I’m simply pointing out how it breaks down. If you look at Italy there is a small country within it that was hit MUCH harder. San Marino has 1000 deaths per million versus Italy’s 292. But they are geographically linked and are together the hardest hit part of Europe.
I’m not sure what you’re disagreeing with. When Europe became a hot spot we shut down flights from there also.
I agree that if you remove the hot spots, the country looks better. So what? I’m not at all surprised that the most visited, most bustling, and one of the most (or the most?) densely populated part of a country is hit harder than the farming areas. So what?
You even mentioned that we have so many more flights than those European countries – where do you think those flights go? Boise? They go to NY. Simultaneously arguing that we have more flights so we should be worse, and then discounting our worst hit area, that happens to probably have the most international flights, makes no sense.
Here’s what you wrote:
Care to reassess that guess in light of new information?
The “so what” is that it needs to be studied. If you just looked at international passenger miles then NYC is not the data island it turned out to be.
I’m not discounting anything. As I just stated NY is one of many ports with high density international flights. ATL, ORD, LAX, SFO DFW etc… are all major international hubs. If you are trying to model the spread of a disease then passenger density is certainly a weighted statistic but NYC clearly shows the nuances involved. There is a need to study the flow of people internationally and determine if this can be done in real-time with the cooperation of other countries.
To what end? It was a guess. What needs to be reassessed?
Woulda-coulda-shoulda, but the fact is there was no way the US was ever going to go on lockdowns before it’s first coronavirus death. Cite: No other countries did that.
Nobody’s gonna let their business get destroyed along with the rest of the economy when nobody in their backyard has died yet. Just not gonna happen. SHOULD they? Sure, but that’s just not human nature. Any pol from any party would have been ripped up and down if they tried to do that.
And, unfortunately, we have pesky laws that prevent measures the “successful” countries took, like South Korea tracking credit card transactions and CCTV footage.
We were basically in-line or ahead of other “free” western countries in our handling of this. The death numbers cited above seem to correlate with that.
It is a fact that China deliberately shut down anyone who tried to warn the world and they are on record apologizing to the whistleblowers.
If China had been honest then it would have been possible to act on the information. this did not happen and lives were lost because of it.
New Zealand went on Level 4 isolation a few days before their first (and to date only) death. They had the benefit of geographic isolation and being able to see what was occurring in Europe and Asia, and they’re going to see more deaths as the existing infections progress but their rapid and thorough response seems to have been effective, and Jacinda Ardern’s commitment to maintaining isolation measures until effective testing and qualified assessment of loosening restrictions gives confidence that they won’t experience epidemic outbreak throughout their population.
The notion that ‘we’ (the United States or any other developed country) should lift restrictions so we can just get back to normalcy and keep the economy going is given lie by the experiences in Italy and Spain, and soon I fear in Sweden and Japan where measures that were taken were late and poorly enforced. And getting to a level of effective herd immunity, particularly in a such a highly infectious pathogen, means that a large portion of at-risk people will be exposed (especially since the definition of ‘at-risk’ is evolving toward younger people with few or no obvious underlying conditions than the original data provided to the WHO by China indicated). This is probably unavoidable because we are unlikely to have a vaccine ready for wide deployment before sometime before mid- to late-2021, so blunting the peak of serious illness is key to preventing people who could suffer serious illness but recover with care from dying because of a lack of medical resources.
Stranger
This is important and it’s being overlooked.
Social distancing works. New York is the exception that proves the rule. For the NYC residents that have to go to work, effective social distancing isn’t really possible. The vast majority of essential workers don’t own cars and rely on mass transit. And even though the buses and trains are a lot less crowded, a lot less crowded means almost everyone gets a seat, not their own section. The number of essential workers just doesn’t allow for six foot separation on buses and trains during peak times. Then there are lesser things like the general impossibility of keeping the 6 ft separation while walking down the sidewalk. Then you have shared laundry rooms and laundromats . And elevator densities in large buildings that make it impossible to wait for an empty car.
I would probably have almost as many close contacts while trying to social distance in NY than I would during a normal non-working day in the suburbs.
To everyone in the thread – I apologize for contributing to a hijack. This thread is going down the same path the every similar thread has gone.
This thread should be about how the media, and not science, is driving our actions. So far, the OP hasn’t brought any evidence whatsoever. I’m not a moderator and I’m not the OP, but I would love for this thread to get back on track, rather than going into another Blame China thing or something.
I don’t think we should go back to normal. I don’t think we will 100% go back to normal until a vaccine is made, and maybe even later. I don’t think we should lift non-lockdown social distancing restrictions (e.g. 6 foot apart, masks) until we have a vaccine. At risk people should stay home period until there’s a vaccine. I think we should take a targeted approach to lifting lockdowns based on locale and testing, when contact-tracing is feasible and we know more or less who has had it and who hasn’t. I don’t know exactly when that will be, but I really don’t see Americans tolerating being locked down past May so I hope it is before then.
Yes that’s the article my friend posted, thanks for finding it.
In my way of thinking this is common sense based on logic. We can’t declare and country or state to be doing a good job based on current numbers. Only when the virus has run its course can we tally up.
Let’s be clear about this: Everybody is “at-risk”. While the disease affects older people and those with co-morbidities and underlying conditions more frequently, there are plenty of people on ventilators who are described as being young and healthy, right down to their 20s and 30s. As a demographic class nobody is immune to a severe case of COVID-19 despite the initial data provided to the WHO by China. And by releasing the isolation measures early you are ensuring that medical systems will be overloaded with patients requiring critical care. If only a couple percent of people presenting significant symptoms required critical care (supplemental oxygen or more), then we could do phased de-isolation and accept that the default case fatality rate is an unavoidable loss short of vaccination or an effective treatment, but the stats on patients requiring care are in the double digits, and are already overwhelming or projected to exceed critical care resources in every major city, and frankly small towns and rural areas are going to be worse off for lacking those facilities at all.
Let’s also be clear about something: the ‘social distancing’ measures of maintaining a hypothetical six foot standoff and wearing non-filtering woven fabric face coverings are good reminders that we are in the midst of a pandemic but are essentially worthless in terms of really preventing contagion. It is clear now that some degree of aerosol transmission is occurring (Dr. Fauci even acknowledged that despite the WHO claims aerosol transmission is certainly possible even in casual contact situations) and so can remain suspended in air for minutes before being deposited on surfaces, and all cloth masks are really doing even for an infected person is collecting the pathogen so that it is spread to the hands when adjusting or removing the mask. Cleaning contact surfaces and washing hands frequently is of value, but the real effective measures to limit contagion is physical distancing and isolation as much as possible, which means not being in frequent contact with people outside the home.
Regardless, even if we just lifted isolation measures now and encouraged people to go back out and socialize normally, what would happen is a more rapid spread of the virus and a rapid peak of cases, and then people would fear going to restaurants or other close quarters contacts when they suddenly see people they know contracting the COVID-19 disease and waiting to get critical care.
I can’t really parse the intent of your statement, but if what you mean is that we can’t really do anything about the contagion so we should just open things up, let the gods sort it out, and “tally up” the deaths later, you are wrong. This isn’t “common sense based on logic” except in the perverse sense of “logic” used by Fox News contributors. New Zealand is an example of what could be done with sufficient lead time and decisive action, and while it is way too late for the US to follow that lead, we can still act to mitigate the worst effects if we maintain resolve and use our resources to buffer the economy. The fear seems to be that with all of these people out of work we won’t be able to post good profits next quarter when what we really ought to be worrying about is protecting critical infrastructure and food production and distribution systems so that this comparatively mild pandemic disease doesn’t turn into a humanitarian crisis.
Stranger
Even really smart and qualified people can be really really wrong sometimes. Look at Linus Pauling and Vitamin C.
That is why consensus is important.
And it’s a good parallel to the current situation with hydroxychloroquine and COVID. Even though it was unproven, it came into common use because it was safe, so what the hell. And it’s still used, and even though it has been fully discredited, some people still think it helps. Because viruses are self-limiting.
Back to the OP.
I’m not sure how the media can effectively report this because they themselves are under lockdown. In our area they mostly just report comes from official government sources and maybe a human interest story about some local company which now is making masks.
Why would you want to spend 5 years dealing with something that with modest preventative measures could be largely over in 1 season. The numbers are suggesting more by the day that there are many times more people being infected than previously thought. It won’t go away until we hit herd immunity levels.
Nope, the media are not on lockdown. :rolleyes: Without looking through every single stay-at-home order (NOT lockdown), the one in my state includes the media as an essential business.
Incidentally, “d” puts the media just behind food and charities and ahead of gasoline stations, banks, and hardware stores.
While many in the media are working from home out of an abundance of caution or to be a model of social distancing to the public, there’s nothing barring reporters from investigating in the same manner as before the emergency if they see a story worth reporting.
Because over in one season may well leave me a widow, or my son an orphan, where a more deliberate approach will not. I don’t want to die on a gurney in a hallway because the O2 that could have saved me is being used by the person that got there right before me. I don’t know why you think I should be okay with this.
Please provide cites that this could be over in 1 season with modest preventative measures. Hopefully, real scientific cites, not “media”, because they are already driving our defensive actions!
I agree with you on shutting down if there are indications of a massive outbreak that would overwhelm the hospitals if it is shown that social distancing does not slow it down enough. The odds are greatly in your favor of not being hospitalized.
It’s already overwhelming the hospitals. Are you posting from 4 weeks ago or something?