Sweden do-nothing approach good, US/UK/other countries' early do-nothing approach bad. Why?

[Banquet_Bear]

@SayTwo

Though, I note that it’s been a somewhat tortuous road back to it for your country, and there seems to be a sense among some that you’ll always, at least in the short term, be walking on eggshells of sorts. And I suspect not every industry has quite fully recovered, even at that.

…“tortuous” as in “we had to stay home and the government paid us to do it” sort of way? And why would we be expecting every industry to have fully recovered when the world is in the middle of a global pandemic? What on earth are you even talking about?

@SayTwo

It’s about what would have been, or would be, best on balance for the entire world.

What would be best for the world would be for the governments of the world to take Covid-19 seriously.

@SayTwo

I still think that the most prescient thing ever said about New Zealand was from Professor Gupta, who likened their approach to ‘not vaccinating your children’. Had the entire world said ‘we’re in this together’ and not walled off any outsiders, the world would be far less dystopian than it is now.

Professor Gupta is full of shit. Her analogy is absolutely ridiculous and makes no sense. A better analogy would be New Zealand actually immunised our kids, the rest of the world refuses to immunise their kids, and are now kicking up a stink because we’ve done the right thing in keeping our kids safe.

Your world is dystopian because you’ve given up trying to control a global pandemic. It isn’t dystopian where I live. If we were to “join you” all we would accomplish is the death of thousands of New Zealanders. Why would you want us to do that?

@SayTwo

And New Zealand is absolutely not among that bunch.

Why not?

@SayTwo

Hell, they won’t even reciprocate with the Tasman bubble, will they?

Why should we? You are the first person I’ve heard that has argued that not reciprocating the bubble we’ve done something evil here.

@SayTwo

I hope the vaccine they are waiting for is coming from their very own laboratories, but something tells me they’ll be purchasing it from some other government.

I wasn’t aware that we would be requiring a blood sacrifice in order to access a potential vaccine. How many dead New Zealanders would we need to provide? Do we match Sweden? 3000 cold dead bodies? Is that what you require?

Vaccine Alliance Aotearoa New Zealand is already working to provide support for Covid vacince research locally. And we have already earmarked hundreds of millions of dollars towards the global research effort. We’ve already agreed to purchase 1.5 million doses of a potential vaccine.

But all that isn’t good enough for you. We need to open our borders and let thousands of people die. And even that probably wouldn’t be enough.

[Banksiaman]

@SayTwo

Still and all, the point is far less about what a handful of countries, given their relatively unique circumstances, were able to achieve, or at least achieve to date. It’s about what would have been, or would be, best on balance for the entire world.

Okay New Zealand is an island, so it has a hard border option. However, I’m not sure NZ’s ‘relatively unique circumstances’ as an island applies to other countries like Vietnam and Uruguay, who still managed to have negligible cases and deaths and have land borders. Maybe they listened to science and took action when it mattered, instead of circling the wagons around the old folks homes [where only a small fraction of any country’s most susceptible live in any case] and assuming that any subsequent fatalities were the cost of doing business.

If we have contributors from there perhaps they would like to chime in on how much better they would be taking SayTwo levels of desired covid cases and corresponding death rates for the team.

[SayTwo]

@Banksiaman

Maybe they listened to science and took action when it mattered, instead of circling the wagons around the old folks homes [where only a small fraction of any country’s most susceptible live in any case] and assuming that any subsequent fatalities were the cost of doing business.

Is 30 to 40 percent a small fraction? Because that seems to be the proportion of overall deaths in places that do have such elderly populations.

Look, if we could turn back time and every country had the option to close borders and keep the seeding mostly out, as Vietnam and Taiwan seem to have done (I’m not all that read up on Uruguay), then maybe universal border closures would amount to the same thing as the source country putting a wall around itself and not letting the virus out, in which case all these judgments might be different. But that’s a bit of a pie-in-the-sky hypothetical, given how things played out.

I completely recognize the at least short-term benefits for New Zealand and Vietnam and the like, but I just don’t really see the relevance of that to the real issues other countries have faced. It’s not helping things for New Zealand to smugly prance around so proud of themselves while the rest of the world suffers. (And yes, I do read your papers, and yes, I do note the constant comparisons with United States, which I do recognize were reciprocal at one point at least.)

And I suppose it would help if those who trumpet New Zealand’s track record would recognize that only a very, very small fraction of other countries can afford to, how was it put, let the government pay everyone to sit around at home? There’s just a real lack of understanding or appreciation for how the great, great majority of the world lives.

[Richard_Pearse]

@SayTwo

And I suppose it would help if those who trumpet New Zealand’s track record would recognize that only a very, very small fraction of other countries can afford to, how was it put, let the government pay everyone to sit around at home? There’s just a real lack of understanding or appreciation for how the great, great majority of the world lives.

Surely the USA could have afforded to do that? In fact haven’t they been offering financial assistance? It is not the “paying people to sit around at home” that worked for New Zealand, it was taking a very strong lockdown approach very early. It was achieved by having a strong centralised leadership that got the people on their side. They had a plan, and they executed it. And here we are. Why the hell should we reciprocate with a Tasman bubble? The reason they are letting us in, is that we don’t have the disease.

[Richard_Pearse]

@SayTwo

It’s not helping things for New Zealand to smugly prance around so proud of themselves while the rest of the world suffers.

A large part of the rest of the world suffers because they fucked it up. While we were in lockdown, that buffoon in charge of the USA was blabbering on about sunlight and disinfectant. And you think we’d be better off if we’d just joined in with the general incompetence?

[Mijin]

@Banquet_Bear

Your world is dystopian because you’ve given up trying to control a global pandemic. It isn’t dystopian where I live

Yep. The answer to the OP is that, at every turn, the US federal government has taken whatever position meant they didn’t need any work.

So first of all, dismiss the virus as no big deal (so we don’t need to do anything).

Then, try to find examples of countries that were relatively “light touch” and had, at least for a snapshot in time, relative success. Ignore counter-examples, obvs, then do even less than those light touch countries.

And now? Lo, the virus is unstoppable! Who are we, mere governments, to try to contain our new RNA-overlord? We must sit on our hands, while the elders work on an elixir for us.

Note how well these stages of denial line up with things like climate change and the opioid crisis.

[Banquet_Bear]

@SayTwo

And I suppose it would help if those who trumpet New Zealand’s track record would recognize that only a very, very small fraction of other countries can afford to, how was it put, let the government pay everyone to sit around at home? There’s just a real lack of understanding or appreciation for how the great, great majority of the world lives.

…lets not pretend that the United States, the richest country in the world, was incapable of paying everyone to stay home for a couple of months. You’ve got more resources than us, you’ve got more cash than us, you can leverage the economies of scale better than us. It was far far cheaper for us to pay everyone for a short lockdown to enable the country to open up than to have the protracted semi-lockdowns happening in most other parts of the world. And it would be far cheaper for the US to do exactly the same.

It really all comes down to this:

@SayTwo

It’s not helping things for New Zealand to smugly prance around so proud of themselves while the rest of the world suffers.

Is this really what its all about for you? You’ve taken a dangerous, contrarian, anti-science position in almost every thread here in the Quarantine Zone. Is the reason you’ve done that because you think New Zealanders are just a bit “smug”?

[galen_ubal]

@Banquet_Bear

Is this really what its all about for you? You’ve taken a dangerous, contrarian, anti-science position in almost every thread here in the Quarantine Zone. Is the reason you’ve done that because you think New Zealanders are just a bit “smug”?

It rather reminds me of the resentful spite MAGAts express towards “the liberals”. They complain that the left thinks they’re so much better than them, and any attempt by the left to explain their point of view (or, you know, the facts) is seen as, at best, talking down to them, and therefore insulting.

[SayTwo]

@Banquet_Bear

…lets not pretend that the United States, the richest country in the world, was incapable of paying everyone to stay home for a couple of months. You’ve got more resources than us, you’ve got more cash than us, you can leverage the economies of scale better than us. It was far far cheaper for us to pay everyone for a short lockdown to enable the country to open up than to have the protracted semi-lockdowns happening in most other parts of the world. And it would be far cheaper for the US to do exactly the same.

The only thing I can say to that is that you apparently have no real grasp of how the US really works. Saying they have all the wealth in the world is a far cry from saying they could pull off the strategy you propose. The situation is far, far more complex than that. It doesn’t do anyone any good to keep pushing the idea that the whole thing could be fixed by such simple solutions.

I’ve learned a fair amount about New Zealand during this crisis. One of the things I’ve learned is that it reminds me a lot of a nice-sized wealthy suburb in the US. Your national news sources routinely have stories about car crashes and similar ordeals that, while certainly tragic for the families involved, just aren’t on anywhere near the same scale as the broad-ranging issues that affect a country the size and complexity of the United States. I can’t even think of a single small state that it would be similar to. But I know I used to read papers a lot like yours, in my old hometown.

[SayTwo]

@Richard_Pearse

A large part of the rest of the world suffers because they fucked it up. While we were in lockdown, that buffoon in charge of the USA was blabbering on about sunlight and disinfectant. And you think we’d be better off if we’d just joined in with the general incompetence?

How long is your list of countries that didn’t ‘fuck it up’?

[Banquet_Bear]

@SayTwo

The only thing I can say to that is that you apparently have no real grasp of how the US really works. Saying they have all the wealth in the world is a far cry from saying they could pull off the strategy you propose. The situation is far, far more complex than that. It doesn’t do anyone any good to keep pushing the idea that the whole thing could be fixed by such simple solutions.

…LOL.

We aren’t all ignorant about how things work on the other side of the world. You argued that only a very small fraction of countries could afford to “pay everyone to sit around at home.” But we all know that the US is not one of those countries. It isn’t that they can’t afford it. Its because as a nation it is fundamentally dis-functional. It isn’t because things are “complex.” It isn’t because America is “exceptional.” It isn’t because I “don’t have a grasp of how the US works.”

You said it was a money problem. But now you concede it isn’t a money problem. You pivot positions on a dime.

@SayTwo

I’ve learned a fair amount about New Zealand during this crisis.

I bet you haven’t.

@SayTwo

One of the things I’ve learned is that it reminds me a lot of a nice-sized wealthy suburb in the US.

LOL. You definitely have not learned anything about New Zealand.

@SayTwo

Your national news sources routinely have stories about car crashes and similar ordeals that, while certainly tragic for the families involved, just aren’t on anywhere near the same scale as the broad-ranging issues that affect a country the size and complexity of the United States. I can’t even think of a single small state that it would be similar to. But I know I used to read papers a lot like yours, in my old hometown.

What an utterly bizarre and off-topic thing to say.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Banquet_Bear

But we all know that the US is not one of those countries .

…too late to edit: but I obviously meant to say “is one of those countries.”

[Banksiaman]

Okay, SayTwo, let’s cut to a very focused question. Accepting that the situation in the USA is what it is now and a vaccine is, say mid-year, explain why you think that the future economic impact will be greater from:

A. A hard national shut-down for 4-6 weeks, with safety net expenditure for those who are economically at risk [subsidising some lost income, rents etc] and assuming that breaks the chains of transmission sufficiently that mask wearing, social distancing and contact tracing can continue to suppress further outbreaks [the Australian model, most recently Victoria];

OR

B. A whack-a-mole mish-mash of controls at county and state levels, and widespread flouting of any measures that might mitigate transmission, and perhaps protecting old folks homes (where ~6.5% of the vulnerable live), likely resulting in the sorts of rates of infection and deaths that you are seeing now, with intermittent closures, hot-spot outbreaks and projected deaths and cases with likely future harm, but mainly ensuring free-market mechanisms are not compromised [US now]?

[I’ve spared you having to consider the smug Kiwis and their holier than thou attitudes. You should hear them after they win at sport].

And feel free to explain not just financial costs of paying the rent supplements etc, centrally, but the totality of costs that support your big preference for Plan B. And happy to accept that lock-downs have a significant mental and social cost.

Separate to that I’d be interested in another cost that gets alluded to occasionally in these discussions - What is the cost of losing faith in the government as a backstop in disaster? Would you work your hardest or give any extra care or effort to a boss who told you that you were basically a waste of space? According to my TV, Americans all want to give 110%, but would they give that much for their govt or as part of their community [volunteering, engagement, civic contribution, trust in society] if the govt clearly just shafted them? The present orange incumbent seems to have already corroded that in 4 years, and I’m interested in what loss of trust in the nation and govt as an entity costs in that process.

[SayTwo]

I appreciate your thoughtful arguments and your level approach to the discussion. I am afraid, though, that I would not wish to accept that question, the way you posed it. I think your choice A is not a feasible one for the US, even if your assumption in the latter part were to prove true, which is something I think it would be foolish to count on. I suppose it depends in part on how you define ‘hard national shut-down’, but unless hard really means something like ‘suggested’ or ‘not entirely enforceable’, I just can’t see that even being possible to consider. Not in the USA. If you think you saw unrest after police killings, I can’t imagine what you would see after that. I also don’t think I ever conceded that ‘it’s not a money problem’, as was suggested above. Not that I suppose we couldn’t just print the money, if we wanted to, but that we seem to have had a hard enough time managing the one-time stimulus checks and short-term unemployment benefits. You talk about tearing at the fabric of a country, and I think you make strong points there. I can imagine that sorting out who would get paid and how much and how to handle the after-effects…well, I don’t think that’s a look the US could pull off.

Your choice B includes some loaded loaded language, and probably doesn’t do enough to acknowledge the role that states can and must play, but fine, I’ll take it.

My answer would be, if I had to choose between only those two options, that A is still harsher than B, because I come at this from a fundamentally different point of view. I think the overwhelming majority of the damage that has been caused is of our own doing, not that of the virus. I think that the death count, while every bit as sad as any other death count, is not ‘staggering’. Not in context, anyway. And we have to put things in context, else how can we make mature and hard decisions? How can we measure whether our actions are commensurate to the harm, unless we quantify what the harm is? It takes context to do that. And I am sorry if anyone would respond to that with ‘you would just let people die!’, but I know that government can’t stop every preventable death, nor do I expect it to.

Again, I take your strong points on the broader ripple effects, and I think it’s a topic we don’t hear near enough about. I tend to think such trust as you describe has already been gone a long time in US, if it ever really existed at all, as long as we are talking about across the entire population and not in factions of it. But I will absolutely concede that if the government had been able to come up with a solution that made the US stand out as exceptional among its similar peers, it would have indeed gone a long way toward building trust and faith that might not have been there at the beginning. It would have been a wonderful thing. But what I imagine is that you could have a Barack Obama or a Mitt Romney at the head of it, or anyone else you could imagine who you think would be better, and it wouldn’t have made a significant difference in the spread of the virus. A difference in the public trust? Yeah, probably. People do like to have the impression that their representatives are doing things. But I don’t kid myself that the great majority of the deaths could have been prevented. That’s just my feeling, though. I don’t have a cite!

[DMC]

@Banquet_Bear

But all that isn’t good enough for you. We need to open our borders and let thousands of people die. And even that probably wouldn’t be enough.

@Banksiaman

If we have contributors from there perhaps they would like to chime in on how much better they would be taking SayTwo levels of desired covid cases and corresponding death rates for the team.

@Richard_Pearse

And you think we’d be better off if we’d just joined in with the general incompetence?

@Mijin

And now? Lo, the virus is unstoppable! Who are we, mere governments, to try to contain our new RNA-overlord? We must sit on our hands, while the elders work on an elixir for us.

@Banquet_Bear

Is this really what its all about for you? You’ve taken a dangerous, contrarian, anti-science position in almost every thread here in the Quarantine Zone. Is the reason you’ve done that because you think New Zealanders are just a bit “smug”?

@galen_ubal

It rather reminds me of the resentful spite MAGAts express towards “the liberals”. They complain that the left thinks they’re so much better than them, and any attempt by the left to explain their point of view (or, you know, the facts) is seen as, at best, talking down to them, and therefore insulting.

@Banquet_Bear

What an utterly bizarre and off-topic thing to say.

@Banksiaman

A whack-a-mole mish-mash of controls at county and state levels, and widespread flouting of any measures that might mitigate transmission, and perhaps protecting old folks homes (where ~6.5% of the vulnerable live), likely resulting in the sorts of rates of infection and deaths that you are seeing now, with intermittent closures, hot-spot outbreaks and projected deaths and cases with likely future harm, but mainly ensuring free-market mechanisms are not compromised [US now]?

Relevant Pit Thread

[Monocracy]

@Banquet_Bear

…you actually can ignore this (alleged fact) because you are not the boss of this thread.

…and neither are you. The thread title specifically mentions “US/UK/other countries”, so it is entirely relevant to the discussion.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Monocracy

…and neither are you. The thread title specifically mentions “US/UK/other countries”, so it is entirely relevant to the discussion.

…I never said it “wasn’t relevant.” But we are not obligated to debate within the narrow parameters defined by a single poster. Fotheringay-Phipps argued “that we couldn’t ignore the fact that Sweden is currently on the low end of the spectrum in terms of the current European increases.” But we can. And we did.

@Banksiaman

[I’ve spared you having to consider the smug Kiwis and their holier than thou attitudes. You should hear them after they win at sport].

So did you watch the Bledisloe last night? What was the score again? 45-3? The worst loss by Australia in the Bledisloe Cup’s 117-year history?

:: dances in smug isolation ::

[Monocracy]

@Banquet_Bear

…I never said it “wasn’t relevant.” But we are not obligated to debate within the narrow parameters defined by a single poster. Fotheringay-Phipps argued “that we couldn’t ignore the fact that Sweden is currently on the low end of the spectrum in terms of the current European increases.” But we can. And we did.

“You can’t ignore” is a colloquial phrase meaning “you should take into account”. It’s not a literal command.

On another topic, is Sweden still taking a do-nothing approach? I thought I heard a short while ago that they were increasing restrictions. It’s hard to keep track of what every country in the world is doing, let alone every state in the U.S.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Monocracy

“You can’t ignore” is a colloquial phrase meaning “you should take into account”. It’s not a literal command.

…but we didn’t have to take into account. It was perfectly fine to ignore the context that Fotheringay-Phipps insisted that we couldn’t ignore. It wasn’t just a single post I was talking about. It was a series of posts that demanded that the rise in cases be viewed within a single, narrow context. Go back and read the entire exchange.

[Banksiaman]

@Banquet_Bear

So did you watch the Bledisloe last night? What was the score again? 45-3? The worst loss by Australia in the Bledisloe Cup’s 117-year history?

:: dances in smug isolation ::

See how they are? They do this ALL THE TIME!!