But it was seen coming.

There were lot of plans already in existence. In the US both the Bush and Obama administrations had done extensive plans how to tackle a pandemic.

Yes, Trump is one big reason, but not the only reason. Even with an administration headed by President Hillary Clinton, the US response wouldn't have been exemplar.

The main reason is simply that health officials don't make plans like the Armed Forces do with their OPPLANs (Operational Plan). The Military makes these plans to be able to immediately react to a situation, if North Korea attacks South Korea or if China invades Taiwan etc. and systematically and rigorously trains for these events. Yet other government institutions don't plan and exercise in truly similar fashion. Other departments of the government are designed to be efficient in normal times, they usually have no excess personnel or resources to handle a large scale crisis happening out of the blue, they will get their act up only basically in 6 months or so.

Which is pretty amazing. Part of the reason shortages were a problem was that supply lines stopped during the lockdown. IOW, our ability to respond to it depends on limiting lockdown. — frank

And also to get orders in, have a normal competition and inspection. This simply doesn't happen in few weeks or in a month. But in several months, then the capitalist machine gets it's act together.

Also the speed that we will get a vaccine will likely be impressive.

Interesting, even if the doctor went a bit off the topic when looking at population age pyramids of various countries.

Yet it's very interesting to compare the death rates that given here and compare them to what and wrote on the first page of this thread 8 months ago. While the overall mortality rate especially with below 70 year olds is far lower than then anticipated, the death rate among people over 80 infected with covid-19 seems to be accurate even then (if I remember correctly the numbers from the video).

Then they're useless. — frank

So why did you cite one from that period to make your point?

Now that I've worked with people who were in NY and got the whole holy fuck story, yes, I could tell you why the mortality rate was awful. — frank

Well, that would be really useful, from where would you get your data and what model do you think it's best to use to analyse it?

They have taken power and refuse to relinquish it. — NOS4A2

It's a point of view. My point of view is that we have reached peak travel, and peak noise, and "they" will not relinquish the imposition of endless noise and busy-ness on "us".

...
Why didn't you move to Alaska or some place like that? Just curious.

I'm going to be tested because a good friend has tested positive and we attended the same wedding a Saturday ago. 120 attending, multiple states and only 2 people were wearing masks with no physical distancing.
Preparing for impact... NicK and I were the only two.

That's actually a bit insulting, you know. Why doesn't everyone that has the least criticism of society go and live somewhere else? I want my country to be pleasant, not some other place.

I'm sorry.

No worries. :love:

They pay people to live in Alaska. Make of that what you will.

Edit: Nevermind. My hobbies include perusing the internet and on occasion having a few beers. Seriously though someone can prove something along the lines of whatever. Look it up!

Why didn't you move to Alaska or some place like that? Just curious — frank

My sister wanted to move someplace remote, Alaska your question.

Those poor people:

Alaska your question. — The Opposite

Idaho if she'd like it there or not.

My sister wanted to move someplace remote, Alaska your question. — The Opposite

Jamaica?

No, it was her idea.

Ooh, that must be Russia over there. :starstruck:

Almost. :smile:

Let us hope for a negative result, Tiff!

And then the reality of Alaska:

Also the speed that we will get a vaccine will likely be impressive. — ssu

There isn't really a basis for this belief. No vaccine trial, vis-a-vis covid, is designed to prove actual effectiveness at changing the course of the pandemic. Different experimental design would be needed for that and very likely different targets of efficacy.

Generally, there is healthy skepticism in the evolutionary biologist community whether a vaccine that cannot irradiate the disease is a good investment, as the obvious prediction based on science is the disease will simply evolve to defeat the vaccine. Vaccines of this kind also have the potential to simply shift harm profiles around without reducing total harm, which is difficult to capture in trials which may easily a confuse looking at a shift at one part of the harm profile and conclude a general reduction of harm can be inferred when there is no basis for such a conclusion (vaccines that reduce disease severity for most people, may increase transmission while significantly increasing the severity for a sub population; for instance, that a sub population has severe over-reaction of the immune system). So, we will find out, but there is no reason to have higher confidence than a skilled gambler down on his luck on this particular issue.

However, considering the harm the pandemic has already had on the global community, we can already conclude that vaccine technology does not protect public health from negative infectious disease outcomes, and investments in vector control, better outbreak protocols, treatment capacity, but most importantly simply public health in a general sense (preventing preventable diabetes, obesity, lung harm from bad air etc.) are more effective investments. In particular, investments in public health in the sense of healthy people is not even a cost but pays for itself many times over.

And yet, public health policy of the last decades has been based on under-investing in healthy foods, healthy city design, healthy habits, and healthy air -- which turns out to benefit fossil and food corporations -- and over-investing in medical technologies that "fix problems post-fact" -- which turns out to benefit pharmaceutical and other medical corporations. Certainly only coincidence and these policy failings will be swiftly corrected going forward.

However, considering the harm the pandemic has already had on the global community, we can already conclude that vaccine technology does not protect public health from negative infectious disease outcomes, and investments in vector control, better outbreak protocols, treatment capacity, but most importantly simply public health in a general sense (preventing preventable diabetes, obesity, lung harm from bad air etc.) are more effective investments. In particular, investments in public health in the sense of healthy people is not even a cost but pays for itself many times over.

And yet, public health policy of the last decades has been based on under-investing in healthy foods, healthy city design, healthy habits, and healthy air -- which turns out to benefit fossil and food corporations -- and over-investing in medical technologies that "fix problems post-fact" -- which turns out to benefit pharmaceutical and other medical corporations. Certainly only coincidence and these policy failings will be swiftly corrected going forward. — boethius

Absolutely right. Which is why this Hollywood disaster movie narrative needs to be undermined. The hero is not going to "tell little Johnny I love him" and then sweep in and save the world from the evil virus. The 'evil' is the fact that we've strung out our health services, and the health of our citizens, to such a knife-edge that they can't handle what should be an expected part of human life (the emergence of a novel virus).

Unfortunately, 'successive governments yield to self-interest and corporate lobbying to create conditions for an otherwise handle-able virus to become devastating, but gradual pressure form social-interest groups brings about reform' doesn't make anywhere near as good a story as 'evil deadly virus sweeps the planet while the brave pharmaceutical workers engage in a selfless race to seek a cure (that will completely coincidentally earn them billions)'

As an example - the issue I just raised about reduction in the deaths on intubation. What came up as one of the most common factors in reduction of mortality? Normal ICU care. Not some fancy new technique, not a new medicine, just the ordinary, already established level of care that any sane country would have built some capacity in, given the very obvious and well-predicted threat of such an event as this.

And as to...

Also the speed that we will get a vaccine will likely be impressive. — ssu

... where else would you here such an expression outside of this narrative? "the speed which which you did those pre-flight safety checks was impressive", "the speed with which that new food additive was passed by the FDA was impressive", "The speed with which that new pesticide was approved was impressive". In any normal sense we'd be very worried indeed that a drug which is probably going to be taken by the entire world was being rushed through as the only hope of humanity's survival, but in this movie it's fine because the pharmaceutical companies have become the all-American hero, and any narrative dissenting from the "evil virus will kill everyone unless stopped by medicine" storyline is given greenish under-lighting and discordant music in the background.

Let's stay negative!

Errrrr...

There isn't really a basis for this belief. — boethius

... where else would you here such an expression outside of this narrative? — Isaac

First ask yourselves, how much investment and focus is put into vaccine research generally? Compare that with what is now happening with Covid-19. You think those billions now poured into various vaccine programs by major countries won't have an effect? That the 100 or so vaccine development programs currently underway won't matter? They are just scams of big pharma ripping off governments and totally useless or something?

Usually vaccine development is something like the following decade long process:


Accuse me of being a naive optimist, but I do think that the Covid-19 vaccine will take far less than 10 years to come out.

And anyway, how many hospitals are declaring now that they have shortages with masks and other equipment? At least here no hospitals or authorities are declaring similar worries as they did during the spring. And no one is shaking hands and usually people have changed their habits, so things aren't the same as they were in the spring.

Let's stay negative! Errrrr... — Benkei

You are always so positive, Benkei. :grin:

You think those billions now poured into various vaccine programs by major countries won't have an effect? — ssu

Maybe, but there is currently no evidence that they will. In my version of science I believe things when there is evidence to believe it. The experimental design of the current covid related vaccine trials, do not seek to answer the question of whether the pandemic will be significantly curtailed in one way or another, and the scientists running these trials do not make such a claim.

For instance, if the virus simply evolves to defeat the vaccine (how evolution works) the scientist will simply point out that their experimental design did not seek to provide any insight on this issue.

The reason I mention evolution is that in an exponentially expanding new virus there are many evolutionary paths available and with 7 billion people there are many hosts available in which those evolutionary events can take place. There are already now a diversity of strains of the virus, a vaccine developed against a certain strain may already not be effective against strains that already exist, which will of course then come to dominate once the conditions are such that they have an advantage. The virus has simple maths on its side. The long amount of time it usually takes to make an effective vaccine, for good reasons, means simple math is not on its side.

But my main point seems to be lost on you, which is that obviously vaccine technology cannot possibly be relied on to intervene to prevent major harms from infectious disease ... because those major harms have already occurred in the case of Covid, for basically the reasons you state.

Vaccine technology is simply not a reliable basis for protecting public health from infectious disease generally speaking and the disastrous consequences of a pandemic. You may say "But of course! Vaccines take time and aren't meant to intervene to strop a pandemic before there is already major health harms and economic disruptions! dum dum", but, of course, my response is simply to repeat, that for exactly that reason, "Vaccine technology is simply not a reliable basis for protecting public health from infectious disease generally speaking and the disastrous consequences of a pandemic". There do exist other policies that can have a much bigger consequence.

Other policy measures do not have this problem, and in the case of public health in terms of "healthiness", actually pay for itself. Therefore, focus should be first investing in policies that both intervene at all stages of a pandemic such as we are experiencing and moreover pay for themselves. Ultimately, relying on vaccine technology to control infectious disease was lazy thinking by the medical community. Does that make them idiots? I'm sure you are already confident my answer is yes, yes it does make them idiots. However, it was not a consensus; many experts predicted exactly this scenario and pointed out more effective investment strategies to protect global health against the inevitable "high impact" event we are seeing.

Vaccine technology is simply not a reliable basis for protecting public health from infectious disease generally speaking — boethius

This is just like 100% wrong.

I think you should write to Reagan and tell him this arms race has to stop! — frank

Hey, he got closer than anyone. But blew it in the end.

This is just like 100% wrong. — frank

Lot of that going around. Do they have a vaccine for it??

Why doesn't everyone that has the least criticism of society go and live somewhere else? — unenlightened

There are only something like 36,000 people in the Yukon, a geographic area larger than California.

As a lifelong Florida hermit kinda guy, I figure I'll just slip on my flipflops and a little sunscreen and head on up there!

Let us hope for a negative result, Tiff! — ssu

2-3 days for the test results.
@Benkei Right? How to pray for a negative feels counter intuitive. Kind of like leaning into a right hook! :yikes:

@frank
How on God's Green Earth could anyone not get this? I'm absolutely dumbfounded at the selfish behavior around me.
Btw: if person A is COVID 19 positive, how long is their incubation period? How long after person A tests positive is person B at risk if person A doesn't know when they contacted it?