3 ms·
> So, politicians choose (1), no action, as the most likely winning scenario. I have serious doubts about this model, but will play along. What explains: (a)
by _jal 7y ago
> So, politicians choose (1), no action, as the most likely winning scenario.
I have serious doubts about this model, but will play along.
What explains:
(a) The exceptions - some countries are acting and doing well. Others are doing better after a delay.
(b) Past, more aggressive actions - many countries, the US included, have responded much more quickly and competently to acute disease crises.
- hef19898 7y agoJust that the majority if governments in Europe are taking steps, pretty radical ones at that. For no other pandemic, SARS, MERS, various flus or Ebola was anything even near to what's done now. I wouldn't like to be the one to meet the decision, so. Because the cost of closing down a country for a couple of weeks is enormous. So when do put these actions in place? I have no idea, but it seems to be pretty difficult to get the timing right. There is no point in crying wolf over these actions online, or even worse about what should have been done in hindsight. There are whole staffs doing nothing else right now, experts in their respective fields. So the best we, as a public, can do right now is to get out of these people's way. We follow guidelines like washing hands and reducing contact. We go self quarantine. We take steps we can in our social and professional environment. We send our employees into WFH or close certain cites if that's not possible. We work with authorities to come up with plans and contingencies if our companies are relevant in that regard.
- tomatotomato37 7y agoPoliticians are humans with imperfect immune systems too. It's hard to be logical and play realpolitik when getting it wrong kills you or your family