431–440 of 919 posts
I am beginning to strongly suspect that supply chain disruption caused by government decisions is going to cause way more damage to the world than this virus ever could have on its own. I think more people making these decisions could benefit from a good deep reading of Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where do you see that because that didn't come from the article and video of the full interview that I linked in that original post?
I put the sources above. If you read through, you see that not only did the numbers change but also that he specifically made predictions based on a scenario where zero attempts to mitigate infection were taken. I mentioned that here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22552973 > [0]The source of the 40%-70% figure has since dramatically altered their estimates, and added several qualifiers. > [0] https://twitter.…
After reading the entire thread, he didn't say "zero attempts to mitigate infection". He said "without effective controls". He also said " Increasing evidence that the extremely intense control measures in China have reduced transmission while they are in force. As long as such intense control measures are in place it is possible to imagine keeping the number infected well below 40%. I don't believe most countries (maybe not even China) can keep such controls for months or a year, the minimum time frame for potentially having a vaccine. But even more moderate ones if effective could reduce incidence considerably". Not even Italy has gotten to the extreme measures that China was implementing. Also if you read his more recent tweets you will see that he thinks the European travel ban is futile.
Overall it sounds to me like that 20% number that I have been using since your first post is the updated number based off of our current mitigation strategy. I don't see any indication that he thinks that number is too high given the current path. Once again, I am completely open to learning otherwise if you have something that you can point to that clearly states otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Outbound flights are going to get a hell of a lot more expensive if all the planes have to return to the US empty.
Nah, all planes are just going to be routed through a non-European destination en route back. The Azores are about to be very popular.
This is insane. I haven’t been really scared of the pandemic yet, but if this is the response, now, I’m terrified. Changing the number of infected people entering the community does nothing when we already have transmission happening within the community at some fixed rate which is determined by the community . “Flattening the curve” of an exponential function means changing the rate of growth, not the fucking consta…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Elections are popularity contests. There are no qualification requirements for the job.
Which he didn't even win and is only there because of an anarchism in our government.
He did win. The only way to say he lost is by focusing on a measure that everyone agrees isn't the one that matters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My 2 cents. All reductions in (non-essential) travel are good in a pandemic. That doesn't mean it's sufficient, but it's something positive. I think we would all like to see stronger social distancing rules domestically (in the US), but here the US has a problem as it granted the President broad discretionary powers to suspend international travel but not domestic gatherings, which can't be banned via executive order…
Banning public gatherings is really something that should be done on the municipal level, maybe the state level. The federal government should not have the power to disrupt every day life from thousands of miles away.
Long term, I think some mechanism to mandate more social isolation is going to be needed.
For example when travelling from California to Arizona, there is currently no quarantine area or checkpoint, and that's fine if you want free movement, but then it's harder to say that states should run their own pandemic policy as long as there is free movement between states.
And this is a general trade off. More interconnected world => localism is less viable as a means of countering global threats.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Misspoke? It was a prepared statement read off a teleprompter. Please don't excuse it like a slip of the tongue.
[EDIT] Since the downvotes have started pouring in, I have to ask. Do you really attribute to this error to malice rather than stupidity? Given that the administration immediately (within minutes? edit: [0]yes, within minutes) made a correction I find it difficult to believe it was deliberate misinformation. I mean, miscommunication happens. Trump didn't invent the plan, he was advised by others and gave the go-ahead…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thankfully it was just a small error... Also looks like it won't affect outbound flights either?
Outbound flights are going to get a hell of a lot more expensive if all the planes have to return to the US empty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Banning travel isn't a magic cure-all that guarantees zero cases, it just lowers the initial caseload. That's extremely important because exponential growth is extremely slow in the beginning -- it takes as long to go from 1 to 100 as 100 to 10,000. If banning travel reduces 100 starter cases to 1, you double the time you have.
Some commenters on this post are having a hard time acknowledging this aspect. I think every little bit helps, this included