While in the background there is a stock market crisis (which the machines will bring back) we persist in not understanding what the reflection of all the travel prohibitions that are taking place is. And especially, we persist in not wanting to explain why this whole caciara is doing.
It is time to put things back into context. As for the financial market, it is obviously going to move from one balance to another. It was obvious that, by dint of talking about new mobility, electricity and green economy, oil prices would collapse. A system always breaks at the most fragile point, and evidently the most fragile point of the oil market was OPEC. That's all.
But one must ask what are the effects of this stop to travel. We leave out the air travel market, and consequently the aerospace. It is clear that it will be a bloodbath, we will not be surprised if we discover that AirBus, Boeing & co will be at the gas barrel within a few weeks. Ditto for airlines.
Also in terms of urban mobility, the question is how a collapse in the need for cars will impact the economy. And the answer is that it will impact a lot: regardless of the lack of production of cars, shops, bars and businesses will close. These are activities that were based on mobility, and in the absence of people around they are already walking dead.
But the real problem, the real crazy variable, comes from tourism, which has fueled (through AirBnB) one of the most catastrophic building speculations of the last decades . Bubble about to burst, and the machines can't do anything about it.
So let's expect very sad news from the real estate sector, and consequently from the banking sector.
Because the Coronavirus, as far as I read, is here to stay.
Now it's time to understand one thing: this virus will stay around until you find a vaccine.
What we do know is that so far there is no way to stop it, and the Chinese numbers are, in fact, the numbers of the Chernobyl reactor that is booming, that is, the numbers of a communist regime. It is thought that it is possible to get sick even more than once, because having caught the virus does NOT guarantee immunity.
So, there are two cases: either it is assumed that we can live with these emergency measures for years, or the answers given so far are completely irrational. And the question that would make sense is: since the deaths so far have an average age of 81, why have the elderly not completely isolated themselves?
The reason is that the ruling class is made up of elders. This does not mean that every elder is an executive, but practically every position of power today is in the hands of older people.
Coronavirus is a virus that decimates the age group of the ruling class.
Quarantine elders would have meant blocking the movement of all bishops, cardinals, and the pope himself. It would have meant locking Mattarella in quarantine, quarantine for more than half of the senators, and practically all the wealthy financiers in the country. It meant quarantine for almost all university professors, or at least for barons. Almost all intellectuals would have been locked up.
If the correlation between mortality and age had been reversed, there would have been no panic: remember that until a few months ago you were talking about NOT vaccinating children against far more deadly diseases?
This photo is emblematic:
On the religious level, this is a contradiction. Historically and theologically, reaching Mecca is dangerous, to the point that heaven is prescribed for the pilgrim who dies in an attempt to reach it. This is because once the long journey required to get there was very dangerous.
What pushed religious authorities to a ban on "the safety of pilgrims", when religious doctrine prides themselves on it, in view of paradise? Simple: Saudi religious hierarchies are made of old men . And with the same diligence the most hostile hierarchies respond to any innovation, and (according to them) ready for martyrdom:
They too have a hierarchy made of old people . And that's why God will forgive them if they are willing to compromise to "delay the appointment for a face to face meeting".
This panic is not unjustified. It is very explainable: it is the panic of a ruling class of old people.
The vast majority of the population, 98.1% so far, is in no danger. Who runs hazards is mainly the old man on duty. For heaven's sake, we will all become old, but to enslave the whole society to a blockade of personal freedom when it would have been rational to isolate the old is ABSURD.
The rational solution would have been to isolate the old and leave the rest to his normal life. Of course, young people would later infect old people, but if we believe that by isolating people the epidemic is still spreading, what is the sense of the restrictions in place?
It is said that in this way the epidemic slows down, but the question I ask is: if health care is already practically collapsing (and the scenes in Lombardy prove it, also considering that the Lombard health system – colonized by CL – he's always done shitting), what are we buying time for?
One thing would be if in the time we are earning we could double, triple the health facilities. But it's not enough. So ?
The level of panic corresponds to a precise SUPER-exposure of the ruling classes to the disease. And the super-exposure is due to the fact that Italy (but it is not alone) is in fact a gerontocracy.
Instead of closing schools, it would have been enough to leave the senior professors at home. And if you were still afraid that they would bring the viruses home, you could make the kids sleep at school in the gyms, like you do in earthquakes. They would also have fun. And the lessons would continue. But old people don't care: they are afraid, they are hysterical.
And in the school hierarchy, old professors are the bosses themselves. They would never agree to stay at home while the boys (who don't risk it) and the younger professors take control of everything. Are you joking? And their POWER?
To isolate the old, you should have put the Senate and older politicians out of action. You should have isolated the older intellectuals. You should have isolated bishops and cardinals.
Much better to block EVERYTHING than to isolate the old ones. Old people say.
Because if someone gets used to doing without them, at the end of the epidemic, the problem would be to take back places now occupied by others.
The problem with the coronavirus is that it decimates the ruling class of any country is a gerontocracy, leaving virtually everyone else untouched.
The answer will be more or less hysterical, depending on how much economic, political and religious power is in the hands of old people. The more the reaction of a nation will be hysterical, brutal and vexatious against young people, the more we will be sure that the economic, religious and cultural power is in the hands of OLD.
I am not surprised to see the Republic not breathing in the face of measures that are absurd: Scalfari is old. The CDA is made of old people.
This amuses me. And it amuses me for a reason:
Isolating the old would drive them out of power, but it would save their lives. The hysterical reactions, the red zones and the measures they are taking, are saving their power. But in the long run, NOT THEIR LIVES.
They would have done well to isolate themselves. To stay in their absolute quarantine and let the whole country take the crown, with a mortality of tenths of a percentage. They would lose power, perhaps a lot of business, but they would save lives.
In this way, they bought time hoping for a vaccine. But they put their own lives at risk.
If they could still reproduce I would say that Darwin is in action, but in their case it would probably be better to quote Macario.
Before closing I want to point out this masterpiece:
In practice, a symptom of anxiety and panic attacks overlaps with the coronavirus symptom.
What could possibly go wrong?