8 ms·

No it's not. It's just one guy making up random shit on a blog and is pretending that governments think like him. The reality is probably closer to the fact t

No it's not. It's just one guy making up random shit on a blog and is pretending that governments think like him. The reality is probably closer to the fact that there isn't anything governments can do about it. They can try to shut down the borders of the country, but that is going to a lot worse and probably won't stop it anyways. Just because governments can do something and do do something doesn't mean that that something is meaningful or will have a positive impact. Many things are just outside of their control.

rcMgD2BwE72F 7y ago
Denmark did close every school and most administrations. France did not. Many decisions can be taken, but are not (for various reasons). Most experts recommend to limit contacts rather than closing down borders, and no one is pretending to stop the virus but they all should try to flatten the curve. You don't seem to pay attention to the current situation.
- duckMuppet 7y ago
  The fact that they refuse to do things like closing borders and immediately ceasing all travel by foreigners or citizens who've traveled traveled abroad meanwhile ending arbitrary social events is the reason you know it's hype up media nonsense. Most of the actions taken are those most likely not affecting those in the target older or immuno-compromised demographic likely to have the serious consequences. https://omny.fm/shows/inside-the-huddle/03-dr-laura-power-on-covid-19-031120 https://omny.fm/shows/inside-the-huddle/03-dr-laura-power-on...
  - JediWing 7y ago
    Is that why now two countries have had mass quarantines? It's a balancing act between lowering infections/death and economic impact.
  - maest 7y ago
    Shutting down borders helps if the virus hasn't reached your country. If it has, there's no point in banning incoming people (maybe you can stop people from leaving so other regions don't get infected, but that's a less strong incentive). If you already have the virus in your country, the best thing you can do is slow its spreading, by banning large groups of people from congregating.
- lm28469 7y ago
  It also depends on the country's government. Afaik in Germany the country's government can't force schools to close or public events to be cancelled. These decisions have to be taken locally (at state/city or even district level). All the health ministry can do is tell people "you shouldn't do A B C and you should do X Y Z"
  - cerebellum42 7y ago
    This is correct afaik, I'm pretty sure the decision to close schools is with the ministries of education of each German state, however if federal institutions put out strong recommendations, state and local administrators will likely follow very soon after. Federal ministries may not have absolute control here (unless they declare a state of emergency or something) but they do have plenty of influence.
  - kalleboo 7y ago
    Japan has the same limitation, but the government put out a "strong recommendation" for schools to close and all the local governments complied.
    - magduf 7y ago
      Japan has a different culture. When the government puts out a "strong recommendation", the society generally follows. This even happens with corporations. There's a culture of conformity there that just isn't present in western nations.
  - olau 7y ago
    No, that's not the real reason. In the places where they have shut down schools, they can't really do it either. But when government says "do X" and has good reasons, the institutions comply. I'm in the board of a private institution in a country with a shutdown order, and there was really no discussion between the board members that this institution would shut down too, despite there being no legal backing at all.
    - dx034 7y ago
- keiferski 7y ago
  France population: 66.99 million. Denmark population: 5.6 million. Doesn't seem like an accurate comparison.
  - TulliusCicero 7y ago
    Has there every been a time when, "Country X can't do what country Y can, because X is too [big/small] while Y is [small/big]" has not been a useless comment? Is there a generic term for this sort of fallacy, where someone brings up a random difference between [cities/states/countries] as an excuse for why one can't do what the other has already done, without ever bothering to explain why the difference matters?
    - keiferski 7y ago
      How is it a useless comment? If you want to compare the actions of Denmark to France, it's more relevant to compare it to a particular region. Grand Est, for example has a similar population as Denmark. This is almost common sense in the business world. No one thinks BigCo and LittleStartup are capable of the same things or that one's ability or inability to do something is equivalent.
      - hadrien01 7y ago
        Well, in that case, let's compare: the Grand Est region has about the same population as Denmark, slightly more COVID-19 cases than Denmark (587 vs 514), and more deaths (9 vs 0). And yet, most schools and the administration are still open.
        hef19898 7y ago
        For now. In business, people deciding on the very weak data basis we have to discuss we have, would rightfully be have their asses kicked. Yet, here we are, doing exactly this.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      It's even worse than useless. Giant states are often assumed to be much better than small states, because "efficiency". Yet, whenever actual conditions are examined, and (inevitably) small states turn out to be better for humans, we get this sort of "well of course smaller problems are easier to solve" apologia.
- hef19898 7y ago
  Yeah, and we don't know the reasoning behind either decision. I can come up with maybe a hundred different parameters that could be relevant or not. At this point we can trust authorities to have a reasonable approach to this and that they monitor the situation closely. Or we can assume they don't. In the first case, we follow the action plan. In the latter we do what we can, best based on actions that worked elsewhere. Just complaining about how insufficient actions are in our eyes doesn't help. Anyway, there plans for stuff like this government drawers everywhere. Ranging from school closures to plan keeping critical infrastructure up. Heritage from the cold war. And even if the US federal government seems to screw up, states like New York and Washington seem to react rather decisively. And we shouldn't forget that things in China are calming down to an extent ad-hoc hospitals are closed down and medical supplies can be shipped to Italy.
- imustbeevil 7y ago
  France has 11x Denmark's population and 4x it's confirmed cases, so it seems like doing nothing worked better.
  - XorNot 7y ago
    Ah yes, because the pandemic is over and the disease has stopped spreading.
  - dx034 7y ago
    Denmark's case number has increased far more than that of other countries in recent days. They probably had to act as they'd overtake Italy in less than a week with cases/capita if growth continues like that.
    - robotbikes 7y ago
      The case #'s only go up if you test more people. In Ohio for instance they are only testing very few people and there is now evidence of community spread because the 4th person confirmed had no known contact but you basically need to be in intensive car to get tested or have an obvious connection. So the case # in and of themselves could vary based upon testing criteria. Not sure if they have the same standards in Denmark vs France.
  - mft_ 7y ago
    Don't forget: a) There's a time-lag of probably 1-2 weeks between someone becoming infected, until their case hits the official statistics. b) There will be different rates of testing between different areas, healthcare systems, and countries, which will be hard to quantify. c) There will be fundamental differences between countries (e.g. patterns of population density, quality/availability of healthcare, etc.) which mean that direct per capita comparisons (as you made) are of little value.
  - bujak 7y ago
    these numbers don't mean anything anymore. there is no more systematic testing going on
  - 7y ago
A-Train 7y ago
What? There is tons of stuff governments can do to flatten the curve. Educating people, closing schools, people gatherings, obligatory masks for all (or DIY bandanas), testing more.
- dx034 7y ago
  > obligatory masks for all States struggle to get enough masks for medical staff, diverting any for the general public doesn't seem smart. And self made masks will have so little effect that they could be detrimental if people decide to be less careful because they wear a masks. To the other points, education about hand washing and behavior in public is the one thing governments have all done for weeks now. It just seems that this isn't nearly enough.
  - TheFiend7 7y ago
    This mentality is just false. If more people of the general populous have masks, how does that not reduce transmission therefore flatten the curve? Now I understand the logic behind there being shortages. But saying that the general populous shouldn't wear masks because it doesn't do anything doesn't sound accurate.
    - angry_octet 7y ago
      Without training it is very hard to wear PPE correctly. Even if you change masks regularly, it is hard not to touch the outside (hot side) of the mask with your hands. Reusing masks makes this even more likely. Most people don't get a good fit of the mask either. Respirators are a bit easier but nowhere near enough of them. Practically speaking all it does is burn through a small supply of masks.
bluetomcat 7y ago
That's probably not the decision-making strategy of most governments, but it's a compelling POV for looking at the situation. Let it spread fast, wreak havoc and disrupt the social order, or control it within the capacity of health systems, or try to minimise the infections with constant awareness of the society for a prolonged period of time, affecting the economy in the long run.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
PeterisP 7y ago
The actions taken during February in Wuhan and neighboring provinces seem to have stopped the spread there, so effective actions can be taken. Thing is, it appears that there's little overlap between actions that seem reasonable and actions that are effective. If you wait until drastic actions seem justifiable, then by that time it's too late to be effective (i.e. the Italy lockdown which would have helped Italy if it was done 2-3 weeks earlier); and if you take effective actions, then most people and media will wonder why you're so authorative and unreasonable (e.g. the reaction to early Wuhan containment measure enforcement).
- blueblimp 7y ago
  Another interesting penalty of delayed action is that any exponential increase that happened while you were delaying needs to be balanced by a period of exponential decrease once you have measures in place. Exactly how much depends on assumptions, but e.g. delaying applying measures by 2 weeks could mean they need to be kept for 4 additional weeks. So the overall cost picture is strongly in favor of early action.
uk_programmer 7y ago
Russia shutdown its borders pretty much straight away and IIRC they have hardly any cases.
- DonHopkins 7y ago
  If you believe them, they don't have any gay people either.
  - timeattack 7y ago
    Well, there is still no panic and hospitals are not overrun with patients. Russia is not China and far from being able to hide such things from public.
    - taw16092019 7y ago
      Maybe it because they know this virus very well.
    - DonHopkins 7y ago
      Not being able to hide things from the public has never kept Putin or Trump from lying through their teeth about anything. The Moscow Times is currently reporting that there are 28 cases so far. We'll see how that turns out, regardless of whether they're currently telling the truth about it. Coronavirus in Russia: The Latest News | March 12 https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/03/12/coronavirus-in-russia-the-latest-news-march-12-a69117 https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/03/12/coronavirus-in-rus... >— A religious procession in central Russia aimed at fighting the coronavirus has been canceled due to the threat of the virus itself. Apparently they believe the gay isn't the only thing you can pray away. Trump seeks a 'miracle' as virus fears mount https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/28/politics/donald-trump-coronavirus-miracle-stock-markets/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/28/politics/donald-trump-cor... >"It's going to disappear. One day it's like a miracle, it will disappear," Trump said at the White House Thursday as the virus marched across Asia and Europe after US officials said the US should brace for severe disruption to everyday life. >The President also warned that things could "get worse before it gets better," but he added it could "maybe go away. We'll see what happens. Nobody really knows."
JediWing 7y ago
> The reality is probably closer to the fact that there isn't anything governments can do about it. They can proactively close schools, government jobs. They can roll out bailout programs to encourage business closings that would otherwise cause the businesses to go bankrupt. They can aggressively close borders, and enforce quarantines with military force. They can mandate the production of respirators, testing kits and other medical necessities. Government can do A LOT that no other actor can, so I don't quite get where you're coming from with this statement.
DonHopkins 7y ago
Except that the head of the US Government just makes up random shit on twitter. So yes, the government does just make up random shit like him. And there most certainly are many things the government can do about it. How about Medicare for all people, and for all diseases? Republicans Want Medicare for All, but Just for This One Disease. Everyone’s a socialist in a pandemic. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/opinion/coronavirus-socialism.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/opinion/coronavirus-socia...
rsynnott 7y ago
There’s a lot that governments can do. Ireland just closed schools and universities, and banned large indoor gatherings, for instance, and directed companies to make work from home available where possible (though this last one is really more a suggestion). This won’t get rid of the virus, but it may help to slow it and thus reduce deaths. Closing borders, certainly at this point, seems largely futile.
- dboreham 7y ago
  >banned large indoor gatherings I've read (true, who knows?) that in the USA this isn't legally possible. Federal government doesn't have that power. This may be behind Trump's move to stop flights only to Europe, and not domestic flights. He has the power to do the former but not the latter, apparently.
  - michaelt 7y ago
    If the internment of Japanese-American citizens during WW2 [1] was legally possible for the federal government, to me it would seem odd if cancelling Coachella wasn't. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_America...
    - makomk 7y ago
      The US courts have since explicitly rejected the reasoning used to justify the internment of Japanese-American citizens. It would not be legally possible today.
      - angry_octet 7y ago
        So do it anyway, and then 12 months later, after everyone is released, maybe the Supreme Court says you can't do it. I'm not sating that it is a good idea, just that judicial review doesn't seem particularly effective.
  - robotbikes 7y ago
Dumblydorr 7y ago
Govts CAN do plenty: close schools, theaters, offices, events, parades, mandate WfH, quarantine affected areas, distribute supplies, educate... there's a ton governments can do.
maest 7y ago
This is blatanly false. > there isn't anything governments can do about it. Banning public events, locking down geographical areas, closing schools, pulling in retired medical workforce etc. > doesn't mean that that something is meaningful or will have a positive impact You can see the impact of measures such as enforcing lockdowns (e.g. Wuhan cases) and you can compare the spread of the virus in countries which take measures vs those that do not.
LorenPechtel 7y ago
He's not just making shit up--the curves are reasonable. However, where he's very, very wrong is thinking that the government is deliberately waiting from T1 to T2. We don't have enough data to actually figure where T1, T2 and T3 are, and counting it in terms of known cases ensures you blow past T2. Look how fast Italy went from first infections to T3.

rcMgD2BwE72F 7y ago

Denmark did close every school and most administrations. France did not. Many decisions can be taken, but are not (for various reasons). Most experts recommend to limit contacts rather than closing down borders, and no one is pretending to stop the virus but they all should try to flatten the curve. You don't seem to pay attention to the current situation.

duckMuppet 7y ago
The fact that they refuse to do things like closing borders and immediately ceasing all travel by foreigners or citizens who've traveled traveled abroad meanwhile ending arbitrary social events is the reason you know it's hype up media nonsense. Most of the actions taken are those most likely not affecting those in the target older or immuno-compromised demographic likely to have the serious consequences. https://omny.fm/shows/inside-the-huddle/03-dr-laura-power-on-covid-19-031120 https://omny.fm/shows/inside-the-huddle/03-dr-laura-power-on...
- JediWing 7y ago
  Is that why now two countries have had mass quarantines? It's a balancing act between lowering infections/death and economic impact.
- maest 7y ago
  Shutting down borders helps if the virus hasn't reached your country. If it has, there's no point in banning incoming people (maybe you can stop people from leaving so other regions don't get infected, but that's a less strong incentive). If you already have the virus in your country, the best thing you can do is slow its spreading, by banning large groups of people from congregating.
lm28469 7y ago
It also depends on the country's government. Afaik in Germany the country's government can't force schools to close or public events to be cancelled. These decisions have to be taken locally (at state/city or even district level). All the health ministry can do is tell people "you shouldn't do A B C and you should do X Y Z"
- cerebellum42 7y ago
  This is correct afaik, I'm pretty sure the decision to close schools is with the ministries of education of each German state, however if federal institutions put out strong recommendations, state and local administrators will likely follow very soon after. Federal ministries may not have absolute control here (unless they declare a state of emergency or something) but they do have plenty of influence.
- kalleboo 7y ago
  Japan has the same limitation, but the government put out a "strong recommendation" for schools to close and all the local governments complied.
  - magduf 7y ago
    Japan has a different culture. When the government puts out a "strong recommendation", the society generally follows. This even happens with corporations. There's a culture of conformity there that just isn't present in western nations.
- olau 7y ago
  No, that's not the real reason. In the places where they have shut down schools, they can't really do it either. But when government says "do X" and has good reasons, the institutions comply. I'm in the board of a private institution in a country with a shutdown order, and there was really no discussion between the board members that this institution would shut down too, despite there being no legal backing at all.
  - dx034 7y ago
keiferski 7y ago
France population: 66.99 million. Denmark population: 5.6 million. Doesn't seem like an accurate comparison.
- TulliusCicero 7y ago
  Has there every been a time when, "Country X can't do what country Y can, because X is too [big/small] while Y is [small/big]" has not been a useless comment? Is there a generic term for this sort of fallacy, where someone brings up a random difference between [cities/states/countries] as an excuse for why one can't do what the other has already done, without ever bothering to explain why the difference matters?
  - keiferski 7y ago
    How is it a useless comment? If you want to compare the actions of Denmark to France, it's more relevant to compare it to a particular region. Grand Est, for example has a similar population as Denmark. This is almost common sense in the business world. No one thinks BigCo and LittleStartup are capable of the same things or that one's ability or inability to do something is equivalent.
    - hadrien01 7y ago
      Well, in that case, let's compare: the Grand Est region has about the same population as Denmark, slightly more COVID-19 cases than Denmark (587 vs 514), and more deaths (9 vs 0). And yet, most schools and the administration are still open.
      - hef19898 7y ago
        For now. In business, people deciding on the very weak data basis we have to discuss we have, would rightfully be have their asses kicked. Yet, here we are, doing exactly this.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    It's even worse than useless. Giant states are often assumed to be much better than small states, because "efficiency". Yet, whenever actual conditions are examined, and (inevitably) small states turn out to be better for humans, we get this sort of "well of course smaller problems are easier to solve" apologia.
hef19898 7y ago
Yeah, and we don't know the reasoning behind either decision. I can come up with maybe a hundred different parameters that could be relevant or not. At this point we can trust authorities to have a reasonable approach to this and that they monitor the situation closely. Or we can assume they don't. In the first case, we follow the action plan. In the latter we do what we can, best based on actions that worked elsewhere. Just complaining about how insufficient actions are in our eyes doesn't help. Anyway, there plans for stuff like this government drawers everywhere. Ranging from school closures to plan keeping critical infrastructure up. Heritage from the cold war. And even if the US federal government seems to screw up, states like New York and Washington seem to react rather decisively. And we shouldn't forget that things in China are calming down to an extent ad-hoc hospitals are closed down and medical supplies can be shipped to Italy.
imustbeevil 7y ago
France has 11x Denmark's population and 4x it's confirmed cases, so it seems like doing nothing worked better.
- XorNot 7y ago
  Ah yes, because the pandemic is over and the disease has stopped spreading.
- dx034 7y ago
  Denmark's case number has increased far more than that of other countries in recent days. They probably had to act as they'd overtake Italy in less than a week with cases/capita if growth continues like that.
  - robotbikes 7y ago
    The case #'s only go up if you test more people. In Ohio for instance they are only testing very few people and there is now evidence of community spread because the 4th person confirmed had no known contact but you basically need to be in intensive car to get tested or have an obvious connection. So the case # in and of themselves could vary based upon testing criteria. Not sure if they have the same standards in Denmark vs France.
- mft_ 7y ago
  Don't forget: a) There's a time-lag of probably 1-2 weeks between someone becoming infected, until their case hits the official statistics. b) There will be different rates of testing between different areas, healthcare systems, and countries, which will be hard to quantify. c) There will be fundamental differences between countries (e.g. patterns of population density, quality/availability of healthcare, etc.) which mean that direct per capita comparisons (as you made) are of little value.
- bujak 7y ago
  these numbers don't mean anything anymore. there is no more systematic testing going on
- 7y ago

A-Train 7y ago

What? There is tons of stuff governments can do to flatten the curve. Educating people, closing schools, people gatherings, obligatory masks for all (or DIY bandanas), testing more.

dx034 7y ago
> obligatory masks for all States struggle to get enough masks for medical staff, diverting any for the general public doesn't seem smart. And self made masks will have so little effect that they could be detrimental if people decide to be less careful because they wear a masks. To the other points, education about hand washing and behavior in public is the one thing governments have all done for weeks now. It just seems that this isn't nearly enough.
- TheFiend7 7y ago
  This mentality is just false. If more people of the general populous have masks, how does that not reduce transmission therefore flatten the curve? Now I understand the logic behind there being shortages. But saying that the general populous shouldn't wear masks because it doesn't do anything doesn't sound accurate.
  - angry_octet 7y ago
    Without training it is very hard to wear PPE correctly. Even if you change masks regularly, it is hard not to touch the outside (hot side) of the mask with your hands. Reusing masks makes this even more likely. Most people don't get a good fit of the mask either. Respirators are a bit easier but nowhere near enough of them. Practically speaking all it does is burn through a small supply of masks.

bluetomcat 7y ago

That's probably not the decision-making strategy of most governments, but it's a compelling POV for looking at the situation. Let it spread fast, wreak havoc and disrupt the social order, or control it within the capacity of health systems, or try to minimise the infections with constant awareness of the society for a prolonged period of time, affecting the economy in the long run.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

PeterisP 7y ago

The actions taken during February in Wuhan and neighboring provinces seem to have stopped the spread there, so effective actions can be taken. Thing is, it appears that there's little overlap between actions that seem reasonable and actions that are effective. If you wait until drastic actions seem justifiable, then by that time it's too late to be effective (i.e. the Italy lockdown which would have helped Italy if it was done 2-3 weeks earlier); and if you take effective actions, then most people and media will wonder why you're so authorative and unreasonable (e.g. the reaction to early Wuhan containment measure enforcement).

blueblimp 7y ago
Another interesting penalty of delayed action is that any exponential increase that happened while you were delaying needs to be balanced by a period of exponential decrease once you have measures in place. Exactly how much depends on assumptions, but e.g. delaying applying measures by 2 weeks could mean they need to be kept for 4 additional weeks. So the overall cost picture is strongly in favor of early action.

uk_programmer 7y ago

Russia shutdown its borders pretty much straight away and IIRC they have hardly any cases.

DonHopkins 7y ago
If you believe them, they don't have any gay people either.
- timeattack 7y ago
  Well, there is still no panic and hospitals are not overrun with patients. Russia is not China and far from being able to hide such things from public.
  - taw16092019 7y ago
    Maybe it because they know this virus very well.
  - DonHopkins 7y ago
    Not being able to hide things from the public has never kept Putin or Trump from lying through their teeth about anything. The Moscow Times is currently reporting that there are 28 cases so far. We'll see how that turns out, regardless of whether they're currently telling the truth about it. Coronavirus in Russia: The Latest News | March 12 https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/03/12/coronavirus-in-russia-the-latest-news-march-12-a69117 https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/03/12/coronavirus-in-rus... >— A religious procession in central Russia aimed at fighting the coronavirus has been canceled due to the threat of the virus itself. Apparently they believe the gay isn't the only thing you can pray away. Trump seeks a 'miracle' as virus fears mount https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/28/politics/donald-trump-coronavirus-miracle-stock-markets/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/28/politics/donald-trump-cor... >"It's going to disappear. One day it's like a miracle, it will disappear," Trump said at the White House Thursday as the virus marched across Asia and Europe after US officials said the US should brace for severe disruption to everyday life. >The President also warned that things could "get worse before it gets better," but he added it could "maybe go away. We'll see what happens. Nobody really knows."

JediWing 7y ago

> The reality is probably closer to the fact that there isn't anything governments can do about it. They can proactively close schools, government jobs. They can roll out bailout programs to encourage business closings that would otherwise cause the businesses to go bankrupt. They can aggressively close borders, and enforce quarantines with military force. They can mandate the production of respirators, testing kits and other medical necessities. Government can do A LOT that no other actor can, so I don't quite get where you're coming from with this statement.

DonHopkins 7y ago

Except that the head of the US Government just makes up random shit on twitter. So yes, the government does just make up random shit like him. And there most certainly are many things the government can do about it. How about Medicare for all people, and for all diseases? Republicans Want Medicare for All, but Just for This One Disease. Everyone’s a socialist in a pandemic. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/opinion/coronavirus-socialism.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/opinion/coronavirus-socia...

rsynnott 7y ago

There’s a lot that governments can do. Ireland just closed schools and universities, and banned large indoor gatherings, for instance, and directed companies to make work from home available where possible (though this last one is really more a suggestion). This won’t get rid of the virus, but it may help to slow it and thus reduce deaths. Closing borders, certainly at this point, seems largely futile.

dboreham 7y ago
>banned large indoor gatherings I've read (true, who knows?) that in the USA this isn't legally possible. Federal government doesn't have that power. This may be behind Trump's move to stop flights only to Europe, and not domestic flights. He has the power to do the former but not the latter, apparently.
- michaelt 7y ago
  If the internment of Japanese-American citizens during WW2 [1] was legally possible for the federal government, to me it would seem odd if cancelling Coachella wasn't. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_America...
  - makomk 7y ago
    The US courts have since explicitly rejected the reasoning used to justify the internment of Japanese-American citizens. It would not be legally possible today.
    - angry_octet 7y ago
      So do it anyway, and then 12 months later, after everyone is released, maybe the Supreme Court says you can't do it. I'm not sating that it is a good idea, just that judicial review doesn't seem particularly effective.
- robotbikes 7y ago

Dumblydorr 7y ago

Govts CAN do plenty: close schools, theaters, offices, events, parades, mandate WfH, quarantine affected areas, distribute supplies, educate... there's a ton governments can do.

maest 7y ago

This is blatanly false. > there isn't anything governments can do about it. Banning public events, locking down geographical areas, closing schools, pulling in retired medical workforce etc. > doesn't mean that that something is meaningful or will have a positive impact You can see the impact of measures such as enforcing lockdowns (e.g. Wuhan cases) and you can compare the spread of the virus in countries which take measures vs those that do not.

LorenPechtel 7y ago

He's not just making shit up--the curves are reasonable. However, where he's very, very wrong is thinking that the government is deliberately waiting from T1 to T2. We don't have enough data to actually figure where T1, T2 and T3 are, and counting it in terms of known cases ensures you blow past T2. Look how fast Italy went from first infections to T3.