Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why some governments appear not to be acting on the Covid-19 threat

ma.ttias.be

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 436 posts

Re: Why some governments appear not to be acting on the Covid-19 threat

#111

Post by DonHopkins »

teekert wrote: post #102
tomp wrote: post #31

I think it's a different reason. Let's analyze the outcomes from game theory perspective, along two dimensions: virus becomes pandemic or not, and governments do something or nothing. 1) no pandemic, no action -> government was "right", avoided wasting money -> reelected 2) no pandemic, action -> government was "wrong", wasted a lot of money, damaged the economy, inconvenienced the lives of the population -> voted ou…

I think we should not attribute to malice what we can explain by not being able to get your sht together. Belgium did't have a government for a very long time because they couldn't get the sht together. I think they are just overwhelmed and scared.

Not attributing it to malice is white-washing, after Steven Miller or somebody equally racist ordered an immigration judge Christopher Santoro to issue an order to take down all Spanish Coronavirus prevention posters from immigration courts. In their way of thinking, the more immigrants who get the virus, the more Trump can say "I told you so" about his border wall. It's biological warfare, in support of a lie.

That and giving smallpox-infested blankets to Native Americans was 100% genocidal malice, not a lack of having their shit together. The problem is that they DO have their shit together, and it's racist xenophobic mendacious destructive shit.

The Trump DOJ’s Crazy Back-and-Forth on Coronavirus Prevention Posters

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/03/what-was-trump-dojs-...

CDC director breaks with Trump on claim that border wall will help stop coronavirus

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/10/cdc-director-border...

Re: Why some governments appear not to be acting on the Covid-19 threat

#112

Post by jaynetics »

jcadam wrote: post #64
tomp wrote: post #31

I think it's a different reason. Let's analyze the outcomes from game theory perspective, along two dimensions: virus becomes pandemic or not, and governments do something or nothing. 1) no pandemic, no action -> government was "right", avoided wasting money -> reelected 2) no pandemic, action -> government was "wrong", wasted a lot of money, damaged the economy, inconvenienced the lives of the population -> voted ou…

Also in the case of 4a it's hard to define "it works." Because it's hard to know to what degree any actions taken mitigated the severity of the pandemic.

Is it?

Just compare countries with similar properties that took measures at different points in time.

Japan and Germany might not be the best to compare here, but consider:

Japan, schools closed etc. at 200 cases. 8 days later: 400 cases.

Germany, no action whatsoever at 200 cases, 8 days later: 1600 cases.

Re: Why some governments appear not to be acting on the Covid-19 threat

#113

Post by coldcode »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #88
nhumrich wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Potentially, yes. But, only if by being infected, it would mean you were now immune, which isn't the case with covid-19. Reinfections have happened.

Is there any evidence of that at scale or is it just the odd anecdote?

I have not seen any evidence either way. At this point it is too early to have any.

Re: Why some governments appear not to be acting on the Covid-19 threat

#114

Post by peterburkimsher »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #76
tomp wrote: post #31

I think it's a different reason. Let's analyze the outcomes from game theory perspective, along two dimensions: virus becomes pandemic or not, and governments do something or nothing. 1) no pandemic, no action -> government was "right", avoided wasting money -> reelected 2) no pandemic, action -> government was "wrong", wasted a lot of money, damaged the economy, inconvenienced the lives of the population -> voted ou…

Exactly. Besides, it's a lose/lose proposition for the gov anyway. If they do act, people will blame them for the cost of the action. If they don't, people will blame then for the cost of not acting. Nobody will pat them on the back, except a few intellectuals, for acting. In fact, economically, the virus spreading is an opportunity to fire people you couldn't fire before, get rid of an old population costing money a…

At the risk of being down-voted, I'm not trying to start a political debate. I'd just like to know, as someone outside the USA, how this is affecting the election campaigns there.

Are personal costs of the pandemic encouraging people to support subsidised healthcare, and therefore a left-wing party?

Or is the xenophobic rhetoric of "blame China/Europe/travellers/etc" causing people to support a right-wing party?

I also haven't seen a full discussion of the chain of cause and effect. There was a shift from the primary sector to tertiary services, which led to urbanisation to find demand for services. Young people living in cities can make more friends than before, and this is good! It also means that there are more people living in close quarters, who can spread disease more effectively. I'm willing to face the risks of urban life instead of subsistence farming, but I wonder if other generations resent that.

Re: Why some governments appear not to be acting on the Covid-19 threat

#115

Post by tomrod »

DonHopkins wrote: post #89
tomp wrote: post #31

I think it's a different reason. Let's analyze the outcomes from game theory perspective, along two dimensions: virus becomes pandemic or not, and governments do something or nothing. 1) no pandemic, no action -> government was "right", avoided wasting money -> reelected 2) no pandemic, action -> government was "wrong", wasted a lot of money, damaged the economy, inconvenienced the lives of the population -> voted ou…

The idea of dividing the outcome up into two binary "it works" and "it doesn't work" is a logical fallacy. It's like the ridiculous anti-gun control arguments that say because a measure doesn't stop 100% of gun deaths, it's not worth doing at all.

Gotta cut the strategy space somewhere.

Re: Why some governments appear not to be acting on the Covid-19 threat

#116

Post by endorphone »

mostafab wrote: post #67
nextstep wrote: post #25

I think HN should enact stronger Coronavirus-related moderation like Reddit has. This is a bad post from a software engineer (not a health professional) and it offers an amateur analysis without even providing a real suggestion. What benefit does this provide in a crisis?

posts from health professionals can be even worse. this one was not too bad at explaining the thinking of ruling elites (who think they can fine-tune an epidemic)

"this one was not too bad at explaining the thinking of ruling elites"

By inventing a completely unsupported rationalization/conspiracy theory?

"Ruling elites" are not omnipotent, and paradoxically most are in the most vulnerable demographic. And as others said, it is a situation where one can be damned regardless of which way they act.

In the case of strong containment/quarantines, unless you're willing to completely close the borders indefinitely at this point it is futile doing maximum containment: it's past the point where you can stop it, as the world managed to do with SARS and MERS.

At this point every government is vulnerable to every other government, and further vulnerable to the possibility that there are super-carriers spreading it. And FWIW, a number of countries have a done a very good job of managing it, but again it isn't a closed-loop.

Re: Why some governments appear not to be acting on the Covid-19 threat

#118

Post by selimthegrim »

lm28469 wrote: post #54
fxtentacle wrote: post #43

TLDR: It's cheapest to let old people die, so that the young can continue working. A very cruel view on humanity, but I would be surprised if these thoughts hadn't crossed our politicians minds. Also, many initiatives by young people (e.g. limiting climate change, re-structuring society to be more equal-opportunity) are being blocked by old people who wish to preserve the status quo. So there is a general dislike by…

If you do that in the US you'd lose 60% of politicians and 90% of presidential candidates.

Good lord I hope Gabbard isn’t the one that’s left

Re: Why some governments appear not to be acting on the Covid-19 threat

#119

Post by germinalphrase »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #76
tomp wrote: post #31

I think it's a different reason. Let's analyze the outcomes from game theory perspective, along two dimensions: virus becomes pandemic or not, and governments do something or nothing. 1) no pandemic, no action -> government was "right", avoided wasting money -> reelected 2) no pandemic, action -> government was "wrong", wasted a lot of money, damaged the economy, inconvenienced the lives of the population -> voted ou…

Exactly. Besides, it's a lose/lose proposition for the gov anyway. If they do act, people will blame them for the cost of the action. If they don't, people will blame then for the cost of not acting. Nobody will pat them on the back, except a few intellectuals, for acting. In fact, economically, the virus spreading is an opportunity to fire people you couldn't fire before, get rid of an old population costing money a…

The natural human instinct is to look to leadership during a crisis. This is why Bush’s competency in the eyes of the public was harmed after Katrina. This is why McCain’s “maverick” rep harmed him against “steady” Obama during the financial crisis.

If the coronavirus starts impacting the lives of Americans in a widespread manner (shuddered schools, closed offices, loss of jobs), the same instinct will kick in.

Re: Why some governments appear not to be acting on the Covid-19 threat

#120

Post by JediWing »

lazyier wrote: post #20
varjag wrote: post #2

Doesn't seem very well thought out. The economic cost of the first scenario (numerous deaths in peak period) would likely be the highest with the impact both on workforce and market sentiment. The impact of long tail scenarios lower because death toll would not be just redistributed but also reduced by likely an order of magnitude.

No it's not. It's just one guy making up random shit on a blog and is pretending that governments think like him. The reality is probably closer to the fact that there isn't anything governments can do about it. They can try to shut down the borders of the country, but that is going to a lot worse and probably won't stop it anyways. Just because governments can do something and do do something doesn't mean that that…

> The reality is probably closer to the fact that there isn't anything governments can do about it.

They can proactively close schools, government jobs. They can roll out bailout programs to encourage business closings that would otherwise cause the businesses to go bankrupt. They can aggressively close borders, and enforce quarantines with military force. They can mandate the production of respirators, testing kits and other medical necessities.

Government can do A LOT that no other actor can, so I don't quite get where you're coming from with this statement.

Post reply on HN