Jump to content

Comparing Corona Virus Success Stories with Abysmal Failures


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 369
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I am not talking about whether China might or might not have been forthright or who is more or less honest. That is not terribly productive in itself, and I am mostly concerned about facts we know or

It has nothing to do with 'spinning' the death toll, JC. His policies, such as pressuring State Governors to re-open, and lack of policies, such as not making medical supplies available to certain S

So, a quick look gives me the following for deaths/cases: Italy: 22,170 / 168,941 = 13% Spain: 19,315 / 184,948 = 10% China: 4,632 / 50,333 = 9% Germany: 4,051 / 137,698 = 2.9%

Posted Images

4 hours ago, iNow said:

Their reporting system is less relevant to me than their lifestyle. Close communal living and lack of education or hygiene are frustratingly common across the subcontinent. 

not sure what you mean by communal living. Are you saying most people from India live in communal living?

Some parts of India lack water so that may explain the lack of hygiene.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, nec209 said:

not sure what you mean by communal living. Are you saying most people from India live in communal living?

Some parts of India lack water so that may explain the lack of hygiene.

My intended point relates most closely to overcrowding and proximity. It's embedded within the system itself, as well as the culture and how/where people spend time. When eating, when in markets, when sleeping or on trains, when scavenging if they're destitute, bathing in the Ganges, etc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not good , the US is facing a doctor shortage.

Base on this article the US has now less than million doctors 

https://www.statista.com/topics/1244/physicians/
 

With all the schools closed for the virus it looks like things are going to get much worse with shortage of doctors.

To make things worse they now are sayIng there is less physicists and engineer in the world now.

And now they are saying with out cure or vaccine life will not get back to normal. Well does this mean there is going to be massive shortage of skilled people with the schools being closed?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CharonY said:

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. 

A clear retelling of the US COVID19 story. What shines through for me is Trump's narcissism and trying to control the narrative. I hope the CDC's standing can recover. Their online submissions, on lots of medical subjects, have been an ongoing, trusted resource personally.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming Biden is the clear winner at some point next week, how is the coronavirus control effort going to look going forward? Will there be much of a change in the next couple months while Trump is still POTUS? (assuming no vaccine becoming available during that time)

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Assuming Biden is the clear winner at some point next week, how is the coronavirus control effort going to look going forward? Will there be much of a change in the next couple months while Trump is still POTUS? (assuming no vaccine becoming available during that time)

Anticipate nationwide mask mandate, enforced social distancing in all federally controlled locations (and likely state controlled locations next), massively scaled up testing, additional funding for POE to hospitals and schools, and increased focus on contact tracing and proactive alerts to those conformed as being in close contact with contagious individuals. 

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

Anticipate nationwide mask mandate, enforced social distancing in all federally controlled locations (and likely state controlled locations next), massively scaled up testing, additional funding for POE to hospitals and schools, and increased focus on contact tracing and proactive alerts to those conformed as being in close contact with contagious individuals. 

Post Trump or post election?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Biden wins, he would lack any power to do those things until after inauguration in January. At best, he could use rhetoric and oratory to convince localities to do these things on their own, but he’s been doing that already throughout the campaign. Election Day itself doesn’t change much until powers are officially transferred.

Also, post Trump is a misnomer. He will still very much remain part of the conversation, may run again in 2024, and has given a template for other republicans to run using the same style and approach that generates so much enthusiasm amongst the base. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, iNow said:

If Biden wins, he would lack any power to do those things until after inauguration in January. At best, he could use rhetoric and oratory to convince localities to do these things on their own, but he’s been doing that already throughout the campaign. Election Day itself doesn’t change much until powers are officially transferred.

Also, post Trump is a misnomer. He will still very much remain part of the conversation, may run again in 2024, and has given a template for other republicans to run using the same style and approach that generates so much enthusiasm amongst the base. 

With any luck, pending legal proceedings will knock that one on the head.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, iNow said:

If Biden wins, he would lack any power to do those things until after inauguration in January. At best, he could use rhetoric and oratory to convince localities to do these things on their own, but he’s been doing that already throughout the campaign. Election Day itself doesn’t change much until powers are officially transferred.

Also, post Trump is a misnomer. He will still very much remain part of the conversation, may run again in 2024, and has given a template for other republicans to run using the same style and approach that generates so much enthusiasm amongst the base. 

Not much to look forward too...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, iNow said:

If Biden wins, he would lack any power to do those things until after inauguration in January. At best, he could use rhetoric and oratory to convince localities to do these things on their own, but he’s been doing that already throughout the campaign. Election Day itself doesn’t change much until powers are officially transferred.

But as President elect it might carry more weight? And Trump's antics less during the lame duck period?

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

And Trump's antics less during the lame duck period?

Lol. Have you not been watching these last 5 years?

If Trump loses, I think these next 2 months are going to be extremely dangerous, but that’s not the topic of this thread. This one is about covid responses. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

But as President elect it might carry more weight? And Trump's antics less during the lame duck period?

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, iNow said:

Lol. Have you not been watching these last 5 years?

If Trump loses, I think these next 2 months are going to be extremely dangerous, but that’s not the topic of this thread. This one is about covid responses. 

So is the context of the suggested antics of Trump. Not to be confused with the rest of them.

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

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.

Not at all. His policies aren't even as bad as his leadership, rallies, and other example he sets, IMO. So to the degree that could be true, I would hope there might be some changes prior to his leaving office in January. At the very least he won't be holding mass rallies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

His policies aren't even as bad as his leadership, rallies, and other example he sets, IMO.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CharonY said:

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.

His policies with regard to Covid  was the only context intended. (the rest would be off topic) I'm not advocating for Trump's Covid policies but there is some merit in allowing the States to make decisions for there own set of circumstances.

If in fact 700 died due to exposure at one of his rallies, or other poor decisions on his part, that is in line with what I said. His Covid policies didn't compel him to do that. That's simply poor judgement, poor leadership, poor safety at his rallies, and setting a poor example. His policies are not as bad as that. He could have had much better outcomes within them. (Biden did)

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

His Covid policies didn't compel him to do that.

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).

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

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).

Clearly we aren't using the same definition of "policy" or "policies". His recklessness and at times outright stupidity with regard to Covid 19 are not policy (my definition).

Along the lines of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, CharonY said:

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.

Not by the context I'm using.  If you are sure he had a policy to "spin the death toll" then supply a link.

I've read anecdotes that the "left" "spun the death toll". I take them with more than a grain of salt, but I don't automatically believe every claim against Trump either.

58 minutes ago, CharonY said:

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?

They were generally not correct. Whose were, in hindsight? (and at this point hindsight is far from 20/20). But they certainly weren't as bad as Trump's personal actions, IMO.

That said, his idiocy almost certainly exacerbated the situation, but the "went to hell" is not on him alone, by any means.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It has nothing to do with 'spinning' the death toll, JC.
His policies, such as pressuring State Governors to re-open, and lack of policies, such as not making medical supplies available to certain States, have led to the situation in the US.
Canadians and Americans are generally very similar, and our own response has been far from perfect.
Yet Canada, with 1/10 of the American population, has 42x less infections.
And 23x less deaths

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.