CharonY

I wished the companies would release reports rather than providing press releases (I know, it is all for their shareholders, but still). As a whole the the reports are very encouraging. The major issues are basically the relatively low infections. In both reported about 95 folks were infected with around 5-10 people in the treatment group. While the data looks great, one should be careful not to take the numbers at face value, the numbers are likely to shift once more people are inoculated and exposed to the virus. Considering the surges we have, it may not take long. Another thing to note is that mRNA vaccines have not been as rigorously tested as the other forms. While all existing data indicate that it is likely to be safe, there is simply not as much history behind them as for other forms.

On a different note, Sweden was doing a soft lockdown, but without the additional measures as found in a number of Asian countries. There was a bit of a controversy whether they actually tried to go for herd immunity (it was officially denied, though internal memos hinted at that). There were semi-official estimates that a good proportion of Stockholm might already have been infected a while back, though a subsequent antibody study indicated that it is not the case. Overall Sweden had a much higher number of deaths than their neighbours (600 deaths per mio vs 140 in Denmark). And now the numbers are climbing as in other European countries, indicating that clearly there is no sign of herd immunity to be found. Using current data, on a global scale the Americas are leading in deaths. Africa as a whole is doing much better, with the exception of North and South Africa. Australia and most of East Asia is also way better off. As a whole the overall trends have not shifted that much from the start.

Not to mention that the 2016 electorate has been dissected to death. More likely folks disliking Clinton were simply not turning up. There is a reason why folks voted for Trump in 2016 and that reason is not pretty. I doubt it has changed much this time around, but studies will tell. What is worrying is the strong support even after demonstrating that level of overall stupidity and incompetence. Just imagine what would have happened if Trump was a more capable autocrat and undermined democracy more effectively. Rather obviously a large swathe of the population as well as the political establishment is rather fine with subverting democratic procedures. So if an actual capable autocrat came along, things might look rather dire. After all, it does not seem that the mechanisms are that resilient in the US, as one might have hoped.

It shows that he takes the pandemic seriously (as he should). Unfortunately I a significant proportion of the US population (and unfortunately also elsewhere) do not. And since the measures in place in most of the countries rely on community-level behaviour, things are likely to be rather dire for a while longer. Just look at Canada, they had the right central messaging, but even ignoring policy failures there are too many people not taking the risks seriously. Especially among young folks there is the assumption that they are not going to be impacted, but apparently the spread is also not well contained in age groups above 40. Folks are tired of isolation and cases are rising everywhere. I also worry that the successes of potential vaccines may lead to more irresponsible behaviour fueling more deaths and long-term harm than necessary.

The only think I am wondering about is how many infections they managed to observe. I mean, given the surges now it should not be that hard to hit the numbers, but still... Edit: have not found a full report, but some articles reference 94 infections in total.

I think it depends a lot on framing as well as whether folks think that they (or someone like them) could eventually benefit from it. For example in a study there was significant support for housing supplements when a white family was on a brochure, but that support dropped when a black family was depicted. Similarly, (white) parents support ethnicity as part of admissions if they are shown images of Asian students, but are for race-free admission process if Asians are not mentioned. I.e. folks are not fundamentally against policies that are generally considered progressive, but they need it to be couched differently, especially if folks do not see a benefit for themselves.

I rest my case. In an Interview McConnell basically said that they will only consider things that are in their interest and have declared anything else a leftist agenda which will be fought. Actually I was just looking for them (because I am reading a thesis and got headaches and need a laugh) and apparently a number of key Reps, including McConnell declined to comment on Trump's illegal claim to power. Others, (Cruz, Graham, McCarthy) actually added fuel to the fire (by at least suggesting that there might have been fraud). So yeah, there is not even that.

I think these are more symptoms of knowing when they have lost and going hard in that direction at this point would not benefit them (different matter if Trump was likely to be still in power, I suspect). But that does not make me hopeful that they will shift the party. The overton window has shifted to saying the quiet things loud (e.g. when it came to refugees and immigrants). And it has been a quite successful strategy (it will be interesting to see whether the same themes were the drivers as 2016). Also I find it funny how dominating US-politics is. It is really built for soap opera. look at us, we talk more about American politics than any other country. I suspect part of it is that in other countries things are not that open. Aside from the recent wave of populists, most politicians are not that openly moronic (if they can help it) and many are forgettable, dropping in and out due to some byzantine party politics. US is just so in your face that I find it hard to ignore.

I do not think that will happen. While Trump subverted the GOP to some degree, he did it by leveraging voters. Those are still firmly on brand as we saw in the election. And I think it will further shape the GOP in the years to come. It is like teaparty but on steroids. Can't see that happening, either. For the GOP no-compromise has been a working strategy, why start now. For the Dems compromise was one of the reason why Obama was considered ineffectual to a large degree. So there is a strong sense that falling for that again won't work. If anything, folks are more polarized than before. The election was seen as a referendum on Trump and while again, Dems got more votes, it is not the referendum either side hoped for.

Seems like it. Strangely it feels that this election may have disappointed basically all US-Americans.

In that context, I have heard a few interviews from Trump supporters, and it basically sounded that they were actually quite happy with all the policies (even when questioned about the more cruel policies). The main criticism they have is basically his Twitter. I.e. you can be mysoginistic, xenophobic, incompetent etc. as long as you are at least somewhat polite about it. It is not new (anywhere, really, not just in the US). But for some reasons I do find it more disconcerting.

The fact that it did not eliminate him outright is a bit of scary thing, isn't it? Actually on reflection, one viable strategy is probably to do as much economic harm as possible and blame it on the dems. If Fox plays ball it should work quite well.

I do the usual cloning sacrifices to Damballa and more rarely Papa Legba, when the former does not respond. Also the mass spec demands blood on a semi-regular basis to the heavenly engineer of "Who-the F-puts sharp-edges-in-here?" as part of the blood ritual called pump maintenance.

Which is a huge issue. Don't know or don't care. For many, democracy is just a slogan. It is 11 electoral votes. More than e.g. Nevada, similar to Wisconsin, but only about half of PA (and less than either NC or Georgia). Politically I suspect it has much to do with how popular McCain was.

As a serial immi(or emi-)grant, I can tell you that it is not exlusively Americans. It is just more visible due to confluence of factors.

You make it sound that the only issues there are with the pandemic response are his rallies. However, disassembling existing structures of pandemic response (including the dismantling of the pandemic response team) are policy. Using the White House and other officials to spin the death toll is another form of policy (directed at (mis)information dissemination). Systematically weakening the influence of science in the decision-making process is clearly a policy decision. Which folks to put in charge of the response (or health services in general) is a policy decision, and so on (e.g. in context of deregulation and weakening associated structures). Not making certain measures mandatory is a policy decision and so on. I am not sure what you try to say here, honestly. Do you mean to say that the WH did have policies but they were generally correct and all things went to hell because he was being an idiot independent of it? If so, that is clearly not what happened. If you meant something else, it would help if you could specify what kind of policies you refer to.

I disagree, it is precisely because of his policies. His policy was to diminish the awareness of the dangers (rather than promoting it) and make it harder to put in restrictions. His policies created uncertainty among the populations, which then went to those rallies. I.e. there is a direct line between his policies and the overall outcome. You forget one important aspect, even if many measures are done on the state level, traditionally the CDC would coordinate those responses. Countries that had a strong central support did way better than those that tried to piecemeal a pandemic response. And on top, Trump's policies made it harder for the states to get tests, PPE and other essentials. It was not just laissez-faire, which would be bad enough, it was actively sabotaging them. And the cherry on top is that by discrediting science, the GOP has now created such a strong anti-science base that I am honestly already worried about the next outbreak. And that will take a long time to mend (perhaps too long).

I would disagree. His pandemic response reflects his rallies quite well (a study suggests that about 700 folks died due to exposure at one of his rallies), and especially his immigration policy strongly reflects the values he espouses to his base. His tax policies disadvantages about a quarter of the population (mostly mid-low income folks). There are positive policies, too, but he himself does not highlight them, mostly because I guess he does not quite understand them.

I think you are kind of assuming that the issue is with Trump alone. He is the symptom, not the cause. Folks that have it clear that they do not want mask mandates for examples, will almost certainly not reverse course if there is no legally binding power behind it.

So do identity politics, but just in a way I feel comfortable about it? Is it about that? It is more about the fact that conservatives are bitterly complaining about it, but engaging in it wholeheartedly. The underlying though behind it is of course the assumption that certain folks are considered the norm and therefore pandering to them is not identity politics. However, if something benefits other then them suddenly it it is pandering or identity politics. Specifically it is historic mindset that has marginalized experiences different from what one would consider the majority.

How would folks identify with them instead?

Like it or not, a big part is a referendum on identity politics. One, which is basically based on white supremacy or the other which at least outwardly embraces the diversity as a result of demographic shifts.

Here are a few reports outlining mitigation strategies in Africa. An somewhat older article from May https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-african-nations-are-teaching-the-west-about-fighting-the-coronavirus And a newer one looking at some of the key elements: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-54418613 In Europe, Canada and USA it seems that contact tracing has been reportedly overwhelmed by cases and they basically scaled down in many areas, which again shows how harmful the initial delays were. And it is still surprising to me that it has not been ramped up to a similar scale or following model from other countries. E.g. Japan was doing old-school contact tracing without apps and surprisingly successful, too.

If only it was just ignorance. At this point we see full frontal insanity. And I do not mean that in a partisan way. I mean taking what kids post on a trolling board seriously and make it mainstream, kind of of insane. I mean, there are just so many things just over the top (A prophetic internet troll? Satanic child sacrifices?), it is honestly scary that folks think them to be true and effing run for congress.

Here is a pretty good article with regard to the US response (or lack thereof): https://www.jsonline.com/in-depth/news/2020/10/14/america-had-worlds-best-pandemic-response-plan-playbook-why-did-fail-coronavirus-covid-19-timeline/3587922001/ While not exhaustive, it does provide a few insights into responses elsewhere in the world.