Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Guys, I really need to try thinking about somethign positive these days basically to keep from screaming, weeping and considering buying a copy of "Final exit".

So, I'm trying to think of some of the possible after effects of this covid horror.

Let's face it, one way or another this nightmare is going to end. Either it kills a lot of people and the rest are resistant, or science develops treatments and vaccines, which people are busting their brains to do, or whatever. It's going to end. The questions are how many die, how much the world suffers and what comes afterwards.

I'd like to bring up a bit of history here. The infamous black plague was a hell of a lot worse than corona, obviously. But many believe it left behind a silver lining in it's horrible wake. There are some pretty solid, convincing arguments that the black plague lead to the Renaissance and to the vast improvements in european culture that stay with us today.

I'll link to an article that make interesting reading. https://www.science20.com/science_20/how_bubonic_plague_made_europe_great-29378

In a nutshell, the black plague broke the lords and serfs socioeconomic model and created a world of opportunity for the majority, and lead to increases standards of living for most people, in technological advancement as cheap labor was no longer plentiful and education as people had to work smarter instead of harder. It also broke the near absolute power of the churn in europe. This lead to the rise of what used to be peasants and serfs into what we might call a middle class today, and essentially lifted europe out of the dark ages and into the Renaissance.

Some people may say it's 'too soon' top talk about possible after effects of corona, right now I feel like i need to think about some positive after effects to keep from curling up into a fetal position and weeping.

Now this thing isn't going to be as lethal as the black plague even in the worst case scenarios we have so far. But what effects could even the death toll we now expect and the economic hit have?

Will it finally lead to a reform in healthcare for America? Will it lead to a revelation that an economy based on the few having most and the majority having little (Kinda like medieval europe, some to think of it.) where many people live paycheck to paycheck and have little to no savings is actually very fragile and not sustainable in a crisis?

Will it lead to people trusting science and education more if medical science produces a vaccine and defenses against the next little surprise microbial evolution cooks up for us?

Will people realize they live on a planet and not just a country or state?

I don't know, right now I just need to believe something better will come out of this. I hope this post is Ok and not against any rules, I just want to see if people can see any good coming out of this miserable horror and what it might be. I just kinda need that now.,

It's not going to bring in the s word, even if the government pays people's wage for a little while.

If anything, people will hopefully be more aware of the risks of rampant globalism.

For what it's worth, I think the opposite, we will realise the value of community, closer community, those immediately around us. You're already seeing it now, people offering to help their neighbours however they can. The importance of family etc.

A few things I can see coming out in benefit:

1) Perhaps a significant rise in work-from-home programs for more employees in positions that it suits. Companies have been forced into it currently and many have invested in work from home systems. I can see that productive employees using them coupled to the potential to not have to rent as much work-space for the company could result in real savings for companies; whilst employees might get another two hours or more back in their day having cut out commuting time.

2) A rise in vaccination support and a lowering of anti-vaccination. This disease has really highlighted the importance of vaccines. Granted this all relies on Corona getting a vaccine developed that is safe and works well. Thus being a major proof on the global scale for the power of vaccination for generations who have otherwise grown up in a bubble where major epidemics are not a normal nor annual part of life for them.

3) Increased security/health checks on global travel. I don't see global travel nor trade ending, but I do see it perhaps taking some sensible safety steps to curtail the spread of diseases.
Indeed one part of me doesn't want to see global travel end due to how many systems, esp in more marginal nations, rely heavily upon the tourist industry; conservation relies heavily on adding tourist value to endangered species and habitats that might otherwise be hunted/destroyed for fast short term profits.

In addition I believe that a more worldly and travelled population results in a reduction of racism and an increase in global tolerances and acceptance at a more general level. Of course it also brings its own problems when jobs are threatened locally by cheaper labour and such. However I think that more free travel does make for a general wider appreciation of other cultures.

4) Health and air benefits might well lead to bigger pushes for green modes of transportation. Cleaner cars; cleaner aircraft etc... Helping to really drive home the real world benefits of even a modest reduction in pollution levels.

I'd be happy with people respecting others space more and increasing there personal hygiene.

More official appreciation for the benefits of private and communal green spaces would be nice as well.

Agree entirely with Overread’s ‘1’.

My employer was already experimenting with increasing our WFH options, precisely to better save on work space costs.

This could be very, very good for me. I’ve still been smashing my targets, and my quality hasn’t suffered any. So I figure there’s a strong argument I really only need be in the office once a week.

That saves a load of money on my commute, and of course means I’ve way, way more time to myself. That’s important for mental health.

I could not work from home.. I'd get nothing done at all. But then my job cannot be done from home, and I cant see any that I do in the future being able to either.

I'm not so sure about the vaccination thing. I mean, it's not like theres any new evidence that's going to convince those die hard anti vaxxers to change their minds. In fact, a lot of the anti vaxxer pages are putting out material about how the pandemic is a scam.

I think it's too early to tell. The current estimate is that 20 - 25% of UK businesses will die so who knows what that will look like.

I also agree with Overread’s ‘1’ - my employer has gone from "no remote working - everything face-to-face" to "everyone who can working from home" in less than a month.

Personally the biggest change for me is getting shopping (food) delivered to my door rather than going to the supermarket.

There are other tangible benefits for WFH becoming more commonplace.

For instance, I’m in Kent, family is in Scotland. So if I want to see them, it’s coming out of my annual leave, reducing my other holiday options.

WFH broadly resolves that. Go in to the Office on the Friday, and once done, get a train up. Weekend - Weds working from home, book the Thursday off for travelling (would not feel comfortable working on a train, too much sensitive info involved) and drop back into the office on the Friday.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I could not work from home.. I'd get nothing done at all. But then my job cannot be done from home, and I cant see any that I do in the future being able to either.

I'm not so sure about the vaccination thing. I mean, it's not like theres any new evidence that's going to convince those die hard anti vaxxers to change their minds. In fact, a lot of the anti vaxxer pages are putting out material about how the pandemic is a scam.

OF course there are a lot of jobs that can't be done from home, but huge numbers of office based jobs can be done from home with in-person meetings every so often - some of which might even shift to just webcam chats as well. That alone would reduce stress on the transport networks in urban areas where you get many of the office type jobs.

As for anti-vaccination groups I can see the die-hard groups resisting like they always do. However I suspect that casual recruitment of new people will trail off quite significantly (any anti-vacc people who make money off it will be worried). It also might seriously harm such schemes gaining traction in new areas. Plus you can bet if/when corona gets a vaccine it will be used in marketing to encourage people to get other common vaccinations to avoid other major epidemics.

It's easy to say no to vaccines when stories of outbreaks are the kind of thing your grandparents speak of and your parents have dim recollections of being a thing in their day sort of. However when its something in your lifetime (that perhaps even lost you your job because of isolation measures etc...) then its far more in-your-face. Even more so if you've lost loved-ones to an outbreak.

thanks guys. I can't say I'm smiling but the urge to grasp the sides of my head and scream is slightly less intense now.

If WFH becomes more common, it means less traffic and less pollution too.

The Black Plague did indeed transform Europe, but remember that it took waves and waves of the plague for 150+ years to do it.

The Corona Virus will definitely affect the economy. Increased inflation thanks to running the printing presses to pay for it all, extra taxation to pay for it all, lower employment thanks to small businesses dying off if they don't get support, and the economic domino effect if any one of these things gets too extreme. Maybe it will cause the industries that rely on global shipping to re-think their business strategies, maybe some governments will get overthrown if people get pissed off enough. Areas that rely on international tourism are going to be hurt bad and not recover for a long time, the airline industry is going to see a serious contraction they won't bounce back from.

Some sectors of the economy will reap rewards, however. Expect teleconferencing to get a big boost, as well as e-learning as people see how much can be done with these technologies. Makers of PPE and cleaning products will make a killing for quite some time and may lead to more adoption of mask wearing in the western world for cold/flu sufferers.

It really depends if we get a viable vaccine going within the expected window. If COVID-19 keeps bouncing around the globe for the next few years it will change things a lot more dramatically, potentially killing the airline industry and global supply chains.

I can't see supply chains being killed off. Most of the infection risk comes from interaction with people at the tourist level. You can much more easily isolate a delivery driver from a collection point at a factory and disinfect cargo/lorries. Same for ships and planes. With the right measures cargo can keep moving around easily. The real issues would be adjustment such as how freight moved by air might start t obe moved in fewer dedicated freight aircraft instead of alongside passengers (esp for mail).

Tourists are the real problem because they mingle, interact and won't have health and safety training courses.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

If anything, people will hopefully be more aware of the risks of rampant globalism.

For what it's worth, I think the opposite, we will realise the value of community, closer community, those immediately around us. You're already seeing it now, people offering to help their neighbours however they can. The importance of family etc.

No offense to you, but I'd rather see that point of view go up in the fires of this virus. I've spent way too much time in small towns where the 'value of community' means outsiders can go hang, and the state, nation and world matter not at all.
The narrow minded 'me and mine' attitude of small communities is part of the problem for this thing spreading even further than it already has.

I'd much rather see more of Overread's worldly population, that's more aware of global connections and the value of cooperation, and an awareness of the events in the world and how it affects those small communities so they can function better as part of the world, not scramble to keep everything else out because of fear, or letting things ride by burying heads in the sand.


I do think one of the outcomes is more reliance on a digital presence rather than having to travel on big environmentally costly and infectious people movers (planes and cruise ships) and convention spaces. I won't be terribly sad if those industries take a hit.

I do think one of the outcomes is more reliance on a digital presence rather than having to travel on big environmentally costly and infectious people movers (planes and cruise ships) and convention spaces.

To expand on this, part of me thinks this moment will be the beginning of a watershed for 3D printing. Smart countries will look at developing increasingly 'digital' supply lines, with actual manufacturing done closer to home. Not because of any paranoia about globalism, but because it's too damn pragmatic and the current crisis is highlighting one of the potential solutions to overly long and convoluted supply chains. When you need vital equipment, you kind of need it. Waiting for it to be produced on the other side of the planet and shipped to you is too little too late in a crisis, and stockpiling is very expensive (or bafflingly pointless in a certain case).

There's always been market potential for 3D manufacturers who print items as ordered by clients, and I think we're seeing proof of concept for that model becoming apparent now. These items need not even be particularly robust. If they last long enough to be practical you can just print a new one. It wouldn't work for everything (no one is going to be 3D printing airplanes anytime soon), but so much of the equipment desperately needed right now can be 3D printed.

I'd also be optimistic that anti-vaxxers will finally stop being idiots, cause being anti-vax is something you can only be with even a facade of a straight face in an era devoid of regular mass deaths caused by perfectly preventable diseases. But I'm not optimistic about stupid people anymore.

 LordofHats wrote:
It wouldn't work for everything (no one is going to be 3D printing airplanes anytime soon), but so much of the equipment desperately needed right now can be 3D printed.

They've been at it for a few years now. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.3dnatives.com/en/boeing-777x-300-3d-printed-parts-290120205/amp/
Of particular interest to me is:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/amp28764405/air-force-3d-printing-parts/
This is because licensing aviation assets is a lengthy and expensive process, but 3d printing for non-airworthy essential components can potentially be quickly, and cheaply, expedited.

If anything good does come out of this moment, like you I too hope that there will be some curtailing of the bonkers global logistics we currently have.

What I also think (and am kind of afraid) will happen is that even more economic power gets concentrated in the hands of those who already have too much - big corporations will buy out (otherwise viable) smaller ones once they fail. Moreover, with small businesses getting hit hard, once it's over they'll probably be the ones with the capital to jump in the gaps, with the usual results. Service and product quality goes down, price goes waaay up.

I take a slightly different interpretation of what QAR called “rampant globalisation”, I think it’s that many governments have been pandering to the needs and demands of multinational corporations and international finance, on the assumption that if they take care of that part of the economy, everything else will be fine. I think that the current situation is showing that the real heart of society is small-medium businesses and that they need specific care and attention from the government; hopefully all of the “trickledown” theories have been shown to be a myth.

I also think this is going to bring the conversations around improved welfare / universal basic income to the forefront, as a lot of people are now getting firsthand experience of what it’s like to be unemployed and on state benefits and realising it isn’t the “cushy ride” that a lot of people make it out to be.

I would hope it would also raise debates about long term resilience of industries, healthcare, etc. over short-term profits / cost cutting. I’m not talking about socialism / nationalisation here, but for example, more of government supporting a manufacturer in difficulty to help it turn around, rather than allowing it to be bought out and offshored, because it’s better for our country to have that plant open and employing people than the have the tax money in the bank from import duties. And I’m not talking about blank cheques, but more consideration of things beyond just the bottom line.

Voss wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

If anything, people will hopefully be more aware of the risks of rampant globalism.

For what it's worth, I think the opposite, we will realise the value of community, closer community, those immediately around us. You're already seeing it now, people offering to help their neighbours however they can. The importance of family etc.

No offense to you, but I'd rather see that point of view go up in the fires of this virus. I've spent way too much time in small towns where the 'value of community' means outsiders can go hang, and the state, nation and world matter not at all.
The narrow minded 'me and mine' attitude of small communities is part of the problem for this thing spreading even further than it already has.

I'd much rather see more of Overread's worldly population, that's more aware of global connections and the value of cooperation, and an awareness of the events in the world and how it affects those small communities so they can function better as part of the world, not scramble to keep everything else out because of fear, or letting things ride by burying heads in the sand.


I do think one of the outcomes is more reliance on a digital presence rather than having to travel on big environmentally costly and infectious people movers (planes and cruise ships) and convention spaces. I won't be terribly sad if those industries take a hit.

Well, I don't remember mentioning anything about 'me and mine' or 'keeping everything out'

But, yeah. I meant that people will rediscover the value of community and those around them, maybe step away from the ultra commented Internet world once in a while, which we were very lacking in as of late.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If WFH becomes more common, it means less traffic and less pollution too.

True that.

There’s also the potential to boost local economies, as if it’s a widespread, societal change, how many tens even hundreds of thousands, of commuters will suddenly have reduced commuting costs?

For example. At the moment, my season ticket for the coach works out to £255 a month. But 40 singles are £379. So to cover a year of ‘one day a week’, I’d need two loads of 40 singles - the other days will be annual leave etc. Reduces my cost to £65.41 a month.

That’s a solid saving, and one I’d likely be spending in my local area with small businesses.

Sure, the coach company may struggle, as that saving is coming out of their pocket to get to mine. But the commute is only part of their business.

I also wonder what impact mass remote working might have on house prices? At the moment, London is hella expensive due to demand, and that knocks on to affect the ‘Home Counties’. Broadly speaking, the further you are from London, the more affordable the housing. Take away a major driver of that demand? Who knows how significant (if at all) that impact might be. I’d advise asking a economist, and not some bunghole off the internet!

Considering that a lot of public transport is already overloaded I can see coach and bus and train firms surviving; if perhaps even doing better in some region because they won't have to be making investments on expanding their services. They might also be able to offer a better spread of services to the public. I know in the countryside we've seen more bus routes removed, likely so that busses and resources can be concentrated in more urban areas. Cut down the travel in those urban areas and there's suddenly "spare" vehicles

That’s possible, but not sure privatised contracts really work that way, so much as ‘how can we make as much money as possible with no regard to level of service’.

Nothing will change as capitalism is the peak economic system and cannot be broken. As always, it will adapt and overcome and make it's weaknesses a new strength. Maybe it will lower Trump's chances of victory though (you tell me ?) and be used as propaganda by the evil Communist Party of China (as it's already the case) despite them being responsible for this but otherwise, soon everything will be back to normal with some more unemployment.

I guess, if we get lucky, the states will realise that decentralized facilities for the prduction of medical supply would be better for the general supply of medicinal goods then producing solely in china.......

I disagree.

In the U.K., we’ve got a newly found, long overdue respect and support for the NHS. That in turn makes any plans (if indeed there are any, let’s steer as far from politics as we can) to privatise it or sell it off far harder to pull off.

With increased remote working, it’ll be hard to put that cat back in the bag. This will depend upon practicalities of course. Just because one can work from home doesn’t make it a done deal. As I noted above, I’m doing fine with it. Others, who knows?

It may also be a solid knock to populist politics (of any leaning), as this isn’t something that can be over simplified to give some comforting soundbites as ‘the answer’.

There’s also some potential for manufacturing to move out of China. Not because there’s a perception that it’s a risky country, but because this is a good example of why you may want a more dispersed manufacturing base.

This really is something I’d want to chat to actual economists about, as I suspect there are so, so many variables they’ll boggle our tiny minds.

One major change will be corporations incorporating their risk of shutdowns into their business models.

Just-in-time supply chains will continue to exist, but will have safety features built in, such as diversified sourcing of resources and reserves (stockpiles) of materials that come from just one source.

Diversified business interests which include functions that can keep in income stream running during shutdowns.

A move to include "termination notices" in employment contracts under similar circumstances next time, if the company can't operate. This will probably come with forcing employees to take out "termination of employment insurance". Maybe in a best case, employees signing "no pay during lockdown" clauses and/or being forces to take out company-wide "lockdown insurance" to keep getting paid next time.

Basically, corporations will find a way to divest themselves of risk by offloading it onto their employees, suppliers and governments.

Termination of Employment Insurance....like PPI?

No, seriously, it would’ve kicked in for a lot of people in this situation. Provided you lose your job through no fault of your own, that’s your loan/credit card/mortgage/lending pretty much covered.

Voss wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

If anything, people will hopefully be more aware of the risks of rampant globalism.

For what it's worth, I think the opposite, we will realise the value of community, closer community, those immediately around us. You're already seeing it now, people offering to help their neighbours however they can. The importance of family etc.

No offense to you, but I'd rather see that point of view go up in the fires of this virus. I've spent way too much time in small towns where the 'value of community' means outsiders can go hang, and the state, nation and world matter not at all.
The narrow minded 'me and mine' attitude of small communities is part of the problem for this thing spreading even further than it already has.

I'd much rather see more of Overread's worldly population, that's more aware of global connections and the value of cooperation, and an awareness of the events in the world and how it affects those small communities so they can function better as part of the world, not scramble to keep everything else out because of fear, or letting things ride by burying heads in the sand.


I do think one of the outcomes is more reliance on a digital presence rather than having to travel on big environmentally costly and infectious people movers (planes and cruise ships) and convention spaces. I won't be terribly sad if those industries take a hit.

I'm more of the opposite. I hope for one that it shows that we really should be bringing things closer to home rather then depending on others for everything else. Bringing more manufacturing and other such capabilities back home would help us faster if we needed to bring more output out in a crisis.

There’s definitely a balance.

The economic argument for outsourcing, much as I’m a lefty, is strong. Lower production costs should become lower consumer prices.

But, to outsource everything and to leave your production facilities to rot is now shown to be foolish.

I mean, what’s more important overall? Item A being as cheap as possible, or Item A being continuously available.

 godardc wrote:
Nothing will change as capitalism is the peak economic system and cannot be broken. As always, it will adapt and overcome and make it's weaknesses a new strength. Maybe it will lower Trump's chances of victory though (you tell me ?) and be used as propaganda by the evil Communist Party of China (as it's already the case) despite them being responsible for this but otherwise, soon everything will be back to normal with some more unemployment.

Legitimately cannot decide if satire