Discussion in 'Community' started by DANNASUK, Feb 16, 2017.
Is he shaking hands?
Not necessarily, there are people who end up in an ICU who maintain consciousness and are there mostly to be monitored for a short time in case things turn for the worst.
It was how it went for a friend of mine, she stayed 3 days in ICU but wasn't put on a respirator and wasn't put under.
I understand those are general cases but I’m factoring in:
A) Incidence of delirium is dramatically higher in the ICU.
B) The trend in treatment of this disease is towards very early intubation
C) They’re probably factoring in the optics here. If nursing care was the only consideration, they could probably assign the Prime Minister a 1-to-1 ICU level nurse somewhere else.
D) There’s a wide gulf between how alert/interactive you need to be to visit with family versus make major life decisions. Let alone several of them per day. About billions of dollars and tens of millions of people.
If you don’t mind, I’m responding to you here because I just can’t keep up with the other thread, and this might be veering off-topic anyway.
I don’t think it’s far-fetched to compare her to Thatcher, considering that even Merkel seems to be a fan of her. If anything it’s a compliment to her.
But while Merkel wasn’t alone in this, she was the (kinda unofficial) leader of the EU during the euro crisis, and the one who constantly and systematically pushed for aggressive austerity measures in countries that were not prepared to receive them, and even went against the social democracy ideals of what the EU was (originally) supposed to stand for. She even used G-20 summits to put pressure on reluctant countries like Spain. And the measures she pushed for had a significant (mostly negative) impact on the economies and social structures of Southern Europe, and as such, I just really don’t like when some ignorant white knight on Twitter extols her simply by virtue of having a vagina
Which is what I was essentially responding to in the post you quoted me. I’ve grown tired of this revisionist image of Merkel that started after the migrant crisis because people sympathized with her efforts (I get it, and I was also supportive of Merkel during the migrant crisis despite her mistakes), but nevertheless, her aggressive agenda during the Euro crisis resulted in a lot of damage in Europe, leading to an (unintentional) schism between the North/West and the South, which I don’t think will ever heal.
But on the bailout issue. Let’s just recognize that there is a difference between a loan that assumes a fair balance between the creditors and the debtors, and trying to repeat an IMF on Argentina, which is what troika was/is. Literally (I mean, they actually tried to privatize the water supply in Portugal and Greece, like they never learned from history before).
Alternatively, some economics and journalists even back then felt that the most reasonable way to solve the Euro crisis was something akin to a Marshall Plan (which could’ve genuinely help troubled economies to recover and avoid what eventually happened, an ostracization of the Southern European nations). Especially when the euro crisis started with the German and French toxic asset-lending bank activity that catalyzed the whole thing. It came especially hypocritical in Greece that once-debt-forgiven Germany was now demanding them to pay everything in high interest rates. Yes, Greece lied about their debt. Still. It takes a special kind of a-hole to do that after their history.
But let’s admit it: Merkel needed to save the banks, because saving the banks would save the euro in her mind (especially if they were German banks). I don’t know if this was a result of Germany media attempting to shape the narrative and everyone else following along, but the euro crisis was NOT just about countries misspending their money. It was (or started as) a banking crisis. Specifically a German and French private banking crisis. But aside from that, technically, only two countries had their finances in truly bad shape – Greece, because they lied, and Portugal, because this country has been historically incompetent with its finances.
But the other countries that were pressured to accept a bailout – particularly Spain, Italy and Ireland - was because their banks (mostly private) owned German, French and British banks, who had a massive investment in those countries and sold them ****** assets. And instead of just letting the banks go **** themselves (there was that option too, you know), Merkel & co. pressured those countries to accept bailout programs, which led to this bizarre situation where the common Spaniard and Italian had to pay to bail out German banks at high interest rates that were only sustainable in Northern Europe.
And long story short, this why Merkel has become the face of austerity in Europe, and why a lot of people, especially in Southern Europe, have a lot of contempt for her.
Yep. WW I was the first real "industrial war". To many young men in Europe, going to war was like having a big adventure with opportunities to experience some thrill and glory. No one had ever experienced things like being under heavy artillery bombardement for hours or being forced to attack enemy lines with machine gun fire mowing down whole companies. There was a heated nationalism in Europe back then with many people almost hoping for a war to start. My great grandfather volunteered and was in a machine gun company. The things he experienced when french and british soldiers charged their lines and were mowed down haunted him for the rest of his life. There was nothing glorious in this mass killing field
Hey, you called it.
I like that the official statement on the matter is "Actually in retrospect these actions are all really suspicious. Oops."
Well, that press conference was embarrassing. They presented nothing new, and no evidence, except for "well, the known liar wasn't telling the truth". We still don't know who killed Palme, and now they're closing the investigation.
Did the European agreement actually include eurobonds or something similar(ish)? Seen a lot of chatter, but nothing which confirms or explain it.
Yes, €390Bn worth of mutual bonds will be taken on by the EU and given in grants to the countries hit the hardest by COVID-19 and its fallout.
Am I right in assuming this is on the path to a more federal structure? With the British Parliament no longer being a significant roadblock, an EU Treasury-esque is rather plausible?
Brexit bizzzarly saves the Union.
Not quite, this is still an exceptional event that's not supposed to recur, following the worst round of haggling by countries since 2005, and it came notably at the cost of regular EU budget cuts (notably the brutal slashing of its health missions, of all things...). And this actually wasn't establishing a precedent, because the EEC, in 1974, went for a similar round of borrowing in response to the First Oil Shock.
Despite the UK's exit meaning 4 out of 10 fiscal paradises lose access next year, fiscal harmonization still isn't on the menu (Ireland, Luxemburg, Netherlands, I'm looking at you ), some countries demanded and obtained rebates à l'anglaise to endorse this plan, and, of course, with an effective decrease in the budget it has to spend on its missions, the EU is actually farther from being able to build up a more federal structure than it was last winter. And here, Brexit contributed to increasing the strain.
Well, I'm sadly quite pessimistic after reading that.
We don't get in depth coverage of the EU anymore in the UK (granted, we never did), so it is hard to understand the implications.
Belarus might be having a revolution:
I mean, when some polling booths report over 100% participation, you know something fishy occurred.
Officially, their side scored just 6.8% to Lukashenko's 79.7%...
So, less of a revolution and more of a coup then?
Corona Party or just 6.8 %?
No, Soviet election handling and a population really, really pissed off about it still happening in 2020.
It's not exactly a coup when you are already dictator. It's actually interesting that the opposition got as many votes as they did. I know the Belarus embassy in Stockholm kept people from voting, and I guess that's not the only place it happened.
I'm sure those numbers are truthful and accurate.
Trump is probably taking notes on how the Belarus dictator is handling this.
And wishing he could do the same.
He's already got the "send black vans to nab people off the streets" part down pat.