3 ms·

America has a history of responding poorly to pandemics. They let HIV rip through their population before getting serious about it. Regan famously denied it was

America has a history of responding poorly to pandemics. They let HIV rip through their population before getting serious about it. Regan famously denied it was even happening. It is interesting to contrast this with Australia's quick public health response that saved a lot of lives. It is easy to see similarities with COVID responses, but two timepoints and n=2 do not make for quality statistics. Hopefully the USA does better with whatever pandemics come for us all in the next decades. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Australia

lettergram 5y ago
The nature of the USA is not to have a federal response. A fairer way to review this is at the state level. That being said, Fauci lead the charge on the AIDS pandemic and this one ...
- ImaCake 5y ago
  That's a good point. Australia has a similar federalist structure as the USA, although we have less than 10 states/territories of any consequence. The COVID response has a been fix of both state and commonwealth (federal). The commonwealth closed the borders, but because health is delegated to states/territories it was up to each state to manage the testing, contact tracing, and lockdown rules. The main issue in Australian politics right now is border closures which have been used by every state to greater or lesser degrees. The commonwealth hates the border closures, but the states, pandering to their state based support, mostly love it (except NSW).
  - burlesona 5y ago
    IIRC Australia has also used internal border closures between States. That is unconstitutional in the US and therefore never even considered.
- tim333 5y ago
  The presidents at the time saying it's no problem seem to have been more of an issue than Fauci who at least tried to get things done.
- 8note 5y ago
  That is a failing of the USA, considering that states don't have border controls between them
skohan 5y ago
Different societies will have different strengths and weaknesses. The US' priority on individual liberty will generally run counter to solutions which require collective action. But the US system has been fairly good at fostering innovation for instance.
- tzs 5y ago
  I don't think that is historically accurate. The US had many large epidemics of diseases such cholera, typhus, yellow fever, and bubonic plague, not to mention influenza in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The priority on individual liberty didn't get in the way then. Quarantines and lockdowns and mask requirements were imposed and enforced. They even had vaccine or inoculation mandates for some of them. Heck, arguably an inoculation mandate played an important role in the successful creation of the US. 90% of the loses among the Continental regulars were due to disease with small pox being the most serious. Inoculation was widespread in Europe and most of the British army was immune, giving them a large advantage. People were still afraid of the risks of inoculation in the colonies and in 1776 the Continental Congress issues a proclamation prohibiting army surgeons from inoculating. In early 1777 George Washington informed the Continental Congress that he was going to mandate inoculation and told his commanding officers to do so. They inoculated the ~3/4 of the army that had not already had smallpox and all new recruits. Smallpox continued to rage throughout the war, but no longer in the Continental army. From that point on not a single Continental regiment was incapacitated by smallpox. On the British side the actual British soldiers were also immune to smallpox, but not so the slaves who had chosen to fight for the British in exchange for freedom or the Native Americans who sided with the British. Those groups were devastated by smallpox.

lettergram 5y ago

The nature of the USA is not to have a federal response. A fairer way to review this is at the state level. That being said, Fauci lead the charge on the AIDS pandemic and this one ...

ImaCake 5y ago
That's a good point. Australia has a similar federalist structure as the USA, although we have less than 10 states/territories of any consequence. The COVID response has a been fix of both state and commonwealth (federal). The commonwealth closed the borders, but because health is delegated to states/territories it was up to each state to manage the testing, contact tracing, and lockdown rules. The main issue in Australian politics right now is border closures which have been used by every state to greater or lesser degrees. The commonwealth hates the border closures, but the states, pandering to their state based support, mostly love it (except NSW).
- burlesona 5y ago
  IIRC Australia has also used internal border closures between States. That is unconstitutional in the US and therefore never even considered.
tim333 5y ago
The presidents at the time saying it's no problem seem to have been more of an issue than Fauci who at least tried to get things done.
8note 5y ago
That is a failing of the USA, considering that states don't have border controls between them

skohan 5y ago

Different societies will have different strengths and weaknesses. The US' priority on individual liberty will generally run counter to solutions which require collective action. But the US system has been fairly good at fostering innovation for instance.

tzs 5y ago
I don't think that is historically accurate. The US had many large epidemics of diseases such cholera, typhus, yellow fever, and bubonic plague, not to mention influenza in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The priority on individual liberty didn't get in the way then. Quarantines and lockdowns and mask requirements were imposed and enforced. They even had vaccine or inoculation mandates for some of them. Heck, arguably an inoculation mandate played an important role in the successful creation of the US. 90% of the loses among the Continental regulars were due to disease with small pox being the most serious. Inoculation was widespread in Europe and most of the British army was immune, giving them a large advantage. People were still afraid of the risks of inoculation in the colonies and in 1776 the Continental Congress issues a proclamation prohibiting army surgeons from inoculating. In early 1777 George Washington informed the Continental Congress that he was going to mandate inoculation and told his commanding officers to do so. They inoculated the ~3/4 of the army that had not already had smallpox and all new recruits. Smallpox continued to rage throughout the war, but no longer in the Continental army. From that point on not a single Continental regiment was incapacitated by smallpox. On the British side the actual British soldiers were also immune to smallpox, but not so the slaves who had chosen to fight for the British in exchange for freedom or the Native Americans who sided with the British. Those groups were devastated by smallpox.