5 ms·

> “We have really tried to walk that line of not wanting to invoke new measures that are going to have a significant effect ... unless it’s absolutely necessary

> “We have really tried to walk that line of not wanting to invoke new measures that are going to have a significant effect ... unless it’s absolutely necessary,” This isn't exactly an unusual stance, but I'm increasingly convinced it's a terribly ineffective way to handle a crisis.

mumblemumble 5y ago
It seems that necessity is one of those things that can only be definitively assessed in hindsight. If you're closely monitoring the situation you might be able to trim it down to a very short term sort of hindsight, but, yeah, it's hard to see how that's a winning strategy in the long run. Even just barely too late is still too late.
- blooalien 5y ago
  "Hindsight is 20/20 vision." - Everyone's Uncle or Gran'pa Ever
ErikVandeWater 5y ago
"Crisis" is the only way change happens. Politicians can't sell change without a crisis (for good and bad).
- ethbr0 5y ago
  I might phrase it as "afford change." Telling people they have to pay an extra $1 in taxes for renewing stockpiled medical equipment gets you booted out of office by voters. Asking people to pay $1 during a pandemic is obvious to everyone and agreed. Was it any less of a good idea in the first time period than the second?
  - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
    I'd have to see more information on whether the government buys the medical equipment at reasonable prices, whether they stockpile the right equipment, and whether there are unforeseen consequences of these purchases. Do you have information on this?
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      Try googling ASPR. And you can always file FOIA requests if it's not listed.
      - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
        I don't see anything on that website that is measured as result achieved / $ spent. And I'm supposed to spend my own money on FOIA requests to see if my tax dollars are being spent wisely? Fat chance it is. Edit: > If you're not willing to put in time (a basic search engine query) I went straight to the official ASPR website as you suggested. > auditing government records probably isn't a good fit for you That was never the question.
        ethbr0 5y ago
        If you're not willing to put in time (a basic search engine query) or effort (an FOIA request), then auditing government records probably isn't a good fit for you.
xyzzyz 5y ago
Interesting that the California government approach to COVID was completely opposite: lots and lots of measures, most without even any idea about effectiveness, much less cost-benefit calculation.
- atrus 5y ago
  All about visibility. A water shortage is a lot slower and less flashy than a packed hospital.
- wwweston 5y ago
  I have acquaintances who work in this field, including bio sciences for CA state institutions and state public health in another blue state, and having heard some narration of internal conversations, I think it’s exceptionally presumptuous to claim that the kind of people who contribute to these decisions weren’t thinking about effectiveness and tradeoffs. I’ve seen some of the papers they were passing around about effectiveness of various restrictions. I’ve heard stories about internal conversations over economic concerns and pressures and secondary impacts. If your model of what was happening was action without consideration, then it’s badly wrong.
  - hodgesrm 5y ago
    At the very least, the rationale behind some of the restrictions was poorly and (I think) in some cases dishonestly communicated. Outdoor dining, playground shutdowns, etc., come to mind. It's very hard to stand up and say for the good of all we're going to do things that will cause some of you to lose your businesses. So many politicians simple didn't. Moreover a number of the people making such decisions didn't follow their own rules. There are so many instances of this in particular that it's probably not necessary to cite them.
  - xyzzyz 5y ago
    > I think it’s exceptionally presumptuous to claim that the kind of people who contribute to these decisions weren’t thinking about effectiveness and tradeoffs. I’ve seen some of the papers they were passing around about effectiveness of various restrictions. What were those papers? In fact, they had no data about effectiveness of many (if not most) of the restrictions when they passed them early last year. They had absolutely no data about economic cost either. > I’ve heard stories about internal conversations over economic concerns and pressures and secondary impacts. You make it seem like I should praise them for having conversations about economic concerns, as if it was some kind of going above and beyond, instead of barest of the bare minimums one would expect from government officials enacting highly disruptive policy by fiat.
blooalien 5y ago
Sadly, the effective way to handle these crises would have been to avoid or minimize it all in the first place, but sadly politicians decades ago who could have done exactly that were nearly as corrupt, greedy, ignorant, and short-sighted as those we still have "leading" the world today. Anyone wishing to debate my view of politicians, first do your research on how many decades ago they had advance warning all these things we hear, read, and see in the news these days were exceedingly likely statistically speaking, but were avoidable with appropriate actions being undertaken to avoid the worst. Pandemics, climate causing weather to freak out, extinctions of entire species, civil unrest, financial craziness. All predicted by many scientists who devote their lives to studying those topics decades ago.

mumblemumble 5y ago

It seems that necessity is one of those things that can only be definitively assessed in hindsight. If you're closely monitoring the situation you might be able to trim it down to a very short term sort of hindsight, but, yeah, it's hard to see how that's a winning strategy in the long run. Even just barely too late is still too late.

blooalien 5y ago
"Hindsight is 20/20 vision." - Everyone's Uncle or Gran'pa Ever

ErikVandeWater 5y ago

"Crisis" is the only way change happens. Politicians can't sell change without a crisis (for good and bad).

ethbr0 5y ago
I might phrase it as "afford change." Telling people they have to pay an extra $1 in taxes for renewing stockpiled medical equipment gets you booted out of office by voters. Asking people to pay $1 during a pandemic is obvious to everyone and agreed. Was it any less of a good idea in the first time period than the second?
- ErikVandeWater 5y ago
  I'd have to see more information on whether the government buys the medical equipment at reasonable prices, whether they stockpile the right equipment, and whether there are unforeseen consequences of these purchases. Do you have information on this?
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    Try googling ASPR. And you can always file FOIA requests if it's not listed.
    - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
      I don't see anything on that website that is measured as result achieved / $ spent. And I'm supposed to spend my own money on FOIA requests to see if my tax dollars are being spent wisely? Fat chance it is. Edit: > If you're not willing to put in time (a basic search engine query) I went straight to the official ASPR website as you suggested. > auditing government records probably isn't a good fit for you That was never the question.
      - ethbr0 5y ago
        If you're not willing to put in time (a basic search engine query) or effort (an FOIA request), then auditing government records probably isn't a good fit for you.

xyzzyz 5y ago

Interesting that the California government approach to COVID was completely opposite: lots and lots of measures, most without even any idea about effectiveness, much less cost-benefit calculation.

atrus 5y ago
All about visibility. A water shortage is a lot slower and less flashy than a packed hospital.
wwweston 5y ago
I have acquaintances who work in this field, including bio sciences for CA state institutions and state public health in another blue state, and having heard some narration of internal conversations, I think it’s exceptionally presumptuous to claim that the kind of people who contribute to these decisions weren’t thinking about effectiveness and tradeoffs. I’ve seen some of the papers they were passing around about effectiveness of various restrictions. I’ve heard stories about internal conversations over economic concerns and pressures and secondary impacts. If your model of what was happening was action without consideration, then it’s badly wrong.
- hodgesrm 5y ago
  At the very least, the rationale behind some of the restrictions was poorly and (I think) in some cases dishonestly communicated. Outdoor dining, playground shutdowns, etc., come to mind. It's very hard to stand up and say for the good of all we're going to do things that will cause some of you to lose your businesses. So many politicians simple didn't. Moreover a number of the people making such decisions didn't follow their own rules. There are so many instances of this in particular that it's probably not necessary to cite them.
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  > I think it’s exceptionally presumptuous to claim that the kind of people who contribute to these decisions weren’t thinking about effectiveness and tradeoffs. I’ve seen some of the papers they were passing around about effectiveness of various restrictions. What were those papers? In fact, they had no data about effectiveness of many (if not most) of the restrictions when they passed them early last year. They had absolutely no data about economic cost either. > I’ve heard stories about internal conversations over economic concerns and pressures and secondary impacts. You make it seem like I should praise them for having conversations about economic concerns, as if it was some kind of going above and beyond, instead of barest of the bare minimums one would expect from government officials enacting highly disruptive policy by fiat.

blooalien 5y ago

Sadly, the effective way to handle these crises would have been to avoid or minimize it all in the first place, but sadly politicians decades ago who could have done exactly that were nearly as corrupt, greedy, ignorant, and short-sighted as those we still have "leading" the world today. Anyone wishing to debate my view of politicians, first do your research on how many decades ago they had advance warning all these things we hear, read, and see in the news these days were exceedingly likely statistically speaking, but were avoidable with appropriate actions being undertaken to avoid the worst. Pandemics, climate causing weather to freak out, extinctions of entire species, civil unrest, financial craziness. All predicted by many scientists who devote their lives to studying those topics decades ago.