|
Post by fauxmaha on Apr 3, 2020 12:32:06 GMT -5
I'm glad you asked it because if I had asked it anywhere but in the private email in which I asked the exact same thing two days ago to Jeff, everyone would read it completely differently and I think it deserves good answers. Additionally, discussion has similarly been shut down on so many important considerations that that's how "conspiracy theories" get started (to link to another thread). I've got a list of 9 questions we aren't allowed to ask but should. Some of them have been asked and given snarky, inadequate answers that are supposed to suffice. Here's a very, very dark interpretation of where we're at. Imagine it's 5000 years ago, and for whatever reason, the tribe's food supply has collapsed. The decision is made that every child not old enough, and every adult too old, to forage for himself has got to be sacrificed. Its a desperate decision designed to hopefully create the possibility that at least some of the rest will make it through the period of deprivation. We know enough about anthropology to know that those things happened, even if they are unthinkable in our world. The deed is done. At which point, the last thing anyone wants to hear are questions about whether or not such measures were necessary. It becomes a tautology: It has to have been necessary, because it was done.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 3, 2020 12:52:33 GMT -5
I'm glad you asked it because if I had asked it anywhere but in the private email in which I asked the exact same thing two days ago to Jeff, everyone would read it completely differently and I think it deserves good answers. Additionally, discussion has similarly been shut down on so many important considerations that that's how "conspiracy theories" get started (to link to another thread). I've got a list of 9 questions we aren't allowed to ask but should. Some of them have been asked and given snarky, inadequate answers that are supposed to suffice. Here's a very, very dark interpretation of where we're at. Imagine it's 5000 years ago, and for whatever reason, the tribe's food supply has collapsed. The decision is made that every child not old enough, and every adult too old, to forage for himself has got to be sacrificed. Its a desperate decision designed to hopefully create the possibility that at least some of the rest will make it through the period of deprivation. We know enough about anthropology to know that those things happened, even if they are unthinkable in our world. The deed is done. At which point, the last thing anyone wants to hear are questions about whether or not such measures were necessary. It becomes a tautology: It has to have been necessary, because it was done. Except that we might have done just the opposite. We are risking an economic collapse (and economic collapses have the potential of killing FAR more people than a virus -- even if the virus had gone unchecked. The WaPo has a story -- #1 if you google -- that says 2.6 million die from poverty each year) to save the vulnerable (in your fable -- the old and the young...those who cannot forage for themselves). And we are so adamant about this choice that when I said 30 pages back that we at that point were suffering more from the choice to shut down the economy than we were from the virus, I was purposely mischaracterized, misread, demonized for even pointing THAT out. Paul asked a good question -- one I posed as safely as I could in an earlier page -- should low population areas be following the same policies that are in place to keep high density populations safe? Isn't there such thing as viral load? Wouldn't most people be better off contracting through casual contact and developing herd immunity as the majority recover? Won't the policies in place to protect the high density populations actually backfire on the low density populations? Can we economically survive total shutdown until we have a vaccine? What is the virus' impact on mortality rates? What are the numbers of survivors? How previously sick were the victims? What percentage of the dead were extremely vulnerable (like the aged population of Italy)? Why are there so many outliers in the spread of the disease? www.npr.org/2020/03/25/820595489/why-germanys-coronavirus-death-rate-is-far-lower-than-in-other-countries?utm_source=pocket-newtab
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Apr 3, 2020 13:00:25 GMT -5
I think you need a new avatar, John
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 3, 2020 13:03:52 GMT -5
See?
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Apr 3, 2020 13:04:58 GMT -5
Personally. I and mine are in social lockdown. I'm not reentering the public square until the masks I ordered from Amazon show up sometime in May or June. I have a nice bed and I am under it. I don't need to be anywhere, I'm not needed anywhere, and by Thor, I'm not going anywhere. (other than maybe the driving range, if it's spread out nice. I got a new driver and I have to hit it).
State. I am full on board with what the two states I reside in have done in regard to this deal (ND and MN). Both governors have proven to me to be the right persons in the right spot. In particular, ND's governor Burgum is impressing the hell out of me. This state is going to facing some challenges, and I feel in my bones we are darn lucky we have the that guy in there.
National. I didn't like Trump before, I don't like him now, and I won't like him come November. But, this unpreparedness crap is on the country, on us. Yes, there were all kinds of things Trump could have done, should have done, and once the future reveals itself, should be doing right now. All that is a given regardless of who is on the job. Trump isn't a Churchill, and we knew that. He is what he is and we put him there, and in his own fashion, he is basically doing what the CDC folks are telling him to do. And the stuff that should have been done should have been done two years ago. Five years ago. Ten years ago.
And yes, politics is politics, so Trump will justifiably take justifiable political attacks and criticisms from opponents. That's how it works and he deserves much of what he gets if not all. But outside the political arena, if we actually believe the shortcomings this event is revealing is on Trump and not on the country, not on us, we are barking up the wrong damn tree and dangerously deluding ourselves. The cracks and failures this pandemic is revealing are systemic.
My guess is, when the dust has settled and the country by country grades are given out, we won't be the best, we won't be the worst. If graded on a curve, we'll get a solid "C". And we will spend more time scolding ourselves than working to change. Countries are just a bunch of people and people are all the same.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Apr 3, 2020 13:14:34 GMT -5
The secret to happiness is having reasonable expectations.
Mine are, if I'm breathing, I'm doing all right!
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Apr 3, 2020 13:14:52 GMT -5
I think you need a new avatar, John That's not John. That's the 4th Horseman of the economic apocalypse that's been unleashed by over reaction. He's got John right square in his sights.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 3, 2020 13:19:04 GMT -5
I will say that this says well of us, culturally-speaking. We are acting in faith in the calculation that if the weakest among us cannot survive, then nobody else should either. That speaks well of humanity at this point. Something I wouldn't have given us that much credit for, Calvinist that I am.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Apr 3, 2020 13:25:56 GMT -5
I think you need a new avatar, John
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 3, 2020 13:42:38 GMT -5
The problem with the slow-the-spread/save-the-economy dilemma is that (unless the epidemiologists are wrong), not checking the spread leads to serious economic consequences anyway, especially when (not if) the healthcare system gets overwhelmed as it is in NYC. The virology of this disease suggests that it is more infectious than the flu (though less infectious than measles) and that asymptomatic-carrier transmission is likely, which means that it will spread throughout our population. Especially since we have yet to do enough testing to determine exactly where the infected are and to whom they might be passing the virus. Nor do we yet have an antibody test to determine the number and distribution of survivors who may have acquired immunity. (Breaking news a few hours ago: such a test has just been approved by the FDA.)
If the point of "flattening the curve" is to slow transmission enough to allow counter-measures to be discovered and marshalled and put into effect, then it is very hard to know whether to lock down Environment A rather than Environment B in a state of partial knowledge. And most relatively low-population areas still have connections to places where the virus is certainly spreading silently, which means that very few towns of any size are safe. Our county had its first official infected person two weeks ago, and he had been feeling sick (after a cruise) ten days before that. And that suggests plenty of opportunity to pass the virus along in that time. Once the virus is loose in any population, its spread is limited only by the density/frequency of contacts. On 3/15 (when the local case was reported), Minnesota had 35 suspected cases. Last night the number was 742.
There are two significant angles to that German story. One is the lack of a central authority that can serve as a bottleneck for action. The other, epidemiologically crucial one, is that deploying widespread testing gave the system the information needed to respond appropriately. And at the end of the story is the observtion that "the growing number of cases in Germany will soon exceed testing capacities." So the open-market/decentralized component is only part of the situation--the virus is still rolling through their population.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Apr 3, 2020 13:49:54 GMT -5
(unless the epidemiologists are wrong) The only thing we can be absolutely sure of is that they are wrong. The question is how wrong are they?
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Apr 3, 2020 14:15:21 GMT -5
It's like horsehoes.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Apr 3, 2020 14:19:14 GMT -5
No, much worse than that. Horseshoes doesn't destroy lives. The stakes aren't even in the same neighborhood.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Apr 3, 2020 14:19:28 GMT -5
Horsehoes is one of my favorite games. But, I'm surprised you even knew of it as it requires ready access to horses and plenty of garden space. The trick is to match the right horse up with the right sort of hoe. Get the right horse with the right hoe and it will clean up its row quicker than you can say "Dan Patch"!
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 3, 2020 14:31:35 GMT -5
The problem with the slow-the-spread/save-the-economy dilemma is that (unless the epidemiologists are wrong), not checking the spread leads to serious economic consequences anyway, especially when (not if) the healthcare system gets overwhelmed as it is in NYC. The virology of this disease suggests that it is more infectious than the flu (though less infectious than measles) and that asymptomatic-carrier transmission is likely, which means that it will spread throughout our population. Especially since we have yet to do enough testing to determine exactly where the infected are and to whom they might be passing the virus. Nor do we yet have an antibody test to determine the number and distribution of survivors who may have acquired immunity. (Breaking news a few hours ago: such a test has just been approved by the FDA.) If the point of "flattening the curve" is to slow transmission enough to allow counter-measures to be discovered and marshalled and put into effect, then it is very hard to know whether to lock down Environment A rather than Environment B in a state of partial knowledge. And most relatively low-population areas still have connections to places where the virus is certainly spreading silently, which means that very few towns of any size are safe. Our county had its first official infected person two weeks ago, and he had been feeling sick (after a cruise) ten days before that. And that suggests plenty of opportunity to pass the virus along in that time. Once the virus is loose in any population, its spread is limited only by the density/frequency of contacts. On 3/15 (when the local case was reported), Minnesota had 35 suspected cases. Last night the number was 742. There are two significant angles to that German story. One is the lack of a central authority that can serve as a bottleneck for action. The other, epidemiologically crucial one, is that deploying widespread testing gave the system the information needed to respond appropriately. And at the end of the story is the observtion that "the growing number of cases in Germany will soon exceed testing capacities." So the open-market/decentralized component is only part of the situation--the virus is still rolling through their population. Right. That's what I said. Some of us are saying that we are between a rock and a hard place. As evidenced by the fact that I couldn't even point out that what we were going through as preventative measures was affecting us more than the virus itself was at the time illustrates that only some of us think we are between a rock and a hard place. Some of us just see the rock rolling toward us and they fear it. And if I were to suggest that there is a hard place too, I get mocked, lied about, pilloried -- not just for suggesting that there might be a hard place TOO, but because I suggest that there might, indeed, be a hard place, it is assumed that I don't acknowledge the rock. It's not symmetrical. And maybe you're right. But saying that there is a rock isn't the same as saying there is no hard place. You may believe it. If so, fine. Make your case. But asymmetrically, I am capable of seeing the rock. How could I not? It's the primary story on every broadcast, in every paper, on every radio. I get it. I can see the rock. But I get shut down. I can say we are between a rock and a hard place and you say, "Why can't you see the rock?!" And I so far politely haven't asked you "why can't you acknowledge the hard place?" Even argue that it's not there. Tell me my goddam shows that are cancelled are going to happen. Tell me the bank doesn't mind me not paying my mortgage. Argue with me that there is not hard place, but for the love of god (or materialism) stop telling me that there's no hard place, or that by "hard place" I'm asking you to die for your grandkids or any number of other things that have been thrown into the discussion to make sure that nobody gets to point out that economic collapse and poverty has and always will kill more than virus ever could. Say you don't think we're headed toward economic collapse and why you think that. But telling me the I'm not seeing the rock isn't that.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Apr 3, 2020 14:33:30 GMT -5
For those who aren't comfortable with following the guidance of the most knowledgeable people out there, what do you suggest we do instead?
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 3, 2020 14:39:14 GMT -5
1. Listen to the most knowledgeable people out there who can explain to you what an economic collapse looks like, and then go back to your experts who can tell us what the virus is doing.
2. Make a serious and detailed note of when those experts are predicting rather than reporting and then check back with their numbers, thereby weeding out the experts who may know more than you do, but still, for some reason have it wrong.
3. Listen to epaul. Two times in this thread he's said the same thing the Jeff or I said earlier and got pilloried for. I get it. Some of us are just teddibly "binary" and can only give ear to our teammates. Besides, epaul's a nice guy.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 3, 2020 14:46:16 GMT -5
One of the commonly heard arguments put forward by climate-change deniers, and science-deniers in general, is that the planet is too big to suffer any sudden, catastrophic-to-humans changes on a global scale. Maybe this outbreak will punch a little hole in that theory. How?
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Apr 3, 2020 14:50:09 GMT -5
One of the commonly heard arguments put forward by climate-change deniers, and science-deniers in general, is that the planet is too big to suffer any sudden, catastrophic-to-humans changes on a global scale. Maybe this outbreak will punch a little hole in that theory. How? By showing that sudden, catastrophic-to-humans changes on a global scale are possible.
|
|
|
Post by james on Apr 3, 2020 14:57:19 GMT -5
|
|