3 ms·

First thing first, this is science, not politics. Everyone wants a drug and vaccine, but good science takes time to happen. Make no mistake, no one wants a loc

First thing first, this is science, not politics. Everyone wants a drug and vaccine, but good science takes time to happen. Make no mistake, no one wants a lock down, but so far, it's the only option in the lack of a functional medical solution. If tons of scientists tell us lock down is the only option for now, we should'd listen rather than discredit them. Now, if someone really wants to move on to talk about politics. It's about a nation as a whole can do the right thing, not about authoritarian vs. democracy. A ideal democracy society works because we trust reasonable individuals can collectively make the right decision. In this COVID-19 case, lock the hell down and do the best practice to stop it from spreading. I don't see why a functional democracy nation can't do that. But it has to be a functional one. Unfortunately, authoritarian was necessary when the general population (including local governments at various level) cannot function as well. China for example, has to reply on THE ONE in the center to make the right call and execute order top down to be functional. At least according to the CCP, the general population cannot be trusted. Thus the authoritarian regime. It's easy to see it's effectiveness when there is the right order in place. But it's also equally easy to neglect the fact that such an order takes really long (from Dec 2019 to end of Jan) to materialize. IMHO, I think both Italy and China failed here, while we are all ignoring the one did really well, at least so far, Japan. (Or maybe Taiwan and Singapore, but they are small states which is easier to govern).

lbeltrame 7y ago
I wouldn't view it as science vs politics. Science advises, correctly, the politicians. But the ultimate decision stays (for the good, or bad) with politics, because they have to balance things. As I said elsewhere, a vaccine is likely less "important" in the immediate, especially because it can have far deeper side effects, and no test has been done on humans whatsoever, while most of the drugs are on Phase III (earliest data should arrive in April, at least for the studies I looked up). Lock downs will help. But they will help in the future. They won't help the overloaded ICUs now, because they're getting now people who had been infected up to 14 days before. In case of no drugs, the alternative is getting makeshift hospitals in place to lessen the burden on the health system, and procure more equipment. However, just as the government was extremely fast in getting people locked in their homes, it was not for these things. > It's about a nation as a whole can do the right thing, not about authoritarian vs. democracy. It's hard to tell when the same government gives contradictory or confused statements. Some blamed "the ignorant masses" for the panic fleeing last Sunday, but in my view, people weren't just well equipped to understand (plus the early leak of the document) what was going on. The media also cherry picks the bad apples very well.
- eveningcoffee 7y ago
  This is correct. All the methods help in the future. It ultimately means that these methods should have been used in the past. It does not mean that they should be not used today because without using them the future will be orders of magnitude worse. I compiled a small investigation http://www.savespain.eu/italy-vs-germany http://www.savespain.eu/italy-vs-germany It might be interesting for you. If you want your future to be better, start acting today. Every Italian should have realized by now that you should hide your grandma and grandpa if you want to see them alive.

lbeltrame 7y ago

I wouldn't view it as science vs politics. Science advises, correctly, the politicians. But the ultimate decision stays (for the good, or bad) with politics, because they have to balance things. As I said elsewhere, a vaccine is likely less "important" in the immediate, especially because it can have far deeper side effects, and no test has been done on humans whatsoever, while most of the drugs are on Phase III (earliest data should arrive in April, at least for the studies I looked up). Lock downs will help. But they will help in the future. They won't help the overloaded ICUs now, because they're getting now people who had been infected up to 14 days before. In case of no drugs, the alternative is getting makeshift hospitals in place to lessen the burden on the health system, and procure more equipment. However, just as the government was extremely fast in getting people locked in their homes, it was not for these things. > It's about a nation as a whole can do the right thing, not about authoritarian vs. democracy. It's hard to tell when the same government gives contradictory or confused statements. Some blamed "the ignorant masses" for the panic fleeing last Sunday, but in my view, people weren't just well equipped to understand (plus the early leak of the document) what was going on. The media also cherry picks the bad apples very well.

eveningcoffee 7y ago
This is correct. All the methods help in the future. It ultimately means that these methods should have been used in the past. It does not mean that they should be not used today because without using them the future will be orders of magnitude worse. I compiled a small investigation http://www.savespain.eu/italy-vs-germany http://www.savespain.eu/italy-vs-germany It might be interesting for you. If you want your future to be better, start acting today. Every Italian should have realized by now that you should hide your grandma and grandpa if you want to see them alive.