3 ms·
It's clear to me from the way the government officials talk on TV that they mostly care about limiting the amount of damage to their political careers. It's an
by brenden2 7y ago
It's clear to me from the way the government officials talk on TV that they mostly care about limiting the amount of damage to their political careers. It's an election year, so everyone seems to be focused on blaming someone else when things go wrong, and trying to take credit for when things go right.
The most we can do as individuals is take steps to protect ourselves and our communities. I wouldn't count on the government to step in and save us.
The virus doesn't carry a passport, doesn't care who's president, and doesn't care about your nationality. It also doesn't care what the tax rate is, whether stocks go up or down, or what your net worth is.
- hef19898 7y agoI agree that sriking the correct middle ground, solution wise, is close to impossible. But isn't it way riskier for a political career to do nothing by now? The public, in my impression, would take it better if measures tended on the heavy-handed side of the spectrum as compared to the oppsite.
- tonyedgecombe 7y agoThe trouble is we are still probably a couple of months away from the peak. There has been quite a lot of debate about this in the UK. Some of the thinking seems to be if we restrict people too much early on then they will get weary of the restrictions later when they are really needed.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- tomp 7y agoAlso, they have to think systemically, not individually. Basic game theory. It's preferable, from the perspective of the government (and society - i.e. Pareto optimal) to avoid any panic and shut down the country only to the extent necessary, in an organized and orderly fashion, rather than stoke up fears and panic and "each man for himself" mentality. Trump seems to be walking the tight line (intentionally or not) between making bold, highly visible moves - banning flights from China, now EU - and avoiding moves that actually matter - closing borders completely, enforcing isolation in communities - which might help stop the disease but also would definitely crash the economy (the real economy, not just the stock market as now). Plus, they have very little skin in the game - literally only (re)election... but they have bank accounts in Switzerland & the Caribbean, vacation houses in low-population areas, priority access to medical services, private security & transportation services... they'll be fine, whatever happens.
- bjourne 7y agoI don't see what is wrong with that. It's like when someone commits a large massacre with an assault rifle. It makes sense to seize the opportunity to argue why assault weapons should be banned. I don't understand Americans infatuation with "unity". Every time there's a major crisis "unity" shuts down all disagreements so that nothing is ever learned.