Capitalism and Its Beneficiaries, Rich People, Are the Spreaders of Coronavirus

[dann]

I can see that a major problem in the UK seems to have been identical to the problem in the USA:

Quote:

Boris Johnson missed multiple emergency meetings on the coronavirus as it spread rapidly across the world and ignored warnings from scientists about its lethality, according to a damning report in the Sunday Times. The result was Britain lost "a crucial five weeks in the fight to tackle the dangerous threat of coronavirus," it said.
Boris Johnson 'skipped' five emergency meetings on the coronavirus as it spread rapidly across the world and ignored warnings from scientists, according to a report (Business Insider, April 19, 2020)

Coronavirus: 38 days when Britain sleepwalked into disaster (Times, April 18, 2020)

No wonder the two guys get along so well. And that Trump made a sharp distinction between travellers from the UK and from the rest of Europe.

[portlandatheist]

Originally Posted by dann

You can roll your eyes and come up with names as much as you want. You're not very good at this argument thing, are you?!
At this point in time, the coronavirus is undoubtedly spread more in poor neighbourhoods than in rich ones. In fact, at this point this is so conspicuous that one of the municipalities, the suburb Rudersdal, which was at the very top of the list of most coronavirus cases per 100.000 at the beginning of the outbreak in Denmark (and mentioned at the beginning of the thread), is now far behind the others at only 120-159. The much more proletarian suburb Glostrup now has 400+.

If you had read the OP, you would have known that business considerations made the tourist industry and health authorities in Ischgl, Austria, ignore all warnings about the local outbreak, which infected affluent ski tourists who then brought it back to their respective home countries in (mainly) Northern Europe, where they spread it to the rest of the populations. (And apparently rich women are still doing it when they go shopping and partying in Stockholm to get away from the boredom of lockdown in their own countries.)
That poor people are the main spreaders and primary victims of the disease at this point is no secret - which you would have known if you had read the latest page or two.

But don't let it bother you that you have no idea what has been posted in this thread so far. Your ignorance of this is so apparent, that I don't need to mention what you sound like.

OP: Capitalism and Its Beneficiaries, Rich People, Are the Spreaders of Coronavirus

Monty Python:
Woman: There you go, bringing class into it again...
Man: That's what it's all about! If only people would--
Arthur: Please, *please*, good people, I am in haste! WHO lives in that
castle?

ETA: Imagine if only we had socialism instead of capitalism, then we could finally rid the world of the scourge of skiing vacations in the Italian alps.

[dann]

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

ETA: Imagine if only we had socialism instead of capitalism, then we could finally rid the world of the scourge of skiing vacations in the Italian alps.

You really do love your derail attempts, don't you?
Imagine if only we had socialism and even the working class would have the health and the means to go on skiing holidays in their 50s and 60s ...

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by dann

You really do love your derail attempts, don't you?
Imagine if only we had socialism and even the working class would have the health and the means to go on skiing holidays in their 50s and 60s ...

And, on the subject of the thread, hopefully those ski resorts would close at early signs of a pandemic?

[rockysmith76]

Originally Posted by dann

You really do love your derail attempts, don't you?
Imagine if only we had socialism and even the working class would have the health and the means to go on skiing holidays in their 50s and 60s ...

Socialism is a weak and defunct system. Stop it.

[rockysmith76]

misfire dupe. Doh!

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by rockysmith76

Socialism is a weak and defunct system. Stop it.

On the other hand, skimming some of the profits off the top of capitalism and using them to pay for a social safety net seems to work pretty well, at least for the countries that have figured out the capitalism part.

Most of the modern socialism vs capitalism debate is really a debate about the proper extent of the safety net that capitalist societies should invest in.

And yes, allowing people to own property, participate in free markets and put themselves at the mercy of market forces, and travel freely if they can afford to, and enjoy luxuries if they can afford to... All this causes problems. Dann has even identified one of them. But not allowing people to do these things also causes problems.

We've seen what actual socialism does, and it's not healthcare and ski trips for everyone. Actual socialism, when imposed rather than voluntarily adopted, turns out to be every bit as classist as capitalism, and even more destructive and oppressive. (It also turns out to be pretty capitalistic, under the table.)

[HarryHenderson]

The ISF's resident communist HATES capitalism, who knew?!

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Most of the modern socialism vs capitalism debate is really a debate about the proper extent of the safety net that capitalist societies should invest in.

I'd word it more about how much a capitalist society forces business to address direct and indirect damage caused by their pursuit of profit, whether it be malicious or or not.

The safety net is a large part of that, but leaving it at that makes it sound more like a gift.

[dann]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

And, on the subject of the thread, hopefully those ski resorts would close at early signs of a pandemic?

Definitely. They would have no reason to stay open.

[dann]

Angst vor dem Virus, Vertrauen auf den Staat? (Telepolis, March 24, 2020)

So far, only in German, unfortunately.

[dann]

Originally Posted by theprestige

On the other hand, skimming some of the profits off the top of capitalism and using them to pay for a social safety net seems to work pretty well, at least for the countries that have figured out the capitalism part.

It is not really a question of 'figuring out'. And you are talking about capitalist countries, like the ones in Scandinavia, with well-fare states, often run by social democrats.

Quote:

Most of the modern socialism vs capitalism debate is really a debate about the proper extent of the safety net that capitalist societies should invest in.

That is the well-fare state/social-state debate.

Quote:

And yes, allowing people to own property, participate in free markets and put themselves at the mercy of market forces, and travel freely if they can afford to, and enjoy luxuries if they can afford to... All this causes problems. Dann has even identified one of them. But not allowing people to do these things also causes problems.

If you can't afford to, it's insane to talk about being allowed to ’travel freely’ and ’enjoy luxuries’. If you try to board a plane to travel somewhere that you can't afford to go to in order to stay at a hotel that you can't afford to rent a room in, in fact, to enjoy any kind of luxury that you can't afford isn't actually allowed for poor people. Those things come with a price tag and it is not allowed under any circumstances to pretend that they don’t:

Quote:

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
Anatole France (Wikipedia)

’I would have been able to board a jet and fly to the Bahamas if only I could afford to’ is the Utopian pipedream of capitalism.
You aren’t able to, you can’t.

Quote:

We've seen what actual socialism does, and it's not healthcare and ski trips for everyone. Actual socialism, when imposed rather than voluntarily adopted, turns out to be every bit as classist as capitalism, and even more destructive and oppressive. (It also turns out to be pretty capitalistic, under the table.)

No, you haven’t seen what actual socialism does. And even in the few places where it has been attempted, it isn’t simply voluntarily adopted. It is a battle uphill against capitalist nations like the USA, which do their utmost to ensure that what was voluntarily won in hard battles is never allowed to succeed.

And this hasn't got anything at all to do with the way that Capitalism and Its Beneficiaries, Rich People, Are the Spreaders of Coronavirus, does it?!

[3point14]

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

OP: Capitalism and Its Beneficiaries, Rich People, Are the Spreaders of Coronavirus

Monty Python:
Woman: There you go, bringing class into it again...
Man: That's what it's all about! If only people would--
Arthur: Please, *please*, good people, I am in haste! WHO lives in that
castle?

ETA: Imagine if only we had socialism instead of capitalism, then we could finally rid the world of the scourge of skiing vacations in the Italian alps.

'kin 'ell, don't light a match, all that straw will go up like nobody's business.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by rockysmith76

Socialism is a weak and defunct system. Stop it.

What do you mean by 'socialism'?

[3point14]

Originally Posted by theprestige

On the other hand, skimming some of the profits off the top of capitalism and using them to pay for a social safety net seems to work pretty well, at least for the countries that have figured out the capitalism part.

Most of the modern socialism vs capitalism debate is really a debate about the proper extent of the safety net that capitalist societies should invest in.

Well said. This is why I ask what's meant by 'socialism' as the defnition, outside of academia, is remarkably changable

Quote:

And yes, allowing people to own property, participate in free markets and put themselves at the mercy of market forces, and travel freely if they can afford to, and enjoy luxuries if they can afford to... All this causes problems. Dann has even identified one of them. But not allowing people to do these things also causes problems.

We've seen what actual socialism does, and it's not healthcare and ski trips for everyone. Actual socialism, when imposed rather than voluntarily adopted, turns out to be every bit as classist as capitalism, and even more destructive and oppressive. (It also turns out to be pretty capitalistic, under the table.)

Sticking slavishly to one system and proclaiming it 'natural law' is the problem. Capitalism works great for some things and horribly for others. As does socialism. Or, rather 'socialism'.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by dann

It is not really a question of 'figuring out'. And you are talking about capitalist countries, like the ones in Scandinavia, with well-fare states, often run by social democrats.




That is the well-fare state/social-state debate.




If you can't afford to, it's insane to talk about being allowed to ’travel freely’ and ’enjoy luxuries’. If you try to board a plane to travel somewhere that you can't afford to go to in order to stay at a hotel that you can't afford to rent a room in, in fact, to enjoy any kind of luxury that you can't afford isn't actually allowed for poor people. Those things come with a price tag and it is not allowed under any circumstances to pretend that they don’t:

’I would have been able to board a jet and fly to the Bahamas if only I could afford to’ is the Utopian pipedream of capitalism.
You aren’t able to, you can’t.




No, you haven’t seen what actual socialism does. And even in the few places where it has been attempted, it isn’t simply voluntarily adopted. It is a battle uphill against capitalist nations like the USA, which do their utmost to ensure that what was voluntarily won in hard battles is never allowed to succeed.

And this hasn't got anything at all to do with the way that Capitalism and Its Beneficiaries, Rich People, Are the Spreaders of Coronavirus, does it?!

It has to do with the fact that humans, living in free societies, spread coronavirus. “Capitalism” has little to do with it. The operative factor here is “humans.”

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by 3point14

Well said. This is why I ask what's meant by 'socialism' as the defnition, outside of academia, is remarkably changable

Thanks! These days, I mostly go by context. It's usually pretty easy to tell when someone is equivocating socialism for Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Communism (rockysmith) or social democracy (dann).

It gets a little confusing when someone signals a pro-communism stance by attacking "capitalism", as dann has done here, but also professes social democracy as a solution, as dann has done here. But I seem to be managing okay so far. My baseline assumption is that the real preference is for communism, but if pressed to defend that openly, the position will be walked back to some form of social democracy.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Thanks! These days, I mostly go by context. It's usually pretty easy to tell when someone is equivocating socialism for Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Communism (rockysmith) or social democracy (dann).

It gets a little confusing when someone signals a pro-communism stance by attacking "capitalism", as dann has done here, but also professes social democracy as a solution, as dann has done here. But I seem to be managing okay so far. My baseline assumption is that the real preference is for communism, but if pressed to defend that openly, the position will be walked back to some form of social democracy.

If we can't agree on the answers, at least we seem to agree on the question. Which, to be fair, is a rare enough thing

EDIT: I think a lot of the time attacks on 'capitalism' are more aimed at corporatism or what may appear to be mores towards it.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by 3point14

If we can't agree on the answers, at least we seem to agree on the question. Which, to be fair, is a rare enough thing : )

I'll take it! Hooray for occasional agreement!

[dann]

Originally Posted by xjx388

It has to do with the fact that humans, living in free societies, spread coronavirus. “Capitalism” has little to do with it. The operative factor here is “humans.”

Yes, we've heard that one several times before. We get it now: Humans, not aliens or aardvarks. And specifically in free societies. I don't know why, really.
I don't think anybody else would claim that humans living in unfree societies couldn't spread coronavirus, but it's interesting that you seem to think so.

[dann]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It gets a little confusing when someone signals a pro-communism stance by attacking "capitalism", as dann has done here, but also professes social democracy as a solution, as dann has done here.

No, he hasn't. Go back to the OP. The Danish government did absolutely nothing to prevent ski tourists from going to the coronavirus hotspots in Tyrol.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by dann

No, he hasn't. Go back to the OP. The Danish government did absolutely nothing to prevent ski tourists from going to the coronavirus hotspots in Tyrol.

What should they have done, in your opinion?

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by theprestige

What should they have done, in your opinion?

That’s irrelevant to the thread, apparently.

[dann]

Originally Posted by theprestige

What should they have done, in your opinion?

If they hadn't been intent on their one goal, trying at all costs to avoid harming business (what xjx388 calls "humans, living in free societies,") they would have done the otherwise very obvious thing to do and the one that they did after a couple of weeks anyway when it was much too late: banned flights to the new European hotspots, Northern Italy and Tyrol.

Besides, being unprepared for an emergency situation in the form of a virus pandemic is also a cost-benefit consideration. It's not as if medical experts haven't warned about the possibility - in particular after MERS and SARS. Apparently, the testing capacity wasn't up to scratch around here either.
The irony is that business was actually the reason why the Faroe Islands have handled the pandemic so well by following the Chinese strategy of testing, testing and testing and not sending people who were tested positive home to infect the rest of their household: The Faroe Islands had acquired the testing apparatus a long time ago - not to make sure that people could be placed out of harms way but in order to protect their salmon business!

By the way, could you at least acknowledge that you understand that you were wrong before you move on to the next derail attempt?

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by dann

If they hadn't been intent on their one goal, trying at all costs to avoid harming business (what xjx388 calls "humans, living in free societies,") they would have done the otherwise very obvious thing to do and the one that they did after a couple of weeks anyway when it was much too late: banned flights to the new European hotspots, Northern Italy and Tyrol.

Besides, being unprepared for an emergency situation in the form of a virus pandemic is also a cost-benefit consideration. It's not as if medical experts haven't warned about the possibility - in particular after MERS and SARS. Apparently, the testing capacity wasn't up to scratch around here either.
The irony is that business was actually the reason why the Faroe Islands have handled the pandemic so well by following the Chinese strategy of testing, testing and testing and not sending people who were tested positive home to infect the rest of their household: The Faroe Islands had acquired the testing apparatus a long time ago - not to make sure that people could be placed out of harms way but in order to protect their salmon business!

By the way, could you at least acknowledge that you understand that you were wrong before you move on to the next derail attempt?

I'm struggling to understand the point you're trying to make, much less figure out if I agree with it or not.

The Faroe Islands were lucky to have a testing facility for fish that could be converted to be used on humans, and lucky enough to have a person smart enough to use it. Good for them! But how does that convert into an argument for or against capitalism?

It seems to me that non-capitalists have to make cost/benefit analysis just the same as capitalists do, and just like capitalists, they will often get it wrong in hindsight.

I suppose ideally you want a government capable of looking beyond the next quarter's profit and take steps to insure against risks, but I don't see that non-capitalist governments do that any better than capitalist governments do.

Do you?

[theprestige]

I guess we're now to the "the Soviet Union failed because mean old America wouldn't let them enslave Western Europe" stage of communist apologetics.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by 3point14

If we can't agree on the answers, at least we seem to agree on the question. Which, to be fair, is a rare enough thing

EDIT: I think a lot of the time attacks on 'capitalism' are more aimed at corporatism or what may appear to be mores towards it.

Definitions might very well be the biggest issue in casual political discourse.

I'd argue that "capitalism" means favoring concentrations of capital. In present conditions, that is as close to corporatism as to make little difference. In 1850, especially in the US south, it would be more about large landholders.

I'd likewise argue that "free market" and "capitalism" are two very different things as well. They can go well together, but you can have one without the other. In fact, a free market that tolerates capital but rigorously defends the interests of the workers and consumers is IMO the optimal state of affairs. It all comes down to how one relates "free market" with structural imbalances in bargaining power.

The red scare era so trashed our use of these terms with Capitalism being a broad stand-in for everything "American." Civil liberties are not an inherent part of capitalism, nor is religious freedom, but a lot of people use Capitalism as a global term for this.

The idea that capitalism is responsible for the spread of COVID is strained, and true only in the most general and remote token sense that capitalism leads to globalism.

As a mild form of leftist, I'd not bother with the why here. I'd look more to how COVID has exposed just how capitalism is tied up with grossly immoral behavior and disregard for life.

Look at it this way: a lot of people are willing to open everything up and increase the death rate in order to help the economy. Yet we could just kill like ten people, nationalize their assets, and have enough to fund public health services on a continuing basis so that these sorts of things are less likely to happen. Heck, we can take their stuff and let them live. Or even leave them with enough to still live a life of obnoxious privilege.

Yet the former is seen as questionable but reasonable policy and the latter as beyond the pale...

[dann]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I guess we're now to the "the Soviet Union failed because mean old America wouldn't let them enslave Western Europe" stage of communist apologetics.

Yes, I know. That is the discussion that you would much rather have than the one about how Capitalism and Its Beneficiaries, Rich People, Are the Spreaders of Coronavirus. Any other discussion will do as long as we can avoid that one, right?!

[dann]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

I suppose ideally you want a government capable of looking beyond the next quarter's profit and take steps to insure against risks, but I don't see that non-capitalist governments do that any better than capitalist governments do.

I can see why you would think of "a government capable of looking beyond the next quarter's profit" as nothing more than an ideal. Right now in this situation, I try to comfort myself with the fact that at least I don't have your government.
And some states are obviously doing much better. China and South Korea seemed to know immediately what was the best way to cope with this virus: testing, testing, testing, isolating, tracing people that the infected had come into contact with and isolate them as well until they had recovered. In principle what they did on the Faroe Islands.

[dann]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

The idea that capitalism is responsible for the spread of COVID is strained, and true only in the most general and remote token sense that capitalism leads to globalism.

What are your objections to the OP?

Quote:

As a mild form of leftist, I'd not bother with the why here. I'd look more to how COVID has exposed just how capitalism is tied up with grossly immoral behavior and disregard for life.

When you are more concerned with how your business is going than you are with your customers' lives, you have become the mouthpiece of that business. You served its interests, the interests of capital. You can do that as a president or a primeminister, too. Act in the interests of capital in your nation.

Quote:

Look at it this way: a lot of people are willing to open everything up and increase the death rate in order to help the economy. Yet we could just kill like ten people, nationalize their assets, and have enough to fund public health services on a continuing basis so that these sorts of things are less likely to happen. Heck, we can take their stuff and let them live. Or even leave them with enough to still live a life of obnoxious privilege.

Yet the former is seen as questionable but reasonable policy and the latter as beyond the pale...

In a post or two, xjx388 will tell you that this is not at all what "humans, living in free societies," would do. What they would do is the only natural way to behave: Let the virus kill the old and the infirm and let business prosper. That's what humans are there for: To die serving the interest of business.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by dann

I can see why you would think of "a government capable of looking beyond the next quarter's profit" as nothing more than an ideal. Right now in this situation, I try to comfort myself with the fact that at least I don't have your government.

I'm not very happy with my government either, but is there a point to this comment? Or are you just grabbing an opportunity to be snarky? Is a slam against my government a slam against capitalism in general?

Originally Posted by dann

And some states are obviously doing much better. China and South Korea seemed to know immediately what was the best way to cope with this virus: testing, testing, testing, isolating, tracing people that the infected had come into contact with and isolate them as well until they had recovered. In principle what they did on the Faroe Islands.

Okay, testing, testing, testing is great. Is there a point here? Are you claiming certain types of government are more likely to test, test, test?

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by dann

When you are more concerned with how your business is going than you are with your customers' lives, you have become the mouthpiece of that business. You served its interests, the interests of capital. You can do that as a president or a primeminister, too. Act in the interests of capital in your nation.

Can you define this term? "Act in the interests of capital"?

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by dann

What are your objections to the OP?




When you are more concerned with how your business is going than you are with your customers' lives, you have become the mouthpiece of that business. You served its interests, the interests of capital. You can do that as a president or a primeminister, too. Act in the interests of capital in your nation.




In a post or two, xjx388 will tell you that this is not at all what "humans, living in free societies," would do. What they would do is the only natural way to behave: Let the virus kill the old and the infirm and let business prosper. That's what humans are there for: To die serving the interest of business.

I wouldn’t say anything of the sort. You have obviously missed my point.

That’s ok, because I still haven’t grasped yours. All I can say is that it seems that you’d like people to behave in certain ways and you think Capitalism makes them behave in an opposite way. I just want to know which system encourages people to behave the way you want.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by dann

Yes, I know. That is the discussion that you would much rather have than the one about how Capitalism and Its Beneficiaries, Rich People, Are the Spreaders of Coronavirus. Any other discussion will do as long as we can avoid that one, right?!

What's left to discuss? You presented your thesis. People responded to it. Nothing new has been introduced in several pages.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by dann

Definitely. They would have no reason to stay open.

Their reason to stay open would be the same as their reason to be open in the first place. Whatever motivates their being open would continue to motivate their staying open.

Perhaps that motivation would be less under a socialist system, such that when the new motivation of preventing the spread of a pandemic disease arose, they'd be less motivated to stay open than under a capitalist system, and thus more likely to close early due to those new factors.

That's not obvious but it seems like a reasonable hypothesis to consider. But that it's clear that they have some reason to stay open, otherwise they wouldn't have been open in the first place.

[theprestige]

Presumably workers in a socialist state would be motivated to keep the factories and farms running, even if it mean they might get sick. Maintaining a functioning economy for the present and future collective is more important than the ups and downs of individual fortune.

By the same token, it would probably be a lot easier to enforce a quarantine where quarantine was actually needed, since everyone would agree that the state knows best what stuff really needs to be shut down, and what stuff doesn't.

[dann]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Presumably workers in a socialist state would be motivated to keep the factories and farms running, even if it mean they might get sick. Maintaining a functioning economy for the present and future collective is more important than the ups and downs of individual fortune.

By the same token, it would probably be a lot easier to enforce a quarantine where quarantine was actually needed, since everyone would agree that the state knows best what stuff really needs to be shut down, and what stuff doesn't.

Theprestige's presumptions about how "workers in a socialist state would be motivated to keep factories and farms running even if it mean they might get sick" sound an awful lot like the way workers in capitalist countries all over the world are toiling in spite of the risk of infection, because maintaining a functioning economy for the present and future businesses is more important than the health and well-being of the working classes.

Is that just a coincidence? No, I don't think so. Theprestige is just very good at neglecting the atrocious conditions that workers in capitalism are exposed to. Instead of noticing the conditions that workers in his own capitalist county are working under this very moment, he prefers to imagine that socialism would be just as brutal.

[dann]

In France, things look much the same:

Quote:

While billionaires isolate themselves at luxurious hideaways on the Mediterranean during the coronavirus outbreak, residents in deprived and crowded areas of France are now facing a surge in deaths, along with unrest on the streets.
(…)
The lockdown in France has had very different consequences for different sections of society since it was announced on March 17. The country's ban on all non-essential business until May 11, along with a requirement for a permission slip to venture outside, has had the harshest impact on people living in poorer, more densely populated neighborhoods, according to an op-ed from several activist organizations and unions in Mediapart on Friday.
The associations -- including ATTAC (Association for the Taxation of financial Transactions and Aid to Citizens) -- wrote that people in working class neighborhoods were on the front lines as essential workers. "Yet social inequalities, already glaring, are reinforced by the management of the coronavirus and will explode with the economic and social crisis to come."
In stark contrast, wealthy residents at one of the country's most exclusive gated communities on the French Riviera have been embroiled in controversy after it emerged that some had access to antibody testing, despite the strain on hospitals and nursing homes across the country.
(CNN, April 26, 2020)

My translation from ordinary English into sjx388 English:
While humans isolate themselves at luxurious hideaways on the Mediterranean during the coronavirus outbreak, humans in deprived and crowded areas of France are now facing a surge in human deaths, along with human unrest on the streets.
(…)
The lockdown in France has had very different consequences for different sections of society since it was announced on March 17. The country's ban on all non-essential business until May 11, along with a requirement for a permission slip to venture outside, has had the harshest impact on humans living in poorer, more densely populated neighborhoods, according to an op-ed from several human activist organizations and unions in Mediapart on Friday.
The human associations -- including ATTAC (Association for the Taxation of human financial Transactions and Aid to human Citizens) -- wrote that humans in working class neighborhoods were on the front lines as essential human workers. "Yet social inequalities, already glaring, are reinforced by the human management of the coronavirus and will explode with the economic and social crisis to come."
In stark contrast, wealthy human residents at one of the country's most exclusive gated human communities on the French Riviera have been embroiled in human controversy after it emerged that some humans had access to antibody testing, despite the strain on hospitals and nursing homes across the country.

[dann]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Their reason to stay open would be the same as their reason to be open in the first place. Whatever motivates their being open would continue to motivate their staying open.

Perhaps that motivation would be less under a socialist system, such that when the new motivation of preventing the spread of a pandemic disease arose, they'd be less motivated to stay open than under a capitalist system, and thus more likely to close early due to those new factors.

That's not obvious but it seems like a reasonable hypothesis to consider. But that it's clear that they have some reason to stay open, otherwise they wouldn't have been open in the first place.

No, they would have no reason whatsoever to stay open during a pandemic.
What other reason could there be to ignore reports about the virus being spread at ski resorts than business considerations?

[dann]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

I'm not very happy with my government either, but is there a point to this comment? Or are you just grabbing an opportunity to be snarky? Is a slam against my government a slam against capitalism in general?

Okay, testing, testing, testing is great. Is there a point here? Are you claiming certain types of government are more likely to test, test, test?

In this pandemic, it has become very obvious that some government are more concerned about business than about people's lives. Some governments weren't properly prepared for a pandemic even though they had been warned by medical scientists. Masks for medical use, for instance, aren't very expensive and they don't cost much to store, and yet they weren't there when needed.
And even when the pandemic was well under way some governments chose to ignore and publicly deny it in order to protect the stock market rather than their populations. I.e. business considerations!
I mentioned both the China and South Korea as countries with very efficient strategies. They are very different kinds of government ruling over very different kinds of countries.
I could mention Iceland and the Faroe Islands as countries with a similar, successful strategy: Testing, tracing, isolating - and if possible not at home. (In China they discovered very early on that about 75% of infections happened at home.)