5 ms·

Well, a country will have less economic fallout if it manages to keep SARS-Cov-II at bay. Trump managed to evoke the collateral damage of a lockdown without the

Well, a country will have less economic fallout if it manages to keep SARS-Cov-II at bay. Trump managed to evoke the collateral damage of a lockdown without the full benefits. And that is on the government.

war1025 6y ago
> Trump managed to evoke the collateral damage of a lockdown without the full benefits. Besides the fact that the Federal government doesn't actually have the authority to invoke a lockdown, and it was done on a state by state basis, yes the Federal government did advocate for it. As to the benefits of the lockdowns as performed in various countries, I think it really remains to be seen how badly the US will be affected vs the rest of the world. As of right now, yes, the US looks particularly bad in terms of the number of infections / deaths. But it's also an area the size of Europe with the vast majority of the deaths restricted to New England. I wonder how things would look if you compared individual states to European countries. For example, here in Iowa, we're at I think 700 deaths and 30,000 confirmed cases. That doesn't seem too catastrophic to me.
- Symbiote 6y ago
  You can make your comparison with these two pages: - https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ ("Europe" is all Europe, not just the European Union. That's 747 million people.) - https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ In that case, Iowa is doing very badly for cases/1M. I don't know if the comparison is fair, it might depend on who is tested. For deaths/1M, it's somewhere around the European average. Some European countries are very densely populated, like Belgium, the Netherlands, others less. Though much of Europe is as dense as New England.
  - war1025 6y ago
    > In that case, Iowa is doing very badly for cases/1M. This is interesting to me. I don't personally know anyone who has caught Coronavirus, much less been hospitalized or died from it. If this is average or worse than average, it really makes me wonder why we've gotten so worked up about the re-opening. I assumed based on the way it's covered on the news that people were dropping like flies in other parts of the world.
    - Symbiote 6y ago
      I'm really not sure if the cases/1M is a reasonable figure to compare. At least between European countries, there have been quite different approaches to testing -- who gets tested varies depending on symptoms, perceived risk to themselves, risk to others, and availability of testing. I don't personally know anyone here in Denmark that has tested positive. Two people I know know someone who has tested positive here. Many hotspots seem to be limited to quite small communities -- a single building, a single care home for the elderly, or a single food processing factory might have tens of cases (even deaths for the care home), so it's not so surprising that I'm unaware of anyone infected.
- toss1 6y ago
  Even ignoring the lockdown, there are a myriad of things that the federal govt could have done vastly better, yet failed or did the worst possible thing. Preparation: not only failed to prepare, but dismantled agencies, fired/left empty key posts, de-funded key programs. When first briefed on the threat, not only failed to start steps to stockpile key resources such as masks, activity reduced stockpiles by helping 3M sell overseas. Reaction: Ignored, then actively downplayed the seriousness of the threat for months, silenced scientists, actively promoted false & sometimes deadly 'cures', actively turned mask-wearing from a simple & useful precaution to a partisan political statement, claimed science-based measures were opposition party ideas to tank the economy. Actively impeded states from getting necessary gear - literally having federal agents seize shipments at loading docks, still unaccounted for =my state literally borrowed an NGL team airplane to fetch shipments of PPE from overseas so it could get to hospitals. Ongoing: Deliberately rediced & slowed testing capability because the leader thinks that having more positive test results will hurt his reelection chances - would literally prefer people go undiagnosed & untreated than hurt his campaign. Policy now seems to be turning ti "just live with it". Nevermind the failure of leadership on the lockdown - every federal decision on this topic has, at best, focused improving on superficial appearance for the person occupying the president's chair, even if it actively undermines actual results. It is a rolling disaster, now exponentially growing again.

war1025 6y ago

> Trump managed to evoke the collateral damage of a lockdown without the full benefits. Besides the fact that the Federal government doesn't actually have the authority to invoke a lockdown, and it was done on a state by state basis, yes the Federal government did advocate for it. As to the benefits of the lockdowns as performed in various countries, I think it really remains to be seen how badly the US will be affected vs the rest of the world. As of right now, yes, the US looks particularly bad in terms of the number of infections / deaths. But it's also an area the size of Europe with the vast majority of the deaths restricted to New England. I wonder how things would look if you compared individual states to European countries. For example, here in Iowa, we're at I think 700 deaths and 30,000 confirmed cases. That doesn't seem too catastrophic to me.

Symbiote 6y ago
You can make your comparison with these two pages: - https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ ("Europe" is all Europe, not just the European Union. That's 747 million people.) - https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ In that case, Iowa is doing very badly for cases/1M. I don't know if the comparison is fair, it might depend on who is tested. For deaths/1M, it's somewhere around the European average. Some European countries are very densely populated, like Belgium, the Netherlands, others less. Though much of Europe is as dense as New England.
- war1025 6y ago
  > In that case, Iowa is doing very badly for cases/1M. This is interesting to me. I don't personally know anyone who has caught Coronavirus, much less been hospitalized or died from it. If this is average or worse than average, it really makes me wonder why we've gotten so worked up about the re-opening. I assumed based on the way it's covered on the news that people were dropping like flies in other parts of the world.
  - Symbiote 6y ago
    I'm really not sure if the cases/1M is a reasonable figure to compare. At least between European countries, there have been quite different approaches to testing -- who gets tested varies depending on symptoms, perceived risk to themselves, risk to others, and availability of testing. I don't personally know anyone here in Denmark that has tested positive. Two people I know know someone who has tested positive here. Many hotspots seem to be limited to quite small communities -- a single building, a single care home for the elderly, or a single food processing factory might have tens of cases (even deaths for the care home), so it's not so surprising that I'm unaware of anyone infected.
toss1 6y ago
Even ignoring the lockdown, there are a myriad of things that the federal govt could have done vastly better, yet failed or did the worst possible thing. Preparation: not only failed to prepare, but dismantled agencies, fired/left empty key posts, de-funded key programs. When first briefed on the threat, not only failed to start steps to stockpile key resources such as masks, activity reduced stockpiles by helping 3M sell overseas. Reaction: Ignored, then actively downplayed the seriousness of the threat for months, silenced scientists, actively promoted false & sometimes deadly 'cures', actively turned mask-wearing from a simple & useful precaution to a partisan political statement, claimed science-based measures were opposition party ideas to tank the economy. Actively impeded states from getting necessary gear - literally having federal agents seize shipments at loading docks, still unaccounted for =my state literally borrowed an NGL team airplane to fetch shipments of PPE from overseas so it could get to hospitals. Ongoing: Deliberately rediced & slowed testing capability because the leader thinks that having more positive test results will hurt his reelection chances - would literally prefer people go undiagnosed & untreated than hurt his campaign. Policy now seems to be turning ti "just live with it". Nevermind the failure of leadership on the lockdown - every federal decision on this topic has, at best, focused improving on superficial appearance for the person occupying the president's chair, even if it actively undermines actual results. It is a rolling disaster, now exponentially growing again.