Plague Inc: The Cure DLC coming in early 2021 and free until COVID-19 is under control

That's fair. For me personally (as an introvert who is married to another introvert and whose income hasn't been affected at all) this hasn't been a huge problem.

The time in one's life where you learn that your style of life is called "social distancing"... ;)

"...free until COVID-19 is under control"

Let's be honest, it's not the virus that's out of control, it's our governments.

Yeah, why not making fun of 1.5 million dead people?

I wasn't making fun of anything, just pointing out that the damage being done to us is not because of some virus that's out of control but because of how our governments' have responded. The fact is, someone in the world dies from something every single second of every single day, and government totalitarianism can't stop that.

Actually, I think there's quite a lot of evidence that it can. Not that government regulation can make people immortal, but it can sure as hell make them die somewhat later on average, whether it's seatbelts, or not allowing poison in our food or water or air, or safety standards at workplaces, or insisting that people stop at the nice red light.

The government might be able to reduce certain types of injuries and deaths through regulation, but overall human death rates do not rise or fall based on government mandates. And in the case of the Chinese cornoavirus, the "cure" -- reducing human socialization through fear; destroying economies; forcing people to stifle themselves with face coverings that have their own associated health risks quite apart from any influenza and don't actually prevent the transmission of illness -- may, in fact, be worse than the disease when all is said and done.

As Benjamin Franklin famously said, "Those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

"Those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

This.

The government might be able to reduce certain types of injuries and deaths through regulation, but overall human death rates do not rise or fall based on government mandates.

Deaths are reduced, but death rates do not fall. Aha...

You think the death rates shown for Spain during a lockdown would have been the same without measures?
The scientist in this field seem to disagree. And the data, too.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/12/15/science.abd9338


Last edited by Eike on 21 December 2020 at 4:44 pm UTC

"Those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

This.

1.5 million people have lost all their liberties.


Last edited by Eike on 21 December 2020 at 4:43 pm UTC

The government might be able to reduce certain types of injuries and deaths through regulation, but overall human death rates do not rise or fall based on government mandates.

Deaths are reduced, but death rates do not fall. Aha...

Not what I said. Government intrusion might be able to prevent certain types of injuries and deaths -- for instance, vehicle fatalities could theoretically be reduced by 100% if the government simply made vehicles illegal -- but you would find that the human population in general would still die at the same overall rate.

The biggest problem right now is that governments are operating on the logic of "We must do something about X; Y is something; therefore, we must do Y" which is the kind of thinking that leads totalitarian minded politicians to believe that any decision they make, no matter the consequences (both intended and unintended), is morally justified.

There was a curious study that was recently published (and then hastily covered-up) by Johns Hopkins showing that deaths in 2020 attributed to the Chinese coronavirus have risen in direct inverse proportion to deaths attributed to other causes like heart disease and cancer such that overall death rates are not significantly greater this year than the year before. In fact, on average, any person who contracts the Chinese coronavirus has a better than 99% chance of surviving without complications, and in many cases without requiring any sort of treatment. And yet our governments have destroyed hundreds of millions of people's lives in response.

Should our governments have done something in response to the Chinese coronovirus? Probably. Should they have necessarily done what they've done? Probably not. Like I said from the beginning, it's not the virus that's out of control, it's our governments.

The biggest problem right now is that governments are operating on the logic of "We must do something about X; Y is something; therefore, we must do Y" which is the kind of thinking that leads totalitarian minded politicians to believe that any decision they make, no matter the consequences (both intended and unintended), is morally justified.

Someone else might believe they could do something else is not an argument against anything. (There's even been peopel abusing Darwin's theories, so should we refrain from Darwin's theories?!?) There's real measures against a real threat that can be evaluated.

There was a curious study that was recently published (and then hastily covered-up) by Johns Hopkins showing that deaths in 2020 attributed to the Chinese coronavirus have risen in direct inverse proportion to deaths attributed to other causes like heart disease and cancer such that overall death rates are not significantly greater this year than the year before.

That's why I showed the Spanish numbers. It's quite obvious that (many) more people have died that wouldn't have died normally, and that Covid and other deaths do not sum up to nearly any normal amount of deaths - right? (I'm very surprised that at least here, such numbers haven't been shown in the news.)

Should our governments have done something in response to the Chinese coronovirus? Probably. Should they have necessarily done what they've done? Probably not. Like I said from the beginning, it's not the virus that's out of control, it's our governments.

We might find out afterwards that there's been measures that didn't help too much or were not worth it. And/or that there would have been other great measures that would have inflicted less problems. But there's been exponential(!) rise of deaths, way over what's normal, and nobody knew (or knows now) how to best stop it. The king of Sweden, the country which used to be the example of people opposing the measures at least in Europe, recently admited that they've been doing it wrong and payed the death toll. Where ever you are from, the virus in your town is as dangerous as the one in Spain and Sweden. They had to do something serious about it.


Last edited by Eike on 21 December 2020 at 6:19 pm UTC

As Benjamin Franklin famously said, "Those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The man did have a way with words, but just like we do, he gave up some of his liberties for a measure of safety. Living in a society involves quite a lot of compromise.

But tell me, what do you think he meant by "essential liberties"? The liberty to not wear a mask in public during a pandemic perhaps? The liberty to not give a rat's ass about the health and well-being of others? Sure don't sound essential to me.

I guess the quote wouldn't have quite the same impact if it said "temporarily give up some liberties for the common good" instead.

the Chinese coronavirus

Parroting this xenophobic name invented by American right-wing politicians really underlines your ignorance.

If governments hadn't intervened and hospitals and doctors were free to work with patients this would have been solved by now and without the need for vaccines because there are therapies effective enough.
It's not that governments minimized the problem; they created it. Central Power is the problem, always is.

If governments hadn't intervened and hospitals and doctors were free to work with patients this would have been solved by now and without the need for vaccines because there are therapies effective enough.

Most medical scientists and professionals would agree with you that certain governments have done more harm than good. But they wouldn't be blaming the governments that actually listened to their advice and worked with them to limit the spread.

Incidentally, I read an article today

Oh! listen to Library Guy, he read an article!

So just to be clear, are you calling me a liar? Or are you just trying to be vaguely disparaging without implying that your comment actually meant anything whatsoever?

Having to stay home a lot for a while (and to wear a mask when I don't) are inconveniences, moreso for some, but worth it to me if it prevents a single death. Same goes for people losing jobs or money, as long as their government makes sure nobody ends up in the streets or has to go hungry. As long as you don't kill off a significant portion of the consumer base, businesses will bounce back and so will jobs.

I'd agree though (and it's probably the only point where I agree with them) that losing your job and the like is not named appropriately with "inconveniences". It's just... that it's necessary.

That's fair. For me personally (as an introvert who is married to another introvert and whose income hasn't been affected at all) this hasn't been a huge problem. The worst I've had to do is avoid properly visiting elderly family who depend on me, which sucks. I also had to cancel my summer vacation plans, but that's definitely just an inconvenience.

Of course I sympathize with those who have bigger problems, and there'll be a bunch of financial as well as psychological trauma to solve after this, but some evils are necessary, and better than the alternative.

I do think that if the government is going to say "It is necessary for public health that you stop earning a paycheck/your small business has to stop making money", it also has a responsibility if it is at all fiscally capable of it to do whatever it takes to make sure you don't end up on the street from complying with that order.
The US government in this is much like large sections of the US people--wanting privilege without responsibility.

Actually, I think there's quite a lot of evidence that it can. Not that government regulation can make people immortal, but it can sure as hell make them die somewhat later on average, whether it's seatbelts, or not allowing poison in our food or water or air, or safety standards at workplaces, or insisting that people stop at the nice red light.

The government might be able to reduce certain types of injuries and deaths through regulation, but overall human death rates do not rise or fall based on government mandates. And in the case of the Chinese cornoavirus, the "cure" -- reducing human socialization through fear; destroying economies; forcing people to stifle themselves with face coverings that have their own associated health risks quite apart from any influenza and don't actually prevent the transmission of illness -- may, in fact, be worse than the disease when all is said and done.

As Benjamin Franklin famously said, "Those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Overall human death rates do in fact rise or fall based on government mandates. For instance, when the USSR fell apart and the Russian government imploded, the death rate rose dramatically, and then fell again after Putin got the house in order.
Not all of those mandates have to do with admonitions and control, mind you--a big part has to do with plumbing and garbage collection, for instance. Not to mention health care. Government provision of public goods is I think usually a bigger deal for death rates than enforcement of regulations, which in turn makes a bigger difference than "law and order".

Meanwhile, if you want to claim that "not wearing a mask" is an essential liberty I don't know what planet you're supposed to be from. And I hate to tell you, but wearing masks does significantly reduce the spread of the disease (and various others, for that matter). At this point there's plenty of studies and they are quite clear. And honest to God, what motive is anyone supposed to have for falsifying this? What possible good is it supposed to do the perfidious Democratic technocrats to fool their opponents and supporters alike into wearing masks?! Perfidious Democratic technocrats fool people for one motive only: Money. And the mask business is small potatoes and nobody has a monopoly.
And health risks? Really?! I think bajillions of Muslim women, skiers and so forth and so on would have noticed by now. Look, it's just a frigging piece of cloth; my wife made one at home, I got a couple at Aritzia, they're not fiendish engines of destruction with weird chemicals sneakily inserted.

Finally, China. China wiped the disease out within their borders. They eliminated it, before any vaccine arrived. They're already back to economic growth and living normally. Because they didn't fuck around.

If governments hadn't intervened and hospitals and doctors were free to work with patients this would have been solved by now and without the need for vaccines because there are therapies effective enough.
It's not that governments minimized the problem; they created it. Central Power is the problem, always is.

You do realize that's completely ridiculous from start to finish, right? And you do realize that hospitals, doctors and nurses are basically unanimous in wanting strong public health measures from government?

Look, I'm sympathetic to suspicion of government . . . especially the American government. The government is interested in spying on us. The government does tend to grab more policing powers, circumvent rules intended to protect people's rights, and so on. That does not mean that every time anything goes wrong, it was the government that did it. You have to look at things case by case. There are plenty of other reasons for stuff to go wrong, from private profiteers to shit just happening. Covid just happened, although there are things about our economic setup that are making such things more likely overall.

The other thing you gotta keep in mind is, modern governments are the handmaids of plutocrats. They do things for the interests of those plutocrats. Trashing the economy by making everyone stay home from their jobs and not shop is not something anyone would expect to be good for plutocrats, so there's no way the government would want to do it.
In the specific US case, the government also does things to maintain the empire (mostly because there's a big sector of plutocrats that's good for). Covid has also been bad for the American empire--the world has seen the US look like an unreliable basket case and fail to lead while it sees China take care of business and pay significantly more attention to helping elsewhere in the world. The publicity has been just terrible.
Ergo, the government didn't do Covid; they don't have a motive.
(It so happens that the very rich have so far made out very well from Covid while everyone else got shafted, but nobody expected that--it was a weird result from a very complex set of circumstances. And it's probably not sustainable; elite wealth can be decoupled only so far, for so long, from general economic growth, no matter how much money you print for them)

the world has seen the US look like an unreliable basket case and fail to lead while it sees China take care of business and pay significantly more attention to helping elsewhere in the world.

I'm sure you're right about the plummeting opinion of the US around the world, but you might be mistaken if you think this has polished the world's opinion on China. We haven't suddenly forgotten about their totalitarian government, their human rights abuses and their expansionist ambitions. As you said, they got the virus under some resemblance of control quicker than some other countries, but that doesn't earn them much goodwill.

And you do realize that hospitals, doctors and nurses are basically unanimous in wanting strong public health measures from government?

No.
But that's leave it here.

the world has seen the US look like an unreliable basket case and fail to lead while it sees China take care of business and pay significantly more attention to helping elsewhere in the world.

I'm sure you're right about the plummeting opinion of the US around the world, but you might be mistaken if you think this has polished the world's opinion on China. We haven't suddenly forgotten about their totalitarian government, their human rights abuses and their expansionist ambitions. As you said, they got the virus under some resemblance of control quicker than some other countries, but that doesn't earn them much goodwill.

Point. But at the same time, China came out in favour of co-operation and low prices on vaccine development and distribution, while the US was all "Muh intellectual property! Enterprise gotta profit!"
If they follow through, third world's gonna notice.

While Plague Inc is certainly a fun game (and this DLC looks interesting), I now find its claims of being a "realistic simulation" especially ludicrous when nearly the entire population of China can be infected with my new disease before a single person in a single other country catches it. Sure, a lot of diseases aren't as infections as COVID-19, but if upwards of a billion people can catch it in the same country surely someone in a nearby border town's going to pick it up, right?

I bet they figured in that China is (or very much was) a very isolationist country. I mean when I play the game, I choose Madagascar and they are an island, and it still spreads everywhere before that whole island is infected.

I just picked China as the country with the largest population*, but it's my experience with every country in the game: unless you take specific mutations to increase air or water spread, you can easily infect 50—100% of the population of any country before a single person in another country contracts your disease. In the real world, though, SARS-CoV-2 spread from China while there were just a few thousand cases in the country at most. And not just to a single other country, but multiple countries had infected people traveling to them around December–January a year ago (which then spread to other countries, etc.). Once your disease is infectious enough to have infected a few tens of thousands of people (at most), it absolutely should start showing up around the world, because people move around a lot these days (or did, at least).

*But also, China is hardly isolationist—people come and go to, from, and through it all the time these days. I flew through Shanghai on my way back to Melbourne from visiting family in California back in January, a Chinese colleague of mine was visiting her family around the same time, and one of my PhD supervisors moved from China just last year. And that's not counting all the non-Chinese tourists and business people who visit China year-round, who would be prime targets for picking up a new disease and taking it back home.

While Plague Inc is certainly a fun game (and this DLC looks interesting), I now find its claims of being a "realistic simulation" especially ludicrous when nearly the entire population of China can be infected with my new disease before a single person in a single other country catches it. Sure, a lot of diseases aren't as infections as COVID-19, but if upwards of a billion people can catch it in the same country surely someone in a nearby border town's going to pick it up, right?

I bet they figured in that China is (or very much was) a very isolationist country. I mean when I play the game, I choose Madagascar and they are an island, and it still spreads everywhere before that whole island is infected.

I just picked China as the country with the largest population*, but it's my experience with every country in the game: unless you take specific mutations to increase air or water spread, you can easily infect 50—100% of the population of any country before a single person in another country contracts your disease. In the real world, though, SARS-CoV-2 spread from China while there were just a few thousand cases in the country at most. And not just to a single other country, but multiple countries had infected people traveling to them around December–January a year ago (which then spread to other countries, etc.). Once your disease is infectious enough to have infected a few tens of thousands of people (at most), it absolutely should start showing up around the world, because people move around a lot these days (or did, at least).

*But also, China is hardly isolationist—people come and go to, from, and through it all the time these days. I flew through Shanghai on my way back to Melbourne from visiting family in California back in January, a Chinese colleague of mine was visiting her family around the same time, and one of my PhD supervisors moved from China just last year. And that's not counting all the non-Chinese tourists and business people who visit China year-round, who would be prime targets for picking up a new disease and taking it back home.

Agreed. My only point was that China used to be isolationist. https://www.gavinmenzies.net/ has some interesting books about why / when they became that way. But for sure, not now. Don't have any other explanation to why it works that way in the game. Bug?

Finally, China. China wiped the disease out within their borders. They eliminated it, before any vaccine arrived. They're already back to economic growth and living normally. Because they didn't fuck around.

China claims they wiped the virus out, but they were also the ones claiming early on that there was no risk of person-to-person transmission despite the fact that they perfectly well knew the truth. They deliberately kept the rest of world in the dark for months about the potential dangers of the Chinese coronavirus, so why are you trusting them now?

As for mask use, there is actually no good evidence that it can stop or even slow the spread of influenza like the Chinese coronavirus. There are actually studies going back for years that prove this, but when it came to this latest "emergency", governments operated on the logic of "We must do something" even if that "something" isn't actually effective. Case in point, there has been high mask and social distancing compliance in my state since at least August of this year, and yet things are supposedly worse now than they were before all the draconian measures were instituted. As the saying goes, if masks, then why aren't they working?