6 ms·

> Is the contention that if these early tests had worked, they actually would have been sufficient to protect the entire nation? The contention in the article

by lmkg 7y ago

> Is the contention that if these early tests had worked, they actually would have been sufficient to protect the entire nation? The contention in the article is that there were multiple, compounding layers of fuck-ups.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
An analogy I used over a “Zoom & Bourbon” meetup last night was that the COVID handling by the US federal government is very similar to aircraft crashes: it’s never just one failure, but a series that cascade (and you invariably “get behind the aircraft” due to being overwhelmed) and lead you to the crash site. We’re almost to the crash site, just a few more weeks to go. Please make every attempt to stay safe and healthy.
- 45ure 7y ago
  Are you by any chance describing the Swiss cheese model? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    Yes! It’s overused, but very useful when communicating the idea.
    - 45ure 7y ago
      I agree.
    - robocat 7y ago
      The US response to Covid19 is nothing like the Swiss cheese model. The Swiss cheese model is a perfect storm of unlikely failures that leads to a negative outcome, a failure that slips through multiple safety nets and checks. A real “Swiss cheese failure” reads like a bizarre set of coincidences within a highly rational system of disaster prevention controls, with a unique outcome that never gets repeated again - like some plane accidents where every level of check/balance has had a miss. Other countries have not failed (Taiwan, Singapore, Vietnam, South Korea, Japan, China) which shows that rational actions could prevent this. Many other countries have failed (Italy, Spain, US, Iran, etc) which shows this isn’t a Swiss cheese model.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
BoiledCabbage 7y ago
> Meanwhile, the FDA did not allow anyone other than the CDC to test for coronavirus. true > there were multiple, compounding layers of fuck-ups. also true All of it is completely true. And the issue is that both of these were blatantly obvious to anyone paying attention to the situation. The CDC was struggling to develop the test, and the FDA regulates who can create tests under normal circumstances. The larger question is why the heck didn't the administration seeing what was going, on step in, and say this is an emergency situation, allow private testing! That's your role as head of the executive branch. Observe the individual government agencies and plan and coordinate a response. It would take 5 mins to call the FDA and say "due to this emergency situation, change your rules to allow private testing". Why did the admin just sit there this whole time? Everyone saw the CDC couldn't scale up in time. Everyone knew the FDA regulation only allowed the CDC to create a test. Why do nothing for weeks watching this train wreck? In any emergency or sudden crisis situation, shit happens - things don't go to plan. The point of leadership is to analyze what's going on and take decisive action to rectify it. Not just stand there. Put in place a damn contingency plan. If you have a livesite issue and one of your main services to diagnose goes down, You look to see how long it will take to get it back up - and if it's not fast enough you find a mitigation. You don't just stand there and say "Well, we'll just sit and wait however long it takes to get fixed while letting this thing spiral out of control. And do essentially nothing else to solve this."
- dominotw 7y ago
  > FDA regulation only allowed the CDC to create a test wondering why this regulation exists and are there any guidelines for extreme situations.
  - brightball 7y ago
    I imagine it’s the same guidelines for most centralized regulations. People who believe that central control is good. Which is a much larger discussion.
    - jschwartzi 7y ago

by lmkg 7y ago

toomuchtodo 7y ago

An analogy I used over a “Zoom & Bourbon” meetup last night was that the COVID handling by the US federal government is very similar to aircraft crashes: it’s never just one failure, but a series that cascade (and you invariably “get behind the aircraft” due to being overwhelmed) and lead you to the crash site. We’re almost to the crash site, just a few more weeks to go. Please make every attempt to stay safe and healthy.

45ure 7y ago
Are you by any chance describing the Swiss cheese model? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  Yes! It’s overused, but very useful when communicating the idea.
  - 45ure 7y ago
    I agree.
  - robocat 7y ago
    The US response to Covid19 is nothing like the Swiss cheese model. The Swiss cheese model is a perfect storm of unlikely failures that leads to a negative outcome, a failure that slips through multiple safety nets and checks. A real “Swiss cheese failure” reads like a bizarre set of coincidences within a highly rational system of disaster prevention controls, with a unique outcome that never gets repeated again - like some plane accidents where every level of check/balance has had a miss. Other countries have not failed (Taiwan, Singapore, Vietnam, South Korea, Japan, China) which shows that rational actions could prevent this. Many other countries have failed (Italy, Spain, US, Iran, etc) which shows this isn’t a Swiss cheese model.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

BoiledCabbage 7y ago

> Meanwhile, the FDA did not allow anyone other than the CDC to test for coronavirus. true > there were multiple, compounding layers of fuck-ups. also true All of it is completely true. And the issue is that both of these were blatantly obvious to anyone paying attention to the situation. The CDC was struggling to develop the test, and the FDA regulates who can create tests under normal circumstances. The larger question is why the heck didn't the administration seeing what was going, on step in, and say this is an emergency situation, allow private testing! That's your role as head of the executive branch. Observe the individual government agencies and plan and coordinate a response. It would take 5 mins to call the FDA and say "due to this emergency situation, change your rules to allow private testing". Why did the admin just sit there this whole time? Everyone saw the CDC couldn't scale up in time. Everyone knew the FDA regulation only allowed the CDC to create a test. Why do nothing for weeks watching this train wreck? In any emergency or sudden crisis situation, shit happens - things don't go to plan. The point of leadership is to analyze what's going on and take decisive action to rectify it. Not just stand there. Put in place a damn contingency plan. If you have a livesite issue and one of your main services to diagnose goes down, You look to see how long it will take to get it back up - and if it's not fast enough you find a mitigation. You don't just stand there and say "Well, we'll just sit and wait however long it takes to get fixed while letting this thing spiral out of control. And do essentially nothing else to solve this."

dominotw 7y ago
> FDA regulation only allowed the CDC to create a test wondering why this regulation exists and are there any guidelines for extreme situations.
- brightball 7y ago
  I imagine it’s the same guidelines for most centralized regulations. People who believe that central control is good. Which is a much larger discussion.
  - jschwartzi 7y ago