5 ms·

The governmental response to the pandemic forced the issue. The virus didn’t magically halt economic activity. Governments did, and we need to keep that in mi

by JPKab 6y ago

The governmental response to the pandemic forced the issue. The virus didn’t magically halt economic activity. Governments did, and we need to keep that in mind, because depending on the state, the government response was often far too harsh and not backed by science. Outdoor dining being shut down in California likely caused the spike they are seeing now, by driving people to socializing indoors in private locations. Saying businesses closed due to pandemic gives the government a pass they don’t deserve. Too often, they could have chosen to require businesses to implement rules and procedures, but instead decided it was easier to just shut them all down. In the recent court decision that overturned LA County outdoor dining ban, it was discovered that the indoor dining ban was implemented because 10 percent of restaurants weren’t following distancing rules. So they shut them all down as a response. In the same case, it was also discovered that LA County had no scientific evidence of any form to shutdown outdoor dining. Every study they cited was indoor transmission. When the court sided against the county, Gavin Newsom immediately responded by making the outdoor dining ban a state rule, forcing the litigants to challenge the law in state court, still with no science backing him. A lot of economic damage could have been avoided if governments in the US weren’t filled with quantitatively illiterate do-gooders who say “follow the science” but aren’t capable of understanding it. The age stratification of risk from COVID-19 was essentially absent from public health discussion because of this.

acdha 6y ago
> The virus didn’t magically halt economic activity This is the opposite of true. Most businesses cannot survive on half of their normal traffic and when it became known that it wasn’t safe to linger indoors many people voluntarily restricted their activities to essentials. Groceries count, mall chocolates do not. The right-wing counter factual you’re spreading is an attempt to distract from the damage caused by certain bad calls made early on to prevent the normal public health response for political reasons. Consider how massive the government response was in Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, etc. - and how that has supported a more normal economy along with saving many thousands of lives.
- COGlory 6y ago
  Your examples are two islands and a peninsula that might as well be an island... I can't help but notice that pattern, and wonder if it might have something to do with their success.
  - acdha 6y ago
    You left out the massive travel connections to China and putting experts in charge of the response. The United States wasn’t deluged with spread from Mexico and Canada, and there is no reason why we couldn’t have used the same airport quarantine system they used, public mask requirements, and paying inherently unsafe businesses like indoor dining to close until spread was under control. The difference is that our response was dictated by political calls made by people who famously dislike expertise whereas the countries I mentioned followed scientific principles. The earlier SARS outbreak helped but the US CDC was hardly unaware of that - this is almost exactly a practice scenario they used years before in the Obama-era playbook the Trump administration ignored. The 2019 HHS exercise had travelers to China bringing back a novel influenza variant but otherwise was very similar: no antiviral drugs or vaccine, depleted PPE stockpiles, local governments refusing to close schools and restaurants, etc.
    - JPKab 6y ago
      Your political bias is obvious and evident. Why don't you compare the US to countries that aren't island nations or quasi-island nations, like the EU? Do you think the EU doesn't believe in science? You also ignore the fact that the majority of public health governance in the US, by a wide margin, is at state and local level. I voted for Obama, twice. I volunteered for his campaign. And I don't think his administration handled the Swine Flu well at all. I had a toddler at the time with asthma, who was in a category of vulnerable people. Folks like you didn't care about Swine Flu, but for those of us who did, it was unpleasant. I rode a subway to work daily at the time, and it was widespread and completely uncontained. I'm not a partisan. I don't think the Trump administration handled the virus well at all. I also don't think the Obama administration would have handled it well. Better? Likely. But they wouldn't have done a good job. If you think the US government does a good job at anything other than warfare, you haven't worked with the US government on much. Your comparisons of the US vs. island nations (SK is not able to be accessed from the north, as you damned well know) with fractions of the population of the US is ridiculous, and betrays a partisan bias that believes that the Federal government in the US is supremely capable, as long as my preferred candidate runs it. Obama, who again, I voted for and campaigned for, couldn't handle launching a website for his flagship legislation. Because the US Federal Government is broken and can't execute on shit. And because of partisans, who truly believe the government magically becomes competent when the leader changes, it won't get fixed. Never mind that over 90% of the personnel of any agency remain no matter who is president. No, this time, they'll get the (funding|scientific backing|whatever) they didn't get from the previous person in the other party. What a load of tripe.
D13Fd 6y ago
While the virus is around, people are going to go to restaurants less. Many states made a reasoned judgment that closing the restaurants now would lead to a faster recovery and less economic damage overall, by reducing the duration and extent of the virus. That means fewer people will die, and people will return to restaurants, stores, and offices sooner. Even if they were wrong (I'm not sure that's true), that is still a judgment call that is well within a state's right to make as long as it has a rational basis, taking into account the situation on the ground. The same is true if they weighed the risk of 10% of the restaurants violating the rules and spreading the virus, and the difficulty of enforcement, against the economic and societal harms. Your complaint would be better directed against the 10% of restaurant owners who refused to comply with the rules and ruined it for everyone else. (In the LA case, by the way, it looks like the judge found that the county hadn't weighed the risks and made a judgment, not that their judgment was incorrect. I understand that outcome was quickly stayed by the court of appeals.)
- JPKab 6y ago
  "Your complaint would be better directed against the 10% of restaurant owners who refused to comply with the rules and ruined it for everyone else." This begs the question: Should you be banned from driving because a percentage of drivers on the road are speeding? Because that's what you are advocating for here. They could have just shut down the 10% of restaurants who weren't compliant. OR, they can be like the elementary school teacher at recess, who bans football because two kids out of the class break the rules and tackle, and now "nobody gets to play." That's a lazy, and highly paternalistic attitude to take for a government, and the fact that you defend the policy makes me wonder if you have ever owned or started your own business. I highly doubt you have. Regarding the judge's ruling, you sound as if you are defending the county's action of shutting down businesses without bothering to do a cost/benefit analysis of any sort. Yes, the judge in the case made that ruling, but if you read the details of the judgement (i did) he pointed out that the county didn't even seek out data, and instead justified it with indoor dining studies. Also, very notable in that case was the admission by LA County that the intention of the outdoor dining ban was to indirectly reduce spread by providing less destinations outside of the home, and therefore keeping people in their homes more. And yes, it was "stayed by the Court of Appeals" because the County immediately appealed. The court didn't just act on its own. Mark Geragos, the main attorney in the case, has some detailed analysis on the case he discusses in a few legal oriented podcasts. I've noticed that the people who defend these poorly informed, optically driven government oversteps the most are the people who bought into the paranoid fear of the virus the most in the beginning. The people who wipe down every box that enters their home, and wear masks outdoors in open areas with no people within 15 feet of them...... they are the biggest defenders of this stuff. The cognitive dissonance of admitting they completely overreacted, and the huge cost they incurred of not leaving their apartments for months, well, they couldn't have done that for nothing, could they? No, the science is all wrong, the people not wearing masks while riding their mountain bike in a national park are jerks, and the parents who want their kids in school just want free babysitters.... yeah, that's it..... And let me emphasize this: The data clearly demonstrates that California isn't doing well. The policies aren't working. And just like Christian right wingers who institute abstinence only pregnancy prevention, when the policies don't work, they blame the moral failings of the citizens. Prohibition could have worked too, if only the citizens weren't so terrible. People are going to do drugs. They are going to have sex. They are going to drink. They are going to get abortions. They are going to socialize, and they are going to eat together. Banning the regulated businesses that provide these services, drives the demand underground, and sees the needs met by an unregulated black market. Everyone in LA is getting their haircut. Look around, you'll see this. The salons, gyms are all open illegally, with plywood or paper blocking out the windows. My buddy owns an MMA gym near LAX, and he's been "open" since October. The California government failed in preventing the spread of the virus because they went full-on abstinence only, just like Puritans always do.
JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Hindsight is 2020 (ha!). The disease was an unknown for many months. Blamethrowing is a lazy rewriting of events. And useless. This conservative line of secret superior knowledge is wearying. Get vaccinated. Stay isolated for 2 weeks following vaccination. Be well.

by JPKab 6y ago

acdha 6y ago

> The virus didn’t magically halt economic activity This is the opposite of true. Most businesses cannot survive on half of their normal traffic and when it became known that it wasn’t safe to linger indoors many people voluntarily restricted their activities to essentials. Groceries count, mall chocolates do not. The right-wing counter factual you’re spreading is an attempt to distract from the damage caused by certain bad calls made early on to prevent the normal public health response for political reasons. Consider how massive the government response was in Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, etc. - and how that has supported a more normal economy along with saving many thousands of lives.

COGlory 6y ago
Your examples are two islands and a peninsula that might as well be an island... I can't help but notice that pattern, and wonder if it might have something to do with their success.
- acdha 6y ago
  You left out the massive travel connections to China and putting experts in charge of the response. The United States wasn’t deluged with spread from Mexico and Canada, and there is no reason why we couldn’t have used the same airport quarantine system they used, public mask requirements, and paying inherently unsafe businesses like indoor dining to close until spread was under control. The difference is that our response was dictated by political calls made by people who famously dislike expertise whereas the countries I mentioned followed scientific principles. The earlier SARS outbreak helped but the US CDC was hardly unaware of that - this is almost exactly a practice scenario they used years before in the Obama-era playbook the Trump administration ignored. The 2019 HHS exercise had travelers to China bringing back a novel influenza variant but otherwise was very similar: no antiviral drugs or vaccine, depleted PPE stockpiles, local governments refusing to close schools and restaurants, etc.
  - JPKab 6y ago
    Your political bias is obvious and evident. Why don't you compare the US to countries that aren't island nations or quasi-island nations, like the EU? Do you think the EU doesn't believe in science? You also ignore the fact that the majority of public health governance in the US, by a wide margin, is at state and local level. I voted for Obama, twice. I volunteered for his campaign. And I don't think his administration handled the Swine Flu well at all. I had a toddler at the time with asthma, who was in a category of vulnerable people. Folks like you didn't care about Swine Flu, but for those of us who did, it was unpleasant. I rode a subway to work daily at the time, and it was widespread and completely uncontained. I'm not a partisan. I don't think the Trump administration handled the virus well at all. I also don't think the Obama administration would have handled it well. Better? Likely. But they wouldn't have done a good job. If you think the US government does a good job at anything other than warfare, you haven't worked with the US government on much. Your comparisons of the US vs. island nations (SK is not able to be accessed from the north, as you damned well know) with fractions of the population of the US is ridiculous, and betrays a partisan bias that believes that the Federal government in the US is supremely capable, as long as my preferred candidate runs it. Obama, who again, I voted for and campaigned for, couldn't handle launching a website for his flagship legislation. Because the US Federal Government is broken and can't execute on shit. And because of partisans, who truly believe the government magically becomes competent when the leader changes, it won't get fixed. Never mind that over 90% of the personnel of any agency remain no matter who is president. No, this time, they'll get the (funding|scientific backing|whatever) they didn't get from the previous person in the other party. What a load of tripe.

D13Fd 6y ago

While the virus is around, people are going to go to restaurants less. Many states made a reasoned judgment that closing the restaurants now would lead to a faster recovery and less economic damage overall, by reducing the duration and extent of the virus. That means fewer people will die, and people will return to restaurants, stores, and offices sooner. Even if they were wrong (I'm not sure that's true), that is still a judgment call that is well within a state's right to make as long as it has a rational basis, taking into account the situation on the ground. The same is true if they weighed the risk of 10% of the restaurants violating the rules and spreading the virus, and the difficulty of enforcement, against the economic and societal harms. Your complaint would be better directed against the 10% of restaurant owners who refused to comply with the rules and ruined it for everyone else. (In the LA case, by the way, it looks like the judge found that the county hadn't weighed the risks and made a judgment, not that their judgment was incorrect. I understand that outcome was quickly stayed by the court of appeals.)

JPKab 6y ago
"Your complaint would be better directed against the 10% of restaurant owners who refused to comply with the rules and ruined it for everyone else." This begs the question: Should you be banned from driving because a percentage of drivers on the road are speeding? Because that's what you are advocating for here. They could have just shut down the 10% of restaurants who weren't compliant. OR, they can be like the elementary school teacher at recess, who bans football because two kids out of the class break the rules and tackle, and now "nobody gets to play." That's a lazy, and highly paternalistic attitude to take for a government, and the fact that you defend the policy makes me wonder if you have ever owned or started your own business. I highly doubt you have. Regarding the judge's ruling, you sound as if you are defending the county's action of shutting down businesses without bothering to do a cost/benefit analysis of any sort. Yes, the judge in the case made that ruling, but if you read the details of the judgement (i did) he pointed out that the county didn't even seek out data, and instead justified it with indoor dining studies. Also, very notable in that case was the admission by LA County that the intention of the outdoor dining ban was to indirectly reduce spread by providing less destinations outside of the home, and therefore keeping people in their homes more. And yes, it was "stayed by the Court of Appeals" because the County immediately appealed. The court didn't just act on its own. Mark Geragos, the main attorney in the case, has some detailed analysis on the case he discusses in a few legal oriented podcasts. I've noticed that the people who defend these poorly informed, optically driven government oversteps the most are the people who bought into the paranoid fear of the virus the most in the beginning. The people who wipe down every box that enters their home, and wear masks outdoors in open areas with no people within 15 feet of them...... they are the biggest defenders of this stuff. The cognitive dissonance of admitting they completely overreacted, and the huge cost they incurred of not leaving their apartments for months, well, they couldn't have done that for nothing, could they? No, the science is all wrong, the people not wearing masks while riding their mountain bike in a national park are jerks, and the parents who want their kids in school just want free babysitters.... yeah, that's it..... And let me emphasize this: The data clearly demonstrates that California isn't doing well. The policies aren't working. And just like Christian right wingers who institute abstinence only pregnancy prevention, when the policies don't work, they blame the moral failings of the citizens. Prohibition could have worked too, if only the citizens weren't so terrible. People are going to do drugs. They are going to have sex. They are going to drink. They are going to get abortions. They are going to socialize, and they are going to eat together. Banning the regulated businesses that provide these services, drives the demand underground, and sees the needs met by an unregulated black market. Everyone in LA is getting their haircut. Look around, you'll see this. The salons, gyms are all open illegally, with plywood or paper blocking out the windows. My buddy owns an MMA gym near LAX, and he's been "open" since October. The California government failed in preventing the spread of the virus because they went full-on abstinence only, just like Puritans always do.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

Hindsight is 2020 (ha!). The disease was an unknown for many months. Blamethrowing is a lazy rewriting of events. And useless. This conservative line of secret superior knowledge is wearying. Get vaccinated. Stay isolated for 2 weeks following vaccination. Be well.