09 April 2020 ~ 40 Comentarios

Razas y Virus


Suscríbase al canal AQUÍ

40 Responses to “Razas y Virus”

  1. Víctor López 9 April 2020 at 2:58 pm Permalink

    No voy a examinar las múltiples causas que pueden contribuir a esta situación. Don Carlos Alberto enumeró algunas de carácter socioeconómico pero seguramente son esas y también otros más los factores que influyen. Esa particularidad étnica posiblemente haga que Brasil, sea también el país más castigado a nivel no solo latinoamericano sino mundial por la epidemia. Cordialmente.

  2. Víctor López 9 April 2020 at 3:17 pm Permalink

    Tal vez revisó las obras de Mian Situ, Julián. Si lo hizo habrá notado la característica absolutamente racional de su trabajo, lo mismo que la evidente limitación (o ausencia de arte) de su factura. Puede verse desde la influencia de Velázquez hasta la de Frederic Remington. Como profesional puedo notar también el trabajo de asistencia de Photoshop pre boceto, como durante y posterior a la conclusión de la obra. Si revisó los temas familiares y costumbristas habrá notado siempre esa constante tipo “collage de foto composición” (y la falta de arte). Le hago este comentario porque lo supongo de carácter artístico y nos ha traído al blog temas literarios y de teatro. Un saludo.

  3. Víctor López 9 April 2020 at 7:49 pm Permalink

    Qué excluyente es usted, Julián. Será posible que no reuna yo las condiciones intelectuales o morales para merecer su atención?

  4. Manuel 9 April 2020 at 9:44 pm Permalink

    Heinsberg, Germany
    The epicenter of Germany’s coronavirus outbreak is going to become an open-air laboratory to help scientists determine how the germ is transmitted in daily life and which lockdown measures can be safely lifted without fueling its spread. Heinsberg, a district of 250,000 near the Dutch border, is Germany’s worst-hit location, with more than 1,280 confirmed infections and at least 34 deaths. The new study will track the movements and symptoms of 1,000 residents, chosen to represent a cross-section of the German population. The researchers will examine how the virus spreads—or doesn’t—via doorknobs, TV remotes, coffee cups, and the like. “We’ll be gathering information and practical tips as to how to deal with Covid-19,” said virologist Hendrik Streeck, “without our lives having to come to a standstill.

    • Manuel 9 April 2020 at 9:49 pm Permalink

      Death toll higher
      Wuhan, China
      As China begins easing the two-month lockdown of Wuhan—where the coronavirus first erupted—residents are increasingly skeptical of the Communist Party’s claim that only 2,500 people in the city have died of Covid-19. With families finally allowed outdoors to collect the ashes of their loved ones, residents estimate that Wuhan’s seven funeral homes have been handing out a total of 3,500 urns every day. One resident told Radio Free Asia that most people in the city now believe that more than 40,000 locals died in the outbreak. “During the epidemic, they transferred cremation workers from around China to Wuhan,” said resident Chen Yaohui, so they could “keep cremating bodies around the clock.”

    • Manuel 9 April 2020 at 10:16 pm Permalink

      The four types of coronavirus that cause the common cold are known to struggle in warmer weather. Scientists have wondered if this might explain why Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam, and the Philippines have seen no major Covid-19 outbreaks, despite receiving large numbers of Chinese visitors before Beijing locked down its borders. One study, by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, found that 90 percent of the coronavirus transmissions so far have occurred within a narrow range for both temperature (37 to 63 degrees Fahrenheit) and humidity. “Wherever the temperatures were colder,” says co-author Qasim Bukhari, “the number of the cases started increasing quickly.”

  5. Manuel 9 April 2020 at 10:05 pm Permalink

    Amor en tiempos del corona

    Jeremy Cohen said he saw a “cute” brunette dancing on the rooftop of a nearby building. He waved, and when she waved back he taped his phone number to the aerial device and flew it to her. Since then, he and Tori Cignarella have been texting quite often and are making plans to go out on a date when it’s safe to do so. “I think everyone is fiending for social interaction,” said Cohen. “I was like, ‘Oh, my god, a girl. I haven’t seen one for so long.’

  6. Manuel 9 April 2020 at 10:07 pm Permalink

    El toca toca

    Why is coronavirus ravaging our neighbors Spain and Italy but causing less devastation here in France? asked Lucas Serdic. It’s true that our outbreak is several days behind that of Italy, which has suffered more than 11,600 Covid-19 deaths. But if you chart the total number of confirmed infections in both Italy and France, our caseload appears to be rising at a noticeably slower rate. As for Spain, our two outbreaks began around the same time, but by late March, Spain had some 65,000 cases and 5,000 deaths to France’s 33,000 cases and 2,000 deaths. What explains this disparity? It’s not that our health systems are very different—all three countries have universal health care—or that France was quicker to adopt containment measures such as curfews. Instead, epidemiologists say, Spain and Italy are worse off because of their culture of physical closeness. They “touch each other more frequently,” hugging and kissing to say hello and clustering closely around the table at every meal. Many French people do air-kiss upon greeting, but there isn’t the full-on contact hug you see in countries farther south. That’s why, scientists say, the 2003 SARS epidemic largely spared Nordic nations. We may all have to become less friendly and “more like the Swedes” from now on.

  7. Manuel 9 April 2020 at 10:23 pm Permalink

    For many guys Ain’t recession

    The Media, health care industry and

    The New York Times: “Amazon is hiring aggressively to meet consumer demand.” With many parts of the world under stay-at-home orders, “traffic is soaring” for Facebook, Google, and Netflix. Microsoft has witnessed a 37 percent spike in users of its collaboration tool, Teams. Even Apple—which is resuming iPhone production in China faster than expected—is seeing a boost, with iPhone app sales rising 20 percent in the past two weeks.

    • Manuel 9 April 2020 at 10:25 pm Permalink

      These drastic changes in consumer habits make it likely that “the biggest tech companies are likely to finish the year stronger than ever.” The best part for them may be that they will probably get a break from all the regulatory scrutiny, said Kara Swisher, also in the Times. The House has already delayed its antitrust investigation into the business practices of Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon; government officials clearly have more pressing concerns than “the growing power of tech.” Meanwhile, there will be a “culling” as weaker companies sink in the storm. When it passes, many Americans will look with admiration at the profitable tech companies that have been able to hire and protect workers.

    • Manuel 9 April 2020 at 10:26 pm Permalink

      We are using Facebook to “comfort ourselves,” turning to Google to track the virus, and turning to Amazon for “food and vital supplies.” We’ve come to recognize “we are desperately dependent on what they’ve built. And glad that they built it.” Indeed, news about the tech giants has actually been “a bright spot at a time of great fear,”

  8. razón vs instinto 9 April 2020 at 10:44 pm Permalink

    Muy buena info Manuel

  9. Manuel 10 April 2020 at 11:40 am Permalink

    Gobierno incapaz>
    https://youtu.be/vIGlMeJuCOo

  10. Manuel 10 April 2020 at 2:23 pm Permalink

    Cínico incurable:
    https://youtu.be/t4pBoHxXEt0

    • Manuel 10 April 2020 at 2:24 pm Permalink

      Su extra-verbal lo delata

  11. Manuel 12 April 2020 at 8:14 am Permalink

    We live in Zoom now,” said Taylor Lorenz in The New York Times. The nine-year-old videoconferencing platform has become arguably the most indispensable technology in the world now that the coronavirus pandemic has locked us all inside. College students joke that they now attend “Zoom University.” Weddings and funerals are being held virtually. And most businesses pick Zoom “because it works.” Even Zoom’s chief executive, Eric Yuan, said he never expected “every person in the world would suddenly be working, studying, and socializing from home,” said Drew Harwell in The Washington Post.

  12. Manuel 12 April 2020 at 8:23 am Permalink

    Facilities knew that frail and aging residents were especially vulnerable to the outbreak. But with poor access to testing and protective equipment for workers, they were unable to stop it. The Brooklyn nursing home pictured above had to create a makeshift morgue
    https://app.sparkmailapp.com/web-share/JCjFb2eMcs_irX3q4xhyTRmswOy6iPFDN3nzUj-N

  13. Manuel 13 April 2020 at 12:53 am Permalink

    A year later the Cuban government unable to
    rescue two of its lost slaves:

    https://www.plenglish.com/index.php?o=rn&id=54487&SEO=cuba-manages-return-of-doctors-a-year-after-their-kidnapping-in-kenya

    Herrera, a specialist in Comprehensive General Medicine in Las Tunas province (east), and Rodriguez, a surgeon from Villa Clara (center) province, were part of the Cuban medical mission in Kenya.

  14. Manuel 13 April 2020 at 12:57 am Permalink

    point proved:

    What COVID-19 is telling us is that our choice—often hidden but nonetheless revealing of our ethics—to underinvest in public health is now going to cost us in terms of economic instability, tragic choices and lives lost.
    The approximately $275 per person per year (2.5 percent of all health care spending) we spend on public health is not enough—not enough to have timely, universal testing for emerging infections; standardized protocols for coordinated data collection and contact tracing to quickly and accurately identify early exposures to infected individuals; and clear, consistent public messaging about risks and prevention strategies to maintain the public’s health in the face of outbreaks. In addition to the overall inadequacy of funding, it is unevenly distributed, with large geographical differences in availability of labs, testing sites and experienced public health professionals.

    First, we need the brightest and most creative minds in communications and social media to provide a constant flow of engaging information about health risks and opportunities, tailored to different ages and needs.

    Second, we need the capability to quickly scale up diagnostic testing, ideally home testing, and public health laboratories to make universal and regular testing feasible.

    And last, we need coordinated data collection and analysis resources to enable timely and accurate contact tracing and follow up to contain outbreaks at their source.

    We can do better. But it requires a change in mindset. The tragic, ethical choices at the bedside are not isolated events. They are the culmination of many upstream decisions resulting in underfunding crucial public health and emergency preparedness efforts—these, too, were life-and-death decisions, albeit less visible. How many lives, how many trillions of dollars will it take to reorder our priorities?

    Elizabeth H. Bradley is president of Vassar College and a professor of political science as well as science, technology and society. A global health care scholar, Bradley is also the former director of the Yale Global Health Leadership Institute and co-author of THE AMERICAN HEALTH CARE PARADOX: WHY SPENDING MORE IS GETTING US LESS. The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own. ■

  15. Manuel 13 April 2020 at 3:02 pm Permalink

    RESTAURANTS AND BARS across America are closed, but people are still eating, and that has been good for the fortunes of companies like Smucker that make packaged food for the retail market. “As you know, we have experienced unprecedented demand for peanut butter,” the Jif manufacturer said in a letter to retailers on March 19, explaining why it would not always be able to fulfill orders for the brand on time or in full. The letter had better news about coffee, which Smucker sells under labels including Folgers and Dunkin’ Donuts. With production at or near capacity, it was able to meet the rising call for coffee to brew at home. Smucker stock is up more than 8 percent this year. Thriving for similar reasons: processed-meat-maker Hormel and national supermarket chain Kroger.

    • Manuel 13 April 2020 at 3:03 pm Permalink

      coronavirus crisis has provided opportunities to companies that sell remote-working technology, and Citrix is one of the biggest players in that space. Its stock is up nearly 26 percent this year. Citrix is doing so well it may even bring down a senator: Georgia’s Kelly Loeffler has come under criticism because she and her husband sold extensive holdings in the weeks following a closed Senate briefing on the coronavirus—and bought stock in Citrix. (Loeffler said she doesn’t make her own investing decisions and will now liquidate all her individual holdings.) Thriving for similar reasons: Zoom, the videoconference service now used by millions of workers who are naked from the waist down.

    • Manuel 13 April 2020 at 3:04 pm Permalink

      Clorox makes about half the disinfectant wipes used in the U.S., and retailers have been struggling to keep them on the shelves. Clorox also has an advantage over other makers of consumer packaged goods: While Procter & Gamble has warned investors that an economic downturn owing to coronavirus could cause shoppers to trade down to cheaper, lower-margin brands of products like detergent, Clorox benefits from consumers’ desire for a known, trusted name when trying to kill the virus. It doesn’t hurt that Clorox has a sideline in packaged foods similar to those Smucker sells; if you buy Hidden Valley Ranch dressing or KC Masterpiece sauce, you’re buying a Clorox product.

    • Manuel 13 April 2020 at 3:04 pm Permalink

      Amazon has been adding staff to handle increased order volume as department stores like Nordstrom and Macy’s are closing all their locations. Still, Amazon is a general-merchandise retailer and is likely finding this crisis to be a mixed bag for the same reason its competitors Walmart and Target are—consumers are spending more on low-cost, low-margin necessity goods like toilet paper and less on higher-margin items like clothing. But Amazon’s other core business, cloud computing, is really shining. More activity moving online means more demand for cloud server space. Thriving for similar reasons: cloud service provider Akamai Technologies and data-center owners Equinix and Digital Realty Trust.

    • Manuel 13 April 2020 at 3:05 pm Permalink

      STAY-AT-HOME orders could not have come at a better time for Netflix. The streaming-entertainment company had been under serious pressure from competitors; Disney and Apple launched streaming services that stole its market share, and NBC and WarnerMedia expect to be close behind. In addition to poaching customers, some of these companies have been withdrawing content once licensed to Netflix to use for their own platforms. But now, with everyone stuck at home, no live sports on TV, and many shows unable to continue production, customers are less inclined to cancel Netflix and more likely to appreciate its deep back catalogue. The mass popularity of Tiger King doesn’t hurt. Thriving for similar reasons: video-game-maker Activision Blizzard

    • Manuel 13 April 2020 at 3:07 pm Permalink

      Regeneron developed antibody drugs that boost the immune system to help combat Ebola and MERS, and the company says it should have one against the coronavirus ready for human trials early this summer. Gottlieb is hopeful about that, and so are investors; Regeneron stock is up nearly 37 percent this year. Thriving for similar reasons: Gilead Sciences, which makes remdesivir, an anti-viral being tested for effectiveness against coronavirus in China (results are expected in May).
      PHOTOGRAPHS: RUBBERBALL/ALAMY STOCK PHOTO (MEN); LIPIK STOCK MEDIA/SHUTTERSTOCK (WORKING FROMHOME); TOMMASO ALTAMURA/ALAMY (WOMAN WITH REMOTE); JUDITH COLLINS/ALAMY (PILLS) ■

  16. Manuel 13 April 2020 at 3:08 pm Permalink

    I rest my case:

    What COVID-19 is telling us is that our choice—often hidden but nonetheless revealing of our ethics—to underinvest in public health is now going to cost us in terms of economic instability, tragic choices and lives lost.
    The approximately $275 per person per year (2.5 percent of all health care spending) we spend on public health is not enough—not enough to have timely, universal testing for emerging infections; standardized protocols for coordinated data collection and contact tracing to quickly and accurately identify early exposures to infected individuals; and clear, consistent public messaging about risks and prevention strategies to maintain the public’s health in the face of outbreaks. In addition to the overall inadequacy of funding, it is unevenly distributed, with large geographical differences in availability of labs, testing sites and experienced public health professionals.
    First, we need the brightest and most creative minds in communications and social media to provide a constant flow of engaging information about health risks and opportunities, tailored to different ages and needs.
    Second, we need the capability to quickly scale up diagnostic testing, ideally home testing, and public health laboratories to make universal and regular testing feasible.
    And last, we need coordinated data collection and analysis resources to enable timely and accurate contact tracing and follow up to contain outbreaks at their source.
    We can do better. But it requires a change in mindset. The tragic, ethical choices at the bedside are not isolated events. They are the culmination of many upstream decisions resulting in underfunding crucial public health and emergency preparedness efforts—these, too, were life-and-death decisions, albeit less visible. How many lives, how many trillions of dollars will it take to reorder our priorities?
    Elizabeth H. Bradley is president of Vassar College and a professor of political science as well as science, technology and society. A global health care scholar, Bradley is also the former director of the Yale Global Health Leadership Institute and co-author of THE AMERICAN HEALTH CARE PARADOX: WHY SPENDING MORE IS GETTING US LESS.
    Facilities knew that frail and aging residents were especially vulnerable to the outbreak. But with poor access to testing and protective equipment for workers, they were unable to stop it. The Brooklyn nursing home pictured above had to create a makeshift morgue
    https://app.sparkmailapp.com/web-share/JCjFb2eMcs_irX3q4xhyTRmswOy6iPFDN3nzUj-N

  17. Manuel 13 April 2020 at 3:12 pm Permalink

    Not only Ramiro.

    THE BERNIE SANDERS CAMPAIGN was ahead of its time. Had the Democratic primary been held in the year 2040, the socialist’s overwhelming support among millennials and Zoomers would have made him the presumptive nominee by mid-March (for the purposes of this hypothetical, Sanders remains spry at age 98 and human civilization remains a thing in 20 years). Although the Vermont senator ended his 2020 campaign on April 8 with a smaller coalition than he’d assembled four years prior, his resilient hold on a supermajority of voters under 30—combined with that cohort’s exceptionally left-wing views in policy polling—suggests that the moral arc of the Democratic Party bends toward Sandersism.
    It’s possible that his timing was off not by 20 years but by just a few months. Had our present nightmare come a bit sooner, that arc may have been much shorter. The Democratic primary was principally contested in a world that bears little resemblance to the one we now live in. By the time Joe Biden’s promise of a return to normalcy had lost all plausibility, though, Sanders’s “political revolution” had already lost the same. The COVID-19 pandemic foreclosed America’s path back to some facsimile of the Obama era. Yet it did so only after Super Tuesday had all but foreclosed Sanders’s path to the Democratic nomination.
    What if the coronavirus crisis had arrived a few months earlier? Throughout the competitive portion of the primary, Sanders was tasked with selling economic transformation to a country nearing record-high consumer confidence and a half-century low in unemployment. How much more widely might his pitch have resonated in a nation hurtling toward levels of joblessness unseen since the Great Depression? At each Democratic debate, Sanders’s rivals shot down his calls for single-payer health care with pledges to preserve the employer-provided coverage that voters know and love (or, at least, tend to express approval of in Gallup surveys). How much less effective would these rebuttals have been in a country where millions of workers lose such coverage, along with their jobs, each week?
    In Iowa and New Hampshire, the senator’s exorbitant plans for expanding social insurance and green infrastructure were met with exasperated demands for details of how he intended to offset each cent of new spending. In a context where America’s currency remains undesirably strong, and its borrowing costs historically low—even as congressional Republicans authorize hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit spending on a biweekly basis—might the plea “But how are you going to pay for it?” have packed a bit less punch?
    Of course, the Sanders campaign’s faults weren’t limited to poor timing. And if the coronavirus has created more auspicious conditions for the senator’s arguments, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the pandemic has created ones more favorable to his candidacy. After all, Democratic voters saw the Trump presidency as a crisis well before COVID-19 made its presence felt. To the extent that blue America’s post-2016 siege mentality drew voters toward the more familiar and conventionally “electable” of their options, the coronavirus may have made Biden’s ultimate victory more resounding, not less.
    Regardless, debating counterfactuals is only useful for interpreting the world as it is. For supporters of the socialist senator, the point has always been to change it. And there is some reason to believe that the current emergency is (at least) as promising a vehicle for bottom-up social change as Sanders’s candidacy once was.
    The senator’s advocacy for single-payer health care over the course of the Democratic primary did little to increase public support for that policy; in fact, Medicare for All became 24 percent less popular among Democratic voters between March and November of last year in Quinnipiac’s polling (a decline likely attributable to sustained attacks on the program from Sanders’s primary rivals). By contrast, between the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the end of March of this year, support for Medicare for All jumped nine points in consumer-research firm Morning Consult’s survey.
    The current emergency is (at least) as promising a vehicle for bottom-up social change as Sanders’s candidacy once was.
    Sanders’s four-year crusade to move the boundaries of political possibility on Capitol Hill yielded few concrete victories. While his influence on the national political discourse pulled many Democrats leftward, his movement’s lackluster showing in the 2018 House primaries gave Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s moderates little cause for guarding their left flank. Coronavirus, by contrast, hasn’t just shifted policy debates leftward in the Democratic House but has forced the Republican Senate majority to acquiesce to a historically generous expansion of unemployment benefits, the provision of direct cash assistance to all working-class families, and a (grossly inadequate) paid sick-leave program. The Vermont senator’s evangelism for Nordic social democracy may have raised millennials’ awareness of the U.S. welfare state’s inadequacies. But by overwhelming unemployment-insurance bureaucracies from coast to coast, COVID-19 has made the necessity of “bigger government” apparent even to the likes of Florida’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis.
    Most promisingly, the pandemic is now broadcasting Sanders’s most vital message—that America’s working people deserve more than they’ve been given and are (collectively) more powerful than they realize—at a volume too loud for plutocratic propaganda to drown out. The coronavirus has forced the U.S. government to inform grocery-store clerks, warehouse workers, delivery drivers, and crop hands that they are among our society’s most “essential” members—even as many of their employers have revealed a callous indifference to their personal safety. Together, these developments have fostered a wave of worker militancy, with warehouse strikes disrupting Amazon deliveries and GE workers walking out in hopes of compelling their bosses to shift production away from jet engines and toward ventilators. This is the stuff that change is made of. A progressive movement capable of credibly threatening primary challenges would nudge Pelosi’s caucus leftward; a labor movement capable of credibly threatening to shutter Amazon’s supply chain, however, could turn Joe Biden into FDR.
    If the Democrats manage to win power in November, an advanced stage of the COVID-19 crisis will almost certainly still be around to greet the new administration come January. According to the Congressional Budget Office’s latest projections, America’s unemployment rate will be stuck at 9 percent at the end of 2021. The damage that the coronavirus is doing to the health-care industry’s finances, meanwhile, is likely to yield widespread premium hikes and hospital closures next year. An America in which the private sector durably fails to provide full employment or affordable health care is one in which the left will find broader sympathy for the Green New Deal and Medicare for All. And a well-organized progressive movement—proficient in the disparate arts of cajoling elites in smoke-filled rooms and emboldening workers on picket lines—could translate that public support into political revolution. ■

  18. Manuel 13 April 2020 at 3:14 pm Permalink

    Not only Ramiro think that…

    THE BERNIE SANDERS CAMPAIGN was ahead of its time. Had the Democratic primary been held in the year 2040, the socialist’s overwhelming support among millennials and Zoomers would have made him the presumptive nominee by mid-March (for the purposes of this hypothetical, Sanders remains spry at age 98 and human civilization remains a thing in 20 years). Although the Vermont senator ended his 2020 campaign on April 8 with a smaller coalition than he’d assembled four years prior, his resilient hold on a supermajority of voters under 30—combined with that cohort’s exceptionally left-wing views in policy polling—suggests that the moral arc of the Democratic Party bends toward Sandersism.
    It’s possible that his timing was off not by 20 years but by just a few months. Had our present nightmare come a bit sooner, that arc may have been much shorter. The Democratic primary was principally contested in a world that bears little resemblance to the one we now live in. By the time Joe Biden’s promise of a return to normalcy had lost all plausibility, though, Sanders’s “political revolution” had already lost the same. The COVID-19 pandemic foreclosed America’s path back to some facsimile of the Obama era. Yet it did so only after Super Tuesday had all but foreclosed Sanders’s path to the Democratic nomination.
    What if the coronavirus crisis had arrived a few months earlier? Throughout the competitive portion of the primary, Sanders was tasked with selling economic transformation to a country nearing record-high consumer confidence and a half-century low in unemployment. How much more widely might his pitch have resonated in a nation hurtling toward levels of joblessness unseen since the Great Depression? At each Democratic debate, Sanders’s rivals shot down his calls for single-payer health care with pledges to preserve the employer-provided coverage that voters know and love (or, at least, tend to express approval of in Gallup surveys). How much less effective would these rebuttals have been in a country where millions of workers lose such coverage, along with their jobs, each week?
    In Iowa and New Hampshire, the senator’s exorbitant plans for expanding social insurance and green infrastructure were met with exasperated demands for details of how he intended to offset each cent of new spending. In a context where America’s currency remains undesirably strong, and its borrowing costs historically low—even as congressional Republicans authorize hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit spending on a biweekly basis—might the plea “But how are you going to pay for it?” have packed a bit less punch?
    Of course, the Sanders campaign’s faults weren’t limited to poor timing. And if the coronavirus has created more auspicious conditions for the senator’s arguments, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the pandemic has created ones more favorable to his candidacy. After all, Democratic voters saw the Trump presidency as a crisis well before COVID-19 made its presence felt. To the extent that blue America’s post-2016 siege mentality drew voters toward the more familiar and conventionally “electable” of their options, the coronavirus may have made Biden’s ultimate victory more resounding, not less.
    Regardless, debating counterfactuals is only useful for interpreting the world as it is. For supporters of the socialist senator, the point has always been to change it. And there is some reason to believe that the current emergency is (at least) as promising a vehicle for bottom-up social change as Sanders’s candidacy once was.
    The senator’s advocacy for single-payer health care over the course of the Democratic primary did little to increase public support for that policy; in fact, Medicare for All became 24 percent less popular among Democratic voters between March and November of last year in Quinnipiac’s polling (a decline likely attributable to sustained attacks on the program from Sanders’s primary rivals). By contrast, between the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the end of March of this year, support for Medicare for All jumped nine points in consumer-research firm Morning Consult’s survey.
    The current emergency is (at least) as promising a vehicle for bottom-up social change as Sanders’s candidacy once was.
    Sanders’s four-year crusade to move the boundaries of political possibility on Capitol Hill yielded few concrete victories. While his influence on the national political discourse pulled many Democrats leftward, his movement’s lackluster showing in the 2018 House primaries gave Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s moderates little cause for guarding their left flank. Coronavirus, by contrast, hasn’t just shifted policy debates leftward in the Democratic House but has forced the Republican Senate majority to acquiesce to a historically generous expansion of unemployment benefits, the provision of direct cash assistance to all working-class families, and a (grossly inadequate) paid sick-leave program. The Vermont senator’s evangelism for Nordic social democracy may have raised millennials’ awareness of the U.S. welfare state’s inadequacies. But by overwhelming unemployment-insurance bureaucracies from coast to coast, COVID-19 has made the necessity of “bigger government” apparent even to the likes of Florida’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis.
    Most promisingly, the pandemic is now broadcasting Sanders’s most vital message—that America’s working people deserve more than they’ve been given and are (collectively) more powerful than they realize—at a volume too loud for plutocratic propaganda to drown out. The coronavirus has forced the U.S. government to inform grocery-store clerks, warehouse workers, delivery drivers, and crop hands that they are among our society’s most “essential” members—even as many of their employers have revealed a callous indifference to their personal safety. Together, these developments have fostered a wave of worker militancy, with warehouse strikes disrupting Amazon deliveries and GE workers walking out in hopes of compelling their bosses to shift production away from jet engines and toward ventilators. This is the stuff that change is made of. A progressive movement capable of credibly threatening primary challenges would nudge Pelosi’s caucus leftward; a labor movement capable of credibly threatening to shutter Amazon’s supply chain, however, could turn Joe Biden into FDR.
    If the Democrats manage to win power in November, an advanced stage of the COVID-19 crisis will almost certainly still be around to greet the new administration come January. According to the Congressional Budget Office’s latest projections, America’s unemployment rate will be stuck at 9 percent at the end of 2021. The damage that the coronavirus is doing to the health-care industry’s finances, meanwhile, is likely to yield widespread premium hikes and hospital closures next year. An America in which the private sector durably fails to provide full employment or affordable health care is one in which the left will find broader sympathy for the Green New Deal and Medicare for All. And a well-organized progressive movement—proficient in the disparate arts of cajoling elites in smoke-filled rooms and emboldening workers on picket lines—could translate that public support into political revolution. ■

  19. Manuel 13 April 2020 at 3:15 pm Permalink

    Not just Ramiro, but:

    THE BERNIE SANDERS CAMPAIGN was ahead of its time. Had the Democratic primary been held in the year 2040, the socialist’s overwhelming support among millennials and Zoomers would have made him the presumptive nominee by mid-March (for the purposes of this hypothetical, Sanders remains spry at age 98 and human civilization remains a thing in 20 years). Although the Vermont senator ended his 2020 campaign on April 8 with a smaller coalition than he’d assembled four years prior, his resilient hold on a supermajority of voters under 30—combined with that cohort’s exceptionally left-wing views in policy polling—suggests that the moral arc of the Democratic Party bends toward Sandersism.
    It’s possible that his timing was off not by 20 years but by just a few months. Had our present nightmare come a bit sooner, that arc may have been much shorter. The Democratic primary was principally contested in a world that bears little resemblance to the one we now live in. By the time Joe Biden’s promise of a return to normalcy had lost all plausibility, though, Sanders’s “political revolution” had already lost the same. The COVID-19 pandemic foreclosed America’s path back to some facsimile of the Obama era. Yet it did so only after Super Tuesday had all but foreclosed Sanders’s path to the Democratic nomination.
    What if the coronavirus crisis had arrived a few months earlier? Throughout the competitive portion of the primary, Sanders was tasked with selling economic transformation to a country nearing record-high consumer confidence and a half-century low in unemployment. How much more widely might his pitch have resonated in a nation hurtling toward levels of joblessness unseen since the Great Depression? At each Democratic debate, Sanders’s rivals shot down his calls for single-payer health care with pledges to preserve the employer-provided coverage that voters know and love (or, at least, tend to express approval of in Gallup surveys). How much less effective would these rebuttals have been in a country where millions of workers lose such coverage, along with their jobs, each week?
    In Iowa and New Hampshire, the senator’s exorbitant plans for expanding social insurance and green infrastructure were met with exasperated demands for details of how he intended to offset each cent of new spending. In a context where America’s currency remains undesirably strong, and its borrowing costs historically low—even as congressional Republicans authorize hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit spending on a biweekly basis—might the plea “But how are you going to pay for it?” have packed a bit less punch?
    Of course, the Sanders campaign’s faults weren’t limited to poor timing. And if the coronavirus has created more auspicious conditions for the senator’s arguments, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the pandemic has created ones more favorable to his candidacy. After all, Democratic voters saw the Trump presidency as a crisis well before COVID-19 made its presence felt. To the extent that blue America’s post-2016 siege mentality drew voters toward the more familiar and conventionally “electable” of their options, the coronavirus may have made Biden’s ultimate victory more resounding, not less.
    Regardless, debating counterfactuals is only useful for interpreting the world as it is. For supporters of the socialist senator, the point has always been to change it. And there is some reason to believe that the current emergency is (at least) as promising a vehicle for bottom-up social change as Sanders’s candidacy once was.
    The senator’s advocacy for single-payer health care over the course of the Democratic primary did little to increase public support for that policy; in fact, Medicare for All became 24 percent less popular among Democratic voters between March and November of last year in Quinnipiac’s polling (a decline likely attributable to sustained attacks on the program from Sanders’s primary rivals). By contrast, between the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the end of March of this year, support for Medicare for All jumped nine points in consumer-research firm Morning Consult’s survey.
    The current emergency is (at least) as promising a vehicle for bottom-up social change as Sanders’s candidacy once was.
    Sanders’s four-year crusade to move the boundaries of political possibility on Capitol Hill yielded few concrete victories. While his influence on the national political discourse pulled many Democrats leftward, his movement’s lackluster showing in the 2018 House primaries gave Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s moderates little cause for guarding their left flank. Coronavirus, by contrast, hasn’t just shifted policy debates leftward in the Democratic House but has forced the Republican Senate majority to acquiesce to a historically generous expansion of unemployment benefits, the provision of direct cash assistance to all working-class families, and a (grossly inadequate) paid sick-leave program. The Vermont senator’s evangelism for Nordic social democracy may have raised millennials’ awareness of the U.S. welfare state’s inadequacies. But by overwhelming unemployment-insurance bureaucracies from coast to coast, COVID-19 has made the necessity of “bigger government” apparent even to the likes of Florida’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis.
    Most promisingly, the pandemic is now broadcasting Sanders’s most vital message—that America’s working people deserve more than they’ve been given and are (collectively) more powerful than they realize—at a volume too loud for plutocratic propaganda to drown out. The coronavirus has forced the U.S. government to inform grocery-store clerks, warehouse workers, delivery drivers, and crop hands that they are among our society’s most “essential” members—even as many of their employers have revealed a callous indifference to their personal safety. Together, these developments have fostered a wave of worker militancy, with warehouse strikes disrupting Amazon deliveries and GE workers walking out in hopes of compelling their bosses to shift production away from jet engines and toward ventilators. This is the stuff that change is made of. A progressive movement capable of credibly threatening primary challenges would nudge Pelosi’s caucus leftward; a labor movement capable of credibly threatening to shutter Amazon’s supply chain, however, could turn Joe Biden into FDR.
    If the Democrats manage to win power in November, an advanced stage of the COVID-19 crisis will almost certainly still be around to greet the new administration come January. According to the Congressional Budget Office’s latest projections, America’s unemployment rate will be stuck at 9 percent at the end of 2021. The damage that the coronavirus is doing to the health-care industry’s finances, meanwhile, is likely to yield widespread premium hikes and hospital closures next year. An America in which the private sector durably fails to provide full employment or affordable health care is one in which the left will find broader sympathy for the Green New Deal and Medicare for All. And a well-organized progressive movement—proficient in the disparate arts of cajoling elites in smoke-filled rooms and emboldening workers on picket lines—could translate that public support into political revolution. ■

  20. Manuel 13 April 2020 at 3:15 pm Permalink

    Not only Ramiro thinks that:

  21. Manuel 13 April 2020 at 3:16 pm Permalink

    Not only Ramiro thinks that:

    THE BERNIE SANDERS CAMPAIGN was ahead of its time. Had the Democratic primary been held in the year 2040, the socialist’s overwhelming support among millennials and Zoomers would have made him the presumptive nominee by mid-March (for the purposes of this hypothetical, Sanders remains spry at age 98 and human civilization remains a thing in 20 years). Although the Vermont senator ended his 2020 campaign on April 8 with a smaller coalition than he’d assembled four years prior, his resilient hold on a supermajority of voters under 30—combined with that cohort’s exceptionally left-wing views in policy polling—suggests that the moral arc of the Democratic Party bends toward Sandersism.
    It’s possible that his timing was off not by 20 years but by just a few months. Had our present nightmare come a bit sooner, that arc may have been much shorter. The Democratic primary was principally contested in a world that bears little resemblance to the one we now live in. By the time Joe Biden’s promise of a return to normalcy had lost all plausibility, though, Sanders’s “political revolution” had already lost the same. The COVID-19 pandemic foreclosed America’s path back to some facsimile of the Obama era. Yet it did so only after Super Tuesday had all but foreclosed Sanders’s path to the Democratic nomination.
    What if the coronavirus crisis had arrived a few months earlier? Throughout the competitive portion of the primary, Sanders was tasked with selling economic transformation to a country nearing record-high consumer confidence and a half-century low in unemployment. How much more widely might his pitch have resonated in a nation hurtling toward levels of joblessness unseen since the Great Depression? At each Democratic debate, Sanders’s rivals shot down his calls for single-payer health care with pledges to preserve the employer-provided coverage that voters know and love (or, at least, tend to express approval of in Gallup surveys). How much less effective would these rebuttals have been in a country where millions of workers lose such coverage, along with their jobs, each week?
    In Iowa and New Hampshire, the senator’s exorbitant plans for expanding social insurance and green infrastructure were met with exasperated demands for details of how he intended to offset each cent of new spending. In a context where America’s currency remains undesirably strong, and its borrowing costs historically low—even as congressional Republicans authorize hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit spending on a biweekly basis—might the plea “But how are you going to pay for it?” have packed a bit less punch?
    Of course, the Sanders campaign’s faults weren’t limited to poor timing. And if the coronavirus has created more auspicious conditions for the senator’s arguments, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the pandemic has created ones more favorable to his candidacy. After all, Democratic voters saw the Trump presidency as a crisis well before COVID-19 made its presence felt. To the extent that blue America’s post-2016 siege mentality drew voters toward the more familiar and conventionally “electable” of their options, the coronavirus may have made Biden’s ultimate victory more resounding, not less.
    Regardless, debating counterfactuals is only useful for interpreting the world as it is. For supporters of the socialist senator, the point has always been to change it. And there is some reason to believe that the current emergency is (at least) as promising a vehicle for bottom-up social change as Sanders’s candidacy once was.
    The senator’s advocacy for single-payer health care over the course of the Democratic primary did little to increase public support for that policy; in fact, Medicare for All became 24 percent less popular among Democratic voters between March and November of last year in Quinnipiac’s polling (a decline likely attributable to sustained attacks on the program from Sanders’s primary rivals). By contrast, between the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the end of March of this year, support for Medicare for All jumped nine points in consumer-research firm Morning Consult’s survey.
    The current emergency is (at least) as promising a vehicle for bottom-up social change as Sanders’s candidacy once was.
    Sanders’s four-year crusade to move the boundaries of political possibility on Capitol Hill yielded few concrete victories. While his influence on the national political discourse pulled many Democrats leftward, his movement’s lackluster showing in the 2018 House primaries gave Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s moderates little cause for guarding their left flank. Coronavirus, by contrast, hasn’t just shifted policy debates leftward in the Democratic House but has forced the Republican Senate majority to acquiesce to a historically generous expansion of unemployment benefits, the provision of direct cash assistance to all working-class families, and a (grossly inadequate) paid sick-leave program. The Vermont senator’s evangelism for Nordic social democracy may have raised millennials’ awareness of the U.S. welfare state’s inadequacies. But by overwhelming unemployment-insurance bureaucracies from coast to coast, COVID-19 has made the necessity of “bigger government” apparent even to the likes of Florida’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis.
    Most promisingly, the pandemic is now broadcasting Sanders’s most vital message—that America’s working people deserve more than they’ve been given and are (collectively) more powerful than they realize—at a volume too loud for plutocratic propaganda to drown out. The coronavirus has forced the U.S. government to inform grocery-store clerks, warehouse workers, delivery drivers, and crop hands that they are among our society’s most “essential” members—even as many of their employers have revealed a callous indifference to their personal safety. Together, these developments have fostered a wave of worker militancy, with warehouse strikes disrupting Amazon deliveries and GE workers walking out in hopes of compelling their bosses to shift production away from jet engines and toward ventilators. This is the stuff that change is made of. A progressive movement capable of credibly threatening primary challenges would nudge Pelosi’s caucus leftward; a labor movement capable of credibly threatening to shutter Amazon’s supply chain, however, could turn Joe Biden into FDR.
    If the Democrats manage to win power in November, an advanced stage of the COVID-19 crisis will almost certainly still be around to greet the new administration come January. According to the Congressional Budget Office’s latest projections, America’s unemployment rate will be stuck at 9 percent at the end of 2021. The damage that the coronavirus is doing to the health-care industry’s finances, meanwhile, is likely to yield widespread premium hikes and hospital closures next year. An America in which the private sector durably fails to provide full employment or affordable health care is one in which the left will find broader sympathy for the Green New Deal and Medicare for All. And a well-organized progressive movement—proficient in the disparate arts of cajoling elites in smoke-filled rooms and emboldening workers on picket lines—could translate that public support into political revolution. ■

  22. Manuel 13 April 2020 at 3:37 pm Permalink

    “the most complex object in the known universe.”

    The computer in our heads contains some 86 billion processing units, known as neurons, woven into a distributed network with hundreds of trillions of connections, or synapses. Over a lifetime, it can store about a billion bits of data: 50,000 times the information in the Library of Congress. It can compose novels and symphonies, figure out how to send spacecraft beyond the solar system, and invent electronic brains whose powers, in some ways, exceed its own.

  23. Manuel 13 April 2020 at 3:41 pm Permalink

    like all animals,

    we evolved to switch attention instantly when we sense danger: the snapping twig that might signal an approaching predator, the shadow that could indicate an enemy behind a tree. Our goal-directed, or top-down, mental activities stand little chance against these bottom-up forces of novelty and saliency — stimuli that are unexpected, sudden or dramatic, or that evoke memories of important experiences.
    “Many technological devices use bottom-up stimuli to draw our attention from our goals, like buzzes and vibrations and flashes of light,” Gazzaley says. Even when they’re in silent mode, moreover, our devices tempt us with the promise of limitless, immediately available information. The data on tap may be newsy (our least-favorite politician’s latest gaffe), factual (our favorite actor’s filmography), social (the number of upvotes our selfie scored) or just plain fun (that video of the aardvark on a bobsled). But all of it stimulates our hardwired eagerness to be in the know.

    • Manuel 13 April 2020 at 3:43 pm Permalink

      Humans, of course, forage for data more voraciously than any other animal. And, like most foragers, we follow instinctive strategies for optimizing our search. Behavioral ecologists who study animals seeking nourishment have developed various models to predict their likely course of action. One of these, the marginal value theorem (MVT), applies to foragers in areas where food is found in patches, with resource-poor areas in between. The MVT can predict, for example, when a squirrel will quit gathering acorns in one tree and move on to the next, based on a formula assessing the costs and benefits of staying put — the number of nuts acquired per minute versus the time required for travel, and so on. Gazzaley sees the digital landscape as a similar environment, in which the patches are sources of information — a website, a smartphone, an email program. He believes an MVT-like formula may govern our online foraging: Each data patch provides diminishing returns over time as we use up information available there, or as we start to worry that better data might be available elsewhere.
      The call of the next data patch may keep us hopping from Facebook to Twitter to Google to YouTube; it can also interfere with the fulfillment of goals.
      The call of the next data patch may keep us hopping from Facebook to Twitter to Google to YouTube; it can also interfere with the fulfillment of goals — meeting a work deadline, paying attention in class, connecting face-to-face with a loved one. It does this, Gazzaley says, in two basic ways. One is distraction, which he defines as “pieces of goal-irrelevant information that we either encounter in our external surroundings or generate internally within our own minds.” We try to ignore our phone’s pings and buzzes (or our fear of missing out on the data they signify), only to find our focus undermined by the effort.
      The other goal-killer is interruption: We take a break from top-down activity to feed our information munchies. The common term for this is multitasking, which sounds as if we’re accomplishing several things at once — working on the quarterly report, answering client emails, staying on top of the politician’s gaffe count, taking a peek at that aardvark. In truth, it means we’re doing nothing well.
      “There’s a conflict between what we want to do and what we’re actually capable of doing,” Gazzaley says. “With each switch [of our attention from one task to another], there’s a cost.” For example, one study found that it took 25 minutes, on average, for IT workers to resume a project after being interrupted. Besides putting a major crimp in efficiency, such juggling can lead to high levels of stress, frustration and fatigue.
      It also wreaks havoc on working memory, the function that allows us to hold a few key bits of data in our heads just long enough to apply them to a task. Multiple studies have shown that “media multitasking” (the scientific term for toggling between digital data sources) overloads this mental compartment, making us less focused and more prone to mistakes. In 2012, for instance, Canadian researchers found that multitasking on a laptop hindered classroom learning not only for the user but for students sitting nearby. Heavy media multitasking has been associated with diminished cognitive control, higher levels of impulsivity and reduced volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, a brain region linked with error detection and emotional regulation.

    • Manuel 13 April 2020 at 3:47 pm Permalink

      … Emotional regulation is central to another of tech’s disruptive effects on our ancient brains: exacerbation of tribal tendencies. Our distant ancestors lived in small nomadic bands, the basic social unit for most of human history. “Groups that were competing for resources and space didn’t always do so peacefully,” says paleoanthropologist Hawks. “We’re a product of that process.”
      These days, many analysts see tribalism asserting itself in the resurgence of nationalist movements worldwide and the sharp rise in political polarization in the U.S., with both trends playing out prominently online. A study published in the American Journal of Political Science in 2015 found that party affiliation had become a basic component of identity for Republicans and Democrats. Social media, which spurs us to publicly declare our passions and convictions, helps fuel what the authors call “the gradual encroachment of party preference into nonpolitical and hitherto personal domains.”
      And we’re hardwired to excel at telling “us” from “them.” When we interact with in-group members, a release of dopamine gives us a rush of pleasure, while out-group members may trigger a negative response. Getting online “likes” only intensifies the experience.
      Our retreat into tribal mode may also be a reaction to the data explosion that the web has ignited. In 2018, in the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science, psychologist Thomas T. Hills reviewed an array of earlier studies on the proliferation of information. He found that the upsurge in digitally mediated extremism and polarization may be a response to cognitive overload. Amid the onslaught, he suggested, we rely on ingrained biases to decide which data deserve our attention (see “Tribal Tech” sidebar). The result: herd thinking, echo chambers and conspiracy theories. “Finding information that’s consistent with what I already believe makes me a better member of my in-group,” Hills says. “I can go to my allies and say, ‘Look, here’s the evidence that we’re right!’”
      In some cases, a bias in favor of one’s own tribe can spur a desire to see another tribe suffer. “Not all out-groups are equivalent,” says Harvard University psychologist Mina Cikara, who studies the factors that make one group take pleasure in another’s pain, a response known as schadenfreude. “Americans don’t react to Canadians, say, the way they do to people from Iran.” The factors driving this type of ill will, she explains, are “a sense that the group is against us, and that they’re capable of carrying out a threat.” For example, when Red Sox and Yankees fans watch their rival team fail to score, even against a third team, they show heightened activity in the ventral striatum, a brain region associated with reward response.
      It’s surely no coincidence that during the 2016 presidential election, Russian hackers focused largely on convincing various groups of Americans that another group was out to get them. But foreign agents are hardly the top promoters of tribalism online. As anyone who’s spent time on social media knows, there’s plenty of homegrown schadenfreude on the web.
      PRESENT VS. FUTURE
      Don’t expect Silicon Valley honchos to redesign their profitable products to be less exploitative of our old-school neural wiring. “The genie is out of the bottle,” says Gazzaley. “Putting it back is not a realistic plan.”
      We can, however, evolve. The surest way to combat digital tribalism, Hills suggests, is to be wary of bias, embrace critical thinking and encourage others to do the same. Gazzaley, for his part, offers a variety of strategies for making our brains less vulnerable to distraction and interruption, and for modifying our behavior to tune out tech’s temptations (see “Taming Our Tech” sidebar). “By building healthier habits, we can change our relationship with technology for the better,” he says. “We’re a very adaptive species. I think we’ll be OK.”
      Kenneth Miller is a Discover contributing editor. His previous feature for the magazine was on gene therapy for cancer. ■

  24. Manuel 14 April 2020 at 8:45 am Permalink

    tres cuartos de los muertos
    los aportan 5 países:

    24k eeuu
    21k italia
    18k españa
    15k francia
    12k inglaterra

    • Manuel 14 April 2020 at 8:49 am Permalink

      si se le pueden creer los muertos a china

      Si algo se le puede creer a los fascistas

  25. Manuel 16 April 2020 at 7:51 am Permalink

    3 paises cargando mas de la mitad de las muertes

    Eeuu 31
    Italia..22
    España19

    72k muertos de 138k en total


Leave a Reply