>your/his rant against an omnious left (upperclass liberals actually) again just makes you/him look like a stupid kohl retard.
I would not call the obvious ominous.
>stupid kohl retard
The stupid kohl retards predicted a pandemic in January. They also predicted a shortage of PSE. Now, hospitals try to repurpose plastic raincoats. https://www.rbb24.de/panorama/thema/2020/coronavirus/beitraege_neu/2020/04/oberhavel-kliniken-suchen-verkaeufer-von-schutzkleidung.html
Meanwhile, the general line voiced in public was
>We are well prepared
>There is no problem and there won't be a problem
>it is going to be like H1N1 or SARS
I wonder how stupid retards made correct predictions and how people who are so much smarter were wrong.
>You can make it more profound I guess, I wouldn't even deny that greens or spd or other party members are liberals (capitalists with liberal values), but they are not leftists in the classic sense, just because socialist or communist or anarchic left is against racism
In communist thought, race is not a very relevant category, compared to class.
>(which is not true for all cases of leftism whatsoever) they are not the same sort as liberals who have higher positions within governemnt or certain media
Joschka Fischer, Claudia Roth and Winfried Kretschmann all made their way from the radical left into positions of power.
>That analysis lacks differentiation, a typical kohl attitude.
Fine-grained nomenclatures get ridiculous really fast. Imagine two 15-year old metalheads conversing. "Wow, the new single Rusty Nails in Endymions Anus released last week sounds nearly like Symphonic Post Black Metal, even though they are an Epic Progressive Death Metal group!". (All terms made up, since it doesn't matter. Viewed with some perspective, it's all just noise made for the purpose of annoying your parents.)
>they are not the same sort as liberals who have higher positions within governemnt or certain media.
You chose to go down the road of nitpicking, so I'll call you out on it: the term liberal has been coined to describe certain parts of the political landscape in America, and it does not adequately describe circumstances in Germany. I do entirely not get why you think the (supposed) racism of liberal elites is of relevance here. The arrogance and feeling of superiority displayed by them is not derived from having lighter skin than others, but from (supposedly) having 'overcome' nationalism and running an individualistic, tolerant and open society and a welfare-state.
>The radical left has already considered a breakdown of the system just like the government did
And they (you?) plan to further it by terrorist acts.https://de.indymedia.org/node/71934
>Even the stategy paper you are waving here is rather sober and not alarming.
They argue that GDP could plummet by 32% and society could descent into anarchy. If this is not alarming to you, it means that you are unable to grasp the implications.
>they considered anarchy if there is no command and control
This is wrong. I'll give you a literal translation of the relevant sentence from page 8 of the document:
>Should the measures suggested here for containing and controlling the Covid-19 epidemic prove ineffective, the complete system could be put into question in the sense of a 'melt-down'.
They do not write
>should the measures [...] not be implemented
>should [they] prove ineffective
There is a very important distinction here.
>The paper is two weeks (even more since it had to be written) old
The consequences of halting much economic activity for months or the consequences of having a two-digit percentage of the population in need of medical treatment have not changed a lot in the past month.
>a point in time when it barely started here in Germany.
It was obvious that the low numbers of registered infections or deaths in Germany would not be permanent, since virtually no measures had been taken.
>What they do consider is also selfperpetuating effects, feedback loops
What is your point? A complex economy has feedback loops everywhere. How is this argument supposed to support your point of view?
>which is I guess more likely not due to corona deaths but psychological fuckery and economic spiral downwards.
Reduced investment and consumption in the face of economical uncertainty is not "psychological fuckery", but a rational strategy. At the moment, many people are at risk of losing a huge share of their income or have already lost a share of their income, not just in Germany, but world wide. Of course they will try to reduce their expenditures. Why would you expect any consumer or business to act differently? Of course, there are companies and consumers who can afford to strategically consume and invest at low prices (most can't), but it's always a gamble.
>After all the worst case is 1.2 million deaths when nothing is done.
>when nothing is done
Again, this is wrong. It's the worst case scenario considered for "no effective measures taken". "no effective measures taken" does not mean "no measures taken". The current measures might be effective (or might not be effective), but they are not affordable. Scenario 4 considers the consequences of restrictions in place for the rest of the entire year.
>Consider that most people never dealt with what both things actually are
I doubt that you have.
>it's likely just an empty claim to strenthen a rather weak position.
So you take the position of a teacher, trying to test me, like a teacher would test a pupil? This is a prime display of the typical arrogance I criticized. I suspect to get A-marks, I would have to produce some bullshit along the lines of 'Science is a highly gendered hierarchically governed discourse that functions to further the interests of the privileged by producing actionable knowledge that can be employed to marginalize underprivileged minorities.'
See the (imperfect, humoristic) flow chart. Science is a process in which predictive models are iteratively improved and/or refined by testing the limits of their predictive power and through communication of its participants. Reasoning is the adequate application of predictive models to likely premises in order to derive predictions.
In the example of Cordula Schulz-Asche, we see that she either ignores a likely premise (A high share people in certain countries are infected with a certain communicable disease) or ignores a well-known model (Communicable diseases spread from person to person, an infected person will infect other persons) or fails to draw the conclusion (It is very likely that travelers from certain countries will spread the disease in Germany.) Because she refers to doors being unable to stop the spread of a communicable disease, I believe it's the second.
>just an empty claim
Could you repeat the claim i supposedly made?