— from Steve Henigson —
The largest and most powerful Socialist economy in the world today is China. It’s where the Corona Virus was born, in a live-food-animal market in the city of Wuhan.
Having noticed a new disease which was harming people locally, and, finally, killing them in large numbers, the Chinese officials in the affected area responded by pretending that the disease didn’t exist. They just hoped that the whole thing would go away, and they permitted scheduled public festivals to go on as if nothing were wrong. That allowed the new disease to spread uncontrolled.
It was only when the new disease spread to other areas of China, and then, carried by tourists, outside of China to other countries, that the Chinese government finally admitted that something was amiss. But by then it was too late, and people were dying from it in significant quantities.
China finally responded to the new and deadly disease by building, almost impossibly quickly, a huge hospital in the Wuhan area. There they isolated, and are caring for, the victims of this new disease, for which, so far, there is neither prevention nor cure.
As the very first victims of Corona Virus arrived in the U.S., our country’s medical community had already prepared for them. Among those preparations was the start of a search for both a preventative vaccine and an effective cure.
Note, then, the difference between the response of a Socialist government and economy, and the response of a Capitalist economy and a Democratic-Republican government. The Socialist government tried to hide the disease, until it was too late, because it conflicted with the government’s plans. Then it built an isolation hospital. But the Capitalist response was to look for a prevention and a cure, because both prevention and cure could be sold for a profit.
Think about that difference for a few minutes, and then ask yourself which response was the more useful, and more life-saving, one. Think also about what the Socialist government of Venezuela might be doing about the Corona Virus, and what Cuba might be doing about it as well.
Say what?
If China is ‘socialist’ then then my dead Aunt Marge shoots muskrat for dinner. The regular old meat and potato ‘flu’ kills tens of thousands per year in the good ol Capitalist USA so please refrain from mounting straw dogs ( a Chinese expression) such as this.
Most years I skip the flu shot. This year I got one and got the flu for the first time in decades. Hah!
Straw.
Man.
April first is still a bit off…
Joseph, although true the flu sickens and kills many more people than the 2010-nCov (corona) virus has to date, the mortality rate of the 2019-nCov virus while still unclear, has been estimated at over 2% while some estimates of the mortality of the flu peg it at 0.1%. When assessing the risks of an epidemic, epidemiologists look not just at mortality rates but also at the basic reproductive rate. Here the coronavirus also exceeds that of the typical flu, estimated at nearly twice that of the typical flu. When you combine the nCov higher reproductive rate, its estimated higher mortality rate, the possibility of a longer incubation and the lack of a vaccine, (not to mention the early stage of this pandemic, which renders estimates of both incidence and severity suspect), it’s clear why it shouldn’t be written off as a tempest in a teapot. Comparing with other diseases like flu and SARS has to be more nuanced to be accurate.
In any event, the political point of the benefits of informational transparency in a capitalist system seems to be the real point here. If only we had an administration in this country that was committed to transparency and free flow of information.
And the author wants us to believe that neither the US Government nor the private pharmaceutical industry would ever put reputation or profits ahead of citizen’s health as that’s something only the Socialists do…I think I’ll be eating muskrat with Joe…
Hey Paula, (sorry)
We come with differing metrics on the flu issue. Mortality rates for the latest flu sprint in the USA show a much higher mortality rate – upwards of 9% for post sixty types – than your gigures cite.
I defer to Patrick COckburn of the Independent on this issue whose post in yesterday’s COunterpunch put the issue in perspective.
Joseph,
According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, as of this week, “at least 19 million people across the US” have been infected with this year’s flu virus, of which 10,000 have died (source: CNBC.com). That’s a mortality rate of 0.05%, and also a far cry from the “tens of thousands” you cite (OK, I admit it’s ONE tens of thousands). Your figure citing 9% mortality among 60’s and older may be incorrect, but that relies on a degree of data mining by your sources which may not be statistically robust.
According to the CEO of AstraZeneca, the nCOv19 virus is a lot more contagious than the flu, so, to repeat my earlier comment, to assess the risks of coronavirus versus other infectious diseases you have to consider not only mortality but also its transmissibility, and whether there is a vaccine or other treatment. Another example, measles, is so transmissable that over 90% of the population has to be immunized to achieve herd immunity. There is no coronavirus vaccine yet.
In any event, Steve, I think it’s too early to suggest that a capitalist economy will be more successful in controlling an outbreak than a socialist economy, I don’t think we have the data points yet to justify that assertion. Let’s wait to see how this all plays out this year and the following ones.
P.S. Steve, the experts now think the virus originated outside of the “wet” market in Wuhan, and was carried into the market and then carried out, not “born” in the live animal market of Wuhan.
Quoting the CEO! ..of AstraZeneca!! in a fact-based discussion of a disease is black humor at its best. Facts from the CDC/NIH are the gold standard.
Try this: Scientific American- How Does the New Coronavirus Compare with the Flu? February 7, 2020
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-the-new-coronavirus-compare-with-the-flu/
“Most years I skip the flu shot. This year I got one and got the flu for the first time in decades.”
What are you trying to say with this? Flu is not about you. It is about everyone you breath on before you are symptomatic. And after you have only a mild cold because you are generally healthy, it endangers the most vulnerable even more. The risk of hospitalization for the vulnerable is 50% higher and the risk of death in hospital is again 50% higher.
The best information we have about the seasonal flu is that it is constantly mutating* and the lag-time needed for producing an annual vaccine gives it a head start in producing new variants.
THE BEST approach at this time is universal vaccination, according to the CDC. Every person with their own personal philosophy about public health that somehow excuses their freedom to ignore this endangers the community and its most vulnerable. The concept of “herd immunity” is made irrelevant by this equation. I talked to a rep at the CDC personally in formulating a plan for Orcas.
And just like the seasonal flu [which btw is often a coronavirus very much like the “novel” one in Covid 19] the deadliest effects are reserved for the most vulnerable who get a respiratory form of the disease which jumps to causing multi-system organ failure. Most of the dead are older folk and with coexisting illnesses.
One of the benefits of this new outbreak in China is that they were able to quickly provide the genetic sequence of the bug to the scientific community and there are already a number of vaccines and diagnostic tests in the works based on this, months ahead of schedule. This will have benefits for fighting seasonal influenza. Somehow waiting for the injection of 500 million eggs[!] to obtain an annual vaccine now seems a leftover from the dark ages. It must also be noted that treatments for HIV were held up by competition among researchers looking for capitalist gains, violating the principle of scientific collaboration.
*factoid: the “flu” like polio, measles and coronaviruses is from a naked RNA virus that latches onto and injects one of our cells. Without the complex biomolecular machinery of other kinds of viruses that auto-correct mutations in their code, they are simple and variable making them perfect for evading our immune systems. They hang out in animal populations until they mutate to make the jump to humans, then are spread by our ever more efficient transportation systems; another effect of the anthropocene era. It does not care if you are a Communist, just if you sneeze on the right people so it can replicate.
I despair. I’m not sure which is more disturbing, the attempt to discuss the spread of the corona virus in terms of the economic structure of China, or the notion that our government and pharmaceutical industry are so much more transparent and responsive to the health needs of our citizens.
China’s problem here is not its “socialist” economic organization; I’m in for the muskrat stew. China is one of the three great oligopolies–Russia and the USA being the other two. Oligopolies are neither capitalist nor socialist; in each instance, they comprise a relative handful of billionaires and millions of very poor people.
China’s problem is its autocratic political structure. Political corruption and hypocrisy, and concentration of power in the hands of a few. Sound familiar?
And suggesting that BigPharma is civic-minded and responsive is ridiculous. Our scientists, academic and governmental, are working on solving the virus problem, with Pharma being involved only because it might make a few billion dollars. Mostly, Big Pharma is just ratcheting up the prices of drugs and biologicals (like insulin) because Congress refuses to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices.
Granted, the Chinese Communist party adopted some socialist economic practices that helped jump start it’s rapid industrialization and benefits it’s neo-command economy. China is in the process of transitioning away from bureaucratic socialism [Maoism-Stalinism, not democratic socialism, as practiced in Western societies] and toward a market economy. Nevertheless, it remains a state-run capitalist government. The Chinese have few rights or legal power to ask for change. They do what the Central Committee planned, or face unpleasant consequences.
A neo-command economy is an economy in which production, investment, prices, and incomes are determined centrally by a government. State capitalism is a political system in which the state has control of production and the use of capital. Some academics maintain that China has never been a Communist society. They believe that China has a different culture and that Western Civilization lacks a general understanding of how that culture has shaped China’s economy.
While privately-owned businesses exist in China, state-owned businesses currently make up approximately 3.1 percent of the companies in China. Why is this important? State-owned businesses produce an estimated 25 to 30 percent of the total industrial output. The Communist party controls the economy by having top party officials and their family members placed in control of several key industries. Chinese business people join the Communist party because party membership provides numerous advantages and opportunities for obtaining and operating a business. The Chinese people have always been industrious.
It’s important to remember that the party is the only true landowner in China. The state-owned land policy includes Hong Kong. Not only does the party tightly control Chinese society, it also leases land to the Chinese people. This is an economy in which production, investment, price of goods and services is controlled by a central government. Incomes are also set by the government, not through collective bargaining.
Many Chinese hospitals operate as government agencies rather than medical service organizations. Traditional health care management doesn’t always recognize the importance of developing and retaining highly-trained physicians, nor do they always practice western medicine. Regrettably, administrative personnel are more powerful than physicians at state-run hospitals. Private hospitals and clinics are being built by foreign investors, but the pharmaceutical sector remains complex, inefficient and fragmented. Distribution of pharmaceuticals relies on a top heavy distribution system that drives up prices on all pharmaceutical products.
China’s Center for Disease Control purportedly reported that only state-approved patients are receiving testing for Coronavirus (COVID-19). Overwhelmed Chinese hospitals are turning patients away, so no one really knows how many of the Chinese people have actually contracted the virus or were sent home to recover or die on their own. Deaths caused by the virus outside of the hospital environment are not being reported by the media or the government.
For the general American public, who are unlikely to be exposed to the virus, the immediate health risk is considered low. While it’s still unclear how the situation will unfold, risk is dependent on exposure. Currently, health care professionals are at the greatest risk for exposure, should they come in contact with someone who tests positive for COVID-19. That said, three potential cases of exposure in San Juan County is disturbing. I sincerely hope that we can treat the members of our community who have been exposed to the virus with compassion and understanding. Remember, unfettered fear is more contagious than any virus; and, fear feeds on itself.
SUPER post. Thank you.
“Regrettably, administrative personnel are more powerful than physicians” ……em, this is not news in the business of healthcare even right here. Even on Orcas. Political power seems to bestow unearned health education and licensure on abject cronies.. While wiping 15 years of education& training and decades of licensure from the cranium of many an otherwise ethical professional.
It is a sorry sorry state of affairs.
But “unfettered fear is more contagious than any virus; and, fear feeds on itself.” This is the story of our failure to even get the data straight on relative risk. Even in this conversation, it seems impossible to get good info and assign rational value to it with pandemic gnawing at our innards.
In the pandemic flu of 1918, modern research has found that of the 50M dead, disproportionately more of them died in military camps that practiced denial as a strategy, especially by the US, who ultimately spread it world wide. Though called the “Spanish Flu,” it was this nationality that survived best due to a policy of relative openness about its spread, though earning it the label unfairly.
er, 1918: H1N1 bird flu, with swine intermediary. US plains origin. [btw]
Thank you, Leif for your kind words. Please know that I wholeheartedly agree with you that administrative health care costs are out of control in the USA. Below, I have posted a summary I copied from The Healthcare Imperative: Lowering Costs and Improving Outcomes: Workshop Series Summary. Published by the Institute of Medicine (US) Roundtable on Evidence-Based Medicine; Yong PL, Saunders RS, Olsen LA, editors. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2010.
“Administrative (health care) costs in the United States consumed an estimated $156 billion in 2007, with projections to reach $315 billion by 2018 (Collins et al., 2009). With the time, costs, and personnel necessary to process billing and insurance-related (BIR) activities from contracting to payment validation on the provider side and the needs of payers to process claims and credential providers, significant redundancy and inefficiency arises from healthcare administration. Adding to concerns is emerging evidence of an inverse relationship between administrative complexity and quality of care (Himmelstein and Woolhandler, 2002). The presenters in this session approach estimating excess administrative costs from a variety of macro- and microeconomic levels, all with the goal of identifying the portion of expenditures spent on administration that could be reduced by increasing the efficiency of the delivery system, which highlights the need for administrative simplification and harmonization.”
Now, just for grins, let’s take a quick look at the Federal Employee Health Care (FEHBP) Administrative costs report published today in FEDweek, Tuesday, February 18th, 2020.
“Although it differs from TRICARE, (active and retired military health insurance) FEHBP provides health care to more than 8.2 million participants, making it about the same size as TRICARE (around 9 million participants) in terms of beneficiary population. FEHBP offers beneficiaries more than 250 insurance plan choices provided by nearly 100 different contracts. These plans are purchased on “evergreen” contracts that are renewed each year, allowing for flexibility, adaptation to current trends, and low contracting costs. Yet the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) administers this program with about 100 employees who are paid for out of the FEHBP trust fund using resources from plan premiums instead of appropriated funds.”
“OPM is required by statute to dedicate no more than 1 percent of plan premiums for FEHBP administrative expenses. In 2014, the total cost of FEHBP premiums (the Government share plus the employees’ share) was $47 billion, 1 percent of which equals $470 million. OPM informed the Commission that it routinely requires less than 0.1 percent of the premiums to administer FEHBP. This means that OPM required less than $47 million in 2014 to administer FEHBP. If OPM does not use the full 1 percent dedicated for administrative expenses, the unused portion returns to the trust fund for contingency reserves.”
Apparently, despite claims that it cannot, our Government can run an efficient healthcare system. That is, as long as Congress adopts statutes that limit administrative spending. Currently, we have four government-run, health care programs. Tricare, the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program, Medicare and Medicaid. Some are run well. Others, not so well. But existing problems can be addressed by adopting legislation that limits excessive administrative, healthcare and pharmaceutical costs.
This isn’t rocket science. It’s good old fashioned public policy that can save taxpayers billions, if not trillions of dollars while allowing a range of health insurance plans for individuals to choose from. Federal employees have 250 plans. By the way, Members of Congress are required to purchase their health care insurance through the Affordable Health Care Act, otherwise known as Obama Care. That should insure that Congress takes good care of Obama Care.
According to a study titled, Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2018 November 08, 2019 Report Number P60-267 (RV) Edward R. Berchick, Jessica C. Barnett, and Rachel D. Upton “employer-based insurance remained the most common, covering 55.1 percent of the population for all or part of the calendar year.” In 2018, 28,566,000 Americans have no medical coverage at all.
This is hardly a comprehensive study of government run health care programs. But it does highlight some of the choices Congress has, should it decide to address medical coverage for all Americans. This is not a partisan issue – nor should it be. Former President Nixon, a Republican, proposed universal healthcare legislation during his term. I find it ironic that the Democrats opposed it. I’ve read his proposed legislation. I know people dislike him, but Medical coverage for all Americans shouldn’t be the hotly contested, divisive partisan issue that it is today.
Here’s Nixon’s proposal in his own words:
“Early last year, I directed the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to prepare a new and improved plan for comprehensive health insurance. That plan, as I indicated in my State of the Union message, has been developed and I am presenting it to the Congress today. I urge its enactment as soon as possible.
The plan is organized around seven principles:
First, it offers every American an opportunity to obtain a balanced, comprehensive range of health insurance benefits;
Second, it will cost no American more than he can afford to pay;
Third, it builds on the strength and diversity of our existing public and private systems of health financing and harmonizes them into an overall system;
Fourth, it uses public funds only where needed and requires no new Federal taxes;
Fifth, it would maintain freedom of choice by patients and ensure that doctors work for their patient, not for the Federal Government.
Sixth, it encourages more effective use of our health care resources;
And finally, it is organized so that all parties would have a direct stake in making the system work–consumer, provider, insurer, State governments and the Federal Government.”
Truly a ponderous string of comments here.
Lost in all of this is the fact that in the USA thee is a shortage of medicines never before encountered in our system, with diabetics unable to afford insulin and cancer patients going without chemo.
This does not happen in the one socialist country, non corporate, on the planet with their old rickety ‘ single payer; system. That would be Cuba. They also send doctors without remuneration to the Congo to tackle Ebola, and offered humanitarian aid to the USA after Katrina.
”
China is ‘authoritarian’, not ‘socialist.” These represent differing models of economics and governing.
Without a ‘single payer’ system in place by 2025 in this country the present system will go broke. It is already broken.
Paula Teener, you are correct about contagion rate being a vital factor in determining the legality of a given virus.
Lacking a ‘Lief to English” dictionary I am, as usual, unsure what your observation is, however, being quoted directly I can only say that in America, vis a vis the ‘flu shot’ as in all things, “You pays your money and you take your chances.
ar ar ar
“Leif to English dictionary”
“nanu nanu” to you :)
“single payer” to me.
Well, thanks again to Steve who always manages to bite off enough meat and grizzle to have us chewing for a while for not only some good nutrition but a good chaw to munch on, when we’re done.
Personally I think this op-ed “thread” has enough material [pun intended] to start at least three .. thread-lets? [whatever the textile equivalent of the culinary “pinch” is, to give a good mix to our metaphors].
So, you have any more awful opinions you want eviscerated? Steve?
Steve?
:) -L
Steve, when you have time it might be enlightening to think back at how our ‘capitalist’ society ignored/covered up/denigrated the HIV problem in its beginnings…then go on and investigate how our ‘capitalism’ experimented medically on black folks in the south…then review how this ‘capitalist’ system promoted the use of tobacco and aided corporations in covering up the consequences of tobacco use. Of course then there is the ‘capitalist’ background of the opioid addiction problem.
Oh, and then maybe look at how the Food Pyramid was created, based on ‘corporate’ lobby pressure vs clear scientific knowledge. All the above have caused massively greater illness and death then any current flu bug, regardless of origin.