4 ms·

> false sense that the hospitals were in any danger of being overloaded They were overloaded in Wuhan, Milan, Madrid and Brussels, and came within a hair of ca

> false sense that the hospitals were in any danger of being overloaded They were overloaded in Wuhan, Milan, Madrid and Brussels, and came within a hair of capacity in Paris and New York. What "false sense" are you talking about, exactly? There was real risk. Are you saying that the media reported overloads that didn't exist? Your argument seems a bit vague to me. You could just as easily argue, with perfectly symmetric evidence, that it's good that "the media" "gave a false sense" of hospital capacity, because it prevented an actual overload of the system. Why is your version better, except that in yours you get to have a more personally pleasing enemy? Pretty much all criticism of "the media" is like this.

xienze 6y ago
> What "false sense" are you talking about, exactly? The fact that we were being told to expect Italy/New York levels of hospital overruns ALL OVER the country (hint: field hospitals that hardly got used weren't just deployed in NYC)? And that we're still being told that hospitals ALL OVER the country are in danger of being brought to their knees by re-opening state economies right now? Meanwhile, the nurses that aren't furloughed are making nightly dance videos during their shifts.
- newacct583 6y ago
  I don't remember that at all. I remember being warned (correctly) that this was a possibility, and that lockdowns were needed to "flatten the curve" and prevent it. That kind of framing was pervasive. But I remember it being very explicitly presented as a caution and not an inevitability. And as it happened, people took heed. And it worked. We beat it. Can you cite the specific coverage you're thinking of? Basically: this seems like a bit much to me. The media warned us of something. We listened. The warning worked. And now you want to attack "the media" because the thing they warned us might happen didn't... because they warned us.
tathougies 6y ago
> What "false sense" are you talking about, exactly? There was real risk. Are you saying that the media reported overloads that didn't exist? Um... Cuomo said he needed 40k new ventilators to make sure hospitals had all they needed after he instituted a shelter in place order. He needed nowhere near that amount. That is hysteria. I don't understand why this is controversial.

xienze 6y ago

> What "false sense" are you talking about, exactly? The fact that we were being told to expect Italy/New York levels of hospital overruns ALL OVER the country (hint: field hospitals that hardly got used weren't just deployed in NYC)? And that we're still being told that hospitals ALL OVER the country are in danger of being brought to their knees by re-opening state economies right now? Meanwhile, the nurses that aren't furloughed are making nightly dance videos during their shifts.

newacct583 6y ago
I don't remember that at all. I remember being warned (correctly) that this was a possibility, and that lockdowns were needed to "flatten the curve" and prevent it. That kind of framing was pervasive. But I remember it being very explicitly presented as a caution and not an inevitability. And as it happened, people took heed. And it worked. We beat it. Can you cite the specific coverage you're thinking of? Basically: this seems like a bit much to me. The media warned us of something. We listened. The warning worked. And now you want to attack "the media" because the thing they warned us might happen didn't... because they warned us.

tathougies 6y ago

> What "false sense" are you talking about, exactly? There was real risk. Are you saying that the media reported overloads that didn't exist? Um... Cuomo said he needed 40k new ventilators to make sure hospitals had all they needed after he instituted a shelter in place order. He needed nowhere near that amount. That is hysteria. I don't understand why this is controversial.