5 ms·

It’s staggering to me how much people in the US have an normalized this level of death and injury, driven by a failed state response, when counter examples like

It’s staggering to me how much people in the US have an normalized this level of death and injury, driven by a failed state response, when counter examples like South Korea and Taiwan exist. The U.S. has 86,541 coronavirus deaths. South Korea has 260. Even if we adjust for population, we expect the US to have 1700, were we following South Korea’s example. How is it that people have just swung fully into embracing our having 50 times as many deaths as we could have prevented? How is it that people believe the rush to “reopen,” without implementing measures at the level of countries like South Korea and Taiwan, won’t result in an even worse outcome?

derekp7 6y ago
I think it is because even with the current measures, we still have the 86,000 deaths. And at this point, people think the South Korea style measures won't work (too high of a case load, the cat is already out of the bag), and people are getting lock down fatigue. So one way of looking at it -- no matter what we do, some large percentage (say 70%) of the population will get infected, and a percentage of them will die. By continuing the lock downs, those infections get pushed down the road a bit but they won't be prevented. The only thing that lock downs are good for is to keep the health system from being overwhelmed (where a larger percentage of those infected will die due to lack of resources). Now my question, is the above a reasonable set of assumptions? I don't see it spelled out like that anywhere, but reading between the lines that seems like what the pro reopening people are saying. Now, what I'd personally like to see, is instead of a full re-opening, is an order that says any job that can be done remotely, the employer must allow the employees to do remote. Because there are a number of cases I've seen reported here where people were forced into the office just because management wanted to see butts in seats.
- greedo 6y ago
  We know lockdowns help keep the growth rate manageable. What we don't know is what will happen to the economy once the lockdowns fade. My gut is that short of more direct Federal aid to individuals (in the form of checks), we'll see people forced back to work as businesses re-open. Consumer spending will still be shit, since no one but fools will be going to football games, theaters, anywhere with crowds. And people will be clinging to their money. So the velocity of money will dwindle. And unless the government indemnifies businesses against lawsuits arising from COVID infections, businesses will be slow to re-open as well. Wrongful death lawsuits for failing to provide a safe work environment will be very popular.
- Izkata 6y ago
  > Now my question, is the above a reasonable set of assumptions? I don't see it spelled out like that anywhere, but reading between the lines that seems like what the pro reopening people are saying. Yes, except it's only part of the argument. The other big one is, the economic shutdown is doing significant harm itself: not just lack of funds for rent/mortgage, but also food shortages, delayed surgeries, and so on. The argument is that the economic shutdown combined with the virus deaths only being delayed and not stopped is going to cause significantly more harm than just stopping the lockdown. (Hour-later edit, fix the wording at the end)
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  I think some of deniers are the same people that take as a matter of faith that governments policies and actions are always bad. Which is why they believe lockdowns aren't working. I'll point out at the current rate of infection in California it would take over 100 years to get to herd immunity levels. We will have a vaccine next summer. And before that we will have enough contact tracing an surveillance in place. As well an a vast scale the public for the most part is now aware of the dangers and cautious.
- matthewdgreen 6y ago
  Many parts of the world used lockdowns to get cases under control, and plan to use test-trace-isolate (and hopefully any better treatments that are discovered) to manage the epidemic. The claim that "all those infections [and presumably deaths] can't be prevented" seems to be at very best unjustified, at worst -- demonstrably untrue.
tripletao 6y ago
To all indications, South Korea responded competently and aggressively, and they have roughly five deaths per million. But Japan half-assed their response, and they have six. People are blaming/crediting governments with total control of the outcome, when it's far more likely that yet-unknown environmental, genetic, etc. factors explain much of the variation between countries. That doesn't mean we should excuse government incompetence, but we shouldn't assume the same measures in a different country would have yielded the same death rate. ETA: If you think something is wrong here, please comment in addition to downvoting. Do you think Japan's response was actually better than Italy's, or Spain's, or any of the countries with much tighter restrictions and many more deaths? If so, why (beyond the circular argument that they have fewer deaths)?
- Johnjonjoan 6y ago
  The only reason I agree with you is because you said "the same death rate". If we change it to "a reduced death rate" that's absolutely what we should be assuming. South Korea's measures were born of SARS - we will probably have the same measures ready after this coronavirus. Why not use the lessons learned in South Korea rather than the same ones learned in our own countries?
  - tripletao 6y ago
    I said explicitly that I didn't intend my comment as a defense of incompetent government responses, so I'm not sure why anyone would take it that way? It's certainly true that e.g. the USA would have fewer deaths if our response hadn't been so late and chaotic; but that doesn't mean the same measures that brought South Korea to five deaths per million would have brought the USA anywhere near that.
    - Johnjonjoan 6y ago
      Yes I agree. I understand the point you are making and I don't think what we have contradicted each other. I accept South Korea's measures won't get most Western countries near their death rate. However I felt the need to add that the methods are based on past experience and just because they won't have the same power they will still be extremely effective in combating the virus.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by "normalized" or "embracing" here. A few obnoxious people do admittedly go around saying we've done a great job, but most Americans agree it's very sad. Unfortunately, we can't bring 80k down to 1700 by just saying the number ought to be lower or being really sad about it. If there's some way to immediately stop coronavirus deaths, we don't know what it is and we don't reasonably expect to find it soon.
- matthewdgreen 6y ago
  I think it's fine to point out that we can't bring people back to life, but I think it's a little too much to say "gosh, this is too hard and we don't know how to manage this epidemic." A number of other countries have (and are having) success by moving to test-trace-isolate and using short, evidence-driven lockdowns to control severe outbreaks. The US, at least many jurisdictions, are not. We aren't even using our Federal government's full powers to ramp up testing capacity.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    And a number of other countries are not having success as well. The current state of the world isn't very compatible with a story where simply enacting the right policies brings a large outbreak under control. (After all, even long evidence-driven lockdowns aren't driving transmission in the US anywhere close to 0.)
    - matthewdgreen 6y ago
      The fact that some countries are using test-and-trace effectively doesn't seem to be refuted by the fact that other countries are doing poorly. Are those countries also following South Korea's model? Do they have the medical and biotech resources of S. Korea and the US?
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        There are enough degrees of freedom to define South Korea's model such that only successful countries are following it. The fact that every single Western European country is sitting together at the top of the per-capita charts makes it hard to believe that it's just a matter of picking the right policies and executing them. In every region of the world, countries with lots of medical and biotech resources are generally doing worse. Korea, China, and Japan are all doing worse than Thailand and Vietnam, Eastern Europe is doing better than Western Europe, and Canada and the US are the worst hit countries in the Americas. The list of countries which have seemingly controlled the coronavirus despite being unable to control tuberculosis and malaria is very long.

derekp7 6y ago

I think it is because even with the current measures, we still have the 86,000 deaths. And at this point, people think the South Korea style measures won't work (too high of a case load, the cat is already out of the bag), and people are getting lock down fatigue. So one way of looking at it -- no matter what we do, some large percentage (say 70%) of the population will get infected, and a percentage of them will die. By continuing the lock downs, those infections get pushed down the road a bit but they won't be prevented. The only thing that lock downs are good for is to keep the health system from being overwhelmed (where a larger percentage of those infected will die due to lack of resources). Now my question, is the above a reasonable set of assumptions? I don't see it spelled out like that anywhere, but reading between the lines that seems like what the pro reopening people are saying. Now, what I'd personally like to see, is instead of a full re-opening, is an order that says any job that can be done remotely, the employer must allow the employees to do remote. Because there are a number of cases I've seen reported here where people were forced into the office just because management wanted to see butts in seats.

greedo 6y ago
We know lockdowns help keep the growth rate manageable. What we don't know is what will happen to the economy once the lockdowns fade. My gut is that short of more direct Federal aid to individuals (in the form of checks), we'll see people forced back to work as businesses re-open. Consumer spending will still be shit, since no one but fools will be going to football games, theaters, anywhere with crowds. And people will be clinging to their money. So the velocity of money will dwindle. And unless the government indemnifies businesses against lawsuits arising from COVID infections, businesses will be slow to re-open as well. Wrongful death lawsuits for failing to provide a safe work environment will be very popular.
Izkata 6y ago
> Now my question, is the above a reasonable set of assumptions? I don't see it spelled out like that anywhere, but reading between the lines that seems like what the pro reopening people are saying. Yes, except it's only part of the argument. The other big one is, the economic shutdown is doing significant harm itself: not just lack of funds for rent/mortgage, but also food shortages, delayed surgeries, and so on. The argument is that the economic shutdown combined with the virus deaths only being delayed and not stopped is going to cause significantly more harm than just stopping the lockdown. (Hour-later edit, fix the wording at the end)
Gibbon1 6y ago
I think some of deniers are the same people that take as a matter of faith that governments policies and actions are always bad. Which is why they believe lockdowns aren't working. I'll point out at the current rate of infection in California it would take over 100 years to get to herd immunity levels. We will have a vaccine next summer. And before that we will have enough contact tracing an surveillance in place. As well an a vast scale the public for the most part is now aware of the dangers and cautious.
matthewdgreen 6y ago
Many parts of the world used lockdowns to get cases under control, and plan to use test-trace-isolate (and hopefully any better treatments that are discovered) to manage the epidemic. The claim that "all those infections [and presumably deaths] can't be prevented" seems to be at very best unjustified, at worst -- demonstrably untrue.

tripletao 6y ago

To all indications, South Korea responded competently and aggressively, and they have roughly five deaths per million. But Japan half-assed their response, and they have six. People are blaming/crediting governments with total control of the outcome, when it's far more likely that yet-unknown environmental, genetic, etc. factors explain much of the variation between countries. That doesn't mean we should excuse government incompetence, but we shouldn't assume the same measures in a different country would have yielded the same death rate. ETA: If you think something is wrong here, please comment in addition to downvoting. Do you think Japan's response was actually better than Italy's, or Spain's, or any of the countries with much tighter restrictions and many more deaths? If so, why (beyond the circular argument that they have fewer deaths)?

Johnjonjoan 6y ago
The only reason I agree with you is because you said "the same death rate". If we change it to "a reduced death rate" that's absolutely what we should be assuming. South Korea's measures were born of SARS - we will probably have the same measures ready after this coronavirus. Why not use the lessons learned in South Korea rather than the same ones learned in our own countries?
- tripletao 6y ago
  I said explicitly that I didn't intend my comment as a defense of incompetent government responses, so I'm not sure why anyone would take it that way? It's certainly true that e.g. the USA would have fewer deaths if our response hadn't been so late and chaotic; but that doesn't mean the same measures that brought South Korea to five deaths per million would have brought the USA anywhere near that.
  - Johnjonjoan 6y ago
    Yes I agree. I understand the point you are making and I don't think what we have contradicted each other. I accept South Korea's measures won't get most Western countries near their death rate. However I felt the need to add that the methods are based on past experience and just because they won't have the same power they will still be extremely effective in combating the virus.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

I'm not sure what you mean by "normalized" or "embracing" here. A few obnoxious people do admittedly go around saying we've done a great job, but most Americans agree it's very sad. Unfortunately, we can't bring 80k down to 1700 by just saying the number ought to be lower or being really sad about it. If there's some way to immediately stop coronavirus deaths, we don't know what it is and we don't reasonably expect to find it soon.

matthewdgreen 6y ago
I think it's fine to point out that we can't bring people back to life, but I think it's a little too much to say "gosh, this is too hard and we don't know how to manage this epidemic." A number of other countries have (and are having) success by moving to test-trace-isolate and using short, evidence-driven lockdowns to control severe outbreaks. The US, at least many jurisdictions, are not. We aren't even using our Federal government's full powers to ramp up testing capacity.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  And a number of other countries are not having success as well. The current state of the world isn't very compatible with a story where simply enacting the right policies brings a large outbreak under control. (After all, even long evidence-driven lockdowns aren't driving transmission in the US anywhere close to 0.)
  - matthewdgreen 6y ago
    The fact that some countries are using test-and-trace effectively doesn't seem to be refuted by the fact that other countries are doing poorly. Are those countries also following South Korea's model? Do they have the medical and biotech resources of S. Korea and the US?
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      There are enough degrees of freedom to define South Korea's model such that only successful countries are following it. The fact that every single Western European country is sitting together at the top of the per-capita charts makes it hard to believe that it's just a matter of picking the right policies and executing them. In every region of the world, countries with lots of medical and biotech resources are generally doing worse. Korea, China, and Japan are all doing worse than Thailand and Vietnam, Eastern Europe is doing better than Western Europe, and Canada and the US are the worst hit countries in the Americas. The list of countries which have seemingly controlled the coronavirus despite being unable to control tuberculosis and malaria is very long.