Jump to content
270soft Forum
admin_270

Best case? Perhaps look to Iceland

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

So ... everyone has to stay home all the time, because they might have an infection without knowing it (although we can't really say what the % is), and if so, they might be contagious (although we can't really say how much or in which exact ways). A lot of uncertainty in our knowledge of this.

Last I read is that 25% to 50% of infected people might not ever show symptoms, but they could spread it to others. What do you think we should do to gain certainty and knowledge? Are you suggesting we end the lockdowns now and be Darwinian about this? Then, maybe re-institute them if it ends up being a worst case scenario? 

I think everyone is in agreement, government and citizen, that we want the lockdown to be as short as possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

So ... everyone has to stay home all the time, because they might have an infection without knowing it (although we can't really say what the % is), and if so, they might be contagious (although we can't really say how much or in which exact ways). A lot of uncertainty in our knowledge of this.

You keep looking for absolutes while humanity faces a global crisis unlike any we've seen in our life time.

I mentioned above that a friend of mine was just diagnosed.  She is symptomatic.  She's currently in day 5, and docs have told her to expect her symptoms to peak on day 8.

She asked what to expect.  They told her "We don't know."

It peaks like this for some.  It peaks like that for others.  You might die, you might recover, we don't know.  We'll find out in three days.

That's what we're facing here.  I'm sorry that this isn't clear enough for you.  It isn't clear enough for anybody.  We're all doing our best.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vcczar said:

What do you think we should do to gain certainty and knowledge? Are you suggesting we end the lockdowns now and be Darwinian about this?

No. But we're talking about a disease that probably kills <1% of people it infects, and significantly lower than that if young and healthy.

Ramp up testing (and these need to be accurate, some problems with inaccurate testing it seems), rapid deployment of antibody testing (people who have already had it can go back to work immediately), major emphasis on innovating better treatment and building up equipment, phased reintroduction starting with young and healthy once all these are in place. Sorry parents, you'll probably get it if your kids get it.

Very strong measures to protect old people until everyone else is reintroduced.

No way we can hold lock-down measures in place for 1.5 years (or whatever), assuming a vaccine would be available then (which might be wishful thinking - of course, could be sooner if we're lucky).

Anyways, something like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

You might die, you might recover, we don't know

Best estimates for infection mortality rates for young people seem very low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

No. But we're talking about a disease that probably kills <1% of people it infects, and significantly lower than that if young and healthy.

Ramp up testing (and these need to be accurate, some problems with inaccurate testing it seems), rapid deployment of antibody testing (people who have already had it can go back to work immediately), major emphasis on innovating better treatment and building up equipment, phased reintroduction starting with young and healthy once all these are in place. Sorry parents, you'll probably get it if your kids get it.

Very strong measures to protect old people until everyone else is reintroduced.

No way we can hold lock-down measures in place for 1.5 years (or whatever), assuming a vaccine would be available then (which might be wishful thinking - of course, could be sooner if we're lucky).

Anyways, something like this.

I'll remind Premier John Horgan of how wretched a choice you would ever be for Minister of Health and Welfare, or to ever work in the B.C. Ministry of Health and Welfare period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

No. But we're talking about a disease that probably kills <1% of people it infects, and significantly lower than that if young and healthy.

Ramp up testing (and these need to be accurate, some problems with inaccurate testing it seems), rapid deployment of antibody testing (people who have already had it can go back to work immediately), major emphasis on innovating better treatment and building up equipment, phased reintroduction starting with young and healthy once all these are in place. Sorry parents, you'll probably get it if your kids get it.

Very strong measures to protect old people until everyone else is reintroduced.

No way we can hold lock-down measures in place for 1.5 years (or whatever), assuming a vaccine would be available then (which might be wishful thinking - of course, could be sooner if we're lucky).

Anyways, something like this.

I think this is what they're hoping to do. I guess I'm getting a little confused, because your posts are coming off as if you are opposed to the lockdowns or you assume that it is more likely than not that the lockdown will be for 1.5 years. You seem to also be angry at expert opinion, when one would assume that such opinion would be more valuable now than ever. I don't think anyone wants the economy to crash or to stay in lockdown for longer than say, June 1st. My guess is that by May, they'll likely have enough data to formulate a coherent plan. I'll be shocked if we are in lockdown beyond June 1st in the US. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

I'll remind Premier John Horgan of how wretched a choice you would ever be for Minister of Health and Welfare, or to ever work in the B.C. Ministry of Health and Welfare period.

Care to expand on this? What exactly do you disagree with and why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vcczar said:

I guess I'm getting a little confused, because your posts are coming off as if you are opposed to the lockdowns or you assume that it is more likely than not that the lockdown will be for 1.5 years. You seem to also be angry at expert opinion, when one would assume that such opinion would be more valuable now than ever. I don't think anyone wants the economy to crash or to stay in lockdown for longer than say, June 1st. My guess is that by May, they'll likely have enough data to formulate a coherent plan. I'll be shocked if we are in lockdown beyond June 1st in the US.

No, I'm opposed to long-term lock-downs (anything more than a few weeks). Lock-down is a delaying tactic, not a strategy. I wish politicians and health officials would be up front about this - the lock-downs themselves aren't going to solve anything. I wish we would be getting more transparency about what they're thinking and why, what evidence they're using to guide their decisions, and so on. There's been some of that, but not nearly enough.

I'm not angry at expert opinion, I just know that there's a large amount of uncertainty and the experts can easily be wrong. I also know that contagious disease experts aren't experts in psychology, economics, politics, and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

No, I'm opposed to long-term lock-downs (anything more than a few weeks). Lock-down is a delaying tactic, not a strategy. I wish politicians and health officials would be up front about this - the lock-downs themselves aren't going to solve anything. I wish we would be getting more transparency about what they're thinking and why, what evidence they're using to guide their decisions, and so on. There's been some of that, but not nearly enough.

I'm not angry at expert opinion, I just know that there's a large amount of uncertainty and the experts can easily be wrong. I also know that contagious disease experts aren't experts in psychology, economics, politics, and so on.

What is your definition of a few weeks? What should Canada do if there isn't a clear, achievable strategy to allow for an end to the lock down in a few weeks? What do you think are their reasons for the lack of transparency? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vcczar said:

What is your definition of a few weeks? What should Canada do if there isn't a clear, achievable strategy to allow for an end to the lock down in a few weeks? What do you think are their reasons for the lack of transparency? 

Don't know why there hasn't been more transparency. Seems like a failure of leadership. They should outline a clear strategy, give their reasons for doing so with the best evidence they have at hand, and give if-then's for how policies will change based on changes in data. Instead it's felt like they're wandering blind, bumping into random objects.

A few weeks is no more than 5 weeks. We're already at 2.

Not sure why there wouldn't be a clear, achievable strategy in a few weeks. There will have been enough data by then. Lock-downs are government-imposed - they can be changed whenever the government decides to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Don't know why there hasn't been more transparency. Seems like a failure of leadership. They should outline a clear strategy, give their reasons for doing so with the best evidence they have at hand, and give if-then's for how policies will change based on changes in data. Instead it's felt like they're wandering blind, bumping into random objects.

A few weeks is no more than 5 weeks. We're already at 2.

Not sure why there wouldn't be a clear, achievable strategy in a few weeks. There will have been enough data by then. Lock-downs are government-imposed - they can be changed whenever the government decides to.

Do you think it is impossible that a clear, achievable strategy wouldn't require a lockdown date beyond April 22nd (your max lockdown date)? 

In regards to failure of leadership, is there any country that you think is showing firm leadership in this crisis that the US could use as a model? How long is/was their lockdown? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vcczar said:

Do you think it is impossible that a clear, achievable strategy wouldn't require a lockdown date beyond April 22nd (your max lockdown date)?

It's possible, but when the Germans are advancing, you don't have the luxury of maybe or maybe not figuring out a strategy. You have to figure out a strategy. Keep the lock-down in place and you lose your economy, and probably cause more deaths in the long-run than you are trying to prevent.

Scorched-earth policy (lock-down) worked for the Russians to a point, but they couldn't keep doing it without losing their entire country. At some point, they had to counterattack. My guess is we have to counterattack by a few weeks at the latest, or the irreparable harm to our country will outweigh the harm of the virus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Don't know why there hasn't been more transparency.

You are correct here. Transparency has become a real problem in most First World Nations about far too much, and it's become highly unacceptable. The Cloaks of Government Secrecy have to be shed, or torn off by their own citizens, one of these days, and the political leaders and their military, intelligence, police, and bureaucratic cronies, as well the venomous plutocrats who bribe them into a lot of it, will one day need to be held to account in the fullest way, no punches pulled, for their sedition against their peoples, nations, and the highest laws that govern their nations. One day in the glorious future, when these secrets become untenable and too much to bear...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

It's possible, but when the Germans are advancing, you don't have the luxury of maybe or maybe not figuring out a strategy. You have to figure out a strategy. Keep the lock-down in place and you lose your economy, and probably cause more deaths in the long-run than you are trying to prevent.

Scorched-earth policy (lock-down) worked for the Russians to a point, but they couldn't keep doing it without losing their entire country. At some point, they had to counterattack. My guess is we have to counterattack by a few weeks at the latest, or the irreparable harm to our country will outweigh the harm of the virus. 

I don't think anyone, including the world governments, are disagreeing with you here. I'd be shocked if they weren't working on counterattacking.

I doubt there is a faction perversely seeking to wreck the economy for some sort of goal that outweighs a crashed global economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

Don't know why there hasn't been more transparency. Seems like a failure of leadership. They should outline a clear strategy, give their reasons for doing so with the best evidence they have at hand, and give if-then's for how policies will change based on changes in data. Instead it's felt like they're wandering blind, bumping into random objects.

A few weeks is no more than 5 weeks. We're already at 2.

Not sure why there wouldn't be a clear, achievable strategy in a few weeks. There will have been enough data by then. Lock-downs are government-imposed - they can be changed whenever the government decides to.

Run for office, I guess.  Clearly you are better at this than literally everybody else.  ;c)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Run for office, I guess.  Clearly you are better at this than literally everybody else.  ;c)

Probably better than most politicians, but I'd hate being a politician.

Really though, just common-sense questions and observations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, admin_270 said:

Probably better than most politicians, but I'd hate being a politician.

Really though, just common-sense questions and observations.

And that's why you'd hate being a politician.  Because they don't seem to have common-sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

And that's why you'd hate being a politician.  Because they don't seem to have common-sense.

I think quite a few start with that, as well as even good intentions and a positive, productive vision and agenda, but it quickly erodes after their elected. The "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," effect, if anyone's at all familiar with that ancient movie starring Gary Cooper. Or even the naïve good intentions of the title character in the British sitcom, "Yes, Minister," that always get quashed by his personal secretary, the heartless career bureaucrat, Sir Humphrey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2020 at 2:44 PM, Patine said:

I think quite a few start with that, as well as even good intentions and a positive, productive vision and agenda, but it quickly erodes after their elected. The "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," effect, if anyone's at all familiar with that ancient movie starring Gary Cooper. Or even the naïve good intentions of the title character in the British sitcom, "Yes, Minister," that always get quashed by his personal secretary, the heartless career bureaucrat, Sir Humphrey.

No doubt that happens.  There are some good intentioned people that get caught up in the world of politics (which I am sure is a very easy thing to do when surrounded by it 24/7).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...