3 ms·

Not just winging it, but in some instances trying to do the most, consequences be damned. I am really hoping that in a months time the approaches of Sweden and

Not just winging it, but in some instances trying to do the most, consequences be damned. I am really hoping that in a months time the approaches of Sweden and the state of Georgia prove not to be disastrous. Here in California, our governor has declared that we will do this indefinitely (!) until six criteria are met. Well, I hope they have some really concrete plans to meet them, because I haven't seen any such plans presented to the public. The absolute devastation we are doing to the livelihoods of so many is staggering. What will happen when the tax revenues run dry and the tax base has been reduced by some huge percentage? Coronavirus will still be around when that happens. The virus is here, and will not be eradicated. Society cannot hibernate like this sustainably, certainly not until a vaccine arrives. I'm all about masks in public, social distancing rules, bans of large gatherings, and lots of resources directed to protecting vulnerable populations. But I'm afraid and convinced that the stay-at-home orders will do far far greater damage to society as a whole than the virus would/will under a more targeted mitigation scheme. Maybe my fears are overblown because of the recent hit to my mental and physical health. My gym was declared illegal, as was access to all parks in Los Angeles, as was my ability to work in an isolated office without a needy toddler in the room.

rbritton 6y ago
You're going to get massively downvoted here because you dared question the hive mind. None of their approaches place any consideration on the damage caused by the mitigation efforts themselves. Suicides, domestic violence, overdoses, and other negative outcomes are all up and will cost lives. At what point does the conspiracy theory that much of it is a pure power grab become validated?
Hokusai 6y ago
> the approaches of Sweden and the state of Georgia prove not to be disastrous. Sweden has a strong well being systems. People stays at home every winter during the flu seasons. In any given meeting there are a couple of employees working from home because they may have the flu. To compare the social protections of Sweden that allow citizens to stay home when sick ALWAYS, not just for the current pandemic, with the USA approach of come-to-work-or-you-are-fired is not reasonable. The USA should pay more to their employees, have better healthcare coverage, give paid leave, and forbid free lay offs. And then, it would be in a position to postpone, lets see for how long, the shutdowns in a pandemic. Sweden without lock down: Workplaces -32% New York with lock downs: Workplaces -48% I have the fear that the same Americans that want the "Swedish approach to CoVid19" are the ones against the social safety nets that has made it possible. - https://www.gstatic.com/covid19/mobility/2020-04-17_SE_Mobility_Report_en.pdf https://www.gstatic.com/covid19/mobility/2020-04-17_SE_Mobil... - https://www.gstatic.com/covid19/mobility/2020-04-11_US_New_York_Mobility_Report_en.pdf https://www.gstatic.com/covid19/mobility/2020-04-11_US_New_Y...
- dwpdwpdwpdwpdwp 6y ago
  I have the fear that the same Americans that want the "Swedish approach to CoVid19" are the ones against the social safety nets that has made it possible. I believe you're right about that. The cynic in me thinks Georgia is only 'reopening' to avoid paying more unemployment. Maybe it's my own Swedish ancestry that compels me to want an strong social safety net and a softer lockdown?
dragonwriter 6y ago
> the approaches of Sweden and the state of Georgia prove not to be disastrous. Sweden's approach is having a strong social safety net, including for personal health, that makes acting in the way public health requires consistent with personal incentives without mandates. Georgia’s approach is to have neither positive social incentives in the general case not appropriate public health mandates in the absence of those incentives. They aren't similar approaches. Sweden's probably won't be completely disastrous (though their death rate is high, compared to neighboring countries), Georgia's is on track to be. Sweden mostly gets misused as a positive example because of a low known infection rate, but that largely reflects differences in the scale and distribution of testing, not actual prevalence.

rbritton 6y ago

You're going to get massively downvoted here because you dared question the hive mind. None of their approaches place any consideration on the damage caused by the mitigation efforts themselves. Suicides, domestic violence, overdoses, and other negative outcomes are all up and will cost lives. At what point does the conspiracy theory that much of it is a pure power grab become validated?

Hokusai 6y ago

> the approaches of Sweden and the state of Georgia prove not to be disastrous. Sweden has a strong well being systems. People stays at home every winter during the flu seasons. In any given meeting there are a couple of employees working from home because they may have the flu. To compare the social protections of Sweden that allow citizens to stay home when sick ALWAYS, not just for the current pandemic, with the USA approach of come-to-work-or-you-are-fired is not reasonable. The USA should pay more to their employees, have better healthcare coverage, give paid leave, and forbid free lay offs. And then, it would be in a position to postpone, lets see for how long, the shutdowns in a pandemic. Sweden without lock down: Workplaces -32% New York with lock downs: Workplaces -48% I have the fear that the same Americans that want the "Swedish approach to CoVid19" are the ones against the social safety nets that has made it possible. - https://www.gstatic.com/covid19/mobility/2020-04-17_SE_Mobility_Report_en.pdf https://www.gstatic.com/covid19/mobility/2020-04-17_SE_Mobil... - https://www.gstatic.com/covid19/mobility/2020-04-11_US_New_York_Mobility_Report_en.pdf https://www.gstatic.com/covid19/mobility/2020-04-11_US_New_Y...

dwpdwpdwpdwpdwp 6y ago
I have the fear that the same Americans that want the "Swedish approach to CoVid19" are the ones against the social safety nets that has made it possible. I believe you're right about that. The cynic in me thinks Georgia is only 'reopening' to avoid paying more unemployment. Maybe it's my own Swedish ancestry that compels me to want an strong social safety net and a softer lockdown?

dragonwriter 6y ago

> the approaches of Sweden and the state of Georgia prove not to be disastrous. Sweden's approach is having a strong social safety net, including for personal health, that makes acting in the way public health requires consistent with personal incentives without mandates. Georgia’s approach is to have neither positive social incentives in the general case not appropriate public health mandates in the absence of those incentives. They aren't similar approaches. Sweden's probably won't be completely disastrous (though their death rate is high, compared to neighboring countries), Georgia's is on track to be. Sweden mostly gets misused as a positive example because of a low known infection rate, but that largely reflects differences in the scale and distribution of testing, not actual prevalence.