> The people don't obey the "orders" nor follow advice. Then they wrap themselves in the flag and actively work against the measures in the name of freedom. That cultural chicken has now come home to roost.
That cultural chicken is still a massive net win; I'd still much rather live in America and get coronavirus rather than live in China and get black-bagged someday because of my refusal to take authorities seriously.
Pretty much no crisis since the founding of America has "these people have too much personal independence and power" been more of a problem than part of the solution. Indeed, most of the times independence was diagnosed as a problem the solution was worse than the disease. The government-coordinated response to 9/11 remains substantially more damaging than any other aspect of that fiasco.
> I'd still much rather live in America and get coronavirus rather than live in China and get black-bagged someday because of my refusal to take authorities seriously.
At the risk of potentially misunderstanding what you meant, there's a yawning chasm between "freedom to die from COVID-19 because public health orders are affronts to liberty" and "extra-judicially kidnapped by one's own government."
I'd much rather live in Sweden or Germany, where people have sufficient trust in their government and a massive social safety net to catch employees who have to be out of work for health reasons--ANY health reasons, but COVID specifically in this instance--and we're able to trust that our fellow residents will act reasonably without forcing others back to work, than in America where the least-powerful and least-well-off of us have the cover of unemployment payments ripped away because some flag-wrapped know-betters demand Golden Corral reopen for buffet service after getting a haircut.
> I'd much rather live in Sweden or Germany, where people have sufficient trust in their government...
I'm a bit hesitant to compare to either of them because I can't read the local news. That being said, didn't Sweden go with a lockdown-lite policy?
The Sweedes do have the freedom to die from COVID-19 because public health orders are affronts to their liberty.
EDIT And the lockdowns are threatening something like 265 million people experiencing famine [0]. "flag-wrapped know-betters demand Golden Corral reopen for buffet service" is trivialising a serious thing here; the economy isn't a nice-to-have. It is the major generator of all the prosperity that exists in the world. It is too complicated for me to understand causes and effects, but if it doesn't start back up again ASAP the hurt will get worse.
There appears to be much hand-wringing over what a upper level government may do. Why not cede such power to lower level jursdiction where those conditions are mostly closely monitored?
Locally, I see city and county governments taking a tack of making slightly differing decisions regarding what to open and keep closed. For example, my city is keeping parks and playgrounds closed; the county is doing the opposite? Why? each other's data shows the historical use trends and such data plays a large part in making reasonable, responsible descisions.
BTW, I'm in Georgia (US state); while the national media makes it out like we're backwoods country idiots, our local governments are very effective in making reasonable choices. Plus the vast marjority of folks are wearing masks and self-distancing. Most people aren't stupid. They only want the freedom to start their lives back up, plus not depend on the state and national governments for their very survival.
Demand isn’t going to go up magically because of reopening. I’m not seeing much evidence for pent up demand outside of hair cuts, which are not exactly essential
I'm not sure about that. I'm ready to go to the gym, go out to restaurants, and just yesterday they took the caution tape off of the school playground and lots of kids were there.
I don't think demand will immediately return to 100%, but I think quite a few people are itching to get out and spend money and enjoy life. Maybe not in some areas, but most of the country is probably ready to go.
Here’s one example. Restaurants will likely be operating at 50% capacity or below for the foreseeable future. Their business model does not work at 50% capacity. Many, many jobs are not coming back.
I think this is an argument for lack of money to be spent since a hefty portion of people have lost their jobs and paychecks don't happen instantaneously and unpaid bills probably come first.
Sure, but it's circular logic to suggest that there's no need to rush reopening since demand will be low anyway... (As others have said)
When you need those jobs created by reopening to get people back to work and closer to the point of having disposable income again.
This isn't pure chicken & egg, since consumer debt is tightening up while business debt is getting cheaper. Plus the only way we're going to alleviate fear is by opening and seeing what happens.
Even testing vaccines will require that leap of faith at some point. After all, what good would a clinical trial be if the patient quarantined during it?
Consumer confidence is being eroded more and more every single day, and the savings rate of an American has almost doubled to 13% in the past 2 months. Purchasing power of an average American has most likely decreased somewhat, if not significantly, given the unemployment numbers. All of those things don’t just bounce back like a rubber band when the country is “ready to go”. It will be years before we get back to the GDP numbers we were seeing pre-Covid and that’s probably considering that everything trends upwards from here on out, which is highly doubtful.
Sure,the Swedes technically have had the freedom. But comparatively, they've also had more disease than countries with a mandated lockdown. Honestly, though, it is scarier doing this in the US: Sweden has a robust health care system and a safety net. Which means that folks that do get the virus aren't going to get hit with an expensive ICU bill after having lost their job, even if they work at a small business that would not be covered under FMLA regulations in the US.
Not to mention that they've been heavily criticized for mishandling the lockdown.
Sweden never closed down, and Germany is in the midst of reopening. As to the safety net—there is no evidence that safety net has made a difference. (I’m part, I suspect, because the Us already has a comprehensive safety net for the elderly population that is mainly affected by COVID-19). The death rate in the US, per 100,000 people, is well below that of Sweden. It’s also far lower than the death rate in countries with well developed safety nets like France and Italy.
I strongly suspect that people in Germany/Sweden, etc., have more trust in their government because the people themselves are simply less far apart. To pick a controversial but illustrative example: in Germany the outside limit on abortions is 12 weeks—shorter than in any US state. (Excepting a few “heartbeat law” states where the laws have not yet taken effect.) But within that period, abortions are generally available. No such compromise is possible in America. The right is currently focused on ending abortion entirely, while the left is trying to extend abortions into the third trimester (which are pretty much unprecedented in Europe). Or take taxes. Many in the right want to dismantle the existing tax system. But on the left, they treat lowering corporate taxes to the same level as Sweden or Germany (and France and Canada, etc.) not merely as bad policy, but as an affront to morality and decency.
The same is true for COVID-19. In every European country, there is a grown up debate about balancing health and safety with the need to reopen the economy. The American left, meanwhile, has condemned even the idea of such balancing as racist, classist, colonialism, what have you. The left greeted travel bans—which countries from Germany to New Zealand to Denmark have imposed to great effect—as manifest racism and xenophobia. They’re not talking about reopening, as Europe is already doing, but sheltering in place through the rest of 2020. The right, meanwhile, is shouting “give me liberty or give me death.” There is no trust because everybody is crazy, and everybody hates each other, and we should give up being one country and disband the union already.
> : in Germany the outside limit on abortions is 12 weeks—shorter than in any US state. (Excepting a few “heartbeat law” states where the laws have not yet taken effect.) But within that period, abortions are generally available. No such compromise is possible in Americ
You seem to forget that in France & Germany, people go to the Netherlands or Spain for abortions after 12 weeks. It’s not a « compromise », it’s just a 1970s law that hasn’t been changed because conservative groups are annoying.
For the American audience: the limits are 12 weeks in France, 14 weeks in Spain, and 24 weeks in the Netherlands.
For the European audience: the shortest abortion period that is currently in effect in the US is Mississippi’s at 20 weeks: https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/922-3.jpg. Shorter ones have been proposed but have been stayed pending litigation. Most of the deep south is close to the Netherlands line at 22 weeks. Most of the blue states limit up to viability, which can be up to 28 weeks. 7 states have no limit whatsoever. (Note that I’m not taking a position in what’s right; I’m just describing how various countries have addressed a divisive issue.)
As to “conservative groups” being annoying—that makes it sound like something the majority agrees with but they just haven’t gotten around to updating the law. In fact, the dominant party in both France and Germany has opposed lengthening the current periods. The woman Angela Merkel hand-picked to be her successor as leader of the CDU is against abortion entirely, like many in the CDU. Merkel has maintained the status quo precisely as a compromise between her party and the more liberal parties in Germany.
In practice, regardless of what that law says, you can't get an abortion in the deep south. There are fewer licensed clinics than there are letters 'i' in Mississippi.
Despite what you've listed, there are other laws on the books that make operating one nearly impossible - they can't be located within a mile of a school, they need to have admission powers at a hospital, etc, etc.
Well, that’s a major overstatement. The abortion rate in Mississippi (i.e. abortions performed in the state) was 1,000 per million people. In Germany, there were 1,200 per million. Spain is about twice as high at 2,000 per million. (It’s also not clear that difference can be explained by differences in access. People might be less likely to seek an abortion in a state where 60% of people in Mississippi self-identify as “pro life.”) There are definitely restrictions; I’m just pushing back on your assumption that those restrictions are so effective in practice that “you can’t get an abortion in Mississippi.”
Apart from that, those restrictions are part of my point. Germans have achieved a compromise, involving fairly high paper requirements for getting an abortion—including limiting most abortions to the first trimester and requiring counseling and a waiting period. German state-sponsored health insurance also generally does not cover abortions absent medical necessity. But the other side of the compromise is that, once those requirements are met, the procedure is relatively accessible.
In the US, the German compromise would be unthinkable to both sides. Here, the battleground for the right is laws limiting abortions to six weeks and abusing zoning laws to shut down clinics. The battleground for the left is things like public funding (not universal in Europe), making third trimester abortions a matter of discretionary medical judgment (highly unusual in Europe), and eliminating medical providers’ rights to refuse to perform abortions for conscience or religious reasons (a right that is nearly universal in Europe).
I will judge a thing on it's merits. I will judge a government by how it behaves, not by my preferred political party.
So... in the UK we have the Daily Briefings about covid. Each time I listen to it I hear politicians (they take it in turns) to come out and give us a fucking performance, projecting their voice, projecting (they think) 'calm' and 'competent' and 'in charge of it all' while they spew words for 15 or 20 minutes which could have been given in 5 at the most.
Then it's time for questions from journalists. Which get answered if convenient or if inconvenient they'll answer a question that wasn't asked, all the fucking while spinning to make themselves look like they've not made a series of serious mistakes.
And each time I hear it my confidence in their competence drops further.
And they've no idea why. They don't seem to understand respect is earned.
I think the daily briefings are good. It's not just a politician talking; it's a politician flanked by two scientists or public health experts. The politician explains what is going on and the experts explain why, with data. This is the first time in my life I can remember politicians so publicly deferring to experts with evidence.
I didn't mention the scientists because I'm not criticising them.
The only reason politicians are deferring to experts is they've realised experts are actually useful whereas before they didn't like them (something about the time for experts is over, something like that, can anyone recall?)
Conversely you haven't touched on the fact that the buggers are constantly spinning, deferring blame for not getting enough PPE, plain deceit about the number of tests done etc.
The UK has not done well. That was avoidable. If you defend that, you let the responsible ones off the hook and they will do it again.
I don't like Gove, so it feels strange for me to "defend" him, but this is an interesting quote that keeps coming up.
In a later interview [1] he said this:
"When I was being interviewed on Sky by Faisal Islam, he put it to me that there were a number of economists and organizations of economic prestige that questioned the arguments for leaving the European Union and said that it would be a mistake if we did. I countered it by saying people have had enough of experts from organizations with acronyms that have got things so wrong in the past. And Faisal Islam, as a skilled interrogator, cut me off half way, so while I completed my sentence he took the first half and said ‘people have had enough experts?’ and used that as a fencing posture in the interview itself."
Although I wrote the original comment criticising the UK daily briefing, I really disagree badly here.
> "Protect the NHS" ffs.. how about protect the population?
protecting the NHS IS protecting the population. If you have a better idea of how to protect the population - note that we have had nearly 2 months of government-mandated lockdown based on scientific advice (though taken too late) - then suggest it.
> The politicians aren't deferring to experts with evidence
Yes they are, finally.
> They are setting up the experts to be the fallguys
No they're not and they know it wouldn't work anyway.
I tried to make a justified criticism but yours is just plain destructive cynicism.
Most people I’ve talked to pushing for government to reopen things have lost jobs and businesses... or are about to. Their basic survival needs are being threatened. Show a little more compassion.
I recommend talking to some people instead of parroting the pictures you see in the news.
So at the risk of asking a dumb question: why aren't protesters demanding e.g. more economic aid instead of a reopening? It's not like giving money to people in this crisis is a taboo anymore... it was one thing both the Congress and the White House agreed on for once. And it's not like if everything reopens then they're going to be instantly back in business. A lot of people will still stay home anyway. Wouldn't it be a lot more logical to demand payments or some other form of direct aid so that they can actually survive both economically and medically? Instead of making it a zero-sum game demanding everyone trade off a dubious-at-best chance at economic survival for a far more certain chance of a public health crisis (if not worse)?
I don't believe this. In fact I can't even make sense of it. You're saying when families' and people's lives are at stake in the US, they'd legitimately rather risk dying than just getting handed checks that their own leaders approved of practically unanimously during a crisis? Isn't this completely at odds with the sheer demand there has been for the economic aid so far? And also at odds with how politicians have been trying to claim credit for the aid? You're saying the protesters are somehow so deeply tied to these values and so morally offended by being paid "unearned" money during a globally acknowledged crisis that they're willing to go out to protest this repulsive act while packing together within 6 feet out of spite(?) and then... take the money ASAP and continue to support the politicians who are giving them the money? What?
Is the quantity of risk identical to all populations?
The answer is no. But people like you never mention this.
I'm curious:
What is, in your opinion, the trigger for reopening? What metric? Is that metric at a city, county, or state level?
I'd like to hear specifics, because I have yet to hear them from the cowardly ass covering politicians who say there is no cost that can be put on a human life. The same people who choose not to put a guardrail on a dangerous rural road because the cost isn't worth the number of lives lost per year on said road.
Well ask me something about it and I'll answer it (or tell you if I don't know). There are a million things I haven't mentioned. Just like you. We're not writing dissertations on COVID-19 here. I can only address so many things that I find relevant to the discussion.
What are you even expecting me to say about this? Of course the elderly and the vulnerable are worse off. How is that against anything I was saying? I was suggesting we make more economic impact payments rather than pack together into a crowd and protest. Does it look like there was some obvious connection between that and people's age that I somehow deliberately omitted and that would've hurt my argument? If so please enlighten me and I'll address it.
Meanwhile the one thing I don't hear from "people like you" (since you like painting people with one broad stroke like that) is a single acknowledgment that the experts might know more than you (and me), and this isn't about your opinion vs. mine. Which is funny, though not in a humorous way. To you nobody knows what they're doing. To us, there are people who know what they're doing somewhat better than us laypeople, so we're trying to at least give them and their opinions that much credit and weight.
> What is, in your opinion, the trigger for reopening? What metric? Is that metric at a city, county, or state level? I'd like to hear specifics, because I have yet to hear them from the cowardly ass covering politicians who say there is no cost that can be put on a human life
Well that might be because you haven't been listening to them. I know Cuomo has answered your question quite precisely... same guy whom you're mocking for saying every life is priceless. He said (and this is not his opinion or mine, this is the opinion of the experts advising him) that when the infection rates become constant (i.e. when the derivative reaches 0), you can start to reopen. That is the trigger. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyOnfK_UMV4&t=4m38s
Also, FYI, experts have put costs on human life and they have come to the conclusion (sorry if this isn't what you're hoping to hear) that it's very much worth it to shut down the economy. If you're interested, listen here. I imagine you'll disagree anyway (the experts are blind etc.) but at least you can't accuse them of not having tried to do the analyses that you appear to believe you have done. https://www.npr.org/transcripts/835571843
Apologies for my verbiage. I should not have done the "people like you" crap. Wrong and uncalled for.
You are correct. I don't know all of your opinions on this virus response, and shouldn't have characterized it so.
In that note, I certainly don't HOPE to hear anything from experts. I just want to make sure the experts are being consulted on all sides, to better weigh the costs vs. the benefits.
Regarding the NPR article you sent, a rather grim detail that I didn't see addressed in that conversation (but maybe I missed it!!) is how that valuation changes for people when they are near the end of their life.
Is a person's life more "valuable" (putting it in the harsh aspects of policy decision making, that frankly cause me great discomfort) if they are younger, and in prime earning years, than a person in a nursing home who has a rich social life with their grandkids and other patients in their assisted care facility?
It's a horrible thing to try to quantify things that, to me, are objectively valuable, and even sacred. However, our decisions are doing just that, but on the side of people at highest risk vs. others.
I've just come back from my barber after her shop reopened. She's not the owner, just an employee. The visit was very interesting.
I had to wait outside, and a woman (87 years old, but looked MUCH younger) came out of the shop. My son and I both were wearing masks and keeping distant, but we spoke to her and asked how she was. It was her first time leaving her facility since the lockdown, and she told us a good friend of hers had died of the virus. She was a wonderful person to talk to, and had visited my same stylist for years.
My stylist/barber (she is licensed for both in my state) then told me she is leaving the state and moving back to the east coast. Her husband is a mechanic, and they have been financially ruined by this. She applied for benefits right away, but only received them 3 days before the shop was allowed to reopen. She has 3 children, 1 of them special needs. They are good working class people, but they didn't have the savings to weather this shut down, and now have to move in with family on the east coast. Today was my last time seeing her. She'll be gone in 2 weeks.
She expressed frustration at not being able to have the shop opened weeks ago in a controlled manner, with her and the owners radically changing how they operate the business to protect the high-risk populations. She stated that the high cost of housing here also exacerbated the issue, so it's not 100% covid, but the shutdown, she said, was the tipping point. She and her family are all alive, and I'm hoping they do ok on the east coast, but I thought this little visit to the barber shop captured an interesting moment. BTW, when she applied for her unemployment benefits in Colorado, an apalling thing with the legislation: Her tip income, which is 40% of her total, was legally not included with her unemployment payout. So she got a reduced amount of what she normally earns, AND she got it late. Other states probably did a far superior job, but I don't have any ideas if that's the case.
This whole thing is a tragedy, one way or another.
> a rather grim detail that I didn't see addressed in that conversation (but maybe I missed it!!) is how that valuation changes for people when they are near the end of their life.
Yeah you did miss it. The question is asked directly ("Did we factor in the age...?") answered quite directly ("Valuing people differently was kind of tried once in 2003..."). I would suggest listening to the whole thing. It's quite eye-opening.
> She expressed frustration at not being able to have the shop opened weeks ago in a control+the owners radically changing how they operate the business to protect the high-risk populations.
It must be incredibly frustrating. I do imagine if she'd gotten checks in the mail to keep life her going, she'd have appreciated that at least as much as having to come to work in the middle of the pandemic, if not more.
> BTW, when she applied for her unemployment benefits in Colorado, an apalling thing with the legislation: Her tip income, which is 40% of her total, was legally not included with her unemployment payout. So she got a reduced amount of what she normally earns, AND she got it late. Other states probably did a far superior job, but I don't have any ideas if that's the case.
This is yet another reason why we need to get rid of tipping and just pay people better instead. And why we need to just mail everyone a check for the pandemic instead of having them rely on unemployment benefits.
> This whole thing is a tragedy, one way or another.
It is definitely a tragedy. However it doesn't need to be this much of a tragedy. If they sent people payments and changed laws accordingly then at least the only thing ruining lives would be the virus, not the economy. It's very tough to say the alternatives people are fighting about are all equally awful with equal certainty here.
I don't think you're accurately representing what the protesters are angry about. The choice of staying home and dying is a false dichotomy, and many see the lockdown as a unjust assumption of power by governments that don't have the right to take such actions.
Earning a living vs being provided one isn't even really the issue.
>> Many people in the US want to earn a living, not be provided a living.
> I don't think you're accurately representing what the protesters are angry about. Earning a living vs being provided one isn't even really the issue.
I'm sorry, I was just replying to what you wrote, and you were telling me that the issue is earning a living. Now you changed your argument entirely. So you're saying this isn't even about making a living then, given that paying people would clearly solve that problem? That means you're concluding it's really a political protest then? Isn't that a pretty strong, rational reason for everyone else to actively ignore the protesters in that case? Rather than "show a little more compassion" for something they're not protesting about?
Most people who actually work for a living have probably worked while ill at least once in order to keep the paycheck coming for their family. They do not perceive the "risk of dying" as deadly as you do.
And it's not only about the paycheck/stimulus check. Its also about going out to eat, going to the movies, enjoying life. A stimulus check doesn't compensate for this.
Fair enough. But if "earning a living" includes unprecedented risk to their community then priorities may need to be reconsidered. During world wars great sacrifices were made for the greater good, even when it disrupted ones plans for "earning a living".
Many people in the US want to be alive rather than dead. We're not talking perma-welfare for all non-billionaires.
I can't recall meeting many people who get substantially more conservative with age, but I do know many who shift more liberal. I believe there is a correlation with open-mindedness.
I'd posit it's the business owners who feel like they want to earn a living, not a small number of them by forcing their employees to come to work and create value for them. The vast majority of people in the US don't own a business, they work for a wage, or are living off retirement. I'd be interested to see the breakdown of people who don't support the lockdown vs the people who own a business that's been closed. I'd imagine there would be a strong corollary.
Wanted to reply to your response - the 1200 USD suppliment payment per person MIGHT pay for one months' costs. The US is oging on the third month of shutdown. The only way for many to survive IS to go back to work.
In addition, for the most part, folks in the US want to return to work. The vast majority find pride and comfort in work, even if they bitch about. They know eventually the payouts will come back out of their pocket.
The mixed signals from the CDC and governmental agencies add to the confusion (everything is fine/stay inside until a vaccine is available, don't wear masks/cover up you face once you step outside, etc.) only add to the feeling the government really dosn't have a clue.
> Wanted to reply to your response - the 1200 USD suppliment payment per person MIGHT pay for one months' costs. The US is oging on the third month of shutdown. The only way for many to survive IS to go back to work.
I'm confused. I was saying people could demand more money instead of going back to work... precisely because the $1200 they got clearly wasn't enough (like you also said) and because clearly going back to work is otherwise riskier. You just jumped from "$1200 isn't enough" to "the only solution is to go back to work"?
If the country has shelter in place orders, transportation has ground to a halt, and everyone is economically challenged, how would they assemble in DC to protest at the Capital Building? This is where you would have to protest for additional economic relief from the federal government.
I would not be opposed to constituents showing up at the personal homes of Congressional representatives to protest, but that requires resources as well.
You don't need to show up in front of the US Congress to protest. Thankfully if there's one thing the US knows how to do, it's for people to protest wherever they find standing room, and still get their attention. I'm not sure about you but I vividly recall this happening during Occupy Wall Street. People protested (even overnight) in all sorts of settings around the country that had no obvious relevance to Washington (or NYC).
Yes, it's very funny isn't it? OWS wasn't about an emergency, it was about a long-term chronic problem with no obvious immediate solution everybody could agree on. OWS also wasn't in the middle of a pandemic demanding something Congress had already, practically unanimously done in a heartbeat. So funny that it didn't result in any legislation.
Maybe because the protesters don't want handouts from agencies which have done a very poor job dispersing said handouts already.
I can go to a superstore which is deemed essential because it sells groceries and buy all sorts of items that specialty stores aren't able to sell me because they're closed. any member of the public can enter these superstores with no screening whatsoever. The small business owners would screen customers much more effectively than a large store would.
It's almost like we've taken steps that are arbitrary in nature and aren't actually scientifically valid because we don't have enough data on this virus and how it actually spreads. these arbitrary measures are then doubled down upon by the local governments in the name of preserving their authority and looking good to the press.
what really bugs me is the level of certainty that people seem to have about this. I'm coming from a position of uncertainty. Anyone being honest right now is doing the same.
Look at your comment: you are absolutely certain that a dubious at best chance of economic survival for small businesses is being traded against a certain chance of a public health crisis. I don't think you're being honest with yourself with a level of certainty like that. You're just like the rest of us flying blind, but you are just positive that you are right and that businesses should be closed to support your preconceived notions.
It's real easy to do that when you have a job that allows you to work remotely. It's not costing you anything just let those Walmart shopping losers go out and deal with the unemployment system. In the meantime a percentage of all of our tax dollars goes to paying off interest on the national debt and that percentage is going to have to increase as a result of this.
I'm not a moron or a science denier. I'm fine with taking on debt to the degree necessary to maximize public health. But there are multiple dimensions to public health not just this virus. My brother's business is in jeopardy and it was growing fast before this pandemic hit. Now I'm deeply concerned that he's going to fall back to an addiction that he beat 10 years ago. That's a tiny story that represents something that's going to happen in this country when young people who would otherwise be unaffected by the virus or going to suffer economic calamity.
By the way my brother always voted Democratic. Due to the false partisan positioning of opening versus reopening pushed by the media, he is now never going to vote Democrat again and plans to vote for Trump in November. He voted for Clinton last time think about that.
In the meantime people on keyboards who were going to vote for Biden anyway are now pushing policies that are going to hand this election to Trump. Maybe the elderly will carry Biden since many appear to be switching their votes. But when they're dead in a few years the young people who have lost their businesses will still be voting. It's not going to go well.
I can't tell if you're ranting or just upset at all this or at the fact that HNers commenting are on topics that you feel they're disconnected from (though I'm sorry about your family's situation), but your reply is quite incoherent. I can't reply to every point, but I can't even make sense of the fact that you're calling me out for being so certain that reopening proposal comes with a lot of... uncertainty in giving people their income? Especially compared to just handing them money? So your position is I should be less confident in the uncertainty? Because you yourself are absolutely certain about... the uncertainty? What?
At a high level though: surely you understand not everything is equally uncertain here, and that not everything is being flown blindly? We have like 200 other countries in the world to observe and draw conclusions from, both socioeconomically and medically. We have ourselves to draw conclusions from, given the preceding shutdown and its effects. And we have experts who know and analyze quite a bit more than either you or me being quite united in their opinions. You can't seriously be so confident that their opinions are just coin tosses in a vacuum, come on. Especially not when you're the one preaching uncertainty!
Sorry if I came off as incoherent. I'm definitely tired of seeing keyboard warriors comment on things that they are obviously not connected to.
"At a high level though: surely you understand not everything is equally uncertain here, and that not everything is being flown blindly? We have like 200 other countries in the world to observe and draw conclusions from, both socioeconomically and medically. "
Yes, you are 100% correct, and I appreciate you taking a charitable view of my comment.
The issue I see here is that the 200 countries we can observe provide a massive stream of data that then gets applied through a tribal filter.
Those who advocate for continued, strict shutdowns look at Sweden and compare it to Finland/Norway negatively. Those who advocate for moderated, easing shutdowns for economy look at Sweden and compare it to other countries with internationally connected economies in Europe in a positive framing.
I see this constantly playing out, with endless justifications/explanations for why "I'm still right."
"They had more testing, and they are better people and can be trusted to wear masks, so no, we're not like South Korea"
"The Swedes are culturally less individualist, and can be trusted more"
"Georgia and Texas are going to be disasters. It hasn't been a full 2 weeks, but just wait, the incubation period..."
The cost of the shelter in place order is doing more harm than good. When the dust settles, I am convinced that more people will have died as a result.
I'm on pretty solid ground here. The costs of poverty and economic collapse are arguably better researched than pandemics.
And it is hard not to be disgusted by the attitude of many people on HN, who are least affected by this.
Having some relatives in that part of the country, I would compare this to the dust bowl. A complete economic collapse that will over the next year require millions of people to flee to cities, as they have absolutely nothing left. What are people supposed to do when every single business has gone from their town?
But people here like to sneer at these "stupid rednecks" that are clearly not as smart as us, right?
> When the dust settles, I am convinced that more people will have died as a result. I'm on pretty solid ground here.
> But people here like to sneer at these "stupid rednecks" that are clearly not as smart as us, right?
Wow. You're putting a lot of words in people's mouths.
That's also quite a bit coming from someone who just claimed such confidence in his own prediction of the future. I assume this means you're more of an expert in this than the ones in the government we're all familiar with and who are predicting the opposite?
But in case you're actually interested in what actual experts (not me) think about the whole "minimizing harm" thing, you might enjoy reading/listening to this, which evaluates at what point it's worth shutting down the economy. It might shake your solid ground: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/835571843
"Economic collapse" is, one, overstated, and two, not likely with functioning economic policy. The answer to this one really is actually simple. Just write the checks. "But but but debt--" Debt is denominated in our own currency and it's the reserve currency of the world, that debt is fucking fictional. Just write the checks. "But but but undeserving poors--" No. Just write the checks.
I realize, of course, I am shouting into the wind. I understand that it isn't actually about the economically underprivileged, because we'd write the checks. And it isn't actually about the Small Business Owner--service industry small business owner checking in, doing fine, thanks--being threatened, because we'd write the checks. It's about something much darker and much more mendacious and the rhetoric that is so readily adopted by useful idiots who want their haircuts or whatever.
We will have to come to grips with the understanding that in many parts of modern America it is more acceptable to have Grandma drown in her own goddamned lungs than it is to just write the checks.
And that is the downfall of civic society before all else.
I'm not even against these checks, but as far as the debt concern goes: doesn't it require paying interest? At which point when you can't pay the interest, you'll have to print money, resulting in massive inflation? I never understood why people say it's fictional. Is it somehow fictional under the assumption of playing by the rules? Or under the assumption that when the US is demanded to pay it'll just say "make me" and then erase the debt that way?
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that these debts do not begin at "fictional" and go from there (and this is a viewpoint I don't personally hold, so long as reserves are denominated in the U.S. dollar its motion and not the numbers on a balance sheet are what actually matter): spending creates money, taxes destroy money. If you're worried about inflation, tax better. Which is not merely "higher", but involves effectively targeting those taxes too for more returns.
This is a generality and of course it's more nuanced than just this, but "spend in bad times, tax in good times" is a reasonable place to start. Where we have problems is that the "tax in good times" side of this keeps getting dropped for one reason or another. Cynically, I notice that this "for one reason or another" coincides strongly with a particular political party being elected once good times are back so that they can proceed to drive it off the nearest hillside yet again and somehow blame "government" for it.
> If you're worried about inflation, tax better. Which is not merely "higher", but involves effectively targeting those taxes too for more returns.
I mean, I'm not arguing about how to avoid inflation. My question is about the debt being fictional. When you say "debt is fictional" that means that you can rack it up endlessly without consequences, but this clearly means there are consequences that you have to mitigate in another way. To argue that it's fictional you'd need to argue those problems don't come up at all. Otherwise you might as well say heart attacks are fictional because we can treat them, snake bites are fictional because we can treat them, etc...
" "But but but undeserving poors--" No. Just write the checks."
Nobody in this thread said anything about that.
"Debt is denominated in our own currency and it's the reserve currency of the world, that debt is fucking fictional."
I studied economics. I can assure you, that's a radical oversimplification of how international debt works.
Are you aware of how US government debt is taken on? I don't think you are. You are acting as if the risk profile remains unchanged as policies are pursued.
I'm not debating Keynesian economics here. If the economy is in a deflationary spiral, then creating money isn't going to be destructive in pure terms, provided it's done correctly.
"We will have to come to grips with the understanding that in many parts of modern America it is more acceptable to have Grandma drown in her own goddamned lungs than it is to just write the checks."
Again, I'm not against writing the checks. I'm against writing the checks if it's not necessary and there isn't a benefit to doing so. The same callousness you highlight in that line could also be said about allowing small businesses to fail (ruining young people's lives) to protect grandma, who had elderly people in previous generations just accept deadly diseases as a part of reality rather than shutting down whole economies to protect themselves.
Glad you, as a small service business owner, are doing fine. But every day, the percentage of business owners who aren't doing fine goes up.
What's the stop criteria for this in your opinion? What is the signal that SHOULD be used for opening back up?
Waiting for a vaccine relies on hope, and that as we all know, is not a strategy.
The shelter in place order mostly hits around the margins. Most people are staying home on their own volition - government orders notwithstanding. I started staying home a few weeks before the official lockdown went into effect.
The economy was going to collapse no matter what - that's not because of government giving an order to stay home, it's because the reality is that the virus infects everyone and leads to horrific health deterioration. Furthermore, our government has provided our economy nearly zero safety net to account for something like this.
Pandemics are scary. Suffering severe health deterioration or maybe even dying are existentially scary. No amount of shutting our ears and screaming "HOAX!" is going to change how most people view the risk - it only increases the chaos and lengthens the crisis. You want the economy to come back? Then figure out how to make people feel safe, which means getting rid of the virus, because no amount of weird charts or saying "it's just the flu" is going to work now that people realize how bad it really is. Ignoring the problem isn't a solution.
Agreed, I already cancelled my business travel two weeks before our state issued its first guidance on WFH. OpenTable's data showed the significant drop in reservations weeks before official orders as well.
In an ideal world, the shelter-in-place orders would have done a few things:
- Slowed the spread of the virus, so it won't overwhelm the capacity of a nation's healthcare system
- Build up testing and tracing capacity to track future spread.
In the US, the SIP orders are an overwhelming success on the first point, and cases are slowly starting to drop off.
On the second point, the US is still far, far behind on testing. For a nation the size of the US, there needs to be something on the order of 2 million tests per day, compared to the the current capacity of roughly 300,000. I cannot overstate how important this testing failure is; without it, businesses will be closed for longer, more jobs will be lost permanently, and the citizens get frustrated that they're stuck at home without any income.
If there was adequate testing capacity, businesses could reopen with precautions, and the government could sustainably offer benefits to those testing positive so they can afford to stay home and not spread the virus any further. If there isn't adequate testing capacity, even with precautions, future waves are more likely, and any of those waves can overwhelm the healthcare system.
People's basic survival needs have been threatened before this when they would get laid off.
The entire rust belt became a cesspool of opiate and heroin addicts and no one cared when companies moved manufacturing offshore. No one cared that healthcare is tied to jobs.
I've talked to a lot of people who said yea I need to work, but I don't WANT to work, I have to. And that is not a failure of the lockdown. it is a failure of this very nation to take care of its own so that the rich can get richer.
This is not a comment about the quality of the people in the region, but of the challenging circumstances caused by factors largely outside their control.
Perhaps the wording is a bit harsh - not everywhere is a cesspool, a lot of places have bounced back, but the rust belt is particularly bad in area of opioid abuse - that is fact and very accurate.
People still want to live in those locations, evidenced by the fact that there are still people living there and getting along ok. Maybe you're a doctor and want to work at one of the two best hospitals on the planet, then you'd move to Cleveland, for example. Maybe you want to go to the #1 CS program on the planet, so you go to CMU.
And who knows. Maybe now with more companies going remote or encouraging more remote work, fewer people will feel compelled to move to the Bay Area or whatever.
Anyway. My point isn't to get into "x is better than y" because, frankly, it's not that interesting. But combating stereotypes about locations and geographies or peoples is of interest. Calling the Rust Belt area a cesspool, is pretty pathetic, especially when despite all the nice weather California has its own "cesspool" problems to deal with. If you just spend a lot of time reading coast newspapers it's easy to magnify problems in other areas. In fact, why is it that leading population centers like New York, D.C., and S.F. were able to spend so much energy destroying and outsourcing manufacturing at the expense of their fellow Americans? Why did regulators and politicians in D.C., along with our medical establishment and pharmaceutical companies allow so many opioids to be prescribed?
If you're going to destroy the coal industry because of regulation (which I support) why aren't you also advocating for finding meaningful employment for those who are regulated out of a job? Maybe they should move to SF and learn to code? Well, now they might get their chance, and Twitter et al. may be paying them $60,000 year to do tech jobs that were $200,000/year in NYC or SF or Seattle.
The U.S. really needs to get its shit together and start caring about one another. I've never in my life thought that one part of the country was a cesspool or worthy of ridicule, even if I disagreed with politics there.
Honestly, given this and your other replies, it just seems you have an axe to grind, because you're essentially agreeing with my point: none of the regulators, wall-street investors, or people clamoring for the economy to reopen cared when the manufacturing industries collapsed here. And now all of a sudden, they care about people working? They didn't back then. They do now because THEIR pocket books are hurting.
I'm not from the valley - born and raised, and live currently, in Pittsburgh. My father was a steel worker, my grandfather on one side an ironworker, the other a steelworker as well. I've seen the downfall, and some of the comeback, and it's a great place - but there are so many areas that are really bad and haven't recovered, and you say "people still live there" - well, look at their population 50 years ago, and try living there now. Because if you did, your tune would damn well change in 5 minutes.
My axe to grind is with people calling other parts of the country 'cesspools'. It's a terrible mentality to have, and untrue. I'll also add that even though lots of people have left some of these cities, they're still getting along just fine.
You don't have to be the size of Chicago to be successful.
That's false compassion. What you're effectively arguing is for those people to increase their family's exposure in a last-ditch attempt to save their business (and probably still lose it anyway), rather than directly addressing the economic problems facing them.
The cognitive dissonance comes about because it's not very American to expect or ask for help. Even though we're mainly in this position because the government itself mismanaged economic policy for decades, resulting in us being collectively overleveraged.
Sweden has 342 COVID deaths per million. The US has 254 deaths per million. Germany is doing better, but the rest of Western Europe has much higher rates of death than the US.
There seems to be a myth going around that Europe is handling this better than the US and the statistics don't really support that claim. If you have to bash Golden Corral to make your claim, you're probably a bit biased against Americans.
That being said, none of these countries are handling this well, it's just annoying to see the double standard.
Norway and Sweden are in other measures very similar countries. We lie right next to each other, we have quite similar political environment etc. Our societies are in general quite similar. We had a very different response to the corona virus though.
I'm completely aware that there are different countries in Europe that have different strategies for containing this thing. But so do the states in the US.
But New York has over 1400 COVID deaths per million [1]. New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachussets are all more than double of Sweden's deaths per million, and still climbing steadily. The US only looks good next to Sweden because there are big areas of the country that are way more spread out.
I think each area can and should take the local situation into account. My understanding (as an American living in the UK) was that they are doing so, to a large extent. From what I can tell from friends and relatives on FB, restrictions in Michigan came on hard and strong after being probably one of the worst hit early on; restrictions in Ohio started earlier and never got as tough. The anti-lockdown side of my FB feed seems to think that South Dakota never had much of a lockdown to speak of at all.
I don't claim to know better than local governments what the best decision is -- we're all just making this up as we go along, and I'm glad I don't personally have to make the decision between massive death or economic damage for millions of people.
As I keep saying, comparing to "Europe" is almost meaningless because of the diversity of governments and cultures. It may also be unreasonable to talk of the US as a whole in this case.
Infections are inherently locally clustered. There seem to be all sorts of factors affecting spread, and there's no clear picture of what they are. Eastern Europe isn't very heavily affected and nobody seems to know why. Belgium is a disaster; why?
The UK made a number of big mistakes; the first cases were appearing at the end of February, but the Cheltenham Festival still went ahead in mid-March putting 250,000 people close to each other. We're now relaxing the lockdown and putting people back on packed public transport despite still having thousands of new cases per day.
In a month's time, the best handling countries will be almost entirely out of lockdown with weekly COVID deaths below 10. The worst handling countries will still have lockdown and weekly deaths in the hundreds. It looks like that will include the UK and New York state.
Genuine question: how will these countries keep deaths below 10 a week while being completely out of lockdown? Doesn't that rely on a treatment or vaccine?
1) Stop infected people from entering the country. If you have enough testing capacity, you can allow in those who are clear. Otherwise they have to be quarantined.
2) Track every infection within the country.
3) Test all their contacts.
Of course, those are very hard to do in an airtight fashion. But the smaller the absolute numbers the easier they are to do. Countries not working towards building this capability are just going to keep struggling.
Why do you compare almost an entire continent to one country ? why not compare Sweden to NYC ?
Sweden is handling it, not great but not terrible and so is the US and many other countries.
On top of that there is a lot that we don't understand, for example why do many Mediterranean countries has low death rate even though the sick count is not low ?
Wisconsin has a large Swedish immigrant population (immigrants 5 generations ago, not first generation), so that rules out genetic factors to a small extent.
If we're talking about efficacy of government lockdown policies, universal healthcare, etc., then we absolutely should compare. And a cursory glance at the data suggests that government lockdown policies have minimal effect on the spread of the virus, there seems to be little to no correlation between severity of lockdown and cases/deaths
That’s a really weird conclusion to draw looking at what’s happened globally and in local pockets. Look at Singapore and South Korea — full lockdown and great control, and then outbreaks in places where the lockdown put people in close quarters (immigrant labor in Singapore) orwhen restrictions were lifted (bars in South Korea). Look at Wuhan itself, where it took time to establish a lockdown and contact tracing, then they got control of the situation and had better outcomes, then a secondary wave once they lifted restrictions. Look at Italy, where the lockdown means Northern Italy has had a very different experience from the rest of the country. Sweden has had a mostly voluntary lockdown and high death rates compared to the rest of Europe and other very similar countries (Norway, Denmark, Finland) have had stricter lockdowns and better numbers.
Also let’s look at the fundamentals. This virus is spread through contact with viral laden particles, either in an aerosol or on a surface. It is obvious that to get the disease you need to come into contact with the virus. Limit contacts and you limit exposure, this is so basic I hesitate to call it science.
You have a tough row to hoe if you’re going to try and prove no correlation between lockdowns and cases.
The data is here [1], that's [2] Europe's correlation between death rate and restriction and that's [3] worldwide (I didn't collect the data nor did the analysis)
Sorry, but there is so much confounding an analysis of this sort that I can take a 30s look at it and blow holes a mile wide through it. For instance, there is no correction in there for density. There is also the fundamental problem of attributing cause and effect -- if the lockdowns reduce transmission, then no correlation in the outcomes could be exactly your goal. Put another way, I'd like NYC to have the same case load per capita as rural Utah. If lockdowns achieve that, you would evidentially tell me that rural Utah, with no lockdown, is the same as NYC and therefore the lockdown was useless. That is not a sound analysis.
The way to do an analysis of this sort is to find very tightly constrained natural experiments. Sweden and Norway (or Sweden and Finland) is an interesting example. Germany and Austria (picking them randomly, I don't know how well-coordinated their lockdown policies are). Or you can pick city twins, like NYC and Mexico City and compare the results each got from their approach.
IOW, in order to say something meaningful about effect of lockdowns, you have to go narrow, not broad.
The cases/deaths per million stats by country (and by state in the US) are everywhere. The US is doing decent compared to most of Western Europe, especially Italy and Spain. Though Germany is doing far better than the US. Sweden isn't taking any significant measures to restrict their populace and while they're doing worse than their neighbors like Norway, they're still better than a lot of Europe.
> There seems to be a myth going around that Europe is handling this better than the US and the statistics don't really support that claim.
Do you mind showing your work? What do the statistics say about Europe vs. US? I see you mentioned Sweden and Germany but Europe has many more countries than those two.
I am simply stating there are more deaths in Europe than in the US. I can prove that with only 3 countries. Please don't interpret my statement as a comment on each individual country. There seems to be miscommunication here.
You picked a handful of countries that fit your argument and called them Europe. Italy, Spain and UK aren't "Europe" just like California, NY and Florida aren't "The United States of America".
Sort by deaths/1M. You’ll see the US doing better than UK, France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, etc.
And in absolute terms, there’s still more cases and deaths in Europe as a whole (I find it funny that when it comes to GDP, we like to think of Europe as “United States of Europe”, but when talking about corona deaths, not so much).
You have to take into account that Europe is much more densely and uniformly populated than the United States, and had outbreaks start earlier than the US.
WRT. "United States of Europe", thanks to the EU, you can often consider the Union as a unit in terms of trade; Europe is also more homogenous culturarly than the states. However, when talking about COVID-19, EU has almost zero influence on how the pandemic is handled (somewhat by design, definitely by vote); it's only meaningful to talk about individual nations, with their own healthcare systems, their own emergency policies, and their own sovereign, locked down borders.
> You have to take into account that Europe is much more densely and uniformly populated than the United States, and had outbreaks start earlier than the US.
Now take into account that these countries have supposedly superior healthcare systems, a healthier population, and leaders not named Trump. I’d say that negates those factors.
Why is it so difficult to stick with the same terms and definitions? Just in this thread Europe has been defined in like five different ways, all of which are various subsets, presumably picked to suit each argument as needed.
Those numbers shouldn't be taken at face value and should certainly not be compared. For example, here in Belgium every death at a nursing home is counted as a Corona casualty. Which increases the death by Corona massively in comparison with a country not doing that.
> For example, here in Belgium every death at a nursing home is counted as a Corona casualty. Which increases the death by Corona massively in comparison with a country not doing that.
New York City recently reclassified 3K+ deaths as “likely” due to Covid, despite none of those people having been tested. And our CDC’s guidelines state that anyone who died WITH Covid is assumed to have died FROM Covid. I would say we’re definitely not being conservative with the reporting here...
I mean, put ALL European countries together and there’s way more deaths in total than the US, and I suspect the deaths/1M figure is very similar if not slightly higher than the US. Slice it however you want, the US is not doing that poorly relative to its peers in Europe.
Yep. But Sweden is run by an ultra leftist government, so if course it is not criticised.
But the same lies about "the US is doing worse" are told here in Europe as well. Just need to look to the stats, do the sum, and suddenly the US and EU are about the same.
Oh well, modern journalism is about clicks, not facts, unfortunately.
Care to be any more specific? Last I checked Sweden has been ruled by the the Social Democrats for most of the 20th century, yet Sweden still has a working capitalist economy and more billionaires per capita than the United States.
But if anything the problem with German Social Democrats (and European left-wing parties in general) is that they've moved too far away from left-wing politics and more towards a neo-liberal financial policy.
I don't see how you can call that ultra leftist. For me that would be introducing a planned economy.
I have absolutely read articles, in the NY Times, comparing Sweden’s approach to other countries. Initially they were positive and then they turned negative when the death rates started climbing.
It's not much of a chasm, trust me. Once the ends justify the means, the state can build up in a couple decades to doing basically anything. It didn't take long in Venezuela.
Sweden is not all roses in terms of personal liberty either. You must send your children to public schools, at the risk of losing them; even during a pandemic. In the United States, home schooling is an option if you do not want to send your children to public schools.
First, no, you don't have to send your child to a public school. There are private schools to choose from. A proper education is a right in Sweden, and unfortunately, so many parents do a poor job at homeschooling that it isn't feasible and puts the person at a lifelong disadvantage.
It is a shame that we (Americans) stand for this - the right for a parent to under-educate or mis-educate their children. If one allows for homeschool, there should be robust oversight, which in most states, there isn't.
I grew up in Virginia, and any of the home schooled kids were hyper religious and profoundly ignorant.
I bumped into a few of them at a community college after I got out of the military. The USMC indoc'd me hard with the groupthink, and that took a while to get past, but I could at least do high school Trig and had basic history. I remember one girl who didn't believe the Holy Roman Empire existed and despite her extensively Christian background, didn't know a damn thing about the Crusades.
I knew one family that homeschooled to different degrees: The oldest was until 8/9th grade, though the younger ones went to public school sooner. They weren't bad off, though obviously conservative and pretty much any friends were also homeschooled or were through church or boy scouts. The oldest really had issues adjusting to the other students.
But I know folks like the ones you met exist as well, and it irritates me to no end that we, as a society, allow this to happen. It is easy to see that such a thing might have lifelong consequences.
many (ie, as an absolute number) parents may do a poor job of homeschooling, but I don't think this is enough to condemn the practice overall. although an imperfect measure, american homeschooled students actually have significantly higher average scores on standardized tests than public school students.
If a decent percentage do poorly (15-25%), then it is enough to condemn the practice overall - at least in its current form. There aren't nearly enough controls to eliminate this sort of thing, and I think it is probably more expensive to do so. I also think that - apart from test scores - these kids are less likely to be forced to deal with folks different from themselves and a bit less likely to be introduced to concepts their parents disagree with.
Some of the failures can honestly be dealt with if there were proper coordination and oversight: Use an accredited program (for example). Require regular meetings with other students: Say, perhaps, PE at the school a couple times a week at an elementary level. Require parents to pass the tests for the coursework they are planning on teaching the next year or two. Include more variety on standardized tests: If you want to teach sex education or how to follow a recipe, include these sorts of questions on tests.
Until some sort of system is in place to catch the ones that don't really get taught anything other than propaganda, yes, I condemn the entire thing.
> “ also think that - apart from test scores - these kids are less likely to be forced to deal with folks different from themselves and a bit less likely to be introduced to concepts their parents disagree with.”
This is precisely why “homeschooling” is so dangerous.
It is also precisely WHY the majority of Americans who “homeschool” chose to do it. It is usually religious families, and they explicitly do it to isolate and “protect” their children from outside influences.
this is certainly the stereotype, but do you have any data to support this? none of the broad studies I can find collected info on religious affiliation (let alone how seriously the family actually takes it). anecdotally, the homeschooled children I know had somewhat eccentric atheist/agnostic parents.
> If a decent percentage do poorly (15-25%), then it is enough to condemn the practice overall - at least in its current form. There aren't nearly enough controls to eliminate this sort of thing, and I think it is probably more expensive to do so. I also think that - apart from test scores - these kids are less likely to be forced to deal with folks different from themselves and a bit less likely to be introduced to concepts their parents disagree with.
as always, the relevant question is "compared to what?". lots of american public school systems are still deeply segregated and produce astonishingly poor outcomes for their students. the part about being exposed to concepts parents disagree with is a good point, but certain homogeneous christian communities have had some success getting divine creation presented at least side-by-side with evolution (see "teach the controversy"). many public schools still give very watered down versions of slavery and dealings with native americans as well. the high school I went to (in an east coast city and not too long ago) only covered abstinence in sex ed. we were never taught about condoms or other contraceptives. the potential for propaganda in public schools is the same, just at scale. in a democratic system, it's hard to teach things that parents don't want. I guess the most extreme views probably cancel out a bit as you scale up the system, but this has the tradeoff of baking in the status quo even more thoroughly.
implemented correctly, I don't think oversight and coordination would be a bad idea (although if it worked, we might consider applying it to our public/private/charter schools as well). I don't agree that all homeschooling should be banned until such measures are in place.
As seen from Switzerland, yours is the typical "us vs them" US reaction the OC was complaining about. The world is not only US and China and putting it in a black or white setup ignores other hundreds of governments, hundreds of countries and hundreds of approaches to pandemic and life in general.
I feel like there are a lot of pandemic relevant factors that are pretty different. 25m people vs 300m. Island nation, less international travelers, very different climate during the opposite season.
a) Is Canada and Mexico affecting or is somehow responsible for the disastrous way that the US is handling COVID-19 ? Otherwise it’s a moot point.
b) Number of international travellers is irrelevant given that the policy in Australia was to quarantine ALL visitors for 14 days. Same policy that the UK has now adopted and you can’t argue that they don’t have a lot of international travellers. Again it is simply bad policy.
c) Climate is not that different to many parts of the US right now. It’s not like it’s winter versus summer. Fairly mild temperatures in both countries right now.
Similar in what ways? Aus is an island country whose societal composition and Constitutional rights are nothing like ours. I wouldn't say they're very similar at all.
I'd say they are pretty similar in most respects. But geography is a big difference that is relevant to Covid-19.
Autrstial probably didn't have community spread of covid until Late Feb. But America had community spread in at least mid Jan--and probably earlier. But Australia locked down essentially when America did. If they can eradicate the disease, that's a huge win, but if they can't they are just delaying what happened in America.
Aus is an island. The US boarders two countries and has an illegal smuggling problem. The size-to-population isn't even remotely similar, and neither are the rights allowed to the citizens.
Why don't you choose one that has approximately the same population and same population density -- that's why choosing an individual U.S. state might be a better choice because the U.S. is large and has a wide range of population densities.
The key point here is transmission of an infectious disease, so to get a proper comparison, you need to start with approximately the same probabilities of people infecting one another. That begins with proximity. Comparing the U.S. and Australia doesn't work because of that.
Australia has its seasons shifted by half a year, so even if Australia had taken similar measures, I'd expect them to have a lot lower transmission rates because respiratory disease peak in winter.
https://www.mja.com.au/sites/default/files/issues/210_10/mja...
Because a large number of those cases are NYC, which is already on the downside of its curve by a considerable degree, while the US as a whole is still trending upward, meaning that the country outside of NYC is doing pretty poorly.
Sadly people can’t look past the big absolute number of deaths and attach proper context to it. Like deaths per million, or ignoring that ~half of cases and deaths are restricted to a single metropolitan area.
That cultural chicken is still a massive net win; I'd still much rather live in America and get coronavirus rather than live in China and get black-bagged someday because of my refusal to take authorities seriously.
Pretty much no crisis since the founding of America has "these people have too much personal independence and power" been more of a problem than part of the solution. Indeed, most of the times independence was diagnosed as a problem the solution was worse than the disease. The government-coordinated response to 9/11 remains substantially more damaging than any other aspect of that fiasco.