The cost of waiting - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: The cost of waiting (/thread-19758.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: The cost of waiting (/thread-19758.html)
Pages:
1
2
RE: The cost of waiting - Goose - 05-23-2020
(05-22-2020, 10:03 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: Not a 'lot of people', just about everybody, including probably the majority of health professionals. (I have mentioned my ultra cautious PCP, at the physical she dragged me to on 2/29, was dismissive - 'just wash your hands'.) Not just Trump, but most Democratic politicians were in the same camp. Op-eds in the NYT and Post emphasized the dangers of xenophobia and were dismissive of the virus - this well into February.
There was no political consensus for these drastic measures until the second week of March. I believe it was the clinical experience in Italy and the cluster sites in the US that changed opinions radically and quickly.
Totally agree. There is no doubt that the situation in Italy brought home the idea that 1) it could happen here, 2) given that we knew the disease was present in the US and 3) not contained in the US, we had to do something. SIP was all we had, so we did it.
What worries me now is that the general population in the Bay Area believes that SIP somehow would eradicate the disease. Even best case, the consensus of expert opinion is that the disease is too widespread internationally to eradicate it globally. The "best case" outcome would be that we can lower the number of new cases to the point we can track and trace the disease spread and contain it via directed quarantine. It is not clear that we are prepared to do this anytime soon, at least from what is publicly known. The only other option would be some form of modified SIP until we get a treatment or vaccine. That is going to be a very hard sell, given that the timeline would be unknown and the economic damage even larger than at present.
RE: The cost of waiting - BostonCard - 05-23-2020
(05-22-2020, 10:03 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: Not a 'lot of people', just about everybody, including probably the majority of health professionals. (I have mentioned my ultra cautious PCP, at the physical she dragged me to on 2/29, was dismissive - 'just wash your hands'.) Not just Trump, but most Democratic politicians were in the same camp. Op-eds in the NYT and Post emphasized the dangers of xenophobia and were dismissive of the virus - this well into February.
There was no political consensus for these drastic measures until the second week of March. I believe it was the clinical experience in Italy and the cluster sites in the US that changed opinions radically and quickly.
Again, leadership means taking an unpopular position, and convincing others that the danger is real and to take it seriously, not waiting until others have come to that conclusion on their own volition. Trump has had no problems dismissing the pronouncements of experts, and certainly if op-eds in the NYT and Post influenced his thinking, this would be the first time.
Moreover, this is not the case that Trump was pushing for aggressive measures and "the establishment" was holding him back. This was a case where as late as February 26, Trump was quoted as saying "We’re going to be pretty soon at only five people. And we could be at just one or two people over the next short period of time." at a White House press conference. This a month after members of his administration were starting to sound the alarm.
[/url]
First CDC alert Jan 8(!)
Azar briefs the president Jan 18
Intelligence reports Jan 27
Peter Navarro warned that the virus could kill half a million people and cost the economy $6 trillion Jan 29 (and again Feb 23)
Alex Azar declared a public health emergency Jan 31
Senators started warning that the administration wasn't taking it seriously Feb 5
[tweet]https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1225073987639705600?s=20[/tweet]
The taskforce concluded that social distancing was needed Feb 21
The CDC stated it expected community spread in the US Feb 26 (this was when the first case in California with no known contact to China was discovered)
[url=https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/t0225-cdc-telebriefing-covid-19.html]The cornoavirus claimed its first known life (at the time) Feb 29
Now, let me be clear, I wouldn't have expected Trump to order a nationwide shutdown back in February. First of all, it was not appropriate, and second of all, he does not have that power. But there is a lot he could have done differently, starting with at the very least not impeding the public taking the virus seriously by constantly minimizing and dismissing its threat.
There is a ton he could have done back in February to prepare the nation:
1) which is obvious to anyone: prepare the national stockpile; start getting large quantities of PPE. Work with 3M and other PPE makers and tell them we want to be prepared if the virus comes to the US, so ramp up PPE production; we will buy any excess off you.
2) Develop social distancing guidelines so states aren't guessing blind. Let states know what they can do and when. Socialize the idea that we're going to have to make changes to our daily life, so that it is easier for state and local officials to announce shutdowns (especially in red states).
3) Pushing for the CDC and FDA to get their acts together on testing (Azar as head of HHS, which oversees both agencies, should have been fired over this)
4) Requesting funding from congress (see Chris Murphy's tweet Feb 21)
5) Working with state and local officials to cancel large gatherings early. If Ireland could cancel St. Patrick's Day celebrations, New Orleans could have cancelled Mardi Gras.
Even if he didn't do anything else, just "not impeding" progress to understanding the threat of COVID-19 in the US would have been progress.
Even March 11, when the WHO declared coronavirus to be a pandemic, the NBA cancelled its season, and Tom Hanks and his wife announced he had COVID-19, Trump's solution was to close the barn door after the horse had already escaped by banning travel from Europe (but not the UK). That was his big response back then. I think a great leader would have been ahead of the curve here and brought the country with him (or her). But a merely competent leader wouldn't have been as consistently behind the curve as Trump.
BC
RE: The cost of waiting - oregontim - 05-23-2020
(05-23-2020, 10:25 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Again, leadership means taking an unpopular position, and convincing others that the danger is real and to take it seriously, not waiting until others have come to that conclusion on their own volition. Trump has had no problems dismissing the pronouncements of experts, and certainly if op-eds in the NYT and Post influenced his thinking, this would be the first time.
Even if he didn't do anything else, just "not impeding" progress to understanding the threat of COVID-19 in the US would have been progress.
I think a great leader would have been ahead of the curve here and brought the country with him (or her). But a merely competent leader wouldn't have been as consistently behind the curve as Trump.
BC
Totally agree. Well said.
RE: The cost of waiting - Goose - 05-23-2020
(05-23-2020, 10:25 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Again, leadership means taking an unpopular position, and convincing others that the danger is real and to take it seriously, not waiting until others have come to that conclusion on their own volition.
BC
Yes, that is true. But even great leaders have to work with the public as it is, not the public as they wish it were. While I get it that it would be wonderful for the leaders to recognize the "correct" course and bring the people to it, it is not in evidence that this is always possible. In fact, I would argue that experience shows us that it basically never happens that way. I certainly believe that Trump made many errors by minimizing the problems the virus could inflict upon the public. That was plain stupid. What a better leader might have accomplished is an open question, but I doubt it would have included much faster action than actually occurred.
If one wants to look for real "leadership", one could ask why various administrations at all levels did not create a track and trace capability that could handle an epidemic caused by a novel agent. One might also ask why the CDC did not put in place a better level of cooperation with PCR machine manufacturers, commercial testing labs and hospital testing labs to allow rapid distribution of new PCR based testing. They have publications discussing the need for it that date back many years. These would have been programs that nobody would oppose except on the basis of cost. That is where "leadership" could have moved the meter. It didn't happen. If it had, we wouldn't have needed to convince the entire nation to SIP. We could have contained the outbreak, like Taiwan did, or at least had a chance of doing so.
RE: The cost of waiting - oldalum - 05-23-2020
One of Trump's actual acts of leadership was banning all travel to the U.S. from Europe.* Article in the Washington Post today about how the rushed, botched way that was implemented caused a final viral infusion into the U.S. from Europe--leaving aside the debate about whether it was justified epidemiologically.
*this is how he announced it. Only afterward did administration officials try to clarify that the ban did not apply to U.S. citizens or permanent legal residents--too late for my daughter and thousands of others, who bought (expensive) tickets home immediately, and then didn't trust that the exception might be taken away at some point anyway.
“To keep new cases from entering our shores,” Trump said in an Oval Office address on March 11, “we will be suspending all travel from Europe to the United States for the next 30 days.”
RE: The cost of waiting - BostonCard - 05-23-2020
Good article about a couple of places which managed to control the COVID-19 epidemic quite well: Vietnam and the Indian state of Kerala (I believe Economist articles about COVID-19 are not paywalled).
https://www.economist.com/asia/2020/05/09/vietnam-and-the-indian-state-of-kerala-curbed-covid-19-on-the-cheap
Quote:The [Vietnam] government’s public-awareness campaign was equally aggressive, relying on text-messaging, information-packed websites and downloadable apps as well as a barrage of some 127 articles a day, on average, across 13 of the most popular online news outlets. “The impression they created was that the government was really doing everything it could,” says Mr Pollack.
Funny how that works.
Quote:Kerala’s state government has been similarly energetic, from the chief minister, its top elected official, giving nightly pep talks to village-level committees working to set up public hand-washing stations. Aside from showing logistical efficiency in monitoring cases and equipping its health system, it has also emphasised sympathy and compassion for people affected by the pandemic.
no further comment needed.
BC
RE: The cost of waiting - terry - 05-24-2020
(05-23-2020, 10:25 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Again, leadership means taking an unpopular position, and convincing others that the danger is real and to take it seriously, not waiting until others have come to that conclusion on their own volition. . . .
There is a lot he could have done differently, starting with at the very least not impeding the public taking the virus seriously by constantly minimizing and dismissing its threat.
There is a ton he could have done back in February to prepare the nation:
1) which is obvious to anyone: prepare the national stockpile; start getting large quantities of PPE. Work with 3M and other PPE makers and tell them we want to be prepared if the virus comes to the US, so ramp up PPE production; we will buy any excess off you.
2) Develop social distancing guidelines so states aren't guessing blind. Let states know what they can do and when. Socialize the idea that we're going to have to make changes to our daily life, so that it is easier for state and local officials to announce shutdowns (especially in red states).
3) Pushing for the CDC and FDA to get their acts together on testing (Azar as head of HHS, which oversees both agencies, should have been fired over this)
4) Requesting funding from congress (see Chris Murphy's tweet Feb 21)
5) Working with state and local officials to cancel large gatherings early. If Ireland could cancel St. Patrick's Day celebrations, New Orleans could have cancelled Mardi Gras.
Even if he didn't do anything else, just "not impeding" progress to understanding the threat of COVID-19 in the US would have been progress.
Great points!
RE: The cost of waiting - Mick - 05-25-2020
(05-23-2020, 10:25 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Again, leadership means taking an unpopular position, and convincing others that the danger is real and to take it seriously, not waiting until others have come to that conclusion on their own volition. Trump has had no problems dismissing the pronouncements of experts, and certainly if op-eds in the NYT and Post influenced his thinking, this would be the first time.
Moreover, this is not the case that Trump was pushing for aggressive measures and "the establishment" was holding him back. This was a case where as late as February 26, Trump was quoted as saying "We’re going to be pretty soon at only five people. And we could be at just one or two people over the next short period of time." at a White House press conference. This a month after members of his administration were starting to sound the alarm.
[/url]
First CDC alert Jan 8(!)
Azar briefs the president Jan 18
Intelligence reports Jan 27
Peter Navarro warned that the virus could kill half a million people and cost the economy $6 trillion Jan 29 (and again Feb 23)
Alex Azar declared a public health emergency Jan 31
Senators started warning that the administration wasn't taking it seriously Feb 5
The taskforce concluded that social distancing was needed Feb 21
The CDC stated it expected community spread in the US Feb 26 (this was when the first case in California with no known contact to China was discovered)
[url=https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/t0225-cdc-telebriefing-covid-19.html]The cornoavirus claimed its first known life (at the time) Feb 29
Now, let me be clear, I wouldn't have expected Trump to order a nationwide shutdown back in February. First of all, it was not appropriate, and second of all, he does not have that power. But there is a lot he could have done differently, starting with at the very least not impeding the public taking the virus seriously by constantly minimizing and dismissing its threat.
There is a ton he could have done back in February to prepare the nation:
1) which is obvious to anyone: prepare the national stockpile; start getting large quantities of PPE. Work with 3M and other PPE makers and tell them we want to be prepared if the virus comes to the US, so ramp up PPE production; we will buy any excess off you.
2) Develop social distancing guidelines so states aren't guessing blind. Let states know what they can do and when. Socialize the idea that we're going to have to make changes to our daily life, so that it is easier for state and local officials to announce shutdowns (especially in red states).
3) Pushing for the CDC and FDA to get their acts together on testing (Azar as head of HHS, which oversees both agencies, should have been fired over this)
4) Requesting funding from congress (see Chris Murphy's tweet Feb 21)
5) Working with state and local officials to cancel large gatherings early. If Ireland could cancel St. Patrick's Day celebrations, New Orleans could have cancelled Mardi Gras.
Even if he didn't do anything else, just "not impeding" progress to understanding the threat of COVID-19 in the US would have been progress.
Even March 11, when the WHO declared coronavirus to be a pandemic, the NBA cancelled its season, and Tom Hanks and his wife announced he had COVID-19, Trump's solution was to close the barn door after the horse had already escaped by banning travel from Europe (but not the UK). That was his big response back then. I think a great leader would have been ahead of the curve here and brought the country with him (or her). But a merely competent leader wouldn't have been as consistently behind the curve as Trump.
BC
To your points, Trump will lose in November because he's losing the senior vote, in large part because of his COVID-19 failures. Voters over 65 prefer Biden by 22% (women) while men favor Trump by 11%, leading to a net 10% preference for Biden across the genders.
https://www.axios.com/biden-polling-seniors-trump-2ff44e93-290f-4bb2-995c-c944e54a2464.html