jersey has done it and we can observe the result, that the number of Covid fatalities adjusted for population size would have been the same. Winners and losers are swapped in respect to prior case.

It is worth asking what would have happened if IOMG had done much less: some initial mitigation effort followed by a nearly full reopening; no border closure; little or no testing of border crossings; that is the third option I am considering. San Marino, a land-locked micro-state of central Italy is one such example. I should have thought it by myself; I have been there a couple of times and I am aware of their history and system of governance. It was brought to my attention by a Daily Telegraph article a few days ago: “Tiny San Marino irks Italy with relaxed restaurant lockdown rules”. The article continues by saying that San Marino has provoked the ire of Italy’s policymakers by allowing bars and restaurants to stay open until late; unlike those across the border in Italy, which have to close by 6 pm and suffer from plenty of other restrictions. With no border controls of any description, Italians just drive across the border to have an evening pint with mates. Cheers.

San Marino covers a land area of 24 sq miles, has population of 33,5K and, unlike the Isle of Man, has sovereignty. It is relatively prosperous but with a run-of-the-mill kind of economy, which is not propped up by an influx of wealth residents with far away investments and business interests (what happens when you orbit a country like the UK with 0% corporation tax and 0% CGT). There is some offshore banking industry; tourism and hospitality are their most important source of revenue. Facing the choice between widespread bankruptcy/penury and tolerating more Covid deaths, it chose the latter. Initially there was lockdown-lite more similar to the Swiss than to the Italian one; then a full reopening with no border controls and it hasn’t looked back since. And more people died indeed. It has had the second in the world per-capita number of Covid cases and 42 deaths.

Adjusting for population size, the IOM equivalent would be 108 deaths. However, IOM is in the middle of the Irish Sea. We don’t, and can’t possibly have 1/3 of our population crossing our border every day. Nor we live into the multi-generational households that are typical of Southern Europe. Nor, most of us, have so many daily interactions by virtue of working in hospitality. I think, as a fair guess, we would have had half of that number of Covid fatalities. Somewhere between 40-60; at the bottom of that range if effort was put into testing incoming travellers and tracing the social connections of the infected. The looser of this freedom-fighter kind of policy would have been those who have irrational fears about Covid and want the illusion of an entirely Covid-free world. The winners would have been practically everyone else.

IOMG went for option 1 because it had an easier political justification and it knows the island can possibly afford the cost. But that cost is truly very high and it will result in meager pensions, reduced general welfare and poorer quality health care for many years to come; and certainly many more premature deaths along the line than the liberal third option on the above. Has there been any effort to quantify that and communicate it to the public? If the public had been aware of the options there would have been less blinkered support for the first option. Much less.

 

On 12/5/2020 at 9:48 AM, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

People die every week in Jersey. It won't be a new phenomenon.

The bulk of those 440 cases will be asymptomatic. I'm not sure it's anything for them to get in a panic about.

Or for smug people here to gloat about.

 

I saw this question now, the one quoted on top, and I reply to it belatedly.

That posting, the one which started this thread, is from last April, which is ages ago as concerns Covid. If I had to rewrite it retrospectively and make a list of countries that have handled the pandemic more sensibly and realistically than us, from my point of view, I would include Switzerland and Japan; placing Switzerland on top of the list, as a model of civilised response to a pandemic with the epidemiological profile of Covid-19.

Absolute minimisation of Covid fatalities was never my concern. Prioritisation of Covid before anything else is cutting off an arm to remove a pimple. You can’t dispense with the dignity of the person, treat people like cogs of a machine for the sake of a superior imperative. It doesn’t even save lives, once the effect on the health care system and long-term government financial ability to provide that health care is factored in, if an honest balance sheet of Covid response is ever calculated. That balance is actually very negative.

Hong Kong has not been a champion of pandemic liberalism. However, it had only limited restrictions on personal liberties: masks, quarantine for incoming travellers and mandatory testing when requested by the authorities. There have not been mandatory stay-at-home orders, restrictions on movements, or other limitations of basic personal freedoms within its territory. Since the beginning, it explicitly ruled out the tool of lockdown, which it saw as hitting harder on the disadvantaged portion of its society. For short periods it closed down or restricted parts of its hospitality industry, but apart from that, it maintained itself functional throughout the pandemic. It has had 112 Covid deaths so far. And Singapore, with slightly harsher policies, had 29 Covid deaths so far. Even Singapore always maintained itself functional, with only limited and very temporary closures of the riskier parts of its hospitality and leisure industry.

Switzerland only introduced mandatory masks in shops lately and apart from that, it has not had any mandatory restrictions on personal liberties (no mandatory stay-at-home or avoidance of travel, no restrictions on meeting others etc). Furthermore, it has maintained nearly unrestricted travel across its borders. There have been restrictions on its hospitality and leisure industry during both in the first and second wave; anything else has been maintained open and functional. The Swiss are perhaps the most exposed among European countries, for being so connected to their neighbours. There is such a huge traffic across their border every day for work or other essential reasons.

The Isle of Man is in a different situation than the above mentioned countries, not least for being an island on the hedge of Europe. For us the options were what I elaborated on my posting of the 5th of November at pag. 602, which I report in the above as a quote.

If the IOMG had adopted a liberal policy to handle the emergency of this new virus: social distancing on an entirely voluntary basis, some restrictions on the riskier part of the hospitality industry, travel almost unrestricted; the number of Covid fatalities would have been much less than people think, for the reasons that I elucidated in that posting. I say in there that the number of Covid fatalities on a per-capita basis would have been half way between us (or Jersey) and the case of San Marino. That estimation is remarkably close to the IOM per-capita equivalent of Switzerland and Sweden: 5,314 (Swiss fatalities) / 8,545 (Swiss population) x 85 (Manx pop.) = 53 Max equivalent fatalities and 7,067 (Swedish fatalities) / 10,230 (Swedish pop.) x 85 (Manx pop.) = 59 Manx equivalent fatalities, respectively. Outside of care homes the virus doesn’t kill much more than a bad flu season.

Do we have a difference of opinion arising from a difference of ideology, or from a difference of estimation? Did you lockdown and close the border to save 1% of our population, which is 850, as some of you have hinted; or to reduce the fatalities count by 30 or 40, a figure in the ball park of a bad flu season? I would have been less upset if a conscious decision had been made. And I don’t think that the whole lockdown policy would have had as much support if there had been a good understanding of the actual pandemic profile of Covid.

The difference of opinion is also coming from the kind of life and priorities one has. I usually spend most of the winter away from the British Isles and this year I was back on the island on the 11th of March, on this isle since then: since then I went into a pub once. I haven’t set foot in a disco or night club in many years. I would have preferred living with some restrictions on hospitality and leisure – I use almost none of it when I am in my normal place of residence – and having unrestricted travel in return. There is my usual international travel, which is lifestyle rather than need; but it also has been a problem being cut off from the London office for so long. Of course I keep berating retirees who have too much time at their disposal and spend it on social booze in pubs that need to be Covid-free to be safe for them.

Mind how much that Covid-safe social booze in your beloved island is going to cost you; if you ever collect a pension, and you find out that it is not keeping pace with the real cost of living; or if you ever need to treat a cancer, or some old-age cognitive degenerative condition, and you find out that the NHS can’t afford treatment with new generation of drugs. You see, as long as the trade-off is understood, if you say “I wanted my Covid-free pint in a social setting so much; I am fine with a meager pension and a health care system what it is”; that is fine, we can just agree to disagree on the priorities of life, and the discussion is closed, no point keeping adding to this thread indefinitely.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Debbie said:

Another shameful statistics is those, mainly in the third world and underdeveloped countries, who die or are maimed every years by illness that could be easily vaccinated away.

Fixation on Covid, with exclusion of other health concerns, is particularly absurd for those countries.

I suspect there will be little fixation on covid in developing countries, at least within the general populace - they will be far more focused on just getting by on a daily basis. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Gladys said:

I suspect there will be little fixation on covid in developing countries, at least within the general populace - they will be far more focused on just getting by on a daily basis. 

The shocking picture below is Jordan, on the 25th of March, when their government tried to copy China and prevented its people to leave their homes at all; municipalities had to deliver supplies of bread and water; ALL shops, including those selling food, had been closed.

At the time the country had reported 153 cases of Covid-19 but no deaths (source BBC, 25th of May, just google it).

Epidemiologists thing that in places like the middle east, South Africa and India, governments greatly facilitated the spread of Covid by forcing the populace living indoor into those cramped conditions, as well as forcing them into long queues for almost all daily necessities.

What is the definition of absurdity?

 

1156451873_Jordaneasesindefinitecurfewandallowsshopstoopen25-Mar-20.jpg.d45516b308712dcba25e2b2f83b3e40d.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Filippo said:

I saw this question now, the one quoted on top, and I reply to it belatedly.

That posting, the one which started this thread, is from last April, which is ages ago as concerns Covid. If I had to rewrite it retrospectively and make a list of countries that have handled the pandemic more sensibly and realistically than us, from my point of view, I would include Switzerland and Japan; placing Switzerland on top of the list, as a model of civilised response to a pandemic with the epidemiological profile of Covid-19.

Absolute minimisation of Covid fatalities was never my concern. Prioritisation of Covid before anything else is cutting off an arm to remove a pimple. You can’t dispense with the dignity of the person, treat people like cogs of a machine for the sake of a superior imperative. It doesn’t even save lives, once the effect on the health care system and long-term government financial ability to provide that health care is factored in, if an honest balance sheet of Covid response is ever calculated. That balance is actually very negative.

Hong Kong has not been a champion of pandemic liberalism. However, it had only limited restrictions on personal liberties: masks, quarantine for incoming travellers and mandatory testing when requested by the authorities. There have not been mandatory stay-at-home orders, restrictions on movements, or other limitations of basic personal freedoms within its territory. Since the beginning, it explicitly ruled out the tool of lockdown, which it saw as hitting harder on the disadvantaged portion of its society. For short periods it closed down or restricted parts of its hospitality industry, but apart from that, it maintained itself functional throughout the pandemic. It has had 112 Covid deaths so far. And Singapore, with slightly harsher policies, had 29 Covid deaths so far. Even Singapore always maintained itself functional, with only limited and very temporary closures of the riskier parts of its hospitality and leisure industry.

Switzerland only introduced mandatory masks in shops lately and apart from that, it has not had any mandatory restrictions on personal liberties (no mandatory stay-at-home or avoidance of travel, no restrictions on meeting others etc). Furthermore, it has maintained nearly unrestricted travel across its borders. There have been restrictions on its hospitality and leisure industry during both in the first and second wave; anything else has been maintained open and functional. The Swiss are perhaps the most exposed among European countries, for being so connected to their neighbours. There is such a huge traffic across their border every day for work or other essential reasons.

The Isle of Man is in a different situation than the above mentioned countries, not least for being an island on the hedge of Europe. For us the options were what I elaborated on my posting of the 5th of November at pag. 602, which I report in the above as a quote.

If the IOMG had adopted a liberal policy to handle the emergency of this new virus: social distancing on an entirely voluntary basis, some restrictions on the riskier part of the hospitality industry, travel almost unrestricted; the number of Covid fatalities would have been much less than people think, for the reasons that I elucidated in that posting. I say in there that the number of Covid fatalities on a per-capita basis would have been half way between us (or Jersey) and the case of San Marino. That estimation is remarkably close to the IOM per-capita equivalent of Switzerland and Sweden: 5,314 (Swiss fatalities) / 8,545 (Swiss population) x 85 (Manx pop.) = 53 Max equivalent fatalities and 7,067 (Swedish fatalities) / 10,230 (Swedish pop.) x 85 (Manx pop.) = 59 Manx equivalent fatalities, respectively. Outside of care homes the virus doesn’t kill much more than a bad flu season.

Do we have a difference of opinion arising from a difference of ideology, or from a difference of estimation? Did you lockdown and close the border to save 1% of our population, which is 850, as some of you have hinted; or to reduce the fatalities count by 30 or 40, a figure in the ball park of a bad flu season? I would have been less upset if a conscious decision had been made. And I don’t think that the whole lockdown policy would have had as much support if there had been a good understanding of the actual pandemic profile of Covid.

The difference of opinion is also coming from the kind of life and priorities one has. I usually spend most of the winter away from the British Isles and this year I was back on the island on the 11th of March, on this isle since then: since then I went into a pub once. I haven’t set foot in a disco or night club in many years. I would have preferred living with some restrictions on hospitality and leisure – I use almost none of it when I am in my normal place of residence – and having unrestricted travel in return. There is my usual international travel, which is lifestyle rather than need; but it also has been a problem being cut off from the London office for so long. Of course I keep berating retirees who have too much time at their disposal and spend it on social booze in pubs that need to be Covid-free to be safe for them.

Mind how much that Covid-safe social booze in your beloved island is going to cost you; if you ever collect a pension, and you find out that it is not keeping pace with the real cost of living; or if you ever need to treat a cancer, or some old-age cognitive degenerative condition, and you find out that the NHS can’t afford treatment with new generation of drugs. You see, as long as the trade-off is understood, if you say “I wanted my Covid-free pint in a social setting so much; I am fine with a meager pension and a health care system what it is”; that is fine, we can just agree to disagree on the priorities of life, and the discussion is closed, no point keeping adding to this thread indefinitely.

 

1 minute ago, Escape Artist said:

The shocking picture below is Jordan, on the 25th of March, when their government tried to copy China and prevented its people to leave their homes at all; municipalities had to deliver supplies of bread and water; ALL shops, including those selling food, had been closed.

At the time the country had reported 153 cases of Covid-19 but no deaths (source BBC, 25th of May, just google it).

Epidemiologists thing that in places like the middle east, South Africa and India, governments greatly facilitated the spread of Covid by forcing the populace living indoor into those cramped conditions, as well as forcing them into long queues for almost all daily necessities.

What is the definition of absurdity?

1156451873_Jordaneasesindefinitecurfewandallowsshopstoopen25-Mar-20.jpg.d45516b308712dcba25e2b2f83b3e40d.jpg

 

And by the way, in the continuum which has Jordan and the other countries doing the above absurdity at one end; and Switzerland, Sweden Japan, the countries where social distancing was entirely voluntary and civil liberties were respected, at the opposite end; where do you place the Isle of Man?

And where would you like us to have been?

What do you this is more conductive of prosperity,well-being, general welfare?

I know where I would like to be.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Filippo said:

 

 

 

I saw this question now, the one quoted on top, and I reply to it belatedly.

That posting, the one which started this thread, is from last April, which is ages ago as concerns Covid. If I had to rewrite it retrospectively and make a list of countries that have handled the pandemic more sensibly and realistically than us, from my point of view, I would include Switzerland and Japan; placing Switzerland on top of the list, as a model of civilised response to a pandemic with the epidemiological profile of Covid-19.

Absolute minimisation of Covid fatalities was never my concern. Prioritisation of Covid before anything else is cutting off an arm to remove a pimple. You can’t dispense with the dignity of the person, treat people like cogs of a machine for the sake of a superior imperative. It doesn’t even save lives, once the effect on the health care system and long-term government financial ability to provide that health care is factored in, if an honest balance sheet of Covid response is ever calculated. That balance is actually very negative.

Hong Kong has not been a champion of pandemic liberalism. However, it had only limited restrictions on personal liberties: masks, quarantine for incoming travellers and mandatory testing when requested by the authorities. There have not been mandatory stay-at-home orders, restrictions on movements, or other limitations of basic personal freedoms within its territory. Since the beginning, it explicitly ruled out the tool of lockdown, which it saw as hitting harder on the disadvantaged portion of its society. For short periods it closed down or restricted parts of its hospitality industry, but apart from that, it maintained itself functional throughout the pandemic. It has had 112 Covid deaths so far. And Singapore, with slightly harsher policies, had 29 Covid deaths so far. Even Singapore always maintained itself functional, with only limited and very temporary closures of the riskier parts of its hospitality and leisure industry.

Switzerland only introduced mandatory masks in shops lately and apart from that, it has not had any mandatory restrictions on personal liberties (no mandatory stay-at-home or avoidance of travel, no restrictions on meeting others etc). Furthermore, it has maintained nearly unrestricted travel across its borders. There have been restrictions on its hospitality and leisure industry during both in the first and second wave; anything else has been maintained open and functional. The Swiss are perhaps the most exposed among European countries, for being so connected to their neighbours. There is such a huge traffic across their border every day for work or other essential reasons.

The Isle of Man is in a different situation than the above mentioned countries, not least for being an island on the hedge of Europe. For us the options were what I elaborated on my posting of the 5th of November at pag. 602, which I report in the above as a quote.

If the IOMG had adopted a liberal policy to handle the emergency of this new virus: social distancing on an entirely voluntary basis, some restrictions on the riskier part of the hospitality industry, travel almost unrestricted; the number of Covid fatalities would have been much less than people think, for the reasons that I elucidated in that posting. I say in there that the number of Covid fatalities on a per-capita basis would have been half way between us (or Jersey) and the case of San Marino. That estimation is remarkably close to the IOM per-capita equivalent of Switzerland and Sweden: 5,314 (Swiss fatalities) / 8,545 (Swiss population) x 85 (Manx pop.) = 53 Max equivalent fatalities and 7,067 (Swedish fatalities) / 10,230 (Swedish pop.) x 85 (Manx pop.) = 59 Manx equivalent fatalities, respectively. Outside of care homes the virus doesn’t kill much more than a bad flu season.

Do we have a difference of opinion arising from a difference of ideology, or from a difference of estimation? Did you lockdown and close the border to save 1% of our population, which is 850, as some of you have hinted; or to reduce the fatalities count by 30 or 40, a figure in the ball park of a bad flu season? I would have been less upset if a conscious decision had been made. And I don’t think that the whole lockdown policy would have had as much support if there had been a good understanding of the actual pandemic profile of Covid.

The difference of opinion is also coming from the kind of life and priorities one has. I usually spend most of the winter away from the British Isles and this year I was back on the island on the 11th of March, on this isle since then: since then I went into a pub once. I haven’t set foot in a disco or night club in many years. I would have preferred living with some restrictions on hospitality and leisure – I use almost none of it when I am in my normal place of residence – and having unrestricted travel in return. There is my usual international travel, which is lifestyle rather than need; but it also has been a problem being cut off from the London office for so long. Of course I keep berating retirees who have too much time at their disposal and spend it on social booze in pubs that need to be Covid-free to be safe for them.

Mind how much that Covid-safe social booze in your beloved island is going to cost you; if you ever collect a pension, and you find out that it is not keeping pace with the real cost of living; or if you ever need to treat a cancer, or some old-age cognitive degenerative condition, and you find out that the NHS can’t afford treatment with new generation of drugs. You see, as long as the trade-off is understood, if you say “I wanted my Covid-free pint in a social setting so much; I am fine with a meager pension and a health care system what it is”; that is fine, we can just agree to disagree on the priorities of life, and the discussion is closed, no point keeping adding to this thread indefinitely.

Not last April, but this April 2020./*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Filippo said:

Mind how much that Covid-safe social booze in your beloved island is going to cost you; if you ever collect a pension, and you find out that it is not keeping pace with the real cost of living; or if you ever need to treat a cancer, or some old-age cognitive degenerative condition, and you find out that the NHS can’t afford treatment with new generation of drugs. You see, as long as the trade-off is understood, if you say “I wanted my Covid-free pint in a social setting so much; I am fine with a meager pension and a health care system what it is”; that is fine, we can just agree to disagree on the priorities of life, and the discussion is closed, no point keeping adding to this thread indefinitely.

These choices were made by politicians, not the general public, a lot of whom do not have the luxury of living the lifestyle described. 

Some may be in agreement the way the island has handled Covid, some may not (clearly). But it has not been the peoples choice either way. 

Politicians have long ago forgotten how to actually engage with the public here and as for accountability....forget it.

As for cancer treatments and general health care, that's ok as they can now all afford to go private. Win-win.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Debbie said:

Another shameful statistics is those, mainly in the third world and underdeveloped countries, who die or are maimed every years by illness that could be easily vaccinated away.

Fixation on Covid, with exclusion of other health concerns, is particularly absurd for those countries.

I'm very curious about the use here of such an outmoded and questionable term as the third world. It's Cold War era terminology. Investopedia defines the term as offensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Nom de plume said:

You see, human beings are self centred cretins as a rule.

The thought of a few million starving children in a far flung land can easily be compartmentalised if Great Auntie Ada, aged 89, can be kept off a ventilator.

It’s how we roll.

How did you feel about 9/11? Fewer than 3000 people died.

Is it wrong that it changed the world forever - how many people die every day from starvation, for comparison?

Or is the comparison simplistic - like the Covid 19 comparison?

Edited by pongo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, pongo said:

How did you feel about 9/11? Fewer than 3000 people died.

Is it wrong that it changed the world forever - how many people die every day from starvation, for comparison?

Or is the comparison simplistic - like the Covid 19 comparison?

But did 9/11 change the world forever? It certainly did, temporarily, but how would you say it did forever? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Cambon said:

But did 9/11 change the world forever? It certainly did, temporarily, but how would you say it did forever? 

Basic freedoms mostly from my privileged perspective. How we used to be able to live. Have you tried turning up at an airport 15 mins before departure lately. And jumping on a flight even though you haven't got ID?

The rise of the security state etc.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pongo said:

I'm very curious about the use here of such an outmoded and questionable term as the third world. It's Cold War era terminology. Investopedia defines the term as offensive.

It is a term that is frequently used, and is incorrect, but that is perhaps not being aware of the moving dynamics of international economics rather than intent to be offensive. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...