|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On August 20 2020 02:18 Danglars wrote:
The federal government never had the power to implement a national response. It’s only got stuff like immigration controls and issuing statements and guidance. It’s America, not some unfederalized fantasyland.
Unless people really want Trump to have the ability to direct openings, closings, masks, rofl
The federal government, even when it can't dictate, has more than a little soft power to influence the right response. That could be used to negotiate for uniformity across states, lock down international borders, and ensure that funding and supplies are properly allocated to states to handle many aspects of the medical emergency. It could alternatively be used to peddle conspiracy theories, downplay the problem, and spend large sums of money on what amounts to a multi-trillion-dollar slush fund while telling the states that they are "on their own" when it comes to procuring scarce medical supplies.
One of these was what was done in the US, and it's not hard to see that the effectiveness of the response was very strongly informed by the effectiveness of this federal response.
|
i've never heard of 50% vaccine effectiveness but if everyone used it, wouldn't that virtually half the r0? Sounds pretty huge to me. If the current r0 is less than 2, the outbreak would gradually end if everyone was given vaccines. Admittedly, my knowledge of epidemiology is pretty pathetic so I hope what I'm saying isn't too naive.
|
On August 20 2020 01:58 Lmui wrote:
Coronavirus, and any pandemic really relies on exponential spread.
If you have an R0 of 1.3, and 100 infected, you need to stop 30+ cases from those infected. If you have 10000 infected, you need to stop 3000 cases. You need to get the base number down to a reasonable level, so that other measures to reduce R0 to 1 or below can work. That's essentially what every compentent country has done. Severe restrictions are in place to drop R0 to below 1, so the base number of infections drops to a manageable point, and then restrictions are eased until R0 is at 1, or just below 1. Contact tracing can only handle so many people, same with widespread availability of testing, speed of testing etc.
It's not unreasonable to expect that a subset of life is on hold until a vaccine is widespread.
One problem was the US never had (still doesn't have) a plan to reach the level of testing necessary to effectively identify infected people (particularly asymptomatic) or the contract tracing network to deal with them if they did.
From that aspect lockdown is pointless since we'll just keep reopening without them. That said, obviously Wuhan is demonstrative of the effectiveness of lockdowns, social distancing, masking, and contact tracing. While the US may have been/be unable to imitate that for good or bad reasons, it's clear that's the best strategy available.
|
On August 20 2020 05:03 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2020 02:18 Danglars wrote:
The federal government never had the power to implement a national response. It’s only got stuff like immigration controls and issuing statements and guidance. It’s America, not some unfederalized fantasyland.
Unless people really want Trump to have the ability to direct openings, closings, masks, rofl The federal government, even when it can't dictate, has more than a little soft power to influence the right response. That could be used to negotiate for uniformity across states, lock down international borders, and ensure that funding and supplies are properly allocated to states to handle many aspects of the medical emergency. It could alternatively be used to peddle conspiracy theories, downplay the problem, and spend large sums of money on what amounts to a multi-trillion-dollar slush fund while telling the states that they are "on their own" when it comes to procuring scarce medical supplies. One of these was what was done in the US, and it's not hard to see that the effectiveness of the response was very strongly informed by the effectiveness of this federal response.
Indeed, there was absolutely a ton more that the federal government could have done.
|
|
|
I mention Wuhan because it is actually open. But New Zealand is an example of what Hawaii should have been able to do. Vietnam has done really well too.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26092 Posts
That vacationing abroad was something we couldn’t collectively go a summer without is, well.
With some exceptions part of why lockdown was relatively successful (in being actually observed) in many places was partly because it was relatively simple and ‘fair’ in a crude sense.
The problem with opening up is it’s so seemingly arbitrary that you’ll eventually lose that buyin through people aggravated at its seemingly capricious nature and they’ll start engaging in behaviour that collectively leads to ye olde spikes.
I’m sure the global collective of TL have tons of examples. One of the first things I can recall swapping back to being essential were garden centres over here.
Electronics places and hardware places remained non-essential for a fair while, of course. You know at the time work and schooling was having to be transitioned to being from home and the non tech-savvy were floundering.
Of course, this doesn’t mean I don’t think a transition out of lockdown is impossible but it needs to actually make some kind of sense to the people who are to abide by less rigid restrictions or it’s not going to work.
|
On August 20 2020 05:32 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2020 05:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
I mention Wuhan because it is actually open. But New Zealand is an example of what Hawaii should have been able to do. Vietnam has done really well too. I suspect Canada is much open right now than China is normally.
This is Wuhan
+ Show Spoiler +
So I seriously doubt it.
|
Northern Ireland26092 Posts
On August 20 2020 05:14 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2020 05:03 LegalLord wrote:On August 20 2020 02:18 Danglars wrote:
The federal government never had the power to implement a national response. It’s only got stuff like immigration controls and issuing statements and guidance. It’s America, not some unfederalized fantasyland.
Unless people really want Trump to have the ability to direct openings, closings, masks, rofl The federal government, even when it can't dictate, has more than a little soft power to influence the right response. That could be used to negotiate for uniformity across states, lock down international borders, and ensure that funding and supplies are properly allocated to states to handle many aspects of the medical emergency. It could alternatively be used to peddle conspiracy theories, downplay the problem, and spend large sums of money on what amounts to a multi-trillion-dollar slush fund while telling the states that they are "on their own" when it comes to procuring scarce medical supplies. One of these was what was done in the US, and it's not hard to see that the effectiveness of the response was very strongly informed by the effectiveness of this federal response. Indeed, there was absolutely a ton more that the federal government could have done.
I almost miss the days of where US exceptionalism meant something other than ‘we can’t do things other countries do because we’re so innately dysfunctional’.
|
|
|
On August 20 2020 05:03 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2020 02:18 Danglars wrote:
The federal government never had the power to implement a national response. It’s only got stuff like immigration controls and issuing statements and guidance. It’s America, not some unfederalized fantasyland.
Unless people really want Trump to have the ability to direct openings, closings, masks, rofl The federal government, even when it can't dictate, has more than a little soft power to influence the right response. That could be used to negotiate for uniformity across states, lock down international borders, and ensure that funding and supplies are properly allocated to states to handle many aspects of the medical emergency. It could alternatively be used to peddle conspiracy theories, downplay the problem, and spend large sums of money on what amounts to a multi-trillion-dollar slush fund while telling the states that they are "on their own" when it comes to procuring scarce medical supplies. One of these was what was done in the US, and it's not hard to see that the effectiveness of the response was very strongly informed by the effectiveness of this federal response.
It has soft power through messaging. And depending on the political party or attitude of the state, they can tell the fed to get lost, thank you very much. That's the thing about soft power. I don't like people here and elsewhere starting off "The federal government should've directed the national response to be" and following with things the president can't do and can only beg others to make happen. If New York wants to kill 11,000 grandmas in nursing homes, it doesn't matter that whatever president is in office made a good speech that encouraged cooperation the week before.
We're in agreement on Trump not meeting the standard for good messaging.
|
On August 19 2020 09:03 cLutZ wrote:The NYTimes is finally catching up to the science on Covid. They are discussing T Cell immunity finally. 3 Months behind, but still progress!
Link does not mention T-Cell immunity.
Please tell me what do you think T-Cell immunity is and what does it mean related to SARS-CoV-2.
|
On August 20 2020 05:51 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2020 05:03 LegalLord wrote:On August 20 2020 02:18 Danglars wrote:
The federal government never had the power to implement a national response. It’s only got stuff like immigration controls and issuing statements and guidance. It’s America, not some unfederalized fantasyland.
Unless people really want Trump to have the ability to direct openings, closings, masks, rofl The federal government, even when it can't dictate, has more than a little soft power to influence the right response. That could be used to negotiate for uniformity across states, lock down international borders, and ensure that funding and supplies are properly allocated to states to handle many aspects of the medical emergency. It could alternatively be used to peddle conspiracy theories, downplay the problem, and spend large sums of money on what amounts to a multi-trillion-dollar slush fund while telling the states that they are "on their own" when it comes to procuring scarce medical supplies. One of these was what was done in the US, and it's not hard to see that the effectiveness of the response was very strongly informed by the effectiveness of this federal response. It has soft power through messaging. And depending on the political party or attitude of the state, they can tell the fed to get lost, thank you very much. That's the thing about soft power. I don't like people here and elsewhere starting off "The federal government should've directed the national response to be" and following with things the president can't do and can only beg others to make happen. If New York wants to kill 11,000 grandmas in nursing homes, it doesn't matter that whatever president is in office made a good speech that encouraged cooperation the week before. We're in agreement on Trump not meeting the standard for good messaging.
If you don't have complete lunatics in power, that problem is far less of a problem. A competent national leadership can coordinate state-level responses, it can give direction, it can give federal aid in order to help states do stuff they want to do. It can do a lot of stuff without actually having the power to order everyone around.
For example, despite the fact that people in the US might not notice that, we are very heavily federalized here in Germany. And a lot of the covid response was stuff that was within the power of the states, not the federal government. But since we don't have completely incompetent idiots in power, states and federal government talked to each other, and organized a response. A lot of stuff still varies from state to state, but none of our states thought that ignoring a pandemic is a genius idea, despite the state governments ranging from people you would probably call hard-left socialists to christian conservatives.
A lot of them are people i don't agree with politically. But i am very happy that in a time of crisis, they all decided to work together for the good of the country, instead of fighting over petty struggles or going full Trump and claiming that there isn't any problem and we should just do nothing.
It turns out that if something really important happens, it is often better to have competent people you disagree with politically in power rather than incompetent idiots who are on your side of the spectrum.
|
Of course, this doesn’t mean I don’t think a transition out of lockdown is impossible but it needs to actually make some kind of sense to the people who are to abide by less rigid restrictions or it’s not going to work.
This is a very interesting topic. Every country I know has a different approach, as the lockdowns themselves were also different.
In the beginning, there were warning that lockdowns would just deny the inevitable, and that a tougher and longer initial lockdown would make people too demoralized to stay disciplined during potential additional waves.
To me, travel restrictions seem like dangerous to lift, but I am not sure if nightlife and large indoor gatherings are allowed many places.
|
Northern Ireland26092 Posts
On August 20 2020 06:15 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +Of course, this doesn’t mean I don’t think a transition out of lockdown is impossible but it needs to actually make some kind of sense to the people who are to abide by less rigid restrictions or it’s not going to work. This is a very interesting topic. Every country I know has a different approach, as the lockdowns themselves were also different. In the beginning, there were warning that lockdowns would just deny the inevitable, and that a tougher and longer initial lockdown would make people too demoralized to stay disciplined during potential additional waves. To me, travel restrictions seem like dangerous to lift, but I am not sure if nightlife and large indoor gatherings are allowed many places.
The demoralisation that I am finding about the place is much more so now, rather than during the full lockdown. Least from the people I talk to and me myself.
I go for pretty stupidly long walks anyway all over my city of Belfast, the girlfriend I somehow obtained during lockdown lives in a less salubrious area, quite like just observing things.
They’re ghost towns socially. A lot of your working class pubs, your working man’s clubs etc, your snooker halls are all shut because they’re not within guidelines here.
Go to the city centre and more affluent areas and these places are all open, the sole difference being pubs that serve food vs pubs that don’t, the latter aren’t allowed to open.
That’s the line in the sand, not adherence to distancing or instituting seating plans that conform to social distancing etc. Just are you a hipster student bar or a gastropub vs just being a place for people to drink.
As per my previous point on garden centres, the shit end of the stick seems to consistently fall on the poor, or those in working class areas. So you end up where decorating your garden is deemed essential, in a city full of rented terraced properties and people who still live in high rises. But yet electronic stores are not essential at a time where everyone is locked down? That kind of thing. Hey it’s just one thing but over time it rankles.
I had my kid for his usual elongated summer stay, alas I picked a time the weather ended up being truly shit. Thankfully video games is something he’s old enough to do competently now and his mother and step dad have no interest in, so I have my niche, so it was totally fine. Kids indoor play areas are still closed, fine. Swimming pools closed, hey that’s fine. My local library is still closed, well hey that’s fine.
None of that bothered me one iota, seem sensible restrictions. That is until people started going on foreign holidays (which, avoiding news outside of TL I’d assumed was off the table) and were happy to announce they’d flout any quarantine period.
I mean yes it’s approaching TLDR territory haha, I still studiously abide by things I just don’t really go out into any commercial areas because it is just ruinous for my mood.
‘We’re all in this together’ is a sick joke of a catchphrase really, especially if you’re poor.
|
On August 20 2020 06:06 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2020 05:51 Danglars wrote:On August 20 2020 05:03 LegalLord wrote:On August 20 2020 02:18 Danglars wrote:
The federal government never had the power to implement a national response. It’s only got stuff like immigration controls and issuing statements and guidance. It’s America, not some unfederalized fantasyland.
Unless people really want Trump to have the ability to direct openings, closings, masks, rofl The federal government, even when it can't dictate, has more than a little soft power to influence the right response. That could be used to negotiate for uniformity across states, lock down international borders, and ensure that funding and supplies are properly allocated to states to handle many aspects of the medical emergency. It could alternatively be used to peddle conspiracy theories, downplay the problem, and spend large sums of money on what amounts to a multi-trillion-dollar slush fund while telling the states that they are "on their own" when it comes to procuring scarce medical supplies. One of these was what was done in the US, and it's not hard to see that the effectiveness of the response was very strongly informed by the effectiveness of this federal response. It has soft power through messaging. And depending on the political party or attitude of the state, they can tell the fed to get lost, thank you very much. That's the thing about soft power. I don't like people here and elsewhere starting off "The federal government should've directed the national response to be" and following with things the president can't do and can only beg others to make happen. If New York wants to kill 11,000 grandmas in nursing homes, it doesn't matter that whatever president is in office made a good speech that encouraged cooperation the week before. We're in agreement on Trump not meeting the standard for good messaging. If you don't have complete lunatics in power, that problem is far less of a problem. A competent national leadership can coordinate state-level responses, it can give direction, it can give federal aid in order to help states do stuff they want to do. It can do a lot of stuff without actually having the power to order everyone around. For example, despite the fact that people in the US might not notice that, we are very heavily federalized here in Germany. And a lot of the covid response was stuff that was within the power of the states, not the federal government. But since we don't have completely incompetent idiots in power, states and federal government talked to each other, and organized a response. A lot of stuff still varies from state to state, but none of our states thought that ignoring a pandemic is a genius idea, despite the state governments ranging from people you would probably call hard-left socialists to christian conservatives. A lot of them are people i don't agree with politically. But i am very happy that in a time of crisis, they all decided to work together for the good of the country, instead of fighting over petty struggles or going full Trump and claiming that there isn't any problem and we should just do nothing. It turns out that if something really important happens, it is often better to have competent people you disagree with politically in power rather than incompetent idiots who are on your side of the spectrum.
Federal aid is more of a legislature thing, though the president does have some ability. I see you want to go broad beyond my point, so let me restate it one time. National response from the President is not a US thing, you will see 50 different responses from the States (for the peanut gallery, except for what I've already mentioned). If you've seen the red/blue maps, expect a good chunk of the opposite-party states to ignore or highly alter any announced "national plan" ... because it isn't a national plan, it's a national suggestion and people that know American history and politics know this. America is not your typical European top-down enterprise, executives as an extension of legislatures.
I would like better messaging from the top, but I've already mentioned that.
Which people on my "side of the spectrum" who are "politically in power" and are "incompetent idiots" is a discussion for an overtly political thread regarding Coronavirus, and this thread is explicitly not that. I will probably find very little agreement with you anyways.
|
|
|
On August 20 2020 05:51 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2020 05:03 LegalLord wrote:On August 20 2020 02:18 Danglars wrote:
The federal government never had the power to implement a national response. It’s only got stuff like immigration controls and issuing statements and guidance. It’s America, not some unfederalized fantasyland.
Unless people really want Trump to have the ability to direct openings, closings, masks, rofl The federal government, even when it can't dictate, has more than a little soft power to influence the right response. That could be used to negotiate for uniformity across states, lock down international borders, and ensure that funding and supplies are properly allocated to states to handle many aspects of the medical emergency. It could alternatively be used to peddle conspiracy theories, downplay the problem, and spend large sums of money on what amounts to a multi-trillion-dollar slush fund while telling the states that they are "on their own" when it comes to procuring scarce medical supplies. One of these was what was done in the US, and it's not hard to see that the effectiveness of the response was very strongly informed by the effectiveness of this federal response. It has soft power through messaging. And depending on the political party or attitude of the state, they can tell the fed to get lost, thank you very much. That's the thing about soft power. I don't like people here and elsewhere starting off "The federal government should've directed the national response to be" and following with things the president can't do and can only beg others to make happen. If New York wants to kill 11,000 grandmas in nursing homes, it doesn't matter that whatever president is in office made a good speech that encouraged cooperation the week before. We're in agreement on Trump not meeting the standard for good messaging.
Germany is pretty similar in that respect and had a coherent national response because their state governors coordinated with each other and the national government.
Anyway, it's not as if the US is the only federal state in the world that is dealing with Covid.
|
On August 20 2020 08:11 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2020 05:51 Danglars wrote:On August 20 2020 05:03 LegalLord wrote:On August 20 2020 02:18 Danglars wrote:
The federal government never had the power to implement a national response. It’s only got stuff like immigration controls and issuing statements and guidance. It’s America, not some unfederalized fantasyland.
Unless people really want Trump to have the ability to direct openings, closings, masks, rofl The federal government, even when it can't dictate, has more than a little soft power to influence the right response. That could be used to negotiate for uniformity across states, lock down international borders, and ensure that funding and supplies are properly allocated to states to handle many aspects of the medical emergency. It could alternatively be used to peddle conspiracy theories, downplay the problem, and spend large sums of money on what amounts to a multi-trillion-dollar slush fund while telling the states that they are "on their own" when it comes to procuring scarce medical supplies. One of these was what was done in the US, and it's not hard to see that the effectiveness of the response was very strongly informed by the effectiveness of this federal response. It has soft power through messaging. And depending on the political party or attitude of the state, they can tell the fed to get lost, thank you very much. That's the thing about soft power. I don't like people here and elsewhere starting off "The federal government should've directed the national response to be" and following with things the president can't do and can only beg others to make happen. If New York wants to kill 11,000 grandmas in nursing homes, it doesn't matter that whatever president is in office made a good speech that encouraged cooperation the week before. We're in agreement on Trump not meeting the standard for good messaging. Germany is pretty similar in that respect and had a coherent national response because their state governors coordinated with each other and the national government. Anyway, it's not as if the US is the only federal state in the world that is dealing with Covid.
I haven't seen evidence or articles showing that the German chancellor is restricted from applying things like mask mandates, school and business closures, health orders, and the like (I should include, chancellor with the support of the bundestag). Also, I never saw a German making the pitch that some rebellious or libertarian state can resist such orders if given, and decide unilaterally to adopt Sweden's example for their state. As with other German laws, I also saw EU supremacy in the past, as citizens protected by German laws were defeated in appeal to European Court of Justice.
I don't want to get too far afield on this, but no Acrofales, I've seen nothing close to American-style restrictions on federal acts in Germany or elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/200818130318-02-wuhan-water-park-1808-exlarge-169.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/200818130226-01-wuhan-water-park-1808-exlarge-169.jpg)
