4 ms·

They have an authoritarian government -one which could weld shut windows and doors ignoring any fire safety issues to lock down a block because there was one ca

by mc32 4y ago

They have an authoritarian government -one which could weld shut windows and doors ignoring any fire safety issues to lock down a block because there was one case… And it still spread. No, 10 days with democratic governments don’t allow one to truthfully say ‘10 days to stop the spread’. It’s either ignorance or willful misinformation/lying.

epgui 4y ago
I think you should read my comment more slowly and more carefully, because if I copy-pasted it right here it would be an adequate response to your response.
- mc32 4y ago
  Th premise is all governments would have the power to shut things down. They don't. We have civil liberties. It was unfeasible. Even absolute world-wide martial law would not stop it [you can't freeze people in place for ten days straight]. So the statement that it could have been stopped in 10 days if... No, that "if" was not going to happen.
  - epgui 4y ago
    I think you need to draw an actual timeline of all the measures that were taken, and where and when they happened. That should help clarify.
    - mc32 4y ago
      Do you recall the very early days when there was a cruise ship where a passenger caught SARS-COV2 and they anchored it in the SF bay and didn't let anyone off even while some succumbed to the disease and treated passengers as if they had Ebola? Yet, it still jumped and infected people (landlubbers). There was no way "10 days to stop the spread" was going to be effective.
      - epgui 4y ago
        Alright that's one measure, keep going, that timeline of all measures is not going to fill itself!
        rdtsc 4y ago
        > keep going, that timeline of all measures is not going to fill itself! That’s rude and arrogant. “Copy and paste my previous reply”, “the timeline is not going to fill itself”. mc32 is trying to present his argument and you reply with these short quips. If you’re trying to present a counter-argument, this strategy works against you, as it makes mc32 appear more reasonable and knowledgeable.
      - cameldrv 4y ago
        Those people were then transferred into a quarantine facility for two weeks where they weren’t isolated from each other, and then sent home on planes all over America without even being tested for COVID on exit from quarantine.
XorNot 4y ago
It's a mistake to think "authoritarian" means "effective". It doesn't. Authoritarian governments derive their power from the appearance of power, and that amongst other things means being brutal and never admitting that you're wrong. In China's case, it means that simultaneously a bunch of people would be welded into their apartments, but that the government would also cover up and ignore high-enough level officials who disregarded orders, or criticism that they were ignoring important vectors. China is very corrupt: whatever they announced they were doing publicly wasn't done remotely effectively - it was PR for how tough and untouchable the government is.
- mc32 4y ago
  I'm sorry, but this just bolsters my position. There is no society where people will perfectly obey "stay put" orders. It's not possible. You have to tend to the infirm, you have to run critical systems, people need to eat (not even 50% people have ten days worth of rations stocked up; who is going to distribute more food, water and meds as they run out, etc?)
  - epgui 4y ago
    > There is no society where people will perfectly obey "stay put" orders. It's not possible. It doesn't need to be perfect. Depending on the specific intervention in question, you only need to exceed some critical threshold of compliance to get R_t below 1.0.
    - bsaul 4y ago
      i think the last two years shown that nothing acceptable from a human rights pov could have been done to stop the pandemic from spreading once it was out of the bag. i'm not sure which example makes you think things could have been different.
      - sudosysgen 4y ago
        R_t was under 1 in the US for extended periods of time, so your idea that the required measures can't be implemented there is empirically false.

by mc32 4y ago

epgui 4y ago

I think you should read my comment more slowly and more carefully, because if I copy-pasted it right here it would be an adequate response to your response.

mc32 4y ago
Th premise is all governments would have the power to shut things down. They don't. We have civil liberties. It was unfeasible. Even absolute world-wide martial law would not stop it [you can't freeze people in place for ten days straight]. So the statement that it could have been stopped in 10 days if... No, that "if" was not going to happen.
- epgui 4y ago
  I think you need to draw an actual timeline of all the measures that were taken, and where and when they happened. That should help clarify.
  - mc32 4y ago
    Do you recall the very early days when there was a cruise ship where a passenger caught SARS-COV2 and they anchored it in the SF bay and didn't let anyone off even while some succumbed to the disease and treated passengers as if they had Ebola? Yet, it still jumped and infected people (landlubbers). There was no way "10 days to stop the spread" was going to be effective.
    - epgui 4y ago
      Alright that's one measure, keep going, that timeline of all measures is not going to fill itself!
      - rdtsc 4y ago
        > keep going, that timeline of all measures is not going to fill itself! That’s rude and arrogant. “Copy and paste my previous reply”, “the timeline is not going to fill itself”. mc32 is trying to present his argument and you reply with these short quips. If you’re trying to present a counter-argument, this strategy works against you, as it makes mc32 appear more reasonable and knowledgeable.
    - cameldrv 4y ago
      Those people were then transferred into a quarantine facility for two weeks where they weren’t isolated from each other, and then sent home on planes all over America without even being tested for COVID on exit from quarantine.

XorNot 4y ago

It's a mistake to think "authoritarian" means "effective". It doesn't. Authoritarian governments derive their power from the appearance of power, and that amongst other things means being brutal and never admitting that you're wrong. In China's case, it means that simultaneously a bunch of people would be welded into their apartments, but that the government would also cover up and ignore high-enough level officials who disregarded orders, or criticism that they were ignoring important vectors. China is very corrupt: whatever they announced they were doing publicly wasn't done remotely effectively - it was PR for how tough and untouchable the government is.

mc32 4y ago
I'm sorry, but this just bolsters my position. There is no society where people will perfectly obey "stay put" orders. It's not possible. You have to tend to the infirm, you have to run critical systems, people need to eat (not even 50% people have ten days worth of rations stocked up; who is going to distribute more food, water and meds as they run out, etc?)
- epgui 4y ago
  > There is no society where people will perfectly obey "stay put" orders. It's not possible. It doesn't need to be perfect. Depending on the specific intervention in question, you only need to exceed some critical threshold of compliance to get R_t below 1.0.
  - bsaul 4y ago
    i think the last two years shown that nothing acceptable from a human rights pov could have been done to stop the pandemic from spreading once it was out of the bag. i'm not sure which example makes you think things could have been different.
    - sudosysgen 4y ago
      R_t was under 1 in the US for extended periods of time, so your idea that the required measures can't be implemented there is empirically false.