The Plague Year(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
The Plague Year
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/01/04/the-plague-year
123 comments
The New Yorker has cast a merciless spotlight on governments' early actions (and inactions) against the pandemic.
As a New Yorker myself, the article in the May 4 issue [1], contrasting the responses of Seattle/WA and NYC/NY was a gut-wrenching read.
We should be grateful that journalism like this exists, to boldly contradict the political spin-jobs.
If your opinion even slant rhymes with "it was rough in the beginning, but we did as much as we could as early as we could, thanks to the courage/leadership of Mr. Cuomo / De Blasio", and you care about the truth, I encourage you to read.
[1]: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/05/04/seattles-leade...
As a New Yorker myself, the article in the May 4 issue [1], contrasting the responses of Seattle/WA and NYC/NY was a gut-wrenching read.
We should be grateful that journalism like this exists, to boldly contradict the political spin-jobs.
If your opinion even slant rhymes with "it was rough in the beginning, but we did as much as we could as early as we could, thanks to the courage/leadership of Mr. Cuomo / De Blasio", and you care about the truth, I encourage you to read.
[1]: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/05/04/seattles-leade...
The content that is there is good, so I would recommend this article, however it omits anything related to the FDA, or Operation Warp Speed. For an article that purports to describe the year of the virus, this is a huge gap.
I think the biggest mistake of this whole pandemic was none of the things listed, it was banning all vaccines for almost a full year. The FDA was granted far reaching powers by congress multiple times to ensure they can approve vaccines quickly in a pandemic. The FDA instead forced. So as badly as Trump handled the pandemic (and he did handle it badly), at least he wanted a fast vaccine. You might blame the first 100k deaths on the disease, but everything after that is due to the ban on the vaccine.
Now, as the vaccines are distributed they are requiring them to go through an ineffective CDC, who is holding back 50% of the vaccines, to the states who aren't able to distribute more than 30% of what they get yet.
The FDA, CDC, and states need to just stop banning people from getting a vaccine. Let private industry help.
Should Trump have proposed legislation to fix this? Yes, but so should Democrats and Republicans. Our beaucracies failed, both parties failed. Even Biden is coming in with goals like "vaccinate 100M in the first 100 days." What a low bar, since we have already bought 200M doses for delivery by the end of Q1 (70ish days into his term). So Biden's goal seems to be "not approve any more vaccines and try not to lose most of the vaccines we have." His goal should be vaccines for everyone that wants it within 60 days. That is achievable with existing supply+ Astrazeneca and if J&J looks good too then that makes it a slam dunk, unless the government gets in the way again.
I think the biggest mistake of this whole pandemic was none of the things listed, it was banning all vaccines for almost a full year. The FDA was granted far reaching powers by congress multiple times to ensure they can approve vaccines quickly in a pandemic. The FDA instead forced. So as badly as Trump handled the pandemic (and he did handle it badly), at least he wanted a fast vaccine. You might blame the first 100k deaths on the disease, but everything after that is due to the ban on the vaccine.
Now, as the vaccines are distributed they are requiring them to go through an ineffective CDC, who is holding back 50% of the vaccines, to the states who aren't able to distribute more than 30% of what they get yet.
The FDA, CDC, and states need to just stop banning people from getting a vaccine. Let private industry help.
Should Trump have proposed legislation to fix this? Yes, but so should Democrats and Republicans. Our beaucracies failed, both parties failed. Even Biden is coming in with goals like "vaccinate 100M in the first 100 days." What a low bar, since we have already bought 200M doses for delivery by the end of Q1 (70ish days into his term). So Biden's goal seems to be "not approve any more vaccines and try not to lose most of the vaccines we have." His goal should be vaccines for everyone that wants it within 60 days. That is achievable with existing supply+ Astrazeneca and if J&J looks good too then that makes it a slam dunk, unless the government gets in the way again.
I find this to be unreasonable.
How would they have known in March which vaccines proved to be effective?
Even if they’d guessed right, how many people would have taken an untested vaccine?
And what if a lot of people had, and then side effects show up. That would probably cost more lives over the next decade by public distrust of the drug approval process.
Even if they’d guessed right, how many people would have taken an untested vaccine?
And what if a lot of people had, and then side effects show up. That would probably cost more lives over the next decade by public distrust of the drug approval process.
No serious scientist is going to give an untested drug to millions of people. There are over a hundred vaccines in development, of which two or three have been successful.
Yes, it seems like the success rate may be higher than for "regular" drug development. But, crucially, nobody knew this. There haven't been a whole lot new vaccines developed in the last few decades.
Besides, as far as I know production capabilities were being built and stockpiles created while the trials were ongoing.
Yes, it seems like the success rate may be higher than for "regular" drug development. But, crucially, nobody knew this. There haven't been a whole lot new vaccines developed in the last few decades.
Besides, as far as I know production capabilities were being built and stockpiles created while the trials were ongoing.
>it omits anything related to the FDA, or Operation Warp Speed. For an article that purports to describe the year of the virus, this is a huge gap.
The FDA is addressed in the article, mostly when talking about the botched tests in February.
>You might blame the first 100k deaths on the disease, but everything after that is due to the ban on the vaccine.
That's a reckless way to approach vaccination. From TFA:
"Like COVID, [RSV] is dispersed through particle droplets and contaminated surfaces. In the nineteen-sixties, a clinical trial of a potential RSV vaccine made children sicker and led to two deaths—a syndrome called vaccine-enhanced disease."
Potential vaccines can make things worse, which is why we have three test phases. Even if you want to let people get an untested vaccine, which ones get approval? Do they need to get multiple? Will they interact badly?
>Even Biden is coming in with goals like "vaccinate 100M in the first 100 days." What a low bar, since we have already bought 200M doses for delivery by the end of Q1 (70ish days into his term).
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this is because the approved vaccines require two doses per recipient. Factoring in logistics and public outreach, that's a reasonable goal.
The FDA is addressed in the article, mostly when talking about the botched tests in February.
>You might blame the first 100k deaths on the disease, but everything after that is due to the ban on the vaccine.
That's a reckless way to approach vaccination. From TFA:
"Like COVID, [RSV] is dispersed through particle droplets and contaminated surfaces. In the nineteen-sixties, a clinical trial of a potential RSV vaccine made children sicker and led to two deaths—a syndrome called vaccine-enhanced disease."
Potential vaccines can make things worse, which is why we have three test phases. Even if you want to let people get an untested vaccine, which ones get approval? Do they need to get multiple? Will they interact badly?
>Even Biden is coming in with goals like "vaccinate 100M in the first 100 days." What a low bar, since we have already bought 200M doses for delivery by the end of Q1 (70ish days into his term).
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this is because the approved vaccines require two doses per recipient. Factoring in logistics and public outreach, that's a reasonable goal.
[deleted]
I was surprised that there was no mention of the COVID tests from the WHO and why the US did not make use of them.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/05/trump-obama-coronavi...
This article is also a nice microcosm of the whole American situation
This article is also a nice microcosm of the whole American situation
For subscribers to the print edition, this article spans 40 pages and space in the issue is dedicated to little else. I haven’t worked through the entire thing yet to decide if this is due to the gravity of the reporting or is typical of an end-of-year slowdown at the publisher.
My understanding is that they have very rarely done this; John Hersey's pulitzer prize winning article on Hiroshima was one of the few other examples of dedicating the entire magazine to a single article. So, "gravity" all the way.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima_(book)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima_(book)
For anyone who is interested, the article is available to read online https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1946/08/31/hiroshima
Here is the most recent time it was posted (5 months ago) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24101712
Here is the most recent time it was posted (5 months ago) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24101712
Thank you for sharing -- last summer in August 2020, PBS Newshour also covered a new book about Hersey and 75 years from the Hiroshima bomb:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/the-intrepid-journalist-wh...
And here's the book, "Fallout: The Hiroshima Cover-up and the Reporter Who Revealed It to the World" https://www.amazon.com/Fallout-Hiroshima-Cover-up-Reporter-R...
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/the-intrepid-journalist-wh...
And here's the book, "Fallout: The Hiroshima Cover-up and the Reporter Who Revealed It to the World" https://www.amazon.com/Fallout-Hiroshima-Cover-up-Reporter-R...
There’s also another article from 1985 by Hersey on the same people and the long-term aftermath 30 years on
Somebody on Titter mentioned that the initial submission was 7X,000 words, and they cut it down to half that to fit within a single issue.
I hope this original is published as a book. (This is actually fairly common for journalism in the New Yorker.)
While I get that some folks like The New Yorker’s long-form content, I would greatly appreciate a Cliff Notes version of many of their articles.
Read it, listen to it, share it, discuss it. This is one of the most important pieces of journalism in American history.
Give us the 5 paragraph essay summary! Although 2021 will also be the plague year.
I know you're mostly joking, but here were some of the takeaways I took from the article:
* China lied about the virus. They banned investigators from outside the country and tried to cover everything up. Experts knew they'd lied previously about SARS, but rather than assuming the worst they more or less assumed it probably wouldn't be a big deal.
* The FDA completely dropped the ball on testing kits and it took an incredibly long time to resolve the issue. Its unclear that people in power even realized this. Back in January and February when we were hearing about a case here, a case there there was almost certainly rampant community transmission and death occurring.
* CDC leaders were very slow to consider that the virus might transmit through the air. This led to the early advice being misguided (6ft of distancing and washing your hands protects you) and just flat out wrong (wearing a mask does nothing).
* Inside the executive branch, people who gave bad news were forced out and people who gave good news got promoted. Predictably this made things much, much worse.
* China lied about the virus. They banned investigators from outside the country and tried to cover everything up. Experts knew they'd lied previously about SARS, but rather than assuming the worst they more or less assumed it probably wouldn't be a big deal.
* The FDA completely dropped the ball on testing kits and it took an incredibly long time to resolve the issue. Its unclear that people in power even realized this. Back in January and February when we were hearing about a case here, a case there there was almost certainly rampant community transmission and death occurring.
* CDC leaders were very slow to consider that the virus might transmit through the air. This led to the early advice being misguided (6ft of distancing and washing your hands protects you) and just flat out wrong (wearing a mask does nothing).
* Inside the executive branch, people who gave bad news were forced out and people who gave good news got promoted. Predictably this made things much, much worse.
I read the article, and agree with this summary fwiw.
I would also emphasize that, in terms of personal culpability, Secretary Alex Azar of the Department of Health and Human Services comes out looking very poor. (Mnuchin was also the speaker of some, in retrospect, appalling secondhand quotes).
The article points out that Azar is the director of both the FDA and the CDC, and should have played a more active role in orchestrating their handshakes in February.
Misunderstanding and miscommunication between the FDA and CDC were responsible for the absurd delay in widely-available testing, which otherwise should have been available in med-February.
Not only was he aware of problems early on, he didn't properly communicate them up (to Trump, which contributed to Trump's belief that the whole thing would blow over), or manage them down.
This is my reading, as a disclaimer, not an explicit statement from the article. I recommend people read it for themselves.
I would also emphasize that, in terms of personal culpability, Secretary Alex Azar of the Department of Health and Human Services comes out looking very poor. (Mnuchin was also the speaker of some, in retrospect, appalling secondhand quotes).
The article points out that Azar is the director of both the FDA and the CDC, and should have played a more active role in orchestrating their handshakes in February.
Misunderstanding and miscommunication between the FDA and CDC were responsible for the absurd delay in widely-available testing, which otherwise should have been available in med-February.
Not only was he aware of problems early on, he didn't properly communicate them up (to Trump, which contributed to Trump's belief that the whole thing would blow over), or manage them down.
This is my reading, as a disclaimer, not an explicit statement from the article. I recommend people read it for themselves.
I haven't read this article yet, but my impression has been that every political official in the Trump Administration – Azar, Redfield, Hahn, Pence, Mnunchin, Pompeo, Kushner, Birx, Adams, Atlas, Barr, Kudlow, ... – has egg all over their face in this crisis. A whole crew of sycophants afraid for their jobs, falling over themselves to keep Trump happy.
Fauci and (sidelined and silenced) career officials at the CDC, FDA, and NIH are the only ones who came out looking okay.
Fauci and (sidelined and silenced) career officials at the CDC, FDA, and NIH are the only ones who came out looking okay.
Most of the trump appointees and trump himself come out of the article looking bad. Fauci comes out okay but not fantastic, with Birx looking a little better. About the only senior figure who seems to look good coming out of the article is Pottinger, who came into the government attached to Flynn.
I trust the New Yorker’s fact-checking chops, but I think it’s wise to be skeptical about Pottinger, as he’s the primary source for the story. I believe he advocated for a stronger response, and was summarily dismissed by his colleagues as there’s plenty of evidence for that.
But I don’t know how accurate his portrayals of the intentions behind the CDC and the FDA officials are. There aren’t a lot of ways to cross reference his analysis of the quoted meetings, since the CDC and FDA both declined to comment for the piece.
This is as close to a “full story” as we’re going to get before a hypothetical “COVID commission” congressional investigation, but it’s still quite two dimensional.
But I don’t know how accurate his portrayals of the intentions behind the CDC and the FDA officials are. There aren’t a lot of ways to cross reference his analysis of the quoted meetings, since the CDC and FDA both declined to comment for the piece.
This is as close to a “full story” as we’re going to get before a hypothetical “COVID commission” congressional investigation, but it’s still quite two dimensional.
Heh, in the Netherlands we are still making these mistakes and the authorities still focus on washing hands and 1.5m distancing.
From January 1 schools can now apply for funding to improve their ventilation systems and it will probably arrive around June. And we still have not started vaccinating and won’t start vaccinating the elderly for at least a month.
And only very slowly the media finally is starting to notice that the government has messed up. But still most reporting is just copying the press releases, shifting the blame around, jealously pointing fingers at supposed transgressors and blindly defending policy.
It’s truly sad.
From January 1 schools can now apply for funding to improve their ventilation systems and it will probably arrive around June. And we still have not started vaccinating and won’t start vaccinating the elderly for at least a month.
And only very slowly the media finally is starting to notice that the government has messed up. But still most reporting is just copying the press releases, shifting the blame around, jealously pointing fingers at supposed transgressors and blindly defending policy.
It’s truly sad.
[deleted]
Thank you! I will now go read the article.
40 pages! That's intriguingly long. There's also a nice audio version.
Yes, if you have 3.5 hours to spare!
Yeah, that Audm player sucks. No controls to make it play at 1.5x or anything.
Because I do this trick a lot of places, almost all these players use the default <video> tag of the browser for the actual decoding/playback. So you can use that tag's control's manually even if they don't give a button
So for this, something like: $("video").playbackRate = 2
or whatever. It's nice even for players with controls (like YT) if you want more than 2x speed
Also you can just look at the video tag's internal URL and just download and play however, offline :)
So for this, something like: $("video").playbackRate = 2
or whatever. It's nice even for players with controls (like YT) if you want more than 2x speed
Also you can just look at the video tag's internal URL and just download and play however, offline :)
I tried that out on Firefox and the maximum speed is about 12x. At about 5x you lose sound.
Hah! Nice, I've never experimented that far. I seem to remember even audacity had trouble with >4x speed (but don't remember if I just couldn't keep up at all, or if it was just choppy quality)
You need to resample sound. If you play sound faster everything will sound higher like Mickey Mouse.
At 2 or 4 times the speed I think is a simple step, just omit every two or three of four samples.
Anyway, this gives different distortions. I am Deaf so I don't hear the distortions but I understand sound in a mathematical way. At a sampling rate of 44.1k the highest representable sound is about 22kHz. At 4 times the speed this is only the fourth of it, about 5500 Hz. If higher sounds aren't filtered they will wrap around and re-appear as low frequency sounds. I imagine that this sounds very weird.
And for n not being a power of two or at 8 times or more, you need to resample sound. Transform the samples into the frequency domain and back into the time domain but sped up. This is quite a mathematically heavy operation and probably there are other limits I don't know of.
At 2 or 4 times the speed I think is a simple step, just omit every two or three of four samples.
Anyway, this gives different distortions. I am Deaf so I don't hear the distortions but I understand sound in a mathematical way. At a sampling rate of 44.1k the highest representable sound is about 22kHz. At 4 times the speed this is only the fourth of it, about 5500 Hz. If higher sounds aren't filtered they will wrap around and re-appear as low frequency sounds. I imagine that this sounds very weird.
And for n not being a power of two or at 8 times or more, you need to resample sound. Transform the samples into the frequency domain and back into the time domain but sped up. This is quite a mathematically heavy operation and probably there are other limits I don't know of.
[deleted]
"plague"
Diarrhea probably ended up killing more people than SARS-CoV-2 in 2020.
Diarrhea probably ended up killing more people than SARS-CoV-2 in 2020.
Keep in mind that the mortality rate is much better now than at the beginning, largely due to improvements in treatment as we've learned. (Prone positioning, better alternatives to ventilators, etc.) Without the massive effort undertaken early in, things almost certainly would have been far, far worse. Even still, parts of the US are teetering on the edge of having overwhelmed ICUs, nine months in.
Let's also remember the way the world was reshaped by 6000 deaths in new york in 2001...
Or to say it less charitably: Back at the beginning it was commonly foretold that we would do all this work to flatten the curve, and then some idiots would look at the resulting numbers and say 'See, it wasn't so bad at all!'
Let's also remember the way the world was reshaped by 6000 deaths in new york in 2001...
Or to say it less charitably: Back at the beginning it was commonly foretold that we would do all this work to flatten the curve, and then some idiots would look at the resulting numbers and say 'See, it wasn't so bad at all!'
Ageing probably will kill more people. But the problem is phycological. People tend to not fear things they think they can prevent through willpower. For people in developed countries, diarrhea deaths are preventable... airborne viruses, not so much.
> Diarrhea probably ended up killing more people than SARS-CoV-2 in 2020.
Only if you include the verbal kind.
Only if you include the verbal kind.
In the United States 50,000 more people died of COVID-19 directly in 2020 than died in World War 2. I don’t get these comments.
Diarrhea kills 800 thousand children every year, alone (something like 1-2M people die from it every year).
https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/pdf/global/programs/Globald...
https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/pdf/global/programs/Globald...
So let’s fix both, not neither.
I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but it isn't me. You said you didn't understand the comment, yet it's pretty much a statement of fact.
I would personally characterize diarrheal diseases as a plague, but I think the broader point is fair: people have lost all perspective on how Covid compares to other causes of death around the world. How far would the tens of trillions of dollars the worlds' advanced economies have spent on Covid in 2020 have gone to eradicating childhood deaths due to dirty water?
You can't simply say "let's do both", because the fact is that we immediately found the money for one, and we haven't found it for the other despite years of effort. It speaks to our priorities.
I would personally characterize diarrheal diseases as a plague, but I think the broader point is fair: people have lost all perspective on how Covid compares to other causes of death around the world. How far would the tens of trillions of dollars the worlds' advanced economies have spent on Covid in 2020 have gone to eradicating childhood deaths due to dirty water?
You can't simply say "let's do both", because the fact is that we immediately found the money for one, and we haven't found it for the other despite years of effort. It speaks to our priorities.
I understood their dismissal of covid-19 just fine. I don’t understand why people are still stringing that harp a year into this. I would like to believe we have the ability and will to tackle big problems. The existence of another problem isn’t a compelling reason to not act to me.
> I don’t understand why people are still stringing that harp a year into this.
Because it isn't a "harp". It isn't just a niggling little thing, and it isn't "dismissal" to put something into perspective.
The world's economies have thrown tens of trillions of dollars into the response to Covid (not to mention the incalculable follow-on costs in terms of mental health, missed diagnoses and the like), and nary a thought was given to what the side-effects of that response might be, or whether those resources might have been better spent elsewhere. We just did it, and it turns out that the disease will have an impact on par with something else that we spend drastically less money on in any given year.
If you literally cannot fathom why a cost/benefit calculation might be appropriate here, you have lost perspective, and the OP's point is well-taken.
Because it isn't a "harp". It isn't just a niggling little thing, and it isn't "dismissal" to put something into perspective.
The world's economies have thrown tens of trillions of dollars into the response to Covid (not to mention the incalculable follow-on costs in terms of mental health, missed diagnoses and the like), and nary a thought was given to what the side-effects of that response might be, or whether those resources might have been better spent elsewhere. We just did it, and it turns out that the disease will have an impact on par with something else that we spend drastically less money on in any given year.
If you literally cannot fathom why a cost/benefit calculation might be appropriate here, you have lost perspective, and the OP's point is well-taken.
[deleted]
WWII is important more because of the radical restructuring of society undertaken to fight it, the potential consequences had we gotten it wrong, and its lasting impact on the world. It's not about the sheer number of combat deaths. Same with COVID.
World population was also much smaller.
The Spanish flu killed 50 million people. That’s 5% of the word population at the time. Now 50 million would barley be over half a percent.
The Spanish flu killed 50 million people. That’s 5% of the word population at the time. Now 50 million would barley be over half a percent.
For anyone interested, the world population in the 1940s was ~30% of what it currently is.
While we're correcting facts, we should also note that over 70 million people died in WW2.[1] COVID doesn't come close, not even on a yearly basis.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
Yeah, the trick is that they're comparing to US World War 2 deaths when almost all the deaths from the war were elsewhere. For context, Wikipedia seems to reckon that the UK had more total WW2 deaths than the US despite being a rather smaller country, and we weren't the worst affected even within western Europe by a long shot.
It’s no “trick.” World War 2 is considered a historic loss of American life, and we just topped it.
It is not about fatality rates. It is about health systems getting overwhelmed
In the United States more than 100000 less people died of COVID-19 in 2020 than of smoking. It is useful to put it all in perspective to keep from panicking.
You can choose not to smoke. You can’t choose not to covid.
Nice offhand dismissal.
* Many of these people are not smokers themselves, they are dying from second hand smoking
* You are free to choose to smoke, but not to choose to go to a bar? It’s reasonable to forbid people to visit their grandparents but not to forbid them to smoke?
The proper comparison would be that you can choose ‘not to Covid’ as much as you can choose ‘not to lung cancer’. A nonsensical proposition.
* Many of these people are not smokers themselves, they are dying from second hand smoking
* You are free to choose to smoke, but not to choose to go to a bar? It’s reasonable to forbid people to visit their grandparents but not to forbid them to smoke?
The proper comparison would be that you can choose ‘not to Covid’ as much as you can choose ‘not to lung cancer’. A nonsensical proposition.
Maybe try to learn why people make them? Why do you think people down play it?
At the risk of being blunt, what is there to learn besides people are self-interested and don't like sacrificing? At this stage either you agree that hundreds of thousands dying is a problem or it's not. It's pretty much that simple.
I'll tell my friend that couldn't have his wife's funeral and friend that lost his house and restaurant they should sacrifice harder.
Meanwhile almost everyone I know in tech has had the best financial year ever. It's good we have to sacrifice nothing and even gain, but I totally get the loss from the rest of the world.
With the death count, we will see when all cause mortality is published. If there are huge drops in heart disease and cancer deaths that would imply some things. The median age of death is over 80.
Meanwhile almost everyone I know in tech has had the best financial year ever. It's good we have to sacrifice nothing and even gain, but I totally get the loss from the rest of the world.
With the death count, we will see when all cause mortality is published. If there are huge drops in heart disease and cancer deaths that would imply some things. The median age of death is over 80.
[deleted]
I'm sure thepangolino was talking about deaths worldwide, and it's probably true. Here in the developed world, where COVID was an aberration, it's easy to forget that it was barely a blip in Africa.
"Diarrhea kills 2,195 children every day—more than AIDS, malaria, and measles combined."[1]
"In 2016, diarrhoea was the eighth leading cause of death among all ages (1 655 944 deaths, 95% uncertainty interval [UI] 1 244 073–2 366 552)"[2]
1: https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/global/diarrhea-burden.html
2: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
"Diarrhea kills 2,195 children every day—more than AIDS, malaria, and measles combined."[1]
"In 2016, diarrhoea was the eighth leading cause of death among all ages (1 655 944 deaths, 95% uncertainty interval [UI] 1 244 073–2 366 552)"[2]
1: https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/global/diarrhea-burden.html
2: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
OTOH:
'A Continent Where the Dead Aren't Counted'
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/02/world/africa/africa-coron...
Tl;dr: Reporting of deaths is incredibly irregular across Africa, and counting excess deaths is likely impossible as a result. The population is younger on average, which likely helps, but we probably don't know the real numbers there.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/02/world/africa/africa-coron...
Tl;dr: Reporting of deaths is incredibly irregular across Africa, and counting excess deaths is likely impossible as a result. The population is younger on average, which likely helps, but we probably don't know the real numbers there.
There are still doctors and hospitals there who would see a huge increase in deaths due to respiratory illness, if one occurred. According to your source, they haven't:
> “The mortality due to Covid in the African continent is not a major public issue,” said Dorian Job, the West Africa program manager for Doctors Without Borders.
The rest of that article is just speculation that there might be an outbreak that isn't being recorded, with little evidence.
> “The mortality due to Covid in the African continent is not a major public issue,” said Dorian Job, the West Africa program manager for Doctors Without Borders.
The rest of that article is just speculation that there might be an outbreak that isn't being recorded, with little evidence.
Even if they did, based on the source you pointed to (CDC) and their estimate of Covid deaths, Covid killed more people in 2020 than diarrhea killed in 2016 (1.834 million vs. 1.655 million).
CDC data is at https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#global-counts-rate...
And comes from JHU https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html
this must be the longest article ever. the audio version is 3.5 hours, or about one LOTR movie
TBH, I don't think it matters that much. The virus is a serious situation but the stock market is acting like the worst is long over. I know the stock market is not the economy , but I think it is no longer a catastrophe but rather more like a wildfire. It could have been a far worse situation if the IFR was 2-4% as originally feared back in Feb-March. Then we would probably be seeing the S&P 500 about 50-70% lower than it is now, cuz when you got airborne cancer, that is not exactly something you can patch over by throwing stimulus money at it. Now it's more like a bad flu in terms of IFR for middle-aged people, but worse though for elderly, so I don't want to dismiss that. But it could have bene sooo much worse, and we were spared that.
TBH, I don't think it matters that much. The virus is a serious situation but the stock market is acting like the worst is long over. I know the stock market is not the economy , but I think it is no longer a catastrophe but rather more like a wildfire. It could have been a far worse situation if the IFR was 2-4% as originally feared back in Feb-March. Then we would probably be seeing the S&P 500 about 50-70% lower than it is now, cuz when you got airborne cancer, that is not exactly something you can patch over by throwing stimulus money at it. Now it's more like a bad flu in terms of IFR for middle-aged people, but worse though for elderly, so I don't want to dismiss that. But it could have bene sooo much worse, and we were spared that.
The stock market is up because massive amounts of public money have been pumped into the markets. One of the most important long-term impacts of the crisis will be the massive wealth redistributipn from the people and the states to the rich.
I feel we build in a reaction expection based off the earlier unknowns wrt to covid-19 but as more data became available we never revised those perceptions and instead doubled down on the narrative that this was some world destroying super virus and it's just so clearly not now.
It's disturbing to realize that, given the current zeitgeist, a virus with a higher fatality rate would probably have killed way fewer people. This virus really hit the sweet spot: not as inoffensive as to be trivially managed, not as lethal as to dissolve any political spin.
Yeah, that take seems to be making the rounds in the tech community right now.
It's probably wrong in a number of ways, though. The new variant overtaking the UK may cause 10 times as many deaths in the first months if it's really 50 % more infectious (the magic of compound interest).
Are people going to adequately react to such a change in risk? I have my doubts. This isn't even meant as a cynical indictment of humanity: I myself currently behave more less exactly as I did during the summer, even though local infection rates have changed by two orders of magnitude in the meantime.
It's probably wrong in a number of ways, though. The new variant overtaking the UK may cause 10 times as many deaths in the first months if it's really 50 % more infectious (the magic of compound interest).
Are people going to adequately react to such a change in risk? I have my doubts. This isn't even meant as a cynical indictment of humanity: I myself currently behave more less exactly as I did during the summer, even though local infection rates have changed by two orders of magnitude in the meantime.
>Are people going to adequately react to such a change in risk?
Reactions track with the perception of danger, not risk. We would all behave differently if the danger was a flesh-eating hemorrhagic zombie virus, rather than moderate-to-severe flu symptoms, even if the risk was unchanged.
Reactions track with the perception of danger, not risk. We would all behave differently if the danger was a flesh-eating hemorrhagic zombie virus, rather than moderate-to-severe flu symptoms, even if the risk was unchanged.
Yeah, probably wishful thinking to think that there would be a threshold of fatality rate beyond which any politicization would be impossible.
I do think it would be harder, though, and it would likely involve less literally pro-plague attitudes
I do think it would be harder, though, and it would likely involve less literally pro-plague attitudes
It became a point of civic religion to believe that the virus was catastrophically dangerous. Disagreement was not just mistaken but evil.
Catastrophically? Not quite, but it is definitely dangerous. We are approaching the per capita domestic death toll of a world war. It ain’t airborne Ebola but it isn’t harmless, a hoax, or “just a bad flu.”
A mask is such a cheap and trivial precaution I don’t get the resistance. Masks are not even close to 100% effective, but the goal is to shave as many points off the viral R-factor as possible.
As for police state tactics, I don’t think they’d be considered if people were just smart and took precautions. They’re on the table because too many people insist on refusing to do simple things.
A mask is such a cheap and trivial precaution I don’t get the resistance. Masks are not even close to 100% effective, but the goal is to shave as many points off the viral R-factor as possible.
As for police state tactics, I don’t think they’d be considered if people were just smart and took precautions. They’re on the table because too many people insist on refusing to do simple things.
The best explanation I've heard is that mask resistance is more of a political statement against economic shutdowns. Which is understandable, but ultimately a red herring that detracts from a productive political movement forming around the real issue of the rent treadmill. eg Restaurateurs don't actually want to be open for indoor dining right now, they're just forced to by an economy which has been warped to prioritize "growth" metrics above human concerns. But the political machine has gone to work telling them the pandemic is a hoax, and with that assumption it must be the response that is to blame. Somehow herds of people always end up running in the wrong direction.
As for general questioning, yes in the abstract everything should be questioned. But when most of the people raising questions seem to be acting in bad faith, then eventually the questions they're asking are going to be reflexively rejected. That creates an irrational blind spot for sure, but that's still a smaller rationality disruption than letting the bad faith questioners continue to destroy the discourse. Given the way herds work, I definitely agree that there could be something wrong with the specifics of the mask consensus. But my general prioritization heuristic asks why that would be someone's focus when there are significantly more pressing issues. And so any argument has a very high bar to clear, probably to the level of conclusive studies showing mask wearing is actively harmful, and not just simple conjecture on the mechanics from first principles.
> As for police state tactics, I don’t think they’d be considered if people were just smart and took precautions. They’re on the table because too many people insist on refusing to do simple things.
This is the real pisser. Being a libertarian myself, it galls me how much damage has been done to freedom, supposedly in the name of freedom. Allowing a pandemic to spread unchecked, meaning I need to treat everyone I come into contact with as potentially infected (including wearing a mask in my own house as I've got healthcare visiting), has been a grave damage to my freedom. I can only conclude the covidiots see "freedom" as the ability to behave like spoiled children, rather than the opportunity to make responsible choices.
As for general questioning, yes in the abstract everything should be questioned. But when most of the people raising questions seem to be acting in bad faith, then eventually the questions they're asking are going to be reflexively rejected. That creates an irrational blind spot for sure, but that's still a smaller rationality disruption than letting the bad faith questioners continue to destroy the discourse. Given the way herds work, I definitely agree that there could be something wrong with the specifics of the mask consensus. But my general prioritization heuristic asks why that would be someone's focus when there are significantly more pressing issues. And so any argument has a very high bar to clear, probably to the level of conclusive studies showing mask wearing is actively harmful, and not just simple conjecture on the mechanics from first principles.
> As for police state tactics, I don’t think they’d be considered if people were just smart and took precautions. They’re on the table because too many people insist on refusing to do simple things.
This is the real pisser. Being a libertarian myself, it galls me how much damage has been done to freedom, supposedly in the name of freedom. Allowing a pandemic to spread unchecked, meaning I need to treat everyone I come into contact with as potentially infected (including wearing a mask in my own house as I've got healthcare visiting), has been a grave damage to my freedom. I can only conclude the covidiots see "freedom" as the ability to behave like spoiled children, rather than the opportunity to make responsible choices.
It sounds like you’re not really a libertarian then. Fwiw, this consequentialist (rather than deontological) view of libertarianism that you’re espousing is what turns libertarians into either liberals or conservatives.
I wouldn't say I made a consequentialist statement at all, besides the obvious truism that actions have consequences. In the presence of force majeure, natural rights inevitably take a back seat. Ergo if we care about natural rights, then we should be interested in heading off catastrophes that diminish them, ideally by making responsible individual choices.
Public figureheads preaching harmful nonsense that leads herds of people to harming themselves and their communities is about as far from the enlightened-individual libertarian ideal as possible.
Public figureheads preaching harmful nonsense that leads herds of people to harming themselves and their communities is about as far from the enlightened-individual libertarian ideal as possible.
It is an interesting thought experiment. If caloric restriction and sleep hygiene increased more quality life years than masks, would you support the police raiding people's refrigerators and monitoring bedroom activity?
Failure to do those things may shorten your life, but it does not risk mine. Failure to wear a mask increases viral R factor and endangers others. The moral case for enforcing pandemic control measures is a lot stronger than the case for mandating seatbelts.
What do you mean by resistance? Does a simple question qualify as resistance? I'd settle for a reasonable answer from my local health authority on how something like a non-medical cloth mask, or a dentist's earloop mask is supposed to do anything if it also can't keep out saw or grinder dust.
I distrust magic, and I dislike the cognitive dissonance that comes with trying to do as I'm told while being denied basic information about the value of that behavior.
I distrust magic, and I dislike the cognitive dissonance that comes with trying to do as I'm told while being denied basic information about the value of that behavior.
"Effectiveness of Cloth Masks for Protection Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus"
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article
Thank you for this article.
I have read the article. It's mostly a comparison between medical and non-medical cloth masks, in addition to reviewing basic properties and measures of effectiveness for masks in-general.
Until a cloth mask design is proven to be equally effective as a medical or N95 mask, wearing cloth masks should not be mandated for healthcare workers. In community settings, however, cloth masks may be used to prevent community spread of infections by sick or asymptomatically infected persons, and the public should be educated about their correct use.
This may well be true. The basis for such a distinction would be a deep point and counter-intuitive. I'm not sure it's present here, though. There is very little on the absolute benefits or effectiveness of non-medical masks. Here's what I could find:
Participants made masks from different materials, and all masks tested showed some ability to block the microbial aerosol challenges although less than that of medical masks (11). Another study found that homemade cloth masks may also reduce aerosol exposure although less so than medical masks and respirators (12).
and
Cloth masks can be made in large quantities in a short time. They can be reused after being decontaminated by various techniques, ideally washing in hot water with soap. Other methods or products include using bleach, isopropyl alcohol, or hydrogen peroxide; autoclaving or microwaving; and application of ultraviolet radiation or dry heat (16).
Also from this article, which are relevant to claims that mask-mandates have zero cost:
The general public should be educated about mask use because cloth masks may give users a false sense of protection because of their limited protection against acquiring infection (16). Correctly putting on and taking off cloth masks improves protection (Table). Taking a mask off is a high-risk process (34) because pathogens may be present on the outer surface of the mask and may result in self-contamination during removal (31).
I have read the article. It's mostly a comparison between medical and non-medical cloth masks, in addition to reviewing basic properties and measures of effectiveness for masks in-general.
Until a cloth mask design is proven to be equally effective as a medical or N95 mask, wearing cloth masks should not be mandated for healthcare workers. In community settings, however, cloth masks may be used to prevent community spread of infections by sick or asymptomatically infected persons, and the public should be educated about their correct use.
This may well be true. The basis for such a distinction would be a deep point and counter-intuitive. I'm not sure it's present here, though. There is very little on the absolute benefits or effectiveness of non-medical masks. Here's what I could find:
Participants made masks from different materials, and all masks tested showed some ability to block the microbial aerosol challenges although less than that of medical masks (11). Another study found that homemade cloth masks may also reduce aerosol exposure although less so than medical masks and respirators (12).
and
Cloth masks can be made in large quantities in a short time. They can be reused after being decontaminated by various techniques, ideally washing in hot water with soap. Other methods or products include using bleach, isopropyl alcohol, or hydrogen peroxide; autoclaving or microwaving; and application of ultraviolet radiation or dry heat (16).
Also from this article, which are relevant to claims that mask-mandates have zero cost:
The general public should be educated about mask use because cloth masks may give users a false sense of protection because of their limited protection against acquiring infection (16). Correctly putting on and taking off cloth masks improves protection (Table). Taking a mask off is a high-risk process (34) because pathogens may be present on the outer surface of the mask and may result in self-contamination during removal (31).
>As for police state tactics, I don’t think they’d be considered if people were just smart and took precautions. They’re on the table because too many people insist on refusing to do simple things.
What an absurdly twisted bit of authoritarian reasoning. The very point of a free society is that you should be able to refuse certain things without being forced into them for the act of refusing.
What an absurdly twisted bit of authoritarian reasoning. The very point of a free society is that you should be able to refuse certain things without being forced into them for the act of refusing.
Death counts don’t tell you much. If the main effect of the virus is ultimately to advance a bunch of older people’s deaths by a year or two, then it’s not a big deal. People live and people die, that’s life.
"We estimated roughly 1.2 million YLLs due to COVID-19 deaths." ("for the period 1 February 2020 through 11 July 2020.")
https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/article/42/4/717/5901977
"Deaths among adults 65 and older accounted for 80% of excess YLL in April but only 36% of excess YLL in June. Since April, working age adults 20-64 have accounted for 47% of excess YLL, and males 20 to 64 have contributed 34%."
https://healthcostinstitute.org/hcci-research/the-impact-of-...
https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/article/42/4/717/5901977
"Deaths among adults 65 and older accounted for 80% of excess YLL in April but only 36% of excess YLL in June. Since April, working age adults 20-64 have accounted for 47% of excess YLL, and males 20 to 64 have contributed 34%."
https://healthcostinstitute.org/hcci-research/the-impact-of-...
YLL is an interesting metric but deceptive. As the article says, about 80% of deaths have been in the 65 and above bracket.
Wouldn't YLL be a better measure between pandemics? Lets say pandemic A kills 100 humans at 25% of life consumed versus pandemic B that kills 200h at 75% of life consumed. If only lives are counted then B is 100% worse. But if the human-years are measured then pandemic A is 50% worse. Given a zero-sum trolley car dilemma, is plain lives or YLL a better measure of utility?
For example, if a person dies at age 50, and life expectancy at age 50 is more 25 years, then the YLL is 25. In contrast, if a person dies at age 80 and life expectancy at 80 is 2 more years, then YLL is 2.
https://healthcostinstitute.org/hcci-research/the-impact-of-...
Stipulation: if the baseline life-length is 80 years and a ninety year old dies, then the YLL is 0 and not -10.
For example, if a person dies at age 50, and life expectancy at age 50 is more 25 years, then the YLL is 25. In contrast, if a person dies at age 80 and life expectancy at 80 is 2 more years, then YLL is 2.
https://healthcostinstitute.org/hcci-research/the-impact-of-...
Stipulation: if the baseline life-length is 80 years and a ninety year old dies, then the YLL is 0 and not -10.
> Stipulation: if the baseline life-length is 80 years and a ninety year old dies, then the YLL is 0 and not -10.
No, of course it isn't.
A 90-year old isn't expected to instantly die. They have some remaining live expectancy, maybe two or three years, even if they have passed median live expectancy.
No, of course it isn't.
A 90-year old isn't expected to instantly die. They have some remaining live expectancy, maybe two or three years, even if they have passed median live expectancy.
I can echo this. Most unhappily, I think I may have just estranged myself from my father after an evening of trying to defend my questioning of the value of non-medical mask mandates. Some people want police-state style intervention, and to hell with anyone who raises an eyebrow.
clarification for the downvoters: questioning in the sense of asking a question, not engaging in anti-mask advocacy. Sorry if not being a blindly obedient serf makes me evil. Should I kill myself now and save you the trouble of forming the firing squad?
clarification for the downvoters: questioning in the sense of asking a question, not engaging in anti-mask advocacy. Sorry if not being a blindly obedient serf makes me evil. Should I kill myself now and save you the trouble of forming the firing squad?
I don't understand any anti-mask protest despite any claims of lacking scientific backing because why not? Just wear a mask. It's practically free to do and if it makes people feel safer then that is a good enough reason alone. All this arguing on details of how effective they are misses the point completely.
It's way beyond masks. It's shutting down schools (mostly fine for upper-middle class types, potentially crippling for the less well off), wiping out small businesses, and forbidding any semblance of normal social life. Minimizing this as "just masks and social distancing" hugely underestimates the costs.
It's only killed 0.1% of Americans, after all.
Good thing nobody is allowed to play soccer right now, considering all the goalpost-moving going on.
It should be a no-brainer if it weren't for some particularly dumb politicization of the issue.
We aren't gonna get proper RCTs and hard evidence any time soon. But it's such a simple and plausible intervention, we do have good reasons to believe they help and they don't hurt anyone. It's all just so infantile
We aren't gonna get proper RCTs and hard evidence any time soon. But it's such a simple and plausible intervention, we do have good reasons to believe they help and they don't hurt anyone. It's all just so infantile
How do you even run a randomised controlled trial of mask usage?
What's the double blinded placebo for a mask?
Assuming you could even get an ethics committee to sign of on the experiment.
I agree the data could be helpful, but I don't think that's the 'right' way to get it.
What's the double blinded placebo for a mask?
Assuming you could even get an ethics committee to sign of on the experiment.
I agree the data could be helpful, but I don't think that's the 'right' way to get it.
I agree that it's a simple and plausible intervention. What do you think about gloves, goggles, and tyvek suits?
I'd suggest you to physically make a chart of convenience, likely protection, availability, plausibility, ease of implementation and a few other dimensions for masks and the other instruments you've mentioned. It might help you to see the absurdness of these comparisons.
Those were simple and plausible suggestions, and yet (intentionally) absurd. You invoked costs, benefits, and tradeoffs to make that fact clear. And for what it's worth, gloves still meet the criteria - simple plausible low-cost is not the same as evidence-based. Health authorities (in Canada) most certainly were suggesting we mitigate indirect-contact transmission, with regular sterilization of surfaces using bleach being widely advocated. Gloves are widely available both in their medical and reusable cloth versions, and carry even fewer risks to social disruption than do masks.
I'm totally fine with the structure of the argument with respect to mask mandates as it's typically made. Assuming no costs and at least some benefits, sure, I don't see a problem - this is within basic morality territory so far. But if the parameters are in question? My datapoint: mask mandates have effectively destroyed a familiar relationship, because it put me in the position of asking a good-faith question to a zealot. I judge the costs to me to be extremely, life-changingly high while the benefits remain uncertain.
I'm totally fine with the structure of the argument with respect to mask mandates as it's typically made. Assuming no costs and at least some benefits, sure, I don't see a problem - this is within basic morality territory so far. But if the parameters are in question? My datapoint: mask mandates have effectively destroyed a familiar relationship, because it put me in the position of asking a good-faith question to a zealot. I judge the costs to me to be extremely, life-changingly high while the benefits remain uncertain.
There's a reason why passenger vehicles don't come equipped with roll cages, 5 point harnesses, and why there's no law mandating that motorists and their passengers wear crash helmets.
Simply put, a 3 point restraint that's much easier to put on provides a decent amount of protection in the event of a crash. On the other hand, if one is engaged in motor sports, racing, etc., then the other safety measures are necessary. Just like one would use additional safety measures when working in a healthcare setting.
Simply put, a 3 point restraint that's much easier to put on provides a decent amount of protection in the event of a crash. On the other hand, if one is engaged in motor sports, racing, etc., then the other safety measures are necessary. Just like one would use additional safety measures when working in a healthcare setting.
If those things are free - if there's a chance I'm saving someone's life by wearing them - then I'd be a monster to refuse because it's inconvenient to me.
I'm guessing you have an equally ridiculous slippery-slope follow-up as well?
I'm guessing you have an equally ridiculous slippery-slope follow-up as well?
It isn’t free. Among other things, “making people feel safer” can easily have the consequence that they stop doing the things that actually matter. It’s called “risk compensation”.
Arguing that this isn’t a significant risk just begs the question: without positive data for effectiveness, nobody has any idea.
Arguing that this isn’t a significant risk just begs the question: without positive data for effectiveness, nobody has any idea.
If wearing a mask was free for everyone, obviously no one would be bothered by them. Just because you don't understand people's reasons it doesn't mean they don't exist or are less valid than making people feel safer. Consider, for example, people with claustrophobia.
A list of scientific backing: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/masking-scien... (see "Human Studies of Masking and SARS-CoV-2 Transmission").
[deleted]
Thanks. This is literally more than I've seen published from my local government in a year.
>It's practically free to do
The social costs are nonzero, so I wouldn't say it's free.
The social costs are nonzero, so I wouldn't say it's free.
Making people think they are safe is not sufficient reason to force everyone to wear a mask. It’s only justified if we have good reason to think they work.
> Sorry if not being a blindly obedient serf makes me evil.
But aren’t you actually agreeing with the US federal government’s actual response? Aren’t the people saying that you should wear masks the ones going against the grain here?
Doesn’t that make _you_ the obedient surf?
S[n]ide note: I live in Australia so I have no skin in this game. Along with NZ, we’ve had very few deaths from CV19 relative to large cities in the rest of the Anglosphere, and our economies are basically open. I suppose the “police state style intervention” you speak of did reduce our short term freedom - we had 3 months of hard lockdown - but I’m writing this from our summer holiday beach AirBNB, and it sure feels like freedom to me.
But aren’t you actually agreeing with the US federal government’s actual response? Aren’t the people saying that you should wear masks the ones going against the grain here?
Doesn’t that make _you_ the obedient surf?
S[n]ide note: I live in Australia so I have no skin in this game. Along with NZ, we’ve had very few deaths from CV19 relative to large cities in the rest of the Anglosphere, and our economies are basically open. I suppose the “police state style intervention” you speak of did reduce our short term freedom - we had 3 months of hard lockdown - but I’m writing this from our summer holiday beach AirBNB, and it sure feels like freedom to me.
I'm not American, so I'm not really that up on the US federal government's response.
Then why did you accuse others - or perhaps just your father? - of being “blindly obedient” about masks?
Blindly obedient to who?
Blindly obedient to who?
So you want to wait until we get a series of proper RCTs?
The vitriol I hear on this topic never ceases to amaze me. I never said anti-mask advocacy, neither did I state I wasn't in compliance with the aforementioned mask mandate.
Disagreement was not just mistaken but evil.
Isn't that always the case though, particularly with politics and operating systems?
Isn't that always the case though, particularly with politics and operating systems?
Imagine how catastrophic a wildfire could be to people who live in the areas that are burning.
If I'm understanding OP correctly, they'd still get out ahead if they invested in the right stocks.
>> "If flights from China were halted, Matt asked, could America have more time to prepare?
Paul was hesitant. Like most public-health practitioners, he held that travel bans often have unintended consequences. They stigmatize countries contending with contagion. Doctors and medical equipment must be able to move around. And, by the time restrictions are put in place, the disease has usually infiltrated the border anyway, making the whole exercise pointless"
Except Australia and New Zealand have shown that is not really true. If you shut the border early enough and police it well enough, you can suppress the virus.
The idea that doctors can't travel doesn't have to be true. Put them in hotel quarantine for 14 days on arrival and then get them to work. 14 days on the way back too. All too often I hear problems(excuses truly) as to why something can't be done. But with additional planning and willpower (and not just rolling over) it can be.
Paul was hesitant. Like most public-health practitioners, he held that travel bans often have unintended consequences. They stigmatize countries contending with contagion. Doctors and medical equipment must be able to move around. And, by the time restrictions are put in place, the disease has usually infiltrated the border anyway, making the whole exercise pointless"
Except Australia and New Zealand have shown that is not really true. If you shut the border early enough and police it well enough, you can suppress the virus.
The idea that doctors can't travel doesn't have to be true. Put them in hotel quarantine for 14 days on arrival and then get them to work. 14 days on the way back too. All too often I hear problems(excuses truly) as to why something can't be done. But with additional planning and willpower (and not just rolling over) it can be.
If I recall correctly, the initial US infections came from Europe not China, so Paul's hesitance to a China-specific travel ban wasn't a bad call.
Island and smaller nations have some capabilities as far as population movement controls that the big ones don't have or can't sustain for as long. Eventually COVID will come for all, suppression strategies only allow a nation to adjust the timeline.
This study shows an unexpected very early circulation of SARS-CoV-2 among asymptomatic individuals in Italy several months before the first patient was identified, and clarifies the onset and spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Finding SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in asymptomatic people before the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy may reshape the history of pandemic.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33176598/
Island and smaller nations have some capabilities as far as population movement controls that the big ones don't have or can't sustain for as long. Eventually COVID will come for all, suppression strategies only allow a nation to adjust the timeline.
This study shows an unexpected very early circulation of SARS-CoV-2 among asymptomatic individuals in Italy several months before the first patient was identified, and clarifies the onset and spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Finding SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in asymptomatic people before the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy may reshape the history of pandemic.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33176598/
China itself is neither an island nation nor small, and it has managed to prevent further large outbreaks. This probably would not be possible if not for travel restrictions and strict infection control at the border (test before boarding, 14 day quarantine, test after quarantine).
Essentially all countries that have kept COVID in check have similar testing and quarantine policies. This is a reasonable alternative to closing the border entirely, but it was never taken up by the U.S.
Essentially all countries that have kept COVID in check have similar testing and quarantine policies. This is a reasonable alternative to closing the border entirely, but it was never taken up by the U.S.
Great point about China. Pandemic suppression is probably a cinch for repressive totalitarian regimes willing to weld bars over apartment doors for quarantine and imprison medical professionals to control information.
And yet 2000-3000 people die a day in the US. Surely more can be done...
It feels like those in the US are unwilling to make hard changes for the common good, be self critical and admit failure.
It feels like those in the US are unwilling to make hard changes for the common good, be self critical and admit failure.
In case you hit the paywall: https://archive.md/on1X2