451–460 of 915 posts
For instance, closing universities could result many years later in ill-trained doctors and then bad diagnostics.
The economic downfalls could result in an increase of poverty and homelessness-related deaths and suicides.
This is an account from one of the doctors in Italy. https://twitter.com/jasonvanschoor/status/123714289107769753... Read the whole thing, but this passage in particular is just chilling. "5/ Patients above 65 or younger with comorbidities are not even assessed by ITU, I am not saying not tubed, I’m saying not assessed and no ITU staff attends when they arrest. Staff are working as much as they can but they are start…
Does that mean they're just triaging them and letting them die?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He's behaving entirely consistently with how he always has: deny everything, project perfection. > There's no signal here of a secret weapon, it's a complete shit show. Can't really disagree, but I feel like I'm taking crazy pills with the way people in the US are talking about the response now. Was the US MSM not spending all of January and February telling us "calm down, you know the common flu kills WAY more peo…
The vast majority of people don't have an intuitive understanding of exponential growth. People not trained well in math and science don't even have/know the tools to help them understand it analytically. We need (much) better math education for people studying all majors .
Is anyone here aware of some research trying to quantify the death toll of such a large-scale quarantine? For instance, closing universities could result many years later in ill-trained doctors and then bad diagnostics. The economic downfalls could result in an increase of poverty and homelessness-related deaths and suicides.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Another interesting thing I have just noticed is that some journalists are now openly praising the Chinese handling of the crisis. I think this is a very interesting effect. China has a fantastic ability to mobilize as one when needed. The vast majority of the time, the insane amount of control this requires, is something we're simply not comfortable with giving to governments. But sometimes, just sometimes, the re…
China's ability to mobilize as one as quickly as it did is no doubt a consequence of strong central control. The same centralization, though, is also to blame for its inadequate early response. Officials in Wuhan didn't have the authority to act on their own without Beijing's permission. After this pandemic has died down, we should compare and contrast different countries' responses and try to appraise objectively ju…
The way the Chinese bureaucracy works is that lower-level local government officials have less experience than higher-level officials. They get promotions based on results. Xi Jinping himself was, during the SARS period, the head of a province, and did very well within containing SARS within that province. It doesn’t surprise me if local Wuhan officials simply weren’t as competent in matters of disease containment than the central government.
The Chinese government is not a monolith. Comparing to 1984-style authoritarianism wouldn’t be entirely accurate either. I think it is best compared to a large corporation.
You seem to be afraid of China exporting its model. Chinese diplomats have repeatedly said that they are not interested in doing that. They say: the Chinese way of international relations is one of mutual respect: we will not impose our system on you and you will not impose your system on us. But if you voluntarily want to learn from us then you are welcome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You talk about the MSM as if it was a thing, and not a term of propaganda. It may explain the confusion.
You seriously don't think that modern news outlets don't have a consistent, left-leaning, anti-Trump agenda? Perhaps you've been drinking too much of their coolaid. "Mainstream media" was a term long before people on the right started complaining about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It hurts me to say this, but that's what happened in Wuhan for the first few weeks.
Could you just clarify how you got this information? Did you witness it directly?
If this virus does indeed require such intense hospital resources (as in Wuhan and now Northern Italy) letting it spike is just madness. Must put into place heavy restrictions now.
We don't need travel lockdowns, but public events, movie theatres, etc should be closed, and businesses should be highly urged to allow workers to WFH if nec and/or try furloughs with public money (ha! good luck...)
In any case, just waiting until we see a spike in cases and then trying to get behind it seems like so much madness.
Large sports events? Museums? sigh
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WHO's recent fact-finding visit to China believed them, FWIW.
WHO's legitimacy is declining after their approach on china and the general covid19 situation. people seem to think the WHO tried to downplay the severity
In my opinion, the distrust in WHO just reflects poorly on the people who are distrustful. They are so hell-bent on confirming their world view that China must be the bad guy, that they would rather believe that the WHO is corrupted than accepting the facts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The hospitalisation part really is key here. At this point stopping it really isn't on the cards. We need to slow it enough that hospitals can keep up. 7M people catching it next month, vs 7M people catching it over the span of a year, are two very different 7M's. The rate is far more problematic than the actual number.
Why does everyone keep saying stopping it is impossible. It is literally happening in front of us in China.