5 ms·

Perhaps on the plus side, at least in America, measures like distancing and masks are well-established, which very much wasn’t the case in May or so. And believ

Perhaps on the plus side, at least in America, measures like distancing and masks are well-established, which very much wasn’t the case in May or so. And believe it or not, for the most part the measures are followed even by skeptics. I don’t think it’s really fair to portray the resistance or skepticism as only originating from idiocy or “fringe”. Authorities have said everything and its opposite in the last 6 or so months. They started by telling us this wasn’t really contagious so don’t worry, they told us not to procure masks before they told us to wear masks always, etc. Some people definitely use that to reach all sorts of ridiculous conclusions, no doubt. But I think you can’t discount how disorienting that all is, not to mention the whiplash of being told you must do x after you were told not to. There is also, again at least in America, a certain amount of resentment over health officials and others endorsing certain group events and condemning others, on a political basis, when the virus actually doesn’t care what your politics are. So yep, it is a political football.

acdha 6y ago
> Authorities have said everything and its opposite in the last 6 or so months. Right wingers in a couple countries said that. If you listened to actual experts, by February you knew it was highly contagious, asymptomatic spread was a big control problem, etc. The mask issue is the strongest charge because the goal of not buying up the same supplies needed by healthcare workers was confused into general advice not to wear them but by April that had been recognized as a mistake. The problem was that politics entered the picture when Trump blew off the experts briefing him starting in December and went with the Fox pundits desire first to hope that the economic impact wouldn’t be significant and later trying to pretend they hadn’t been so disastrously wrong. That meant that medical experts were overridden at previously non-political agencies, and that reporters were now pulled into treating advice as political opinions to be hedged.
- username90 6y ago
  > Right wingers in a couple countries said that. Is Cuomo the governor for New York a right winger? He downplayed the pandemic as late as march 18. Pretty sure he wasn't the only democrat doing it either. If he didn't downplay it New York wouldn't have had one of the worst corona responses in the world. Quotes: > "That is not going to happen, shelter in place, for New York City," Cuomo said on The Daily podcast by The New York Times. "For any city or county to take an emergency action, the state has to approve it. And I wouldn't approve shelter in place." > "Quarantine in place, you can't leave your home," Cuomo said. "The fear, the panic is a bigger problem than the virus." https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/18/cuomo-says-he-wont-approve-coronavirus-shelter-in-place-order-for-new-york-city.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/18/cuomo-says-he-wont-approve-c...
  - acdha 6y ago
    That’s not saying that it wasn’t contagious or serious - he wasn’t saying it’d be over by Easter, Memorial Day, etc. or that it only affected people who were about to die. Also, March 18th was over 6 months ago whereas right-denial of the significance is still ongoing now. In contrast, NY has generally been recognized as having improved their handling dramatically The big problem is that in the United States so much depends on the federal response. Having the CDC treating it like a political response removed the trigger and support for a lot of local actions because they had to do on their own what would normally have been a CDC publication by February. Similarly, waiting extra months to get serious about travel bans meant that local officials had to deal with a constant stream of infection from outside of their jurisdiction.
    - username90 6y ago
      > That’s not saying that it wasn’t contagious or serious He literally said that panic was worse than the disease. > The big problem is that in the United States so much depends on the federal response. He could have locked down New York, but he told people to continue their lives as usual. This resulted in over 30k deaths, most of which could have been saved if he weren't so adamant in keeping business as usual for another week. And likely if he locked down he would have saved neighboring states as well, so maybe a hundred thousand lives in total could have been saved if he wanted to. > Similarly, waiting extra months to get serious about travel bans This was said days after Trump had enacted the travel ban against Europe and after we had confirmed cases in here in Europe known to be spread fron New York. Everyone knew New York was a corona hotbed at this time, yet he still kept things open for 10 more days. With a doubling of every 4 days it means he could have saved 80% of everyone who died in the east if he wanted to, but he choose to keep things open since "panic is worse than the disease".

acdha 6y ago

> Authorities have said everything and its opposite in the last 6 or so months. Right wingers in a couple countries said that. If you listened to actual experts, by February you knew it was highly contagious, asymptomatic spread was a big control problem, etc. The mask issue is the strongest charge because the goal of not buying up the same supplies needed by healthcare workers was confused into general advice not to wear them but by April that had been recognized as a mistake. The problem was that politics entered the picture when Trump blew off the experts briefing him starting in December and went with the Fox pundits desire first to hope that the economic impact wouldn’t be significant and later trying to pretend they hadn’t been so disastrously wrong. That meant that medical experts were overridden at previously non-political agencies, and that reporters were now pulled into treating advice as political opinions to be hedged.

username90 6y ago
> Right wingers in a couple countries said that. Is Cuomo the governor for New York a right winger? He downplayed the pandemic as late as march 18. Pretty sure he wasn't the only democrat doing it either. If he didn't downplay it New York wouldn't have had one of the worst corona responses in the world. Quotes: > "That is not going to happen, shelter in place, for New York City," Cuomo said on The Daily podcast by The New York Times. "For any city or county to take an emergency action, the state has to approve it. And I wouldn't approve shelter in place." > "Quarantine in place, you can't leave your home," Cuomo said. "The fear, the panic is a bigger problem than the virus." https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/18/cuomo-says-he-wont-approve-coronavirus-shelter-in-place-order-for-new-york-city.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/18/cuomo-says-he-wont-approve-c...
- acdha 6y ago
  That’s not saying that it wasn’t contagious or serious - he wasn’t saying it’d be over by Easter, Memorial Day, etc. or that it only affected people who were about to die. Also, March 18th was over 6 months ago whereas right-denial of the significance is still ongoing now. In contrast, NY has generally been recognized as having improved their handling dramatically The big problem is that in the United States so much depends on the federal response. Having the CDC treating it like a political response removed the trigger and support for a lot of local actions because they had to do on their own what would normally have been a CDC publication by February. Similarly, waiting extra months to get serious about travel bans meant that local officials had to deal with a constant stream of infection from outside of their jurisdiction.
  - username90 6y ago
    > That’s not saying that it wasn’t contagious or serious He literally said that panic was worse than the disease. > The big problem is that in the United States so much depends on the federal response. He could have locked down New York, but he told people to continue their lives as usual. This resulted in over 30k deaths, most of which could have been saved if he weren't so adamant in keeping business as usual for another week. And likely if he locked down he would have saved neighboring states as well, so maybe a hundred thousand lives in total could have been saved if he wanted to. > Similarly, waiting extra months to get serious about travel bans This was said days after Trump had enacted the travel ban against Europe and after we had confirmed cases in here in Europe known to be spread fron New York. Everyone knew New York was a corona hotbed at this time, yet he still kept things open for 10 more days. With a doubling of every 4 days it means he could have saved 80% of everyone who died in the east if he wanted to, but he choose to keep things open since "panic is worse than the disease".