4 ms·

> Once usage ticked past 50 percent, the IT team again made a pitch for an ISDN order. And were again rebuffed – with instructions not to ask again until utiliz

> Once usage ticked past 50 percent, the IT team again made a pitch for an ISDN order. And were again rebuffed – with instructions not to ask again until utilization was nudging 100 percent. This reminds me a lot about Covid perception by authorities: it's as if people in charge are all unable to make any kind of anticipation based on existing trend and have to see the disaster in front of them before reacting.

xvilka 3y ago
What's worse, fast forward N years into the future until the next pandemic, and all lessons will be dutifully forgotten, triggering exactly the same sluggish and misjudged response.
- lakpan 3y ago
  Don’t worry we won’t have to wait that long. However that won’t matter, people will protest any measure before politicians are able to react.
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    > people will protest Having a vocal minority protesting against something usually don't slow down politicians when they have clear goals[1], but they become a convenient excuse not to act when they don't want to. [1] I've marched in vain for many causes, most of which had much, much more intense protests than what Covid restrictions triggered.
    - lakpan 3y ago
      Let's say you marched for "in favor of choice", but the politicians chose to ignore you because they're backed by just-as-large numbers of people who feel strongly the other way. With COVID, people who felt strongly about staying at home, were probably the minority, especially as time went on. If a new pandemic starts in 10 years, people will still be burnt out from the last one and resist closure in greater numbers, immediately.
      - yardstick 3y ago
        > With COVID, people who felt strongly about staying at home, were probably the minority, especially as time went on. Yeah definitely as time went on. At the start I think a majority probably supported staying at home but after 3-6 months the numbers flipped.
        littlestymaar 3y ago
        Had government acted as quickly as their population wanted them to st the beginning (that is: before it was too late), stay-at-home could have lasted much less time: when a things double every 4 days and take 2 weeks to half, waiting just 16 days before lockdown makes you need two additional months of lockdown to get back to the same point, which is exactly my point about people in charge not acting before it's too late.
        lakpan 3y ago
        Looking back, nothing could have prevented the pandemic, if not China itself in January. Once the virus was traveling, you can’t prevent spread. There will always be countries and people who will not follow the rules. The lockdown did save lives, but could not do anything else.
        littlestymaar 3y ago
        Given that contagion to African and South American countries came from Western Europe, at a stage when China already had gained control over the Virus inside its borders, it's not clear that “nothing could have prevented the pandemic”. It's obviously something that governments who failed to act want you to believe, but it's not definitive truth. Maybe the uncontrolled situation in Iran would have been enough for the pandemic to happen, but travel from Iran is also much less important (in volume and economic consequences) than travel from the US, France or UK, so there's no certitude here. And again, late lockdown did save lives, but with huge economic cost whereas early lockdowns saved many more lives with only a fraction of the economic cost, people who delayed the lockdown bear the entire responsibility of the additional deaths and economic disaster.
YawningAngel 3y ago
They see lots of potential disasters all the time and have a hard time knowing which ones will materialise
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  When the potential disaster is following an exponential trend and have been doing so for quite some time, not acting because the figures don't look high is plain stupidity. 128 is one third of the way to 2 millions. And 2000 is more than half the way.

xvilka 3y ago

What's worse, fast forward N years into the future until the next pandemic, and all lessons will be dutifully forgotten, triggering exactly the same sluggish and misjudged response.

lakpan 3y ago
Don’t worry we won’t have to wait that long. However that won’t matter, people will protest any measure before politicians are able to react.
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  > people will protest Having a vocal minority protesting against something usually don't slow down politicians when they have clear goals[1], but they become a convenient excuse not to act when they don't want to. [1] I've marched in vain for many causes, most of which had much, much more intense protests than what Covid restrictions triggered.
  - lakpan 3y ago
    Let's say you marched for "in favor of choice", but the politicians chose to ignore you because they're backed by just-as-large numbers of people who feel strongly the other way. With COVID, people who felt strongly about staying at home, were probably the minority, especially as time went on. If a new pandemic starts in 10 years, people will still be burnt out from the last one and resist closure in greater numbers, immediately.
    - yardstick 3y ago
      > With COVID, people who felt strongly about staying at home, were probably the minority, especially as time went on. Yeah definitely as time went on. At the start I think a majority probably supported staying at home but after 3-6 months the numbers flipped.
      - littlestymaar 3y ago
        Had government acted as quickly as their population wanted them to st the beginning (that is: before it was too late), stay-at-home could have lasted much less time: when a things double every 4 days and take 2 weeks to half, waiting just 16 days before lockdown makes you need two additional months of lockdown to get back to the same point, which is exactly my point about people in charge not acting before it's too late.
        lakpan 3y ago
        Looking back, nothing could have prevented the pandemic, if not China itself in January. Once the virus was traveling, you can’t prevent spread. There will always be countries and people who will not follow the rules. The lockdown did save lives, but could not do anything else.
        littlestymaar 3y ago
        Given that contagion to African and South American countries came from Western Europe, at a stage when China already had gained control over the Virus inside its borders, it's not clear that “nothing could have prevented the pandemic”. It's obviously something that governments who failed to act want you to believe, but it's not definitive truth. Maybe the uncontrolled situation in Iran would have been enough for the pandemic to happen, but travel from Iran is also much less important (in volume and economic consequences) than travel from the US, France or UK, so there's no certitude here. And again, late lockdown did save lives, but with huge economic cost whereas early lockdowns saved many more lives with only a fraction of the economic cost, people who delayed the lockdown bear the entire responsibility of the additional deaths and economic disaster.

YawningAngel 3y ago

They see lots of potential disasters all the time and have a hard time knowing which ones will materialise

littlestymaar 3y ago
When the potential disaster is following an exponential trend and have been doing so for quite some time, not acting because the figures don't look high is plain stupidity. 128 is one third of the way to 2 millions. And 2000 is more than half the way.