Comments by "Serenity" (@SerenityM54L2SAM5L5N1) on "The Worst Possible People are in Charge at the Worst Possible Time | George Monbiot on Coronavirus" video.

@JugglinJellyTake01 Which is being handled by subsidies and assistance by the government. Some countries did also fail in having a very small supply of medical supplies, beds and ventilators. They'll be paying the price now, and likely build up stocks in hindsight when the time comes. The main problem is that governments across the world didn't shut down all borders and the entire country to stop the virus from reaching it. Or, enforce forced quarantine measures and swift punishments for any violators.. This virus, and the people who can't follow basic guidelines, only understands one language: Suppressive, forceful, and disciplinary state-sanctioned measures implemented to contain the virus at all costs.
2
@zocialix No system is fully prepared or suited for an immense crisis such as a toxic virus outbreak. That's why some regulation, intervention, cooperation with private sector, deterring policies in forms of strict action to counter anyone who challenges the government's strivings to eliminate the virus, and transparent governmental recommendation are crucial in order to handle it. Capitalism isn't the problem per say. Reactive policies, a weak infrastructure, naivity, lack of responsibility and no respect for the rule of law is the issue. And a slow response from the state. We're prepared in a way because capitalism has resulted in an ability to innovate and develop effective treatment, medicine, streamlined healthcare systems, professional personnel and other factors that leads to swift and noticeable responses.
1
@JugglinJellyTake01 Cuba is a hellhole full of famine with shitty leadership. Sending doctors across the world who may be competent and commendable is likely a way to whitewash their despicable country. They're often treated poorly, with low wages, fallible conditions under threats from their regime. Cuba are rightfully punished and ostracized for what they've done. Having alleged decent healthcare in some regard doesn't imply that they're ready, responsible or a good example of a country who'll manage the crisis.
1
@JugglinJellyTake01 Emergency workers are being praised and paid quite well during this current time. They did also in fact decide to educate themselves to work as an emergency responder, or to work at a supermarket. So that's on them. Buying limits should however have been enforced across the world to prevent panic buys by people who can't control themselves or think rationally. Some countries did decide to do this quite early on.
1
@zocialix Are they the closest to a cure? I highly doubt it. Why aren't they as impacted? First of all, they're not the least hit country by corona. Also, nobody really travels to Cuba. I don't know what their particular response what to the virus but I doubt it was more effective than some of the successful nations that immediately enforced rough measures and contained the virus.
1
@zocialix Brother, privatization has NOTHING to do with a state's ability to handle a virus outbreak. You can have one of the largest supply of medical resources in the world and a massive board of healthcare personnel, if the state doesn't implement the required restrictions, sanctions and interventions to minimize the virus ability to infiltrate and spread, you'll be doomed.
1
@zocialix I believe in national capitalism and would support shutting down the entire country and force every citizen to stay inside a closed-off quarantine until the virus is eliminated. So no matter what economic system is in place, all that matters is whether or not the state/the people are willing to use authoritarian measures to prevent the spread. So these outbreaks can occur in both socialist and capitalist countries to similar extents, where the capitalist countries often will have prepared better equipment to handle the crisis due to the growth, prosperity and high supply of various material that such countries tend to occupy. The majority of countries on earth have capitalism incorporated, which is why many people are drawing the correlation between that system and the failure of handling the crisis. Leaders didn't imagine that shutting down entire nations would be the optimal go-to approach until it was too late. This failure occured in sociailist nations too. Hopefully people learn by these mistakes for future reference.
1
@zocialix It's an ideology of where you establish a massive state with influence over many parts of society in order to maintain order, peace, security and high secular morality. But also a system that defends free market capitalism but with regulations in some areas to sustain food quality, the nation's health, environmental/biodiversity standards, and to prevent fraud/tax evasion/fiscal crimes. International free trade and cooperation will be of high priority, even in this nationalist system. It's also a system where science, data and accurate information is highly valued. A form of statism. Such a system would've been 100% infallible when it comes to neutralizing this intrusive little virus outbreak. There's nothing wrong with logical and rational forms of justifiable nationalism if it's incorporated properly. Plenty of nations are currently thriving because of such systems in place. Some leaders took the ideology way too far last century, tainting its meaning. Countries failed in dealing with the outbreak because of slow reactivity, leading to these countries waiting until the bomb exploded. They didn't fail because of a lack of socialism, quite the contrary.
1
@keithomelvena2354 What country? Either way, a country can be a capitalist one and still enforce drastic measures from the state, restricting the spread of the virus to a noticeable extent.
1
@zocialix Because it's a small country and they're therefore not reaching more deaths in absolute numbers compare to the highly populated nations such as Italy or the US. Many media corporations and leaders aroundt the world are perplexed about Sweden's russian roulette style way of governing during the crisis. A slow, reactive, and dangerous approach.
1