and that the virus will run its course and we can reach some sort herd immunity or viral burnout sooner rather than later
for obvious reason we don't want to push/delay into the winter months
US COVID19 will be done in 4 weeks with a total reported death below 170,000. How will we know it is over? Like for Europe, when all cause excess deaths are at normal level for week. Reported COVID19 deaths may continue after 25 Aug. & reported cases will, but it will be over. https://t.co/lnpxZ3bHIy
The local (Austin) paper today included an article about 'the last responders' - the ones who pick up bodies from hospitals, homes, etc. Specifically in the Valley (Rio Grande), where the COVID mortality rate is roughly double the rest of the state. High incidence of comorbidities, limited resources, etc. One driver picked up 16 bodies Saturday, 22 on Sunday. All COVID.
It's gotten so bad, he actually felt a little relieved when he had to go pick up someone who'd drowned in the Rio Grande. That was a little bit of 'normality' in his day. c.
For small business owners we have the economic equivalent of that program now: they are, in many cases, watching their lives' work and everything they have invested crumbling before their eyes. They are being transformed from prosperous and productive members of communities to poverty, not by the virus but by the actions of government in response to it. They are being driven to do desperate things, things that will have long-term consequences.
We need to abandon the notion that if government isn't using a whip to compel behavior then it isn't helping. The treatment you insist on is killing too many patients.
You are applying simple, deductive logic to a chaotic situation. Cause and effect are at best indirect, and at worst unrelated.
Take the overused early example of Sweden. They didn't close the country...we don't have to close. They have 5 to 7 times the infection rate of their nearest neighbors (Finland / Norway) and no discernable difference in the economic impact. Being open doesn't mean people will show up. Their restaurants have no dine-in customers now. Nobody is going to the movies. There are tons of people in Sweden who put their lives into businesses that never closed...and are dying anyway. The virus is killing the businesses, not government policy.
As for US desperation, a lot of that is the result of our rugged individualism and lack of interest in government safety nets. We lower taxes, reduce government programs, eliminate healthcare options, and then complain that we can't support ourselves when something sets us off track. If you want to claim independence and freedom of choice....you should have insured your life's work. Sorry...
The final insult...NOT doing everything half-hearted and without national consistency has prolonged the damage. Not using a whip has allowed the global best practices to be de-valued by ignorance and a foolish sense of "freedom". Our stupidity has made us a global laughing stock.
Now...we can't open schools because we didn't do enough.
Can you give me an example of a country that has fared well mitigating the virus that has not imposed some of these stay-at-home restrictions?
The pandemic is far from over so any verdict is early, but let me pose the question a little differently.
This pandemic started with a single case, probably in Wuhan , China. When we emerge from lockdown (assuming we ever do, right?) absent an effective and readily-available vaccine, how will the world be any different from what it was in January? We will be like dry tinder again, ready for another spark to start this all over again.
We may never have an effective vaccine for COVID-19. We don't have one for AIDS despite decades of work, but the AIDS epidemic has passed. That case is instructive.
We stopped it by changing behaviors, testing, and developing treatments that took it from a death sentence to a manageable chronic condition. We educated people and they acted in their own interests (and in the interests of those they love) to contain the disease and slow its spread.
There is no law that says you can't have bareback sex with forty people at a party, no mandate that says couples get tested together at the start of a relationship, but these changes came. They happened in many cases despite government refusing to acknowledge that they helped, and despite government prohibitions on educating people.
We can't all have government jobs. We will have to emerge from hibernation sometime. When we do we need to have strategies to live with the presence of this disease until it runs its course and dies out, or we snuff it with vaccines. That's where we should be putting our effort: into strategies for the long game. Let's figure that out while we still have a country to emerge into.
In 1986 Cuba began locking up AIDS patients in secure facilities to isolate them from the rest of the population, and interrogating them to trace their sexual partners. Those people were rounded up as well, tested, and imprisoned if they were positive.
It was a very effective strategy. There are people to this day who praise the regime for it. It might work for COVID, want to try it? What, there are steps too far, even if they work?
For small business owners we have the economic equivalent of that program now: they are, in many cases, watching their lives' work and everything they have invested crumbling before their eyes. They are being transformed from prosperous and productive members of communities to poverty, not by the virus but by the actions of government in response to it. They are being driven to do desperate things, things that will have long-term consequences.
We need to abandon the notion that if government isn't using a whip to compel behavior then it isn't helping. The treatment you insist on is killing too many patients.
As pointed out , aids is a bad comparison. You aren't generally aren't going to spread it to other unwilling people except through force.
You could easily make a free-market economic argument that the pandemic is a risk to those businesses that they didn't correctly factor into their investment in starting up risk-benefit decision. Or that all sorts of external factors can cause businesses to fail, like hurricanes, the rise of Amazon, or climate change. But I would prefer to get the pandemic more-or-less under control and have government intervention to at least cushion the blow and allow time for adaptation.
The argument that we need to "open the economy" neglects the long-term economic cost of doing so. If nothing else, it will damage the massive aged-care industry, which is an important employer of unskilled (and skilled) labour. The massive number of people with long-term disability from the virus will be a huge drain on the economy for years. No matter how you slice it, it is going to hurt.
These are tough calls, but I am not seeing clear evidence that members of the public would have made the kind of behavioral changes quickly enough to prevent a public health catastrophe from occurring. Heck, there is anecdotal evidence even now â as restrictions have been lifted â that segments of the population are not adapting their behaviors and, by refusing to do so, are putting others at risk.
And that is bound to be repeated when a vaccine is available. And with similar results. And at a considerable cost.
"It's a Deep State vaccine turning you into a communist!"
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jul 21, 2020 - 3:19pm
Lazy8 wrote:
steeler wrote:
Can you give me an example of a country that has fared well mitigating the virus that has not imposed some of these stay-at-home restrictions?
The pandemic is far from over so any verdict is early, but let me pose the question a little differently.
This pandemic started with a single case, probably in Wuhan , China. When we emerge from lockdown (assuming we ever do, right?) absent an effective and readily-available vaccine, how will the world be any different from what it was in January? We will be like dry tinder again, ready for another spark to start this all over again.
We may never have an effective vaccine for COVID-19. We don't have one for AIDS despite decades of work, but the AIDS epidemic has passed. That case is instructive.
We stopped it by changing behaviors, testing, and developing treatments that took it from a death sentence to a manageable chronic condition. We educated people and they acted in their own interests (and in the interests of those they love) to contain the disease and slow its spread.
There is no law that says you can't have bareback sex with forty people at a party, no mandate that says couples get tested together at the start of a relationship, but these changes came. They happened in many cases despite government refusing to acknowledge that they helped, and despite government prohibitions on educating people.
We can't all have government jobs. We will have to emerge from hibernation sometime. When we do we need to have strategies to live with the presence of this disease until it runs its course and dies out, or we snuff it with vaccines. That's where we should be putting our effort: into strategies for the long game. Let's figure that out while we still have a country to emerge into.
In 1986 Cuba began locking up AIDS patients in secure facilities to isolate them from the rest of the population, and interrogating them to trace their sexual partners. Those people were rounded up as well, tested, and imprisoned if they were positive.
It was a very effective strategy. There are people to this day who praise the regime for it. It might work for COVID, want to try it? What, there are steps too far, even if they work?
For small business owners we have the economic equivalent of that program now: they are, in many cases, watching their lives' work and everything they have invested crumbling before their eyes. They are being transformed from prosperous and productive members of communities to poverty, not by the virus but by the actions of government in response to it. They are being driven to do desperate things, things that will have long-term consequences.
We need to abandon the notion that if government isn't using a whip to compel behavior then it isn't helping. The treatment you insist on is killing too many patients.
Well, I am not insisting on any treatment or proposal. Nor have I taken the position that the government âwhipâ is the answer to all questions, issues, problems. Nor have I advocated for a blind reliance upon government. So, letâs dispense with the broad-brush technique. It serves only to distort and detract from what otherwise is an interesting discussion.
Your answer to my last question is that you cannot do so at this time. Not surprising, as I believe most countries have imposed some restrictions. As you stated, you instead reframed the question/issue. I certainly agree with you that long-term solutions will require the populace to adapt and learn new behaviors, at least until a vaccine is available, and probably even beyond then. And I agree with you that voluntary buy-in is preferable and necessary for sustaining a mitigation strategy over the long term. However, as I understood it, the purpose of the stay-at-home restrictions were to âflatten the curveâ so that the public health system (particularly hospitals) would not collapse. I think it fair to say that this likely would have happened in NYC if restrictions had not been imposed and a gargantuan effort not been undertaken to fortify the system in that metropolitan area.
The adaptive behaviors of which you speak would not have taken hold quickly enough to prevent that. (I note here that quarantines were not uncommon in Americaâs early days. They are constitutional.). That the same perhaps could not be said for the restrictions imposed in other jurisdictions does not negate the need for them in NYC. Where they have been imposed, they were meant to be temporary, meant to prevent a public health catastrophe and provide a bridge to an environment in which the public could adapt its individual and collective behaviors. In sum, to buy some time. But, no question, they imposed significant hardships, especially economic ones. These are tough calls, but I am not seeing clear evidence that members of the public would have made the kind of behavioral changes quickly enough to prevent a public health catastrophe from occurring. Heck, there is anecdotal evidence even now â as restrictions have been lifted â that segments of the population are not adapting their behaviors and, by refusing to do so, are putting others at risk. So, yes, we may be backsliding. And restrictions are again being imposed. The Mayor of Miami has imposed a curfew. Is that too draconian? Several governors are now requiring the wearing of masks. Is that unnecessary and, more importantly, Is it counterproductive?
That government actions can wildly miss the mark or even prove deplorable does not mean there should be no governmental action under any circumstances. America rounded up Japanese-Americans and detained them in camps during World War II. That is a stain. So, no, I am not in favor of doing what Cuba did with those inflicted with AIDS.
I originally wondered aloud here why the Defense Production Act is not employed to try to alleviate shortages of materials that are hampering testing. I also wondered about the lack of a system of prioritization for testing. I used as examples the professional sport leagues that have contracted to obtain expedited testing (Testing daily or every other day with results returning within 24-48 hours). Other large companies are doing the same. The Washington Post reported today that test results for members of the public unaffiliated with these kind of organizations or otherwise lacking pull generally are taking 2 weeks to come back. This destroys any hope of successful contact tracing. A few here commented that they see no problem with that, no problem with people looking out for themselves first and foremost. This kind of behavior will only make the public health emergency worse. If that attitude not only prevails but is seen as smart and unavoidable when people are left to their own devices in times of crisis, well, I would posit that underscores the need for governmental intervention. Sometimes people need a nudge towards good intentions.
Can you give me an example of a country that has fared well mitigating the virus that has not imposed some of these stay-at-home restrictions?
The pandemic is far from over so any verdict is early, but let me pose the question a little differently.
This pandemic started with a single case, probably in Wuhan , China. When we emerge from lockdown (assuming we ever do, right?) absent an effective and readily-available vaccine, how will the world be any different from what it was in January? We will be like dry tinder again, ready for another spark to start this all over again.
We may never have an effective vaccine for COVID-19. We don't have one for AIDS despite decades of work, but the AIDS epidemic has passed. That case is instructive.
We stopped it by changing behaviors, testing, and developing treatments that took it from a death sentence to a manageable chronic condition. We educated people and they acted in their own interests (and in the interests of those they love) to contain the disease and slow its spread.
There is no law that says you can't have bareback sex with forty people at a party, no mandate that says couples get tested together at the start of a relationship, but these changes came. They happened in many cases despite government refusing to acknowledge that they helped, and despite government prohibitions on educating people.
We can't all have government jobs. We will have to emerge from hibernation sometime. When we do we need to have strategies to live with the presence of this disease until it runs its course and dies out, or we snuff it with vaccines. That's where we should be putting our effort: into strategies for the long game. Let's figure that out while we still have a country to emerge into.
In 1986 Cuba began locking up AIDS patients in secure facilities to isolate them from the rest of the population, and interrogating them to trace their sexual partners. Those people were rounded up as well, tested, and imprisoned if they were positive.
It was a very effective strategy. There are people to this day who praise the regime for it. It might work for COVID, want to try it? What, there are steps too far, even if they work?
For small business owners we have the economic equivalent of that program now: they are, in many cases, watching their lives' work and everything they have invested crumbling before their eyes. They are being transformed from prosperous and productive members of communities to poverty, not by the virus but by the actions of government in response to it. They are being driven to do desperate things, things that will have long-term consequences.
We need to abandon the notion that if government isn't using a whip to compel behavior then it isn't helping. The treatment you insist on is killing too many patients.
sorry to jump in but Aids is terrible comparison. Aids involves individuals making their own decisions whether, or not, to engage in risky behavior. I can decide to not participate, and not be impacted. i have no choice with this virus, unless i decide to be a hermit. what you do, impacts me whether i like it or not it's like car insurance, everyone who owns a car needs it, and it can't be left to the individual to choose
We may never have an effective vaccine for COVID-19. We don't have one for AIDS despite decades of work, but the AIDS epidemic has passed. That case is instructive.
Not really. It's definitely less severe, but there's still a global epidemic going on. And similarly...
AIDS is one of the top three causes of death for African American men aged 25â54 and for African American women aged 35â44 years in the United States of America. In the United States, African Americans make up about 48% of the total HIV-positive population and make up more than half of new HIV cases, despite making up only 12% of the population. The main route of transmission for women is through unprotected heterosexual sex. African American women are 19 times more likely to contract HIV than other women.
Can you give me an example of a country that has fared well mitigating the virus that has not imposed some of these stay-at-home restrictions?
The pandemic is far from over so any verdict is early, but let me pose the question a little differently.
This pandemic started with a single case, probably in Wuhan , China. When we emerge from lockdown (assuming we ever do, right?) absent an effective and readily-available vaccine, how will the world be any different from what it was in January? We will be like dry tinder again, ready for another spark to start this all over again.
We may never have an effective vaccine for COVID-19. We don't have one for AIDS despite decades of work, but the AIDS epidemic has passed. That case is instructive.
We stopped it by changing behaviors, testing, and developing treatments that took it from a death sentence to a manageable chronic condition. We educated people and they acted in their own interests (and in the interests of those they love) to contain the disease and slow its spread.
There is no law that says you can't have bareback sex with forty people at a party, no mandate that says couples get tested together at the start of a relationship, but these changes came. They happened in many cases despite government refusing to acknowledge that they helped, and despite government prohibitions on educating people.
We can't all have government jobs. We will have to emerge from hibernation sometime. When we do we need to have strategies to live with the presence of this disease until it runs its course and dies out, or we snuff it with vaccines. That's where we should be putting our effort: into strategies for the long game. Let's figure that out while we still have a country to emerge into.
In 1986 Cuba began locking up AIDS patients in secure facilities to isolate them from the rest of the population, and interrogating them to trace their sexual partners. Those people were rounded up as well, tested, and imprisoned if they were positive.
It was a very effective strategy. There are people to this day who praise the regime for it. It might work for COVID, want to try it? What, there are steps too far, even if they work?
For small business owners we have the economic equivalent of that program now: they are, in many cases, watching their lives' work and everything they have invested crumbling before their eyes. They are being transformed from prosperous and productive members of communities to poverty, not by the virus but by the actions of government in response to it. They are being driven to do desperate things, things that will have long-term consequences.
We need to abandon the notion that if government isn't using a whip to compel behavior then it isn't helping. The treatment you insist on is killing too many patients.