3 ms·

They should test her. She might have it. They have the testing capacity. Your opinion on this is incorrect. If Netherlands continues with this policy they are f

They should test her. She might have it. They have the testing capacity. Your opinion on this is incorrect. If Netherlands continues with this policy they are following in the horrific missteps of the US in restricting testing. Some homebody with symptoms that don't match? Put them at the bottom of the queue for testing if there is limited testing capacity. In the meantime, grow testing capacity as fast as you can which is 100% of political issue and not a scientific or economic one, and make as many n95 masks as possible domestically. > "she's being treated as she should be" That is a completely unmerited claim and one which causes harm.

roel_v 7y ago
WTF are you talking about? This is not my opinion. This is plain fact: https://www.rivm.nl/en/novel-coronavirus-covid-19/questions-and-answers https://www.rivm.nl/en/novel-coronavirus-covid-19/questions-... . Now, you might not agree with this policy/protocol. That's fine. I'm not sure I do either (although I do think that neither you nor I are in a better position to judge than they are on how much testing capacity they have). What I was saying (and I was very careful to phrase it that way) is that she's being treated according to current protocol. And my "treated as she should be" (great job on your selective quoting) referred to exactly that.
- PeterisP 7y ago
  The point probably is that your statement of "treated as she should be" implies acceptance of the protocol and the whole situation as something that's acceptable instead of treating it as an example of a horrifically broken system that must be changed, and circumvented until it's changed. Passing that protocol was negligent, reckless and harmful to human lives, but that's not the main case here. But following that protocol was also negligent, reckless and harmful to human lives. The people on site should have acknowledged that this protocol is broken and should be ignored, and that people like her should be tested even if someone else has made a mistake. And also endorsing following that protocol is also negligent, reckless and harmful to human lives. If some institution denies testing like this, then it's immoral to accept their actions as valid and reasonable and acceptable. It's a moral imperative to point this out, and shame them for following the (broken) system instead of doing the right thing, and remind them that "just following the orders" is not an excuse if the orders are immoral; that blindly following broken protocols is simply not okay in an epidemic emergency. A few days delay in spreading the outbreak make a large difference in the total number of deaths. I recall an epidemiologic paper on the Wuhan case which modeled various containment scenarios, and the conclusion was that enforcing Wuhan lockdown 10 days (if I recall correctly) earlier would have reduced the number of cases and deaths threefold, and delaying Wuhan lockdown by two weeks would have increased the number of cases and deaths threefold.
  - roel_v 7y ago
    Apart from the fact that, within the context of the other words of my post, your first sentence is plain not true, I'm not sure I (to paraphrase Babbage badly) I understand the level of confusion that is required to come to your conclusion. When combating a large-scale crisis like this, you need well-coordinated action. The very basic thing you can not have is every Dick and Harry making their own decisions and improvising on what is the best course of action, each from their own (limited) knowledge of facts and circumstances. More concretely, you can not have every random call center employee decide for themselves whether or not to follow the explicit instructions they are given. That would devolve into chaos in a matter of hours. So no, nothing that happened here is 'negligent' or 'reckless'. ('harmful to human lives', we'll know in a few months or years, but it's a different matter all together). You need central control, and you suggesting that people should just make up their own course of action (call center employees, no less - the people tasked with the dissemination of the very protocol itself) is so far beyond my frame of understanding that I do not think we can have a meaningful discussion on this. (and you 'recalling reading some paper on epidemiology' and basing your (seemingly very strongly held) opinion on everyone winging it on that, just confirms this view on how to manage large scale hazard events)
    - PeterisP 7y ago
      We need well-coordinated action but if the people on site see that the action is not actually coordinated well, then they need to take proper actions anyway. All other things being equal, central control has many advantages, but I strongly disagree that central control is the most important thing. A good example is the situation in Washington state - we only found out about the cases in Seattle because local labs defied CDC and tested themselves after being reportedly denied. It's definitely a good thing that they diverged from the central control, and it would definitely be a harmful thing to satisfy central control and let community spread in Seattle remain undetected. I'm not saying that a random call center employee should arbitrarily decide, but if a local institution has enough skills, expertise and information to make an informed decision in the best interest of their patients, then they definitely should defy central control.

roel_v 7y ago

WTF are you talking about? This is not my opinion. This is plain fact: https://www.rivm.nl/en/novel-coronavirus-covid-19/questions-and-answers https://www.rivm.nl/en/novel-coronavirus-covid-19/questions-... . Now, you might not agree with this policy/protocol. That's fine. I'm not sure I do either (although I do think that neither you nor I are in a better position to judge than they are on how much testing capacity they have). What I was saying (and I was very careful to phrase it that way) is that she's being treated according to current protocol. And my "treated as she should be" (great job on your selective quoting) referred to exactly that.

PeterisP 7y ago
The point probably is that your statement of "treated as she should be" implies acceptance of the protocol and the whole situation as something that's acceptable instead of treating it as an example of a horrifically broken system that must be changed, and circumvented until it's changed. Passing that protocol was negligent, reckless and harmful to human lives, but that's not the main case here. But following that protocol was also negligent, reckless and harmful to human lives. The people on site should have acknowledged that this protocol is broken and should be ignored, and that people like her should be tested even if someone else has made a mistake. And also endorsing following that protocol is also negligent, reckless and harmful to human lives. If some institution denies testing like this, then it's immoral to accept their actions as valid and reasonable and acceptable. It's a moral imperative to point this out, and shame them for following the (broken) system instead of doing the right thing, and remind them that "just following the orders" is not an excuse if the orders are immoral; that blindly following broken protocols is simply not okay in an epidemic emergency. A few days delay in spreading the outbreak make a large difference in the total number of deaths. I recall an epidemiologic paper on the Wuhan case which modeled various containment scenarios, and the conclusion was that enforcing Wuhan lockdown 10 days (if I recall correctly) earlier would have reduced the number of cases and deaths threefold, and delaying Wuhan lockdown by two weeks would have increased the number of cases and deaths threefold.
- roel_v 7y ago
  Apart from the fact that, within the context of the other words of my post, your first sentence is plain not true, I'm not sure I (to paraphrase Babbage badly) I understand the level of confusion that is required to come to your conclusion. When combating a large-scale crisis like this, you need well-coordinated action. The very basic thing you can not have is every Dick and Harry making their own decisions and improvising on what is the best course of action, each from their own (limited) knowledge of facts and circumstances. More concretely, you can not have every random call center employee decide for themselves whether or not to follow the explicit instructions they are given. That would devolve into chaos in a matter of hours. So no, nothing that happened here is 'negligent' or 'reckless'. ('harmful to human lives', we'll know in a few months or years, but it's a different matter all together). You need central control, and you suggesting that people should just make up their own course of action (call center employees, no less - the people tasked with the dissemination of the very protocol itself) is so far beyond my frame of understanding that I do not think we can have a meaningful discussion on this. (and you 'recalling reading some paper on epidemiology' and basing your (seemingly very strongly held) opinion on everyone winging it on that, just confirms this view on how to manage large scale hazard events)
  - PeterisP 7y ago
    We need well-coordinated action but if the people on site see that the action is not actually coordinated well, then they need to take proper actions anyway. All other things being equal, central control has many advantages, but I strongly disagree that central control is the most important thing. A good example is the situation in Washington state - we only found out about the cases in Seattle because local labs defied CDC and tested themselves after being reportedly denied. It's definitely a good thing that they diverged from the central control, and it would definitely be a harmful thing to satisfy central control and let community spread in Seattle remain undetected. I'm not saying that a random call center employee should arbitrarily decide, but if a local institution has enough skills, expertise and information to make an informed decision in the best interest of their patients, then they definitely should defy central control.