We'll see if that changes, but those are pretty enormous numbers for a purple state governor. Especially given the context of her having to battle publicly with an opposite-party legislature. And they are largely in line with other states approving governors who have imposed lockdown orders. Frankly, there is little to any evidence that the majority opinion opposes what most state governments' restrictions.
I'd like to believe you're right but I just don't believe polls anymore. Don't get me wrong, I didn't vote for Whitmer and I've never voted for a Democrat president, but I don't tow the Republican Party line either. I voted for Granholm both times she ran and voted for John Dingell on multiple occasions. I see what I see and talk to a lot of people about politics (without pissing them off believe it or not).
We are still seeing nearly 1500 deaths a day. The problem is that now it's just considered "normal", which is absolutely absurd. As I've said before, people die every day, and yes that is unavoidable but a.) none of the things people usually die from can be spread to others and b.) the things people die from has basically been baked into how we think for 100 years, and certainly at least 50-70 years. COVID-19 has only been around for 2 or 3 months, so anyone who dies from it is going to be viewed as an "excess death", so to speak, because it is viewed as being new AND preventable when looking at other countries who have succeeded.
And you can write "open" in magic marker on a calendar, but as has been said, it doesn't matter. The fact is, even in places like Georgia, people are CHOOSING to still stay home. The data is now reflecting this. Like I was saying, you can't just frog-march people into an Applebee's or beauty salon. MOST people still don't feel like it's a remotely good idea. And until something is done to change that perspective, it doesn't matter what restrictions get lifted in regards to the economy. If half the population isn't participating, your really don't have one.
We'll see if that changes, but those are pretty enormous numbers for a purple state governor. Especially given the context of her having to battle publicly with an opposite-party legislature. And they are largely in line with other states approving governors who have imposed lockdown orders. Frankly, there is little to any evidence that the majority opinion opposes what most state governments' restrictions.
I'd like to believe you're right but I just don't believe polls anymore. Don't get me wrong, I didn't vote for Whitmer and I've never voted for a Democrat president, but I don't tow the Republican Party line either. I voted for Granholm both times she ran and voted for John Dingell on multiple occasions. I see what I see and talk to a lot of people about politics (without pissing them off believe it or not).
There's really no good reason to refuse believe polling. It's one thing to doubt a single outlier poll, it's also another thing to think polling might be slightly off. But polling is literally the only empirical evidence you have access to about public opinion. Refusing to believe that, and thinking one's limited and non-random experience with fellow Michiganders trumps that is essentially an anti-scientific point of view.
I've seen this a lot post 2016. But it's important to know how the polling failed in that election.
1. At the national level, It failed within the margin of error. A perfectly acceptable amount to be off.
2. It missed big in certain swing states (Wisconsin) mainly because those were not polled much at all.
Even if you're to believe that this poll is off, it's rather unreasonable to think it's off by a large margin. Let's dock Whitmer's approval by 3% points. That hardly changes what the polling indicates in this particular case.
We'll see if that changes, but those are pretty enormous numbers for a purple state governor. Especially given the context of her having to battle publicly with an opposite-party legislature. And they are largely in line with other states approving governors who have imposed lockdown orders. Frankly, there is little to any evidence that the majority opinion opposes what most state governments' restrictions.
I'd like to believe you're right but I just don't believe polls anymore. Don't get me wrong, I didn't vote for Whitmer and I've never voted for a Democrat president, but I don't tow the Republican Party line either. I voted for Granholm both times she ran and voted for John Dingell on multiple occasions. I see what I see and talk to a lot of people about politics (without pissing them off believe it or not).
There's really no good reason to refuse believe polling. It's one thing to doubt a single outlier poll, it's also another thing to think polling might be slightly off. But polling is literally the only empirical evidence you have access to about public opinion. Refusing to believe that, and thinking your limited and non-random experience with fellow Michiganders trumps that is essentially an anti-scientific point of view.
I've seen this a lot post 2016. But it's important to know how the polling failed in that election.
1. At the national level, It failed within the margin of error. A perfectly acceptable amount to be off.
2. It missed big in certain swing states (Wisconsin) mainly because those were not polled much at all.
Even if you're to believe that this poll is off, it's rather unreasonable to think it's off by a large margin. Let's dock Whitmer's approval by 3% points. That hardly changes what the polling indicates in this particular case.
I want to see polls state how many people didn't respond or didn't answer their phone-call. Do they leave a message? If so, do they track call backs separately? People who would bother to call back for a poll aren't representative of the population at large. This isn't 1980 or 1990. People don't answer cold calls anymore. I'll believe polls when I see all of their statistics. Even margin of error is irrelevant if they don't take those factors into account somehow. Maybe you're right and I'm full of shit, but I guess time will tell...
I also have to say that "indefinite lockdowns until a vaccine" are not the arguments being advanced by any state government. Maybe you can find some politician uttering this logic somewhere, but not anyone holding a statewide office, as far as I know.
The point of the lockdowns -- which aren't even all that onerous in the US compared to other countries -- is to avoid an initial overwhelming of the healthcare system and to build up things like a testing and tracing system. And then to gradually re-open the economy. Even deep blue states like California are currently in the process of reopening in locations where viral spread has plummeted and testing has increased to a certain benchmark. This argument that Democrats or any significant US politician wants a lockdown-until-vaccine is a lie.
I also have to say that "indefinite lockdowns until a vaccine" are not the arguments being advanced by any state government. Maybe you can find some politician uttering this logic somewhere, but not anyone holding a statewide office, as far as I know.
The point of the lockdowns -- which aren't even all that onerous in the US compared to other countries -- is to avoid an initial overwhelming of the healthcare system and to build up things like a testing and tracing system. And then to gradually re-open the economy. Even deep blue states like California are currently in the process of reopening in locations where viral spread has plummeted and testing has increased to a certain benchmark. This argument that Democrats or any significant US politician wants a lockdown-until-vaccine is a lie.
The problem is we don't have the testing and tracing system we need. Aren't even making an effort to do so at the national level. We wasted two months before it got here, and we wasted most of the last two months after it got here, and now at least half a dozen states opened while cases were still INCREASING. Montgomery, Alabama, if people are interested, is down to one ICU bed as of tonight, because they are getting flooded with patients from rural areas where there are no ICU beds.
China had something like 30 new cases pop up last week. You know what their response was?? To test ELEVEN MILLION people in the aftermath. THAT is how you contain the virus and still have things running. Nothing less.
And MORE manipulation. Now it turns out our testing numbers are bullshit because they have been DOUBLE COUNTING many of them. We are absolutely nowhere on this:
Very much agree JJ. It's unfortunate that the federal government has squandered this time, because they have greater tools to spend money during a crisis. That being said, some states are doing an okay job of assembling a testing system. California -- really all three west coast states -- appear to be emerging as the models.
Very much agree JJ. It's unfortunate that the federal government has squandered this time, because they have greater tools to spend money during a crisis. That being said, some states are doing an okay job of assembling a testing system. California -- really all three west coast states -- appear to be emerging as the models.
California, Oregon and Washington might as well be a completely separate country at this point. Relative to their population, and the initial outbreak starting in Washington state, they have been a pretty great model for what to do. Gavin Newsom is basically the President of the West Coast. They knew they were getting nothing from DC over a month ago, and Newsom leveraged California's position as the sixth largest economy in the world accordingly.
I also have to say that "indefinite lockdowns until a vaccine" are not the arguments being advanced by any state government. Maybe you can find some politician uttering this logic somewhere, but not anyone holding a statewide office, as far as I know.
The point of the lockdowns -- which aren't even all that onerous in the US compared to other countries -- is to avoid an initial overwhelming of the healthcare system and to build up things like a testing and tracing system. And then to gradually re-open the economy. Even deep blue states like California are currently in the process of reopening in locations where viral spread has plummeted and testing has increased to a certain benchmark. This argument that Democrats or any significant US politician wants a lockdown-until-vaccine is a lie.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that the majority of people don't vote by logic. Name one election that was won by logic. I try to, but it's harder and harder since I'm fairly in the middle and don't have a clear-cut choice usually. I don't agree with 50% of the Republican platform and 50% of the Democratic platform. I just feel a bit more strongly about the 50% on the Republican side since I tend to be conservative. There is no conservative party anymore though. The Republicans have been hijacked by Evangelicals, science haters and xenophobes.
I also have to say that "indefinite lockdowns until a vaccine" are not the arguments being advanced by any state government. Maybe you can find some politician uttering this logic somewhere, but not anyone holding a statewide office, as far as I know.
The point of the lockdowns -- which aren't even all that onerous in the US compared to other countries -- is to avoid an initial overwhelming of the healthcare system and to build up things like a testing and tracing system. And then to gradually re-open the economy. Even deep blue states like California are currently in the process of reopening in locations where viral spread has plummeted and testing has increased to a certain benchmark. This argument that Democrats or any significant US politician wants a lockdown-until-vaccine is a lie.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that the majority of people don't vote by logic. Name one election that was won by logic. I try to, but it's harder and harder since I'm fairly in the middle and don't have a clear-cut choice usually. I don't agree with 50% of the Republican platform and 50% of the Democratic platform. I just feel a bit more strongly about the 50% on the Republican side since I tend to be conservative. There is no conservative party anymore though. The Republicans have been hijacked by Evangelicals, science haters and xenophobes.
It's getting increasingly hard for me to believe that someone can survive what will assuredly be 200,000 dead Americans and about 20% unemployment going into the fall. And frankly, as far as the economy goes, most of the views on that front are going to be locked in long before then. I saw an expert on the restaurant industry saying it would be a miracle if even 60% of them survive without major intervention from the federal government, even assuming restrictions get lifted tomorrow. Pier One and JC Penny are filing for bankruptcy. Hertz as well. The back end of this is not "restrictions get lifted, everything goes back to how it was in February". Maybe 30-40% of the population will treat it like it is. Good luck paying the bills without the rest of us.
The only way through this economically was to solve the medical problem to a degree in which the public felt reasonably safe. Nothing of the sort has happened. So you will have a public health crisis AND an ongoing economic crisis.
I also have to say that "indefinite lockdowns until a vaccine" are not the arguments being advanced by any state government. Maybe you can find some politician uttering this logic somewhere, but not anyone holding a statewide office, as far as I know.
The point of the lockdowns -- which aren't even all that onerous in the US compared to other countries -- is to avoid an initial overwhelming of the healthcare system and to build up things like a testing and tracing system. And then to gradually re-open the economy. Even deep blue states like California are currently in the process of reopening in locations where viral spread has plummeted and testing has increased to a certain benchmark. This argument that Democrats or any significant US politician wants a lockdown-until-vaccine is a lie.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that the majority of people don't vote by logic. Name one election that was won by logic. I try to, but it's harder and harder since I'm fairly in the middle and don't have a clear-cut choice usually. I don't agree with 50% of the Republican platform and 50% of the Democratic platform. I just feel a bit more strongly about the 50% on the Republican side since I tend to be conservative. There is no conservative party anymore though. The Republicans have been hijacked by Evangelicals, science haters and xenophobes.
It's getting increasingly hard for me to believe that someone can survive what will assuredly be 200,000 dead Americans and about 20% unemployment going into the fall. And frankly, as far as the economy goes, most of the views on that front are going to be locked in long before then. I saw an expert on the restaurant industry saying it would be a miracle if even 60% of them survive without major intervention from the federal government, even assuming restrictions get lifted tomorrow.
You'd think we would be surprised, then you see Biden on t.v. today (technically yesterday)...
We'll see if that changes, but those are pretty enormous numbers for a purple state governor. Especially given the context of her having to battle publicly with an opposite-party legislature. And they are largely in line with other states approving governors who have imposed lockdown orders. Frankly, there is little to any evidence that the majority opinion opposes what most state governments' restrictions.
I'd like to believe you're right but I just don't believe polls anymore. Don't get me wrong, I didn't vote for Whitmer and I've never voted for a Democrat president, but I don't tow the Republican Party line either. I voted for Granholm both times she ran and voted for John Dingell on multiple occasions. I see what I see and talk to a lot of people about politics (without pissing them off believe it or not).
There's really no good reason to refuse believe polling. It's one thing to doubt a single outlier poll, it's also another thing to think polling might be slightly off. But polling is literally the only empirical evidence you have access to about public opinion. Refusing to believe that, and thinking your limited and non-random experience with fellow Michiganders trumps that is essentially an anti-scientific point of view.
I've seen this a lot post 2016. But it's important to know how the polling failed in that election.
1. At the national level, It failed within the margin of error. A perfectly acceptable amount to be off.
2. It missed big in certain swing states (Wisconsin) mainly because those were not polled much at all.
Even if you're to believe that this poll is off, it's rather unreasonable to think it's off by a large margin. Let's dock Whitmer's approval by 3% points. That hardly changes what the polling indicates in this particular case.
I want to see polls state how many people didn't respond or didn't answer their phone-call. Do they leave a message? If so, do they track call backs separately? People who would bother to call back for a poll aren't representative of the population at large. This isn't 1980 or 1990. People don't answer cold calls anymore. I'll believe polls when I see all of their statistics. Even margin of error is irrelevant if they don't take those factors into account somehow. Maybe you're right and I'm full of shit, but I guess time will tell...
Reputable telephone polling is done in a systematic way and tries to be as scientific as possible. Polling firms make several attempts over several days on non-respondent calls. This is why you'll see in the reporting that a poll was conducted over a several day period (and also why you should never trust a poll that says it was conducted in a single day or doesn't report this information.) In this particular case, failing to get callback respondents would bias your sample size towards excluding busier individuals. More sophisticated polling also weights some of their respondents, in order to compensate for people who tend to not answer.
If polling was so ineffective or done with such poor scientific rigor, we would see wildly inaccurate polling. But we don't see that. In fact, despite the growth of cellphones and different phone behavior, we actually see improved polling accuracy over the pre-cellphone era.
Polling effectively predicted that the Democrats would win the House in 2018 and that Republicans would hold the Senate. Polling showed that Biden would win South Carolina for a recent example, but wouldn't win in Nevada, Iowa and New Hampshire. Polling even showed that he would do well on Super Tuesday on the eve of those elections. Polling predicted both Obama's successes as well as Republican congressional successes during his term (2010 and 2014), and in 2016 the polling came just about right on predicting the popular vote winner.
I also have to say that "indefinite lockdowns until a vaccine" are not the arguments being advanced by any state government. Maybe you can find some politician uttering this logic somewhere, but not anyone holding a statewide office, as far as I know.
The point of the lockdowns -- which aren't even all that onerous in the US compared to other countries -- is to avoid an initial overwhelming of the healthcare system and to build up things like a testing and tracing system. And then to gradually re-open the economy. Even deep blue states like California are currently in the process of reopening in locations where viral spread has plummeted and testing has increased to a certain benchmark. This argument that Democrats or any significant US politician wants a lockdown-until-vaccine is a lie.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that the majority of people don't vote by logic. Name one election that was won by logic. I try to, but it's harder and harder since I'm fairly in the middle and don't have a clear-cut choice usually. I don't agree with 50% of the Republican platform and 50% of the Democratic platform. I just feel a bit more strongly about the 50% on the Republican side since I tend to be conservative. There is no conservative party anymore though. The Republicans have been hijacked by Evangelicals, science haters and xenophobes.
2008 seems like it was won by logic to me. The Republican party was saddled with an almost indefensible position -- a collapsing economy, a war that was much more costly and lengthy than promised, and some high-profile disaster response failures. Still a lot of time between now and November, but circumstances look awfully familiar to me from that year.
So here are numbers from a FOX News Poll taken May 17-20. And they show that Trump is basically spitting in the face of not only a majority opinion, but an OVERWHELMING majority opinion:
"Major" Problem in Dealing with COVID-19:
Lack of Available Testing- 63%
Lack of Clear Federal Plan- 61%
Personal Freedom Violations-39%
Stay-at-home orders and other restrictions:
About right- 51%
Not far enough- 27%
Went too far- 21%
Views on Reopening Economy:
Wait, even if it hurts economy- 55%
Open now, even if virus persists- 34%
The narrative is that everyone is foaming at the mouth about the lockdowns. The fact is, only Trump's base (according to these numbers) is feeling that way. Nearly EVERYONE else disagrees with them.
We are still seeing nearly 1500 deaths a day. The problem is that now it's just considered "normal", which is absolutely absurd. As I've said before, people die every day, and yes that is unavoidable but a.) none of the things people usually die from can be spread to others and b.) the things people die from has basically been baked into how we think for 100 years, and certainly at least 50-70 years. COVID-19 has only been around for 2 or 3 months, so anyone who dies from it is going to be viewed as an "excess death", so to speak, because it is viewed as being new AND preventable when looking at other countries who have succeeded.
And you can write "open" in magic marker on a calendar, but as has been said, it doesn't matter. The fact is, even in places like Georgia, people are CHOOSING to still stay home. The data is now reflecting this. Like I was saying, you can't just frog-march people into an Applebee's or beauty salon. MOST people still don't feel like it's a remotely good idea. And until something is done to change that perspective, it doesn't matter what restrictions get lifted in regards to the economy. If half the population isn't participating, your really don't have one.
The so-called 'lockdowns' aren't even real. I drove all the way from Michigan to my parents' house in Tennessee back in April. I passed 4 cops in Ohio, 2 in Kentucky and 2 in Tennessee. Not one of them pulled me over to see where i was going. Hell, since there was nobody on I-75 I was driving 90 mph in Ohio and Kentucky yet not one of the cops even bothered to pull me over for speeding. My point is this isn't China. There aren't any teeth to these lockdowns. You won't be thrown in jail unless you're a complete jackass. I wore a mask every time I stopped to get gas or food and stayed put at my folks' place too.
People don't like being talked down to or preached to (unless you're willingly going to church). If people are treated like adults they're more likely to act like adults. If they're treated like children they're more likely to act like children. Authoritative parenting is not looked at by liberals as being good anymore. Why is authoritative governing any different? Don't sell the science. That won't work. Sell the emotion. Wear a mask to save grandma. Dont wear one because the government tells you to or else. Psychology, try it. The Republicans do...
I also have to say that "indefinite lockdowns until a vaccine" are not the arguments being advanced by any state government. Maybe you can find some politician uttering this logic somewhere, but not anyone holding a statewide office, as far as I know.
The point of the lockdowns -- which aren't even all that onerous in the US compared to other countries -- is to avoid an initial overwhelming of the healthcare system and to build up things like a testing and tracing system. And then to gradually re-open the economy. Even deep blue states like California are currently in the process of reopening in locations where viral spread has plummeted and testing has increased to a certain benchmark. This argument that Democrats or any significant US politician wants a lockdown-until-vaccine is a lie.
The problem is we don't have the testing and tracing system we need. Aren't even making an effort to do so at the national level. We wasted two months before it got here, and we wasted most of the last two months after it got here, and now at least half a dozen states opened while cases were still INCREASING. Montgomery, Alabama, if people are interested, is down to one ICU bed as of tonight, because they are getting flooded with patients from rural areas where there are no ICU beds.
China had something like 30 new cases pop up last week. You know what their response was?? To test ELEVEN MILLION people in the aftermath. THAT is how you contain the virus and still have things running. Nothing less.
And MORE manipulation. Now it turns out our testing numbers are bullshit because they have been DOUBLE COUNTING many of them. We are absolutely nowhere on this:
Numbers of tests are also a bit difficult to interpret because it's not clear how many different people have been tested. A minor factor in that is the sort of regular testing going on in some places (like the White House). More important than that though is that the US regularly took and tested duplicate samples from the same people. I think that was probably a reaction to the failure of testing kits in the early part of the epidemic and I haven't seen any recent information on this - so the practice may now have stopped. If it's still going on though it means the number of people tested is less than half the per capita figures from the raw testing numbers would indicate.
I also have to say that "indefinite lockdowns until a vaccine" are not the arguments being advanced by any state government. Maybe you can find some politician uttering this logic somewhere, but not anyone holding a statewide office, as far as I know.
The point of the lockdowns -- which aren't even all that onerous in the US compared to other countries -- is to avoid an initial overwhelming of the healthcare system and to build up things like a testing and tracing system. And then to gradually re-open the economy. Even deep blue states like California are currently in the process of reopening in locations where viral spread has plummeted and testing has increased to a certain benchmark. This argument that Democrats or any significant US politician wants a lockdown-until-vaccine is a lie.
The problem is we don't have the testing and tracing system we need. Aren't even making an effort to do so at the national level. We wasted two months before it got here, and we wasted most of the last two months after it got here, and now at least half a dozen states opened while cases were still INCREASING. Montgomery, Alabama, if people are interested, is down to one ICU bed as of tonight, because they are getting flooded with patients from rural areas where there are no ICU beds.
China had something like 30 new cases pop up last week. You know what their response was?? To test ELEVEN MILLION people in the aftermath. THAT is how you contain the virus and still have things running. Nothing less.
And MORE manipulation. Now it turns out our testing numbers are bullshit because they have been DOUBLE COUNTING many of them. We are absolutely nowhere on this:
Numbers of tests are also a bit difficult to interpret because it's not clear how many different people have been tested. A minor factor in that is the sort of regular testing going on in some places (like the White House). More important than that though is that the US regularly took and tested duplicate samples from the same people. I think that was probably a reaction to the failure of testing kits in the early part of the epidemic and I haven't seen any recent information on this - so the practice may now have stopped. If it's still going on though it means the number of people tested is less than half the per capita figures from the raw testing numbers would indicate.
It would also be very helpful to have an anti-body test more readily available, especially since over 30% of cases are asymptomatic. We have no way of knowing how many people have had the virus and beat it already.
I also have to say that "indefinite lockdowns until a vaccine" are not the arguments being advanced by any state government. Maybe you can find some politician uttering this logic somewhere, but not anyone holding a statewide office, as far as I know.
The point of the lockdowns -- which aren't even all that onerous in the US compared to other countries -- is to avoid an initial overwhelming of the healthcare system and to build up things like a testing and tracing system. And then to gradually re-open the economy. Even deep blue states like California are currently in the process of reopening in locations where viral spread has plummeted and testing has increased to a certain benchmark. This argument that Democrats or any significant US politician wants a lockdown-until-vaccine is a lie.
The problem is we don't have the testing and tracing system we need. Aren't even making an effort to do so at the national level. We wasted two months before it got here, and we wasted most of the last two months after it got here, and now at least half a dozen states opened while cases were still INCREASING. Montgomery, Alabama, if people are interested, is down to one ICU bed as of tonight, because they are getting flooded with patients from rural areas where there are no ICU beds.
China had something like 30 new cases pop up last week. You know what their response was?? To test ELEVEN MILLION people in the aftermath. THAT is how you contain the virus and still have things running. Nothing less.
And MORE manipulation. Now it turns out our testing numbers are bullshit because they have been DOUBLE COUNTING many of them. We are absolutely nowhere on this:
Numbers of tests are also a bit difficult to interpret because it's not clear how many different people have been tested. A minor factor in that is the sort of regular testing going on in some places (like the White House). More important than that though is that the US regularly took and tested duplicate samples from the same people. I think that was probably a reaction to the failure of testing kits in the early part of the epidemic and I haven't seen any recent information on this - so the practice may now have stopped. If it's still going on though it means the number of people tested is less than half the per capita figures from the raw testing numbers would indicate.
It would also be very helpful to have an anti-body test more readily available, especially since over 30% of cases are asymptomatic. We have no way of knowing how many people have had the virus and beat it already.
Problem with that being we don't even know what having it and beating it means going forward yet. Is it seasonal immunity?? Longer?? Shorter?? Even in a best case scenario, I seriously doubt you get it once like chicken pox and are then ok for the rest of your life. And even the people who are recovering may have serious problems with their lungs and organs going forward. What toll does a SECOND bout with COVID-19 take on a body that has already dealt with it once??
So here are numbers from a FOX News Poll taken May 17-20. And they show that Trump is basically spitting in the face of not only a majority opinion, but an OVERWHELMING majority opinion:
"Major" Problem in Dealing with COVID-19:
Lack of Available Testing- 63%
Lack of Clear Federal Plan- 61%
Personal Freedom Violations-39%
Stay-at-home orders and other restrictions:
About right- 51%
Not far enough- 27%
Went too far- 21%
Views on Reopening Economy:
Wait, even if it hurts economy- 55%
Open now, even if virus persists- 34%
The narrative is that everyone is foaming at the mouth about the lockdowns. The fact is, only Trump's base (according to these numbers) is feeling that way. Nearly EVERYONE else disagrees with them.
I agree with the 63% voting for lack of available testing. Personally, I'd like to see a readily available anti-body test too. Stay at home orders I was on-board until today so would have fallen in that 51% when the poll was taken. Ditto with the reopening question. The longer this goes though, the less I'm inclined to agree with any of them. At some point we'll need to switch to protecting the vulnerable rather than locking down everybody.
We are still seeing nearly 1500 deaths a day. The problem is that now it's just considered "normal", which is absolutely absurd. As I've said before, people die every day, and yes that is unavoidable but a.) none of the things people usually die from can be spread to others and b.) the things people die from has basically been baked into how we think for 100 years, and certainly at least 50-70 years. COVID-19 has only been around for 2 or 3 months, so anyone who dies from it is going to be viewed as an "excess death", so to speak, because it is viewed as being new AND preventable when looking at other countries who have succeeded.
And you can write "open" in magic marker on a calendar, but as has been said, it doesn't matter. The fact is, even in places like Georgia, people are CHOOSING to still stay home. The data is now reflecting this. Like I was saying, you can't just frog-march people into an Applebee's or beauty salon. MOST people still don't feel like it's a remotely good idea. And until something is done to change that perspective, it doesn't matter what restrictions get lifted in regards to the economy. If half the population isn't participating, your really don't have one.
The so-called 'lockdowns' aren't even real. I drove all the way from Michigan to my parents' house in Tennessee back in April. I passed 4 cops in Ohio, 2 in Kentucky and 2 in Tennessee. Not one of them pulled me over to see where i was going. Hell, since there was nobody on I-75 I was driving 90 mph in Ohio and Kentucky yet not one of the cops even bothered to pull me over for speeding. My point is this isn't China. There aren't any teeth to these lockdowns. You won't be thrown in jail unless you're a complete jackass. I wore a mask every time I stopped to get gas or food and stayed put at my folks' place too.
People don't like being talked down to or preached to (unless you're willingly going to church). If people are treated like adults they're more likely to act like adults. If they're treated like children they're more likely to act like children. Authoritative parenting is not looked at by liberals as being good anymore. Why is authoritative governing any different? Don't sell the science. That won't work. Sell the emotion. Wear a mask to save grandma. Dont wear one because the government tells you to or else. Psychology, try it. The Republicans do...
Well said, and I very much agree. Obviously I don't want the US to turn into a police state, and JJ's point about required action on testing holds. But it's definitely important to note that the US did a kind of half-ass lockdown that did a lot of economic damage but didn't do as much as necessary to slow viral spread.
I also have to say that "indefinite lockdowns until a vaccine" are not the arguments being advanced by any state government. Maybe you can find some politician uttering this logic somewhere, but not anyone holding a statewide office, as far as I know.
The point of the lockdowns -- which aren't even all that onerous in the US compared to other countries -- is to avoid an initial overwhelming of the healthcare system and to build up things like a testing and tracing system. And then to gradually re-open the economy. Even deep blue states like California are currently in the process of reopening in locations where viral spread has plummeted and testing has increased to a certain benchmark. This argument that Democrats or any significant US politician wants a lockdown-until-vaccine is a lie.
The problem is we don't have the testing and tracing system we need. Aren't even making an effort to do so at the national level. We wasted two months before it got here, and we wasted most of the last two months after it got here, and now at least half a dozen states opened while cases were still INCREASING. Montgomery, Alabama, if people are interested, is down to one ICU bed as of tonight, because they are getting flooded with patients from rural areas where there are no ICU beds.
China had something like 30 new cases pop up last week. You know what their response was?? To test ELEVEN MILLION people in the aftermath. THAT is how you contain the virus and still have things running. Nothing less.
And MORE manipulation. Now it turns out our testing numbers are bullshit because they have been DOUBLE COUNTING many of them. We are absolutely nowhere on this:
Numbers of tests are also a bit difficult to interpret because it's not clear how many different people have been tested. A minor factor in that is the sort of regular testing going on in some places (like the White House). More important than that though is that the US regularly took and tested duplicate samples from the same people. I think that was probably a reaction to the failure of testing kits in the early part of the epidemic and I haven't seen any recent information on this - so the practice may now have stopped. If it's still going on though it means the number of people tested is less than half the per capita figures from the raw testing numbers would indicate.
It would also be very helpful to have an anti-body test more readily available, especially since over 30% of cases are asymptomatic. We have no way of knowing how many people have had the virus and beat it already.
Problem with that being we don't even know what having it and beating it means going forward yet. Is it seasonal immunity?? Longer?? Shorter?? Even in a best case scenario, I seriously doubt you get it once like chicken pox and are then ok for the rest of your life. And even the people who are recovering may have serious problems with their lungs and organs going forward. What toll does a SECOND bout with COVID-19 take on a body that has already dealt with it once??
It's related to the the same virus as the first SARS outbreak though. How many people are affected by that anymore? Just saying that there is reason for optimism. At least this isn't AIDS 2.0.
We are still seeing nearly 1500 deaths a day. The problem is that now it's just considered "normal", which is absolutely absurd. As I've said before, people die every day, and yes that is unavoidable but a.) none of the things people usually die from can be spread to others and b.) the things people die from has basically been baked into how we think for 100 years, and certainly at least 50-70 years. COVID-19 has only been around for 2 or 3 months, so anyone who dies from it is going to be viewed as an "excess death", so to speak, because it is viewed as being new AND preventable when looking at other countries who have succeeded.
And you can write "open" in magic marker on a calendar, but as has been said, it doesn't matter. The fact is, even in places like Georgia, people are CHOOSING to still stay home. The data is now reflecting this. Like I was saying, you can't just frog-march people into an Applebee's or beauty salon. MOST people still don't feel like it's a remotely good idea. And until something is done to change that perspective, it doesn't matter what restrictions get lifted in regards to the economy. If half the population isn't participating, your really don't have one.
The so-called 'lockdowns' aren't even real. I drove all the way from Michigan to my parents' house in Tennessee back in April. I passed 4 cops in Ohio, 2 in Kentucky and 2 in Tennessee. Not one of them pulled me over to see where i was going. Hell, since there was nobody on I-75 I was driving 90 mph in Ohio and Kentucky yet not one of the cops even bothered to pull me over for speeding. My point is this isn't China. There aren't any teeth to these lockdowns. You won't be thrown in jail unless you're a complete jackass. I wore a mask every time I stopped to get gas or food and stayed put at my folks' place too.
People don't like being talked down to or preached to (unless you're willingly going to church). If people are treated like adults they're more likely to act like adults. If they're treated like children they're more likely to act like children. Authoritative parenting is not looked at by liberals as being good anymore. Why is authoritative governing any different? Don't sell the science. That won't work. Sell the emotion. Wear a mask to save grandma. Dont wear one because the government tells you to or else. Psychology, try it. The Republicans do...
Well said, and I very much agree. Obviously I don't want the US to turn into a police state, and JJ's point about required action on testing holds. But it's definitely important to note that the US did a kind of half-ass lockdown that did a lot of economic damage but didn't do as much as necessary to slow viral spread.
According to the above poll, 78% of the population thinks the measures taken by states are either just right or not stringent enough. You can't even get 78% of Americans to agree on what color the sky is. It would seem to me Trump is badly misreading public opinion. And his numbers against Biden, who is essentially a ghost when he isn't popping up and putting his foot in his mouth, show it (at least currently). Trump isn't even really running against Biden. He's running against "anyone but him" who just happens to be Joe Biden.
Polls in 2016 (and 2018) were just as accurate as they ever were (which is reasonably accurate), It was pundits who were expressing opinions on what the polls meant that were horribly, horribly wrong.
I've made the point before, but I think it's worth noting again that China only had a lockdown in Hubei province. In the bulk of the country they used aggressive test, track and trace techniques to catch the virus in the early stages and avoid it spreading freely. South Korea did the same thing.
The number of tests carried out is only half the story - it's what you do with that information that's important. Getting overall data on the level of prevalence in the population is useful, but not as useful as targeting individuals, so that only they (and not the whole population) need to be isolated.
In the UK we're gradually getting more information about the way contact tracing is supposed to work. Of course we damn well should know what is proposed, given the system is supposed to be up and running from 1 June! I'm definitely concerned that it will not get off to a smooth start due to insufficient preparation. 25,000 people have been recruited for this purpose and, as I understand it, things are intended to work something like this:
- assumed they can handle around 2,500 new cases a day (which will probably be round about the level of the actual new cases arising).
- the bulk of the work will be done by call handlers with minimal training, using scripts.
- they will ask diagnosed cases to list all close contacts they've had with other people and then try and ring those others to tell them to check on symptoms and tell them to self-isolate.
- there will be a limited capability for physical checks, normally to be used for those who cannot be contacted by phone.
Experience thus far of this type of scheme suggests there may be a significant level of resistance to providing information. It may be of course that will largely disappear as a result of this being such a major, government-run, scheme. However, one reason I would prefer there to have been far more visibility before now of how the scheme will operate is that the publicity could have been used to address issues like privacy concerns, how you notify employers, what rules on sick pay will be, what constitutes isolation if close contacts know each other (as would be typical in family situations) etc. As it is such issues are likely to result in significant hiccups in the early stages of the scheme, potentially damaging its credibility and making it more difficult to persuade the public to comply with requirements.
I also have to say that "indefinite lockdowns until a vaccine" are not the arguments being advanced by any state government. Maybe you can find some politician uttering this logic somewhere, but not anyone holding a statewide office, as far as I know.
The point of the lockdowns -- which aren't even all that onerous in the US compared to other countries -- is to avoid an initial overwhelming of the healthcare system and to build up things like a testing and tracing system. And then to gradually re-open the economy. Even deep blue states like California are currently in the process of reopening in locations where viral spread has plummeted and testing has increased to a certain benchmark. This argument that Democrats or any significant US politician wants a lockdown-until-vaccine is a lie.
The problem is we don't have the testing and tracing system we need. Aren't even making an effort to do so at the national level. We wasted two months before it got here, and we wasted most of the last two months after it got here, and now at least half a dozen states opened while cases were still INCREASING. Montgomery, Alabama, if people are interested, is down to one ICU bed as of tonight, because they are getting flooded with patients from rural areas where there are no ICU beds.
China had something like 30 new cases pop up last week. You know what their response was?? To test ELEVEN MILLION people in the aftermath. THAT is how you contain the virus and still have things running. Nothing less.
And MORE manipulation. Now it turns out our testing numbers are bullshit because they have been DOUBLE COUNTING many of them. We are absolutely nowhere on this:
Numbers of tests are also a bit difficult to interpret because it's not clear how many different people have been tested. A minor factor in that is the sort of regular testing going on in some places (like the White House). More important than that though is that the US regularly took and tested duplicate samples from the same people. I think that was probably a reaction to the failure of testing kits in the early part of the epidemic and I haven't seen any recent information on this - so the practice may now have stopped. If it's still going on though it means the number of people tested is less than half the per capita figures from the raw testing numbers would indicate.
It would also be very helpful to have an anti-body test more readily available, especially since over 30% of cases are asymptomatic. We have no way of knowing how many people have had the virus and beat it already.
Problem with that being we don't even know what having it and beating it means going forward yet. Is it seasonal immunity?? Longer?? Shorter?? Even in a best case scenario, I seriously doubt you get it once like chicken pox and are then ok for the rest of your life. And even the people who are recovering may have serious problems with their lungs and organs going forward. What toll does a SECOND bout with COVID-19 take on a body that has already dealt with it once??
It's related to the the same virus as the first SARS outbreak though. How many people are affected by that anymore? Just saying that there is reason for optimism. At least this isn't AIDS 2.0.
I agree there's reason for optimism, but not sure that the comparison with SARS provides that. That disease had a much shorter incubation period and no significant asymptomatic spread and hence was relatively easy to deal with. Preventing Covid-19 from becoming endemic in the population, like colds (and coronaviruses are responsible for one type of these), will be a much tougher proposition unless we're extremely lucky and get a really effective vaccine.
I've made the point before, but I think it's worth noting again that China only had a lockdown in Hubei province. In the bulk of the country they used aggressive test, track and trace techniques to catch the virus in the early stages and avoid it spreading freely. South Korea did the same thing.
The number of tests carried out is only half the story - it's what you do with that information that's important. Getting overall data on the level of prevalence in the population is useful, but not as useful as targeting individuals, so that only they (and not the whole population) need to be isolated.
In the UK we're gradually getting more information about the way contact tracing is supposed to work. Of course we damn well should know what is proposed, given the system is supposed to be up and running from 1 June! I'm definitely concerned that it will not get off to a smooth start due to insufficient preparation. 25,000 people have been recruited for this purpose and, as I understand it, things are intended to work something like this:
- assumed they can handle around 2,500 new cases a day (which will probably be round about the level of the actual new cases arising).
- the bulk of the work will be done by call handlers with minimal training, using scripts.
- they will ask diagnosed cases to list all close contacts they've had with other people and then try and ring those others to tell them to check on symptoms and tell them to self-isolate.
- there will be a limited capability for physical checks, normally to be used for those who cannot be contacted by phone.
Experience thus far of this type of scheme suggests there may be a significant level of resistance to providing information. It may be of course that will largely disappear as a result of this being such a major, government-run, scheme. However, one reason I would prefer there to have been far more visibility before now of how the scheme will operate is that the publicity could have been used to address issues like privacy concerns, how you notify employers, what rules on sick pay will be, what constitutes isolation if close contacts know each other (as would be typical in family situations) etc. As it is such issues are likely to result in significant hiccups in the early stages of the scheme, potentially damaging its credibility and making it more difficult to persuade the public to comply with requirements.
It would be one thing if we had the data available from testing but didn't know how to apply it as effectively as China or South Korea. But that isn't even half the problem in the US. Every time Trump speaks about the subject, it is QUITE clear that Trump doesn't want the data, because he has said on at least a dozen occasions something to the effect of "when you test, the numbers go up". This was the problem since the very beginning before any lockdowns took place. He didn't want to WHO tests because to him it was "no testing, no virus". They don't WANT accurate information. It's been the original sin from the start.
And frankly, no matter how many times you try beat it into people's heads, hardly anyone seems to understand the importance of testing and the data it provides to then take action. Til a vaccine exits, it is the only weapon anyone has. In the city where I live, there was going to be drive-in public testing at the local arena parking lot. But they had to cancel it because ALL of those tests ended up having to go to long-term care facilities and hospitals.
The political situation in Brazil seems to be getting worse. Bolsanaro has always ignored the reality of Covid-19, which is a serious problem in itself (with cases and deaths still growing, disagreements over what to do has resulted in the resignation of 2 health ministers within a month). However, the political structure as a whole now seems to be creaking. The Supreme Court has just released a video of a Cabinet meeting, which provides some insight into other problems, such as:
- concerns that Bolsanaro fired the head of the federal police in order to try and influence a corruption investigation into his family (leading to the resignation of Sergio Moro as justice minister).
- a proposal to reduce regulations in the Amazon while the press was concentrating on Covid-19 and might be expected to ignore that.
It's really not even a remote surprise that Trump and Balsanaro are at the top of the list of who is handling this the worst. I mean, it should surprise absolutely no one anywhere that that is the case.
Going back to a few topics in my previous posts about the ND Governor begging people not to harass people wearing masks, and the actual public opinion polls, this town is two hours from where I grew up. Drove by and gotten gas there many, many times on my way to the eastern part of MN (it was, in fact, the "halfway" point of this particular trip).
First of all, it proves that rural MN is basically Alabama. This town is big enough to have a large Dairy Queen, essentially. And while this behavior is NOT the majority or even a majority of people who want to end the lockdowns, these people are the ones Trump is catering to, and they are the ones setting the agenda for the rest of us. Someone called this the "man bites dog" theory of the news. If a dog bites a man, it's not news. But if a man bites a dog, that is weird and freakish enough to make the news.
No one who is wearing a mask is doing it to prove a point. But there IS a contingent of people who AREN'T wearing them for political reasons, and they are also insisting that no one else do so either. I can only chalk this up to the pangs of guilt they feel about their own selfishness when they see someone else wearing one. It makes them feel ashamed. I suggest they talk to their psychiatrist about that. Because that has nothing to do with the people wearing masks:
Let's all sit and marvel for one second at these people being out there protesting for their "individual rights" outright DEMANDING that someone else remove their face covering. Because HIS choice to wear one doesn't matter. The only "rights" these people feel exist are their own. This guy shouldn't be allowed to wear a mask because it interferes with their right to feel 100% comfortable at all times. If anything pierces the bubble they have created for themselves (and you can apply this to so many things), they lose their shit. The idea that this guy has a right to wear a mask is completely alien to them. Their warped mindset sees his wearing one as a direct affront to their beliefs, even though he is only doing so to protect them from any droplets he might spray in the air. In turn, they yell in his face. This is not a "both-sides" issue. These protests are Trump rallies, and everyone knows it.
In response to Trump declaring churches "essential", and his Press Secretary saying "We can all hope this Sunday people are allowed to pray to their gods", I offer actual scripture:
"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites
are, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and
in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.
Verily I say unto you, They have their reward." Matthew 6:5
Not a coincidence that Bush's consigliere Karl Rove has joined the campaign this week. We're going right back to 2004 Evangelical dog whistles.
It's not about praying, it's about fellowship. I know how Evangelicals think. They're a tight-knit group that bond around their time in church. It's almost as much about friendship and bonding as it is about religion (maybe even more so). This is a desperation move by Trump, but that doesn't mean it won't work. Other religious groups that aren't so-called Evangelicals might even join in if this goes on much longer. The US is not Asia or even Europe. People here will not forgive politicians that are deemed to be 'oppressive'.
We live in the age of live video calls. There's no reason to risk your and your neighbors lives on physical contact. It says more about the people than the religion that this is apparently desirable.
I read an article by the one of the founders of wikipedia about how the nonbias policy has gone out the window, and I thought it was well done. It's a shame, because it was once a decent source for almost anything, all community driven.
Comments
I'd like to believe you're right but I just don't believe polls anymore. Don't get me wrong, I didn't vote for Whitmer and I've never voted for a Democrat president, but I don't tow the Republican Party line either. I voted for Granholm both times she ran and voted for John Dingell on multiple occasions. I see what I see and talk to a lot of people about politics (without pissing them off believe it or not).
And you can write "open" in magic marker on a calendar, but as has been said, it doesn't matter. The fact is, even in places like Georgia, people are CHOOSING to still stay home. The data is now reflecting this. Like I was saying, you can't just frog-march people into an Applebee's or beauty salon. MOST people still don't feel like it's a remotely good idea. And until something is done to change that perspective, it doesn't matter what restrictions get lifted in regards to the economy. If half the population isn't participating, your really don't have one.
There's really no good reason to refuse believe polling. It's one thing to doubt a single outlier poll, it's also another thing to think polling might be slightly off. But polling is literally the only empirical evidence you have access to about public opinion. Refusing to believe that, and thinking one's limited and non-random experience with fellow Michiganders trumps that is essentially an anti-scientific point of view.
I've seen this a lot post 2016. But it's important to know how the polling failed in that election.
1. At the national level, It failed within the margin of error. A perfectly acceptable amount to be off.
2. It missed big in certain swing states (Wisconsin) mainly because those were not polled much at all.
Even if you're to believe that this poll is off, it's rather unreasonable to think it's off by a large margin. Let's dock Whitmer's approval by 3% points. That hardly changes what the polling indicates in this particular case.
I want to see polls state how many people didn't respond or didn't answer their phone-call. Do they leave a message? If so, do they track call backs separately? People who would bother to call back for a poll aren't representative of the population at large. This isn't 1980 or 1990. People don't answer cold calls anymore. I'll believe polls when I see all of their statistics. Even margin of error is irrelevant if they don't take those factors into account somehow. Maybe you're right and I'm full of shit, but I guess time will tell...
The point of the lockdowns -- which aren't even all that onerous in the US compared to other countries -- is to avoid an initial overwhelming of the healthcare system and to build up things like a testing and tracing system. And then to gradually re-open the economy. Even deep blue states like California are currently in the process of reopening in locations where viral spread has plummeted and testing has increased to a certain benchmark. This argument that Democrats or any significant US politician wants a lockdown-until-vaccine is a lie.
The problem is we don't have the testing and tracing system we need. Aren't even making an effort to do so at the national level. We wasted two months before it got here, and we wasted most of the last two months after it got here, and now at least half a dozen states opened while cases were still INCREASING. Montgomery, Alabama, if people are interested, is down to one ICU bed as of tonight, because they are getting flooded with patients from rural areas where there are no ICU beds.
China had something like 30 new cases pop up last week. You know what their response was?? To test ELEVEN MILLION people in the aftermath. THAT is how you contain the virus and still have things running. Nothing less.
And MORE manipulation. Now it turns out our testing numbers are bullshit because they have been DOUBLE COUNTING many of them. We are absolutely nowhere on this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/us/politics/coronavirus-tests-cdc.html?referringSource=articleShare
California, Oregon and Washington might as well be a completely separate country at this point. Relative to their population, and the initial outbreak starting in Washington state, they have been a pretty great model for what to do. Gavin Newsom is basically the President of the West Coast. They knew they were getting nothing from DC over a month ago, and Newsom leveraged California's position as the sixth largest economy in the world accordingly.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that the majority of people don't vote by logic. Name one election that was won by logic. I try to, but it's harder and harder since I'm fairly in the middle and don't have a clear-cut choice usually. I don't agree with 50% of the Republican platform and 50% of the Democratic platform. I just feel a bit more strongly about the 50% on the Republican side since I tend to be conservative. There is no conservative party anymore though. The Republicans have been hijacked by Evangelicals, science haters and xenophobes.
It's getting increasingly hard for me to believe that someone can survive what will assuredly be 200,000 dead Americans and about 20% unemployment going into the fall. And frankly, as far as the economy goes, most of the views on that front are going to be locked in long before then. I saw an expert on the restaurant industry saying it would be a miracle if even 60% of them survive without major intervention from the federal government, even assuming restrictions get lifted tomorrow. Pier One and JC Penny are filing for bankruptcy. Hertz as well. The back end of this is not "restrictions get lifted, everything goes back to how it was in February". Maybe 30-40% of the population will treat it like it is. Good luck paying the bills without the rest of us.
The only way through this economically was to solve the medical problem to a degree in which the public felt reasonably safe. Nothing of the sort has happened. So you will have a public health crisis AND an ongoing economic crisis.
You'd think we would be surprised, then you see Biden on t.v. today (technically yesterday)...
Reputable telephone polling is done in a systematic way and tries to be as scientific as possible. Polling firms make several attempts over several days on non-respondent calls. This is why you'll see in the reporting that a poll was conducted over a several day period (and also why you should never trust a poll that says it was conducted in a single day or doesn't report this information.) In this particular case, failing to get callback respondents would bias your sample size towards excluding busier individuals. More sophisticated polling also weights some of their respondents, in order to compensate for people who tend to not answer.
If polling was so ineffective or done with such poor scientific rigor, we would see wildly inaccurate polling. But we don't see that. In fact, despite the growth of cellphones and different phone behavior, we actually see improved polling accuracy over the pre-cellphone era.
Polling effectively predicted that the Democrats would win the House in 2018 and that Republicans would hold the Senate. Polling showed that Biden would win South Carolina for a recent example, but wouldn't win in Nevada, Iowa and New Hampshire. Polling even showed that he would do well on Super Tuesday on the eve of those elections. Polling predicted both Obama's successes as well as Republican congressional successes during his term (2010 and 2014), and in 2016 the polling came just about right on predicting the popular vote winner.
2008 seems like it was won by logic to me. The Republican party was saddled with an almost indefensible position -- a collapsing economy, a war that was much more costly and lengthy than promised, and some high-profile disaster response failures. Still a lot of time between now and November, but circumstances look awfully familiar to me from that year.
"Major" Problem in Dealing with COVID-19:
Lack of Available Testing- 63%
Lack of Clear Federal Plan- 61%
Personal Freedom Violations-39%
Stay-at-home orders and other restrictions:
About right- 51%
Not far enough- 27%
Went too far- 21%
Views on Reopening Economy:
Wait, even if it hurts economy- 55%
Open now, even if virus persists- 34%
The narrative is that everyone is foaming at the mouth about the lockdowns. The fact is, only Trump's base (according to these numbers) is feeling that way. Nearly EVERYONE else disagrees with them.
The so-called 'lockdowns' aren't even real. I drove all the way from Michigan to my parents' house in Tennessee back in April. I passed 4 cops in Ohio, 2 in Kentucky and 2 in Tennessee. Not one of them pulled me over to see where i was going. Hell, since there was nobody on I-75 I was driving 90 mph in Ohio and Kentucky yet not one of the cops even bothered to pull me over for speeding. My point is this isn't China. There aren't any teeth to these lockdowns. You won't be thrown in jail unless you're a complete jackass. I wore a mask every time I stopped to get gas or food and stayed put at my folks' place too.
People don't like being talked down to or preached to (unless you're willingly going to church). If people are treated like adults they're more likely to act like adults. If they're treated like children they're more likely to act like children. Authoritative parenting is not looked at by liberals as being good anymore. Why is authoritative governing any different? Don't sell the science. That won't work. Sell the emotion. Wear a mask to save grandma. Dont wear one because the government tells you to or else. Psychology, try it. The Republicans do...
Numbers of tests are also a bit difficult to interpret because it's not clear how many different people have been tested. A minor factor in that is the sort of regular testing going on in some places (like the White House). More important than that though is that the US regularly took and tested duplicate samples from the same people. I think that was probably a reaction to the failure of testing kits in the early part of the epidemic and I haven't seen any recent information on this - so the practice may now have stopped. If it's still going on though it means the number of people tested is less than half the per capita figures from the raw testing numbers would indicate.
It would also be very helpful to have an anti-body test more readily available, especially since over 30% of cases are asymptomatic. We have no way of knowing how many people have had the virus and beat it already.
Problem with that being we don't even know what having it and beating it means going forward yet. Is it seasonal immunity?? Longer?? Shorter?? Even in a best case scenario, I seriously doubt you get it once like chicken pox and are then ok for the rest of your life. And even the people who are recovering may have serious problems with their lungs and organs going forward. What toll does a SECOND bout with COVID-19 take on a body that has already dealt with it once??
I agree with the 63% voting for lack of available testing. Personally, I'd like to see a readily available anti-body test too. Stay at home orders I was on-board until today so would have fallen in that 51% when the poll was taken. Ditto with the reopening question. The longer this goes though, the less I'm inclined to agree with any of them. At some point we'll need to switch to protecting the vulnerable rather than locking down everybody.
Well said, and I very much agree. Obviously I don't want the US to turn into a police state, and JJ's point about required action on testing holds. But it's definitely important to note that the US did a kind of half-ass lockdown that did a lot of economic damage but didn't do as much as necessary to slow viral spread.
It's related to the the same virus as the first SARS outbreak though. How many people are affected by that anymore? Just saying that there is reason for optimism. At least this isn't AIDS 2.0.
According to the above poll, 78% of the population thinks the measures taken by states are either just right or not stringent enough. You can't even get 78% of Americans to agree on what color the sky is. It would seem to me Trump is badly misreading public opinion. And his numbers against Biden, who is essentially a ghost when he isn't popping up and putting his foot in his mouth, show it (at least currently). Trump isn't even really running against Biden. He's running against "anyone but him" who just happens to be Joe Biden.
Polls in 2016 (and 2018) were just as accurate as they ever were (which is reasonably accurate), It was pundits who were expressing opinions on what the polls meant that were horribly, horribly wrong.
The number of tests carried out is only half the story - it's what you do with that information that's important. Getting overall data on the level of prevalence in the population is useful, but not as useful as targeting individuals, so that only they (and not the whole population) need to be isolated.
In the UK we're gradually getting more information about the way contact tracing is supposed to work. Of course we damn well should know what is proposed, given the system is supposed to be up and running from 1 June! I'm definitely concerned that it will not get off to a smooth start due to insufficient preparation. 25,000 people have been recruited for this purpose and, as I understand it, things are intended to work something like this:
- assumed they can handle around 2,500 new cases a day (which will probably be round about the level of the actual new cases arising).
- the bulk of the work will be done by call handlers with minimal training, using scripts.
- they will ask diagnosed cases to list all close contacts they've had with other people and then try and ring those others to tell them to check on symptoms and tell them to self-isolate.
- there will be a limited capability for physical checks, normally to be used for those who cannot be contacted by phone.
Experience thus far of this type of scheme suggests there may be a significant level of resistance to providing information. It may be of course that will largely disappear as a result of this being such a major, government-run, scheme. However, one reason I would prefer there to have been far more visibility before now of how the scheme will operate is that the publicity could have been used to address issues like privacy concerns, how you notify employers, what rules on sick pay will be, what constitutes isolation if close contacts know each other (as would be typical in family situations) etc. As it is such issues are likely to result in significant hiccups in the early stages of the scheme, potentially damaging its credibility and making it more difficult to persuade the public to comply with requirements.
I agree there's reason for optimism, but not sure that the comparison with SARS provides that. That disease had a much shorter incubation period and no significant asymptomatic spread and hence was relatively easy to deal with. Preventing Covid-19 from becoming endemic in the population, like colds (and coronaviruses are responsible for one type of these), will be a much tougher proposition unless we're extremely lucky and get a really effective vaccine.
It would be one thing if we had the data available from testing but didn't know how to apply it as effectively as China or South Korea. But that isn't even half the problem in the US. Every time Trump speaks about the subject, it is QUITE clear that Trump doesn't want the data, because he has said on at least a dozen occasions something to the effect of "when you test, the numbers go up". This was the problem since the very beginning before any lockdowns took place. He didn't want to WHO tests because to him it was "no testing, no virus". They don't WANT accurate information. It's been the original sin from the start.
And frankly, no matter how many times you try beat it into people's heads, hardly anyone seems to understand the importance of testing and the data it provides to then take action. Til a vaccine exits, it is the only weapon anyone has. In the city where I live, there was going to be drive-in public testing at the local arena parking lot. But they had to cancel it because ALL of those tests ended up having to go to long-term care facilities and hospitals.
- concerns that Bolsanaro fired the head of the federal police in order to try and influence a corruption investigation into his family (leading to the resignation of Sergio Moro as justice minister).
- a proposal to reduce regulations in the Amazon while the press was concentrating on Covid-19 and might be expected to ignore that.
Going back to a few topics in my previous posts about the ND Governor begging people not to harass people wearing masks, and the actual public opinion polls, this town is two hours from where I grew up. Drove by and gotten gas there many, many times on my way to the eastern part of MN (it was, in fact, the "halfway" point of this particular trip).
First of all, it proves that rural MN is basically Alabama. This town is big enough to have a large Dairy Queen, essentially. And while this behavior is NOT the majority or even a majority of people who want to end the lockdowns, these people are the ones Trump is catering to, and they are the ones setting the agenda for the rest of us. Someone called this the "man bites dog" theory of the news. If a dog bites a man, it's not news. But if a man bites a dog, that is weird and freakish enough to make the news.
No one who is wearing a mask is doing it to prove a point. But there IS a contingent of people who AREN'T wearing them for political reasons, and they are also insisting that no one else do so either. I can only chalk this up to the pangs of guilt they feel about their own selfishness when they see someone else wearing one. It makes them feel ashamed. I suggest they talk to their psychiatrist about that. Because that has nothing to do with the people wearing masks:
Let's all sit and marvel for one second at these people being out there protesting for their "individual rights" outright DEMANDING that someone else remove their face covering. Because HIS choice to wear one doesn't matter. The only "rights" these people feel exist are their own. This guy shouldn't be allowed to wear a mask because it interferes with their right to feel 100% comfortable at all times. If anything pierces the bubble they have created for themselves (and you can apply this to so many things), they lose their shit. The idea that this guy has a right to wear a mask is completely alien to them. Their warped mindset sees his wearing one as a direct affront to their beliefs, even though he is only doing so to protect them from any droplets he might spray in the air. In turn, they yell in his face. This is not a "both-sides" issue. These protests are Trump rallies, and everyone knows it.
We live in the age of live video calls. There's no reason to risk your and your neighbors lives on physical contact. It says more about the people than the religion that this is apparently desirable.
https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/