I dated a guy that worked at a printing press. He got promoted to run one line. The guy before him had amazing production but he didn't maintain the line so it was down much more after. My boyfriend got so much flack for his down line so he eventually quit. The guy that ran the line into the ground eventually got fired because he did the same thing as production manager. Not soon enough apparently, the company soon closed it's doors. I didn't know this from my boyfriend, long after we stopped dating my one friend's husband, who worked at the same company told me about it.
Climate change and econemy are like that line. Seems to me that Trump is sacrificing the future for his own well being now. When you look back 20 years later to now, when the fires are burning so much of the world and the floods are drowning so much more, remember this, we had a chance to fix things... but people sacrificed the future to avoid some effort in the present. Make no mistake, climate change and the economy are irrevocably linked.
Climate change might not be able to be stopped at this point. Just saying. How willing are you to shut down the economy to 'maybe' influence the climate? I'm not trying to be obtuse, just trying to be realistic. Even if the US ratchets down, we have little influence over China, India and Russia. Not to mention the undeveloped nations that want to catch up.
Climate change can't just be stopped at a stroke, I agree - changes now will take decades to see their full effect. However, your post seems to suggest that's a reason for doing nothing, which makes no sense to me. Consider smoking as an analogy. Pretty much all smokers know now that is bad for their health, but most do nothing as a result because the immediate gratification is a stronger incentive for them than the long term benefits - even where one of those benefits may be saving their life. At an individual level that's fine, but at the level of deciding policy for a country it makes sense to discourage smoking - and the same holds true for discouraging climate change.
As for influence, the US may have a bit less influence with the rest of the world than it had a few years ago - but that influence is still considerable if it chose to use it. At the moment that influence is in the wrong direction. For instance, in the US coal is a virtually dead industry, but the fact that Trump still encourages it's use internationally makes it harder for anyone to criticize Chinese plans to build more coal fired power stations. China has recently agreed targets for its own CO2 production, as have most other countries in the world. I think those targets need to go further, but the fact that the US doesn't have such targets provides an easy cop-out for any country that doesn't want to set those for itself.
I smoke cigars (average 5 or 6 per week) and clove cigarettes (about a pack of 12 per week). Does this explain my PoV? I'm not a heavy smoker, but I'm not a non-smoker by any means. I know the risks and they don't sway my opinion and I don't blame the tobacco industry for my 'addiction'. I'm freely choosing my risk. Does this make me a moron, or am I freely choosing my own risk factors?
There is a difference between the way conservatives and liberals think in a very basic and probably fundamental way. That doesn't mean I'm against all liberal ideas. It does mean I'm more inclined to believe that people make their own choices rather than having 'evil' influences make their choices for them without their knowledge and consent.
To me, no, it doesn't explain your point of view. As I said in the previous post it's absolutely fine for individuals to take actions that someone else could class as harmful - I could think that the damage to your health should outweigh the gratification you get from smoking, but I'm not you and can't judge the benefits you get from the enjoyment, relaxation etc.
However, I do not think that decisions on a country's national policy should be left up to those sort of individual quirks. To take the analogy on smoking further, I'm quite sure that if you were president you wouldn't require everyone to smoke just because you choose to yourself. On climate change though, national policy is pushing everyone one way, even though the science on the potential damage is as clear as science is ever going to get - and most people in the US believe action should be taken.
Never thought that I would ever disagree with you on something this big but....
Are you suggesting that we should not do the right thing because others are not? Seems kinda mental to me. Not you, not saying that you are mental, kinda like the way your brain works actually, what I am saying is, think about what you are saying. Doesn't matter the rationality, mutual extinction is mutual extinction. The leader of the free world should say fuck global warming because... wait, others don't go along with us? Gonna have to work at that argument before I will endorse it. You know what? Fuck them! They have given up, like Trump, and have said, "Fuck it, we have to make this work today." And they, all of them, are sacrificing our tomorrows. All of our tomorrows. Go along with those that don't care and I believe that you are being deliberately obtuse. Two lefts don't make a right, and compounding wrongs will only fuck us for real.
I do understand, your argument seems to be though, They are going to kill the world, why should we not remain on the top of the heap until it goes down in flames? I do, from the bottom of my heart understand everything you say. What I am saying is that thinking we led the world into oblivion is like thinking, Well, you know, I didn't invent cancer, I jhst helped it along. You know that bitch was eating terribly and not taking care of herself anyway, who cares what happens to her as lkng as I can nave one more beer. Don't judge kay, it's like saying we were the smartest kid with downs syndrome. That is really wrong, truthfYpologize. Seriously, that was wrong. Just saying, the smartest kid in the cemetery doesn't win points for being a genius. They are just as dead as everyone else.
You're not only assuming that the US can make a difference, you're assuming that the average US citizen is willing to make the same sacrifices that you are. That is hopelessly naieve. Trust me. The Green New Deal is a disaster waiting to happen for the Democratic Party. Liberals need to be smart, not smug. Guilt is not a proven motivator for human behaviour. Prove that your ideas improve the average American's life and you have a winning idea. Just a suggestion from the 'other' side...
There is a distinction to be drawn between policy direction and costs. I agree the benefits and costs of any particular policy should be assessed to determine if it is worthwhile - and the weighting I would give to benefits and costs would no doubt be different to yours. However, there is I'm certain a large area of common ground between us. For instance I referred earlier to policy on coal. Currently the US is spending significant sums to prop up an expensive and failing coal industry - essentially to support a political point of view that runs directly contrary to scientific evidence. There is a very marginal argument that coal helps energy security and of course there are some short-term political benefits (such as getting campaign contributions from the coal industry and votes from those employed in it). However, for all but a tiny fraction of people, the US would be better off if money was not being thrown at supporting coal.
Even if many of the public are skeptical about the long-term impact of climate change, apart from the relatively small number that are actively climate change deniers, I would expect them to support policies that are cheaper as well as having potential benefits in mitigating climate change.
You're far too reasonable @Grond0. Too bad people like you aren't drawn to politics...
There's an interesting article today in the Times about a different kind of political divide: those between Americans who follow politics closely and those who don't. The most interesting of the findings is something that's very dear to me: while partisan Democrats' and partisan Republicans' most urgent issues are illegal immigration and campaign finance reform, respectively, most voters who don't follow politics think the most pressing issue of the country is low wages.
Never thought that I would ever disagree with you on something this big but....
Are you suggesting that we should not do the right thing because others are not? Seems kinda mental to me. Not you, not saying that you are mental, kinda like the way your brain works actually, what I am saying is, think about what you are saying. Doesn't matter the rationality, mutual extinction is mutual extinction. The leader of the free world should say fuck global warming because... wait, others don't go along with us? Gonna have to work at that argument before I will endorse it. You know what? Fuck them! They have given up, like Trump, and have said, "Fuck it, we have to make this work today." And they, all of them, are sacrificing our tomorrows. All of our tomorrows. Go along with those that don't care and I believe that you are being deliberately obtuse. Two lefts don't make a right, and compounding wrongs will only fuck us for real.
I do understand, your argument seems to be though, They are going to kill the world, why should we not remain on the top of the heap until it goes down in flames? I do, from the bottom of my heart understand everything you say. What I am saying is that thinking we led the world into oblivion is like thinking, Well, you know, I didn't invent cancer, I jhst helped it along. You know that bitch was eating terribly and not taking care of herself anyway, who cares what happens to her as lkng as I can nave one more beer. Don't judge kay, it's like saying we were the smartest kid with downs syndrome. That is really wrong, truthfYpologize. Seriously, that was wrong. Just saying, the smartest kid in the cemetery doesn't win points for being a genius. They are just as dead as everyone else.
You're not only assuming that the US can make a difference, you're assuming that the average US citizen is willing to make the same sacrifices that you are. That is hopelessly naieve. Trust me. The Green New Deal is a disaster waiting to happen for the Democratic Party. Liberals need to be smart, not smug. Guilt is not a proven motivator for human behaviour. Prove that your ideas improve the average American's life and you have a winning idea. Just a suggestion from the 'other' side...
Part of the population can't even be convinced an IMMEDIATE, obvious threat is real (COVID-19). Trying to convince them of a more long-term, not immediately recognizable one (which is is no less real) is 10x harder. Not to mention the brunt of the current consequences are being felt by the third world. But, again, this is a uniquely American problem. The rest of the world is not having this debate. And, like everything else, it's because of the "he who dies with most toys wins" hyper-capitalism that has run unchecked for decades.
The answer is education. Inform people. Don't indoctrinate them. People don't want to be 'told' what to do,. They will likely surprise you when told both sides truthfully and allowed to make a choice though. Stop lying and saying 'the rich' will pay for everything (which isn't possible) and tell the truth that we'll all have to sacrifice...
I just wanted to respond to this. First - I agree that progressives arent being entirely upfront about how we're going to pay for Climate Change. I also tend to think this issue is overblown to an extent because no one asks "But how are we going to pay for all those drone strikes?" - insert any measure of national self defense here. Leaving that aside...
I dont think it's as simple as just educating people. The required actions to prevent climate change are a zero-sum game to an extent. The money and infrastructure put into renewable energy has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere are fossil fuel industries. Those industries lobby like crazy to keep politicians on their side - and as a result, the GOP comes out opposing dealing with climate change.
Since we're more partisan that we've possibly ever been in political history - just the GOP leadership paying lipservice to anti climate change means that a meaningful number of people will *never* get behind it. That's democracy, and normally that's okay... except not dealing with Climate Change will cause untold disaster if we dont act.
This post wasnt meant to suggest I have a solution to any of this... but I strongly feel that just educating people isnt enough when there's disinformation being put out with equal zeal to save the bottom line at ExxonMobil.
Those concerned with low wages should vote Democrat and that’s even before factoring in the other benefits they’d receive
There’s a quote by a U.K. Tory MP that I can’t quite remember that basically says that the key to them staying in power is to give JUST enough to the peasants so they don’t rebel but keeping the rest
According to the article I linked above, Democrats who follow politics closely view lobbying and campaign finance issues as the most important problem to tackle, and the climate change issue is precisely why I think campaign finance reform is so critical. So long as oil industry lobbyists are pressing the GOP to block any attempt to reel in climate change so it doesn't impact those companies' profits, the GOP will ignore the scientific consensus and tell people we need to keep burning as much as possible.
A lot of problems in politics are there because lobbying gives perverse incentives to politicians. Lawmakers know that they need money to win elections, and they know that appealing to wealthy groups is their best path to power. Meanwhile, politicians who don't beg wealthy groups for money are at a disadvantage in elections, so the people who most want to fix the problem have the most trouble getting into power.
The important thing to remember about climate change and greenhouse gases is that everything makes a difference. This argument that because other countries might pollute, therefore we should just pollute is completely at odds with the science. Every bit of CO2 or CH4 that isn't emitted matters. There are tipping points where we lock the planet into some drastic changes. But there isn't some maximum where it ceases to get worse.
Frankly, it's profoundly selfish and short sighted to argue that we should do nothing. It's honestly one of the few issues where every iota of contribution matters.
In the U.K. right now, the government just voted to not give free meals to deprived children in the holidays. Tory MPs lined up this week in Parliament to say children have always been hungry, childcare “should not be nationalised” and the government won’t support bad parents, stigmatising poverty. The sums at stake are peanuts compared to the hundreds of millions spent with government minister’s friends’ for PPE that doesn’t work or the billions thrown at a privately run track and trace system that is failing miserably.
The “eat out to help out scheme” subsidised families that could afford to eat out in restaurants over the summer, essentially giving those that are already better off cheaper meals. But they won’t help the poorest who may only get one meal a day and that’s at school in term time.
The US, yesterday, recorded more COVID-19 cases than at ANY time during the pandemic. 77,000. Even with the very real advances in treatment, this is a looming disaster. It now seems inevitable we are heading towards a day with 100k. It would be tempting to call this that long-discussed "fall second-wave", but that would assume the first one ever even remotely wound down, which it didn't. I could count the non-weekend days (where numbers aren't really reported) where we have been sub-30,000 new cases since April on one hand. This is the true face of "American exceptionalism". In other words, the very idea is farcical. North Dakota and South Dakota are absolutely looking at ICU beds running out if no action is taken, and it won't be, because the Governors are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Chamber of Commerce.
Meanwhile, my gym's "plan" on this is to change their hours from open 24/7 to......closing from midnight to 5am. When literally no one besides me and maybe one other person is even in the building. But they are fully open the rest of the day, when 15x more people are on site. It's this kind of utterly meaningless (and logic defying) cosmetic half-assery that has us in this position. If you are going to close, close. I'm fine with it. But pretending making the key not work when 98% of the members are at home asleep is going to prevent anything is just asinine. The only thing this is doing is preventing someone like me (who purposefully goes late at night so as to be responsible) from doing so. Every hour past 10pm, there is less of a chance of even running into a single other person at this location. Those are the hours they have decided to "cut" to mitigate COVID-19. Ridiculous.
We pretend to take this seriously. We have never ACTUALLY taken it seriously outside New York and New Jersey, who were hit so hard they had to and learned the lesson.
They're running tons of political ads over here and they have this incredibly cheesy attack ad against Gina Ortiz Jones running over and over again. It evens ends with CGI chains forming an X over her picture.
Every time it says she wants the military to pay for transgender reassignment surgery, I'm like... yeah, I know lots of people who would benefit from better trans health care policies just like that. Those procedures aren't cosmetic; they save lives in the small percentage of trans critters who actually want them.
They're running tons of political ads over here and they have this incredibly cheesy attack ad against Gina Ortiz Jones running over and over again. It evens ends with CGI chains forming an X over her picture.
Every time it says she wants the military to pay for transgender reassignment surgery, I'm like... yeah, I know lots of people who would benefit from better trans health care policies just like that. Those procedures aren't cosmetic; they save lives in the small percentage of trans critters who actually want them.
We spend untold trillions on military ventures and hardware. But what is going to break the bank is $50,000 for gender reassignment surgery?? GTFO. The shit fake fiscal conservatives complain about in regards to spending is almost always a single drop of rain in an ocean. Lockheed Martin and Raytheon are the issue, not transgender soldiers asking for healthcare procedures. Of course, that assumes the objection has anything to do with money, which it, of course, doesn't.
I noted the other day that I thought that US influence was less internationally than it had been. That's mainly down to the spill-over from the behavior of Trump himself being perceived as something of a rogue.
This article is based on an international survey of attitudes by Pew Research in 13 countries that are traditional allies of the US - something they've been doing in this form for 20 years. This shows a decline in how people view the US generally, which seems to be driven by how Trump is regarded. In response to a question as to whether people have confidence in Trump to "do the right thing regarding world affairs" he scored 16% - lower than either Putin or Xi.
The fact that he once again said we were "turning the corner" and 24 hours later we have the first day with 80,000 reported cases is just mind-blowing at this point. As I saw someone mention today, if Trump were 5-10% less repulsive as a human, had simply pushed for an actual second stimulus, and taken even a MODICUM of responsibility for the situation, the polls would probably be inverted right now. He couldn't do any of it.
The fact that he once again said we were "turning the corner" and 24 hours later we have the first day with 80,000 reported cases is just mind-blowing at this point. As I saw someone mention today, if Trump were 5-10% less repulsive as a human, had simply pushed for an actual second stimulus, and taken even a MODICUM of responsibility for the situation, the polls would probably be inverted right now. He couldn't do any of it.
I agree this is likely to have had a significant effect on the presidential race. The Pew research I referenced earlier has some insight on this. Here's a graph from that research showing how other countries regard the way the US has managed the epidemic - the highest score among the 13 countries is 20% .
Contrast that with the way countries feel they have managed themselves - there are a number of countries in the high 80s and 90s. To some degree that represents other countries that have been more successful at mitigating the virus, but I think at least as much of the effect is whether citizens think their country has had a coherent narrative and done their best. For instance Italy and Sweden are not that far off the US in terms of the impact of the virus, but are still getting scores in the 70s. That's despite the fact they've taken very different approaches - Italy was hit hard early on and responded with very strict regulations, while Sweden has been the most laissez faire of the European countries - taking an approach much closer to that advocated by many in the US. In both cases though, the countries have been clear about what they were trying to do and not constantly given out misleading information about what was actually happening.
The UK is bottom of the 13 in how well the virus has been managed - with 46%. While I think it's correct that the UK, at a national level, has better managed things than the US, the relatively low score reflects some of the same issues. For instance Johnson has been, in many people's view, regularly over-optimistic about future prospects and that leads to disillusionment when the rosy picture fails to appear. He's still talking up now the prospects for a 'normal' Christmas, but it's hard to see that coming about. A strict lockdown for a number of weeks now could potentially allow restrictions to be lifted over the holiday period (followed by another lockdown), but that's not his plan.
The messaging in the U.K. has been all over the place - go back to work or lose your job but don’t go out unnecessarily, stay away from crowded places but here are some vouchers for half price restaurant meals, everyone needs to take personal responsibility for not going out whilst having the virus unless you are a senior government adviser and want to visit a local beauty spot on your wife’s birthday and follow the science until the government disagrees with it.
There’s been a marked lack of honesty and transparency from the government compared to other countries. Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish leader, has given clear explanations, publicly weighed tough and competing objectives and apologised for mistakes. Johnson is incapable of anything approaching leadership. This has cost lives and livelihoods.
Johnson is a libertarian but it turns out that he doesn’t apply this to others, you just can’t tell him what to do. He also sees the job of PM as a sort of lazy figurehead. Don’t expect more than a three word slogan. He consistently fails to recall the details of his own lockdown rules.
He is now torn between the right wing anti face nappy brigade who say keep everything open and everyone else who sees the need for a balance between health and the economy. It looks like the anti face nappy brigade are winning and it’s funny how many Labour areas have been forced into lockdown whilst Tory areas with similar infection rates are not. And how greater financial support packages were only rolled out when greater restrictions were imposed in London.
Basically England is the only country that is not imposing a circuit breaker lockdown over the school holidays and only children in England won’t get free meals over the half term break, Wales and Scotland are doing this. You’d think the English nationalists would be hopping mad that only English kids will go hungry but hey we have to stop refugees, protect statues of slave traders and get worked up about the songs sung at The Proms as a priority.
I am staggered at the number of people that still support this government and would be fascinated if any exist that are not rabid Brexiters.
The government had one job over the summer lockdown, get a workable track and trace program going (we were promised one that was “world beating”, why the need for completion, a good one is fine), like with everything else they distrusted local expertise and autonomy and bunged billions at their private sector cronies with entirely predictable results. According to the head of NHS (actually the private company Serco) Track and Trace system an increase in cases after lockdown, as people were urged back to work and restaurants, and as we head into winter, could not have been predicted ...
It's ridiculous how quickly the phrase "contact tracing" just disappeared from the lexicon in the US, as if lockdowns were the only thing recommended. Experts said from the beginning you can't beat the virus without robust testing and tracing. We not only don't have that, we STILL have a President who is (no hyperbole) ANTI-TESTING and has said on a dozen occasions that if we didn't test as much, the cases wouldn't actually exist, as if the test itself creates the virus.
It takes a special level of stupid to not understand that asymptomatic carriers are FAR more likey to pass on the virus if they don't know they have it. This is how South Korea and New Zealand basically eliminated the damn thing, to the extent that is humanly possible.
It's ridiculous how quickly the phrase "contact tracing" just disappeared from the lexicon in the US, as if lockdowns were the only thing recommended. Experts said from the beginning you can't beat the virus without robust testing and tracing. We not only don't have that, we STILL have a President who is (no hyperbole) ANTI-TESTING and has said on a dozen occasions that if we didn't test as much, the cases wouldn't actually exist, as if the test itself creates the virus.
It takes a special level of stupid to not understand that asymptomatic carriers are FAR more likey to pass on the virus if they don't know they have it. This is how South Korea and New Zealand basically eliminated the damn thing, to the extent that is humanly possible.
My guess is that testing and tracing was deemed too expensive or not as effective as portrayed, so not worth it. The states can do it themselves, but most aren't. There must be a reason for that. We're not privy to some bit of vital data, or else there are conclusions that are suspected but need to be 'proven' before release to the general public. Regardless, I think we'd be much better off if this virus hadn't become so political. Can't believe anything about it anymore...
It's ridiculous how quickly the phrase "contact tracing" just disappeared from the lexicon in the US, as if lockdowns were the only thing recommended. Experts said from the beginning you can't beat the virus without robust testing and tracing. We not only don't have that, we STILL have a President who is (no hyperbole) ANTI-TESTING and has said on a dozen occasions that if we didn't test as much, the cases wouldn't actually exist, as if the test itself creates the virus.
It takes a special level of stupid to not understand that asymptomatic carriers are FAR more likey to pass on the virus if they don't know they have it. This is how South Korea and New Zealand basically eliminated the damn thing, to the extent that is humanly possible.
My guess is that testing and tracing was deemed too expensive or not as effective as portrayed, so not worth it. The states can do it themselves, but most aren't. There must be a reason for that. We're not privy to some bit of vital data, or else there are conclusions that are suspected but need to be 'proven' before release to the general public. Regardless, I think we'd be much better off if this virus hadn't become so political. Can't believe anything about it anymore...
Testing & tracing only works well with low numbers, so you really need to use restrictions first to keep/beat the virus down to the point you can then manage it. The UK briefly just about got to that point, but the tracing regime wasn't sufficiently good and numbers rose again when restrictions were relaxed. In the US as a whole I don't think numbers have ever been sufficiently low to make test and trace viable on its own - even if good systems were in place.
During October, not only have diagnosed cases been rising in the US, but the positivity rate for tests has been rising as well - indicating that the disease is growing faster than the testing rate, i.e. the true number of positive cases is rising even more quickly than the basic published figures indicate.
It's ridiculous how quickly the phrase "contact tracing" just disappeared from the lexicon in the US, as if lockdowns were the only thing recommended. Experts said from the beginning you can't beat the virus without robust testing and tracing. We not only don't have that, we STILL have a President who is (no hyperbole) ANTI-TESTING and has said on a dozen occasions that if we didn't test as much, the cases wouldn't actually exist, as if the test itself creates the virus.
It takes a special level of stupid to not understand that asymptomatic carriers are FAR more likey to pass on the virus if they don't know they have it. This is how South Korea and New Zealand basically eliminated the damn thing, to the extent that is humanly possible.
My guess is that testing and tracing was deemed too expensive or not as effective as portrayed, so not worth it. The states can do it themselves, but most aren't. There must be a reason for that. We're not privy to some bit of vital data, or else there are conclusions that are suspected but need to be 'proven' before release to the general public. Regardless, I think we'd be much better off if this virus hadn't become so political. Can't believe anything about it anymore...
Testing & tracing only works well with low numbers, so you really need to use restrictions first to keep/beat the virus down to the point you can then manage it. The UK briefly just about got to that point, but the tracing regime wasn't sufficiently good and numbers rose again when restrictions were relaxed. In the US as a whole I don't think numbers have ever been sufficiently low to make test and trace viable on its own - even if good systems were in place.
During October, not only have diagnosed cases been rising in the US, but the positivity rate for tests has been rising as well - indicating that the disease is growing faster than the testing rate, i.e. the true number of positive cases is rising even more quickly than the basic published figures indicate.
Good points. I also wonder why the virus isn't raging through Africa. Is it just not being reported, or is there some other factor at play? I would have thought Africa would be hard hit, if not the hardest hit continent just due to economic issues alone. I also don't believe the China numbers are due solely to government response. There's something we're not seeing there too. Maybe you have some insight into China that I haven't seen? You seem pretty well informed and get your info from different sources than I do.
It's ridiculous how quickly the phrase "contact tracing" just disappeared from the lexicon in the US, as if lockdowns were the only thing recommended. Experts said from the beginning you can't beat the virus without robust testing and tracing. We not only don't have that, we STILL have a President who is (no hyperbole) ANTI-TESTING and has said on a dozen occasions that if we didn't test as much, the cases wouldn't actually exist, as if the test itself creates the virus.
It takes a special level of stupid to not understand that asymptomatic carriers are FAR more likey to pass on the virus if they don't know they have it. This is how South Korea and New Zealand basically eliminated the damn thing, to the extent that is humanly possible.
My guess is that testing and tracing was deemed too expensive or not as effective as portrayed, so not worth it. The states can do it themselves, but most aren't. There must be a reason for that. We're not privy to some bit of vital data, or else there are conclusions that are suspected but need to be 'proven' before release to the general public. Regardless, I think we'd be much better off if this virus hadn't become so political. Can't believe anything about it anymore...
Testing & tracing only works well with low numbers, so you really need to use restrictions first to keep/beat the virus down to the point you can then manage it. The UK briefly just about got to that point, but the tracing regime wasn't sufficiently good and numbers rose again when restrictions were relaxed. In the US as a whole I don't think numbers have ever been sufficiently low to make test and trace viable on its own - even if good systems were in place.
During October, not only have diagnosed cases been rising in the US, but the positivity rate for tests has been rising as well - indicating that the disease is growing faster than the testing rate, i.e. the true number of positive cases is rising even more quickly than the basic published figures indicate.
Good points. I also wonder why the virus isn't raging through Africa. Is it just not being reported, or is there some other factor at play? I would have thought Africa would be hard hit, if not the hardest hit continent just due to economic issues alone. I also don't believe the China numbers are due solely to government response. There's something we're not seeing there too. Maybe you have some insight into China that I haven't seen? You seem pretty well informed and get your info from different sources than I do.
I've been willing to stipulate that China's numbers may be manipulated from the beginning. But even if China's numbers are being deflated 10x over, they are still nowhere close to where we are.
It's ridiculous how quickly the phrase "contact tracing" just disappeared from the lexicon in the US, as if lockdowns were the only thing recommended. Experts said from the beginning you can't beat the virus without robust testing and tracing. We not only don't have that, we STILL have a President who is (no hyperbole) ANTI-TESTING and has said on a dozen occasions that if we didn't test as much, the cases wouldn't actually exist, as if the test itself creates the virus.
It takes a special level of stupid to not understand that asymptomatic carriers are FAR more likey to pass on the virus if they don't know they have it. This is how South Korea and New Zealand basically eliminated the damn thing, to the extent that is humanly possible.
My guess is that testing and tracing was deemed too expensive or not as effective as portrayed, so not worth it. The states can do it themselves, but most aren't. There must be a reason for that. We're not privy to some bit of vital data, or else there are conclusions that are suspected but need to be 'proven' before release to the general public. Regardless, I think we'd be much better off if this virus hadn't become so political. Can't believe anything about it anymore...
Testing & tracing only works well with low numbers, so you really need to use restrictions first to keep/beat the virus down to the point you can then manage it. The UK briefly just about got to that point, but the tracing regime wasn't sufficiently good and numbers rose again when restrictions were relaxed. In the US as a whole I don't think numbers have ever been sufficiently low to make test and trace viable on its own - even if good systems were in place.
During October, not only have diagnosed cases been rising in the US, but the positivity rate for tests has been rising as well - indicating that the disease is growing faster than the testing rate, i.e. the true number of positive cases is rising even more quickly than the basic published figures indicate.
Good points. I also wonder why the virus isn't raging through Africa. Is it just not being reported, or is there some other factor at play? I would have thought Africa would be hard hit, if not the hardest hit continent just due to economic issues alone. I also don't believe the China numbers are due solely to government response. There's something we're not seeing there too. Maybe you have some insight into China that I haven't seen? You seem pretty well informed and get your info from different sources than I do.
I've been willing to stipulate that China's numbers may be manipulated from the beginning. But even if China's numbers are being deflated 10x over, they are still nowhere close to where we are.
But why? Is it just the better government response, more pliable population, or is there something else going on? Is there a genetic factor that's not being reported? Months ago I read a scientific article that claimed there may be a genetic factor in play with East Asians being more resistant to Covid-19 but I've heard crickets since...
Edit: I've also been hearing nothing about the viability of the Chinese and Russian vaccines. There should be some statistics about how well they work by now, but again, crickets. Very strange...
I do believe the Chinese numbers. It's pretty clear that social distancing works - that was very apparent in the UK when a runaway epidemic (numbers doubling every 2-3 days) was arrested from day 1 of a full lockdown. Keeping severe restrictions in place is not easy, but the Chinese don't have the same need to worry about a democratic outcry as western countries and they did introduce very severe restrictions there once the outbreak became apparent in order to reduce the numbers to a trickle.
The Chinese have relied, since that first lockdown, essentially on test & trace allied to basic precautions such as facemasks - with just the occasional dose of stronger medicine as required. Just how much more seriously they take this strategy than the US has been shown several times over the last few months. For instance in October they had what, by the standards of the US, would be a tiny cluster of cases in Qingdao - but they were concerned it might have been large enough to have got into the community and then be able to spread as a result of asymptomatic cases. Their response was to test the entire city - doing over 2 million tests a day there (just to put that into context that's doing more tests in one city than are currently being done in the entire US).
I need to go now, but will respond on Africa tomorrow if no-one else does.
I know the initial lockdown in South Africa was brutal (and included a total ban on the sale of alcohol) but this article shows very surprising stats from S.A. and raises some perplexing questions regarding the whole continent: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-53998374
I know the initial lockdown in South Africa was brutal (and included a total ban on the sale of alcohol) but this article shows very surprising stats from S.A. and raises some perplexing questions regarding the whole continent: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-53998374
Great article! As a scientist I really hate unresolved mysteries. This virus has been an enigma. Too bad those blood samples were compromised. That could have been useful data. The 'other' coronavirus exposure was also a consideration in an article I read where they were brainstorming why Vietnamese seemed to have higher resistance to Covid-19.
Lisa Murkowsi has now gone back on her word and will support confirming Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. This is pretty much the final straw on the camel's back, breaking the legitimacy of the court for a generation or more. ACB will be placed into the SCOTUS within a week because McConnell wants a fast hearing.
I hope the Democrats win big enough to tear the whole system down. They cannot afford to play by any norms when the GOP has decided to ruin a whole branch of governance. It doesnt matter where we'll end up in 20 years any more because the GOP will continue to destroy norm after norm until they're permanently in power.
Lisa Murkowsi has now gone back on her word and will support confirming Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. This is pretty much the final straw on the camel's back, breaking the legitimacy of the court for a generation or more. ACB will be placed into the SCOTUS within a week because McConnell wants a fast hearing.
I hope the Democrats win big enough to tear the whole system down. They cannot afford to play by any norms when the GOP has decided to ruin a whole branch of governance. It doesnt matter where we'll end up in 20 years any more because the GOP will continue to destroy norm after norm until they're permanently in power.
Go big or go home.
A 6-3 court under these circumstances means any Democratic Administration will be nothing but a finger in a dam for 4 years. There is likely no meaningful legislation that won't be struck down by this court along partisan lines minus Roberts, who now doesn't really matter.
If Democrats get back the Senate on this, I firmly believe they are going to impeach Kavanagh for lying under oath and add two more Supreme Court positions having it at a 6-5 split depending on the Kavanagh outcome. Then they can pass legislation that prohibits the Supreme Court from increasing pass 11 positions and prohibiting a Supreme Court Justice nomination within 12 months of an presidential election.
Republicans and right wing media will huff and puff at this, but quite frankly, who cares. And if it takes 4 years or 8 years or 16 years, it will get done.
If Democrats get back the Senate on this, I firmly believe they are going to impeach Kavanagh for lying under oath and add two more Supreme Court positions having it at a 6-5 split depending on the Kavanagh outcome. Then they can pass legislation that prohibits the Supreme Court from increasing pass 11 positions and prohibiting a Supreme Court Justice nomination within 12 months of an presidential election.
Republicans and right wing media will huff and puff at this, but quite frankly, who cares. And if it takes 4 years or 8 years or 16 years, it will get done.
I agree with everything except impeaching Kavanaugh (which I think is too politically motivating to the other side). Take back what was stolen, and then make sure NEITHER side can ever do this again. Unfortunately, legislation may not be sufficient or even applicable here. It may have to be a constitutional amendment.
@Balrog99 in relation to Covid-19 in Africa, there are a number of potential explanations for the low death rate and no-one seems sure of the impact from each of these. The far younger population is certainly a big part of it and under-reporting of disease is also likely to be a part of the explanation (though an examination of excess death rate makes it clear this is not the major cause). Genetic differences or pre-exposure to other similar diseases, providing some partial immunity, are other possible factors that you've mentioned. Those may have had a marginal impact, but there are plenty of other reasons that have been advanced as well - see this BBC report for instance. Here's a more recent and detailed report in the FT or have a look at this article from the Independent explaining that African countries just took the disease more seriously than most developed countries.
Although there are novel features about how the virus works that are not yet fully understood, there's nothing magical about it. Experience has shown that the disease can be controlled if people are willing to take appropriate precautions against it. Doing that carries its own costs though and I think there may have been a certain amount of relaxation in Africa in the last month or two (as in some other parts of the world). While Africa has certainly been affected far less to date than was initially feared, that doesn't mean there's not still the potential for things to get much worse - there have been some worrying increases in Covid-19 in some African countries recently.
Comments
You're far too reasonable @Grond0. Too bad people like you aren't drawn to politics...
I just wanted to respond to this. First - I agree that progressives arent being entirely upfront about how we're going to pay for Climate Change. I also tend to think this issue is overblown to an extent because no one asks "But how are we going to pay for all those drone strikes?" - insert any measure of national self defense here. Leaving that aside...
I dont think it's as simple as just educating people. The required actions to prevent climate change are a zero-sum game to an extent. The money and infrastructure put into renewable energy has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere are fossil fuel industries. Those industries lobby like crazy to keep politicians on their side - and as a result, the GOP comes out opposing dealing with climate change.
Since we're more partisan that we've possibly ever been in political history - just the GOP leadership paying lipservice to anti climate change means that a meaningful number of people will *never* get behind it. That's democracy, and normally that's okay... except not dealing with Climate Change will cause untold disaster if we dont act.
This post wasnt meant to suggest I have a solution to any of this... but I strongly feel that just educating people isnt enough when there's disinformation being put out with equal zeal to save the bottom line at ExxonMobil.
There’s a quote by a U.K. Tory MP that I can’t quite remember that basically says that the key to them staying in power is to give JUST enough to the peasants so they don’t rebel but keeping the rest
A lot of problems in politics are there because lobbying gives perverse incentives to politicians. Lawmakers know that they need money to win elections, and they know that appealing to wealthy groups is their best path to power. Meanwhile, politicians who don't beg wealthy groups for money are at a disadvantage in elections, so the people who most want to fix the problem have the most trouble getting into power.
Frankly, it's profoundly selfish and short sighted to argue that we should do nothing. It's honestly one of the few issues where every iota of contribution matters.
The “eat out to help out scheme” subsidised families that could afford to eat out in restaurants over the summer, essentially giving those that are already better off cheaper meals. But they won’t help the poorest who may only get one meal a day and that’s at school in term time.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/oct/23/free-school-meals-200-children-authors-condemn-government-rashford
Meanwhile, my gym's "plan" on this is to change their hours from open 24/7 to......closing from midnight to 5am. When literally no one besides me and maybe one other person is even in the building. But they are fully open the rest of the day, when 15x more people are on site. It's this kind of utterly meaningless (and logic defying) cosmetic half-assery that has us in this position. If you are going to close, close. I'm fine with it. But pretending making the key not work when 98% of the members are at home asleep is going to prevent anything is just asinine. The only thing this is doing is preventing someone like me (who purposefully goes late at night so as to be responsible) from doing so. Every hour past 10pm, there is less of a chance of even running into a single other person at this location. Those are the hours they have decided to "cut" to mitigate COVID-19. Ridiculous.
We pretend to take this seriously. We have never ACTUALLY taken it seriously outside New York and New Jersey, who were hit so hard they had to and learned the lesson.
Every time it says she wants the military to pay for transgender reassignment surgery, I'm like... yeah, I know lots of people who would benefit from better trans health care policies just like that. Those procedures aren't cosmetic; they save lives in the small percentage of trans critters who actually want them.
We spend untold trillions on military ventures and hardware. But what is going to break the bank is $50,000 for gender reassignment surgery?? GTFO. The shit fake fiscal conservatives complain about in regards to spending is almost always a single drop of rain in an ocean. Lockheed Martin and Raytheon are the issue, not transgender soldiers asking for healthcare procedures. Of course, that assumes the objection has anything to do with money, which it, of course, doesn't.
This article is based on an international survey of attitudes by Pew Research in 13 countries that are traditional allies of the US - something they've been doing in this form for 20 years. This shows a decline in how people view the US generally, which seems to be driven by how Trump is regarded. In response to a question as to whether people have confidence in Trump to "do the right thing regarding world affairs" he scored 16% - lower than either Putin or Xi.
The fact that he once again said we were "turning the corner" and 24 hours later we have the first day with 80,000 reported cases is just mind-blowing at this point. As I saw someone mention today, if Trump were 5-10% less repulsive as a human, had simply pushed for an actual second stimulus, and taken even a MODICUM of responsibility for the situation, the polls would probably be inverted right now. He couldn't do any of it.
I agree this is likely to have had a significant effect on the presidential race. The Pew research I referenced earlier has some insight on this. Here's a graph from that research showing how other countries regard the way the US has managed the epidemic - the highest score among the 13 countries is 20%
Contrast that with the way countries feel they have managed themselves - there are a number of countries in the high 80s and 90s. To some degree that represents other countries that have been more successful at mitigating the virus, but I think at least as much of the effect is whether citizens think their country has had a coherent narrative and done their best. For instance Italy and Sweden are not that far off the US in terms of the impact of the virus, but are still getting scores in the 70s. That's despite the fact they've taken very different approaches - Italy was hit hard early on and responded with very strict regulations, while Sweden has been the most laissez faire of the European countries - taking an approach much closer to that advocated by many in the US. In both cases though, the countries have been clear about what they were trying to do and not constantly given out misleading information about what was actually happening.
The UK is bottom of the 13 in how well the virus has been managed - with 46%. While I think it's correct that the UK, at a national level, has better managed things than the US, the relatively low score reflects some of the same issues. For instance Johnson has been, in many people's view, regularly over-optimistic about future prospects and that leads to disillusionment when the rosy picture fails to appear. He's still talking up now the prospects for a 'normal' Christmas, but it's hard to see that coming about. A strict lockdown for a number of weeks now could potentially allow restrictions to be lifted over the holiday period (followed by another lockdown), but that's not his plan.
There’s been a marked lack of honesty and transparency from the government compared to other countries. Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish leader, has given clear explanations, publicly weighed tough and competing objectives and apologised for mistakes. Johnson is incapable of anything approaching leadership. This has cost lives and livelihoods.
Johnson is a libertarian but it turns out that he doesn’t apply this to others, you just can’t tell him what to do. He also sees the job of PM as a sort of lazy figurehead. Don’t expect more than a three word slogan. He consistently fails to recall the details of his own lockdown rules.
He is now torn between the right wing anti face nappy brigade who say keep everything open and everyone else who sees the need for a balance between health and the economy. It looks like the anti face nappy brigade are winning and it’s funny how many Labour areas have been forced into lockdown whilst Tory areas with similar infection rates are not. And how greater financial support packages were only rolled out when greater restrictions were imposed in London.
Basically England is the only country that is not imposing a circuit breaker lockdown over the school holidays and only children in England won’t get free meals over the half term break, Wales and Scotland are doing this. You’d think the English nationalists would be hopping mad that only English kids will go hungry but hey we have to stop refugees, protect statues of slave traders and get worked up about the songs sung at The Proms as a priority.
I am staggered at the number of people that still support this government and would be fascinated if any exist that are not rabid Brexiters.
The government had one job over the summer lockdown, get a workable track and trace program going (we were promised one that was “world beating”, why the need for completion, a good one is fine), like with everything else they distrusted local expertise and autonomy and bunged billions at their private sector cronies with entirely predictable results. According to the head of NHS (actually the private company Serco) Track and Trace system an increase in cases after lockdown, as people were urged back to work and restaurants, and as we head into winter, could not have been predicted ...
It takes a special level of stupid to not understand that asymptomatic carriers are FAR more likey to pass on the virus if they don't know they have it. This is how South Korea and New Zealand basically eliminated the damn thing, to the extent that is humanly possible.
My guess is that testing and tracing was deemed too expensive or not as effective as portrayed, so not worth it. The states can do it themselves, but most aren't. There must be a reason for that. We're not privy to some bit of vital data, or else there are conclusions that are suspected but need to be 'proven' before release to the general public. Regardless, I think we'd be much better off if this virus hadn't become so political. Can't believe anything about it anymore...
Testing & tracing only works well with low numbers, so you really need to use restrictions first to keep/beat the virus down to the point you can then manage it. The UK briefly just about got to that point, but the tracing regime wasn't sufficiently good and numbers rose again when restrictions were relaxed. In the US as a whole I don't think numbers have ever been sufficiently low to make test and trace viable on its own - even if good systems were in place.
During October, not only have diagnosed cases been rising in the US, but the positivity rate for tests has been rising as well - indicating that the disease is growing faster than the testing rate, i.e. the true number of positive cases is rising even more quickly than the basic published figures indicate.
Good points. I also wonder why the virus isn't raging through Africa. Is it just not being reported, or is there some other factor at play? I would have thought Africa would be hard hit, if not the hardest hit continent just due to economic issues alone. I also don't believe the China numbers are due solely to government response. There's something we're not seeing there too. Maybe you have some insight into China that I haven't seen? You seem pretty well informed and get your info from different sources than I do.
I've been willing to stipulate that China's numbers may be manipulated from the beginning. But even if China's numbers are being deflated 10x over, they are still nowhere close to where we are.
But why? Is it just the better government response, more pliable population, or is there something else going on? Is there a genetic factor that's not being reported? Months ago I read a scientific article that claimed there may be a genetic factor in play with East Asians being more resistant to Covid-19 but I've heard crickets since...
Edit: I've also been hearing nothing about the viability of the Chinese and Russian vaccines. There should be some statistics about how well they work by now, but again, crickets. Very strange...
The Chinese have relied, since that first lockdown, essentially on test & trace allied to basic precautions such as facemasks - with just the occasional dose of stronger medicine as required. Just how much more seriously they take this strategy than the US has been shown several times over the last few months. For instance in October they had what, by the standards of the US, would be a tiny cluster of cases in Qingdao - but they were concerned it might have been large enough to have got into the community and then be able to spread as a result of asymptomatic cases. Their response was to test the entire city - doing over 2 million tests a day there (just to put that into context that's doing more tests in one city than are currently being done in the entire US).
I need to go now, but will respond on Africa tomorrow if no-one else does.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-53998374
Great article! As a scientist I really hate unresolved mysteries. This virus has been an enigma. Too bad those blood samples were compromised. That could have been useful data. The 'other' coronavirus exposure was also a consideration in an article I read where they were brainstorming why Vietnamese seemed to have higher resistance to Covid-19.
I hope the Democrats win big enough to tear the whole system down. They cannot afford to play by any norms when the GOP has decided to ruin a whole branch of governance. It doesnt matter where we'll end up in 20 years any more because the GOP will continue to destroy norm after norm until they're permanently in power.
Go big or go home.
A 6-3 court under these circumstances means any Democratic Administration will be nothing but a finger in a dam for 4 years. There is likely no meaningful legislation that won't be struck down by this court along partisan lines minus Roberts, who now doesn't really matter.
Republicans and right wing media will huff and puff at this, but quite frankly, who cares. And if it takes 4 years or 8 years or 16 years, it will get done.
I agree with everything except impeaching Kavanaugh (which I think is too politically motivating to the other side). Take back what was stolen, and then make sure NEITHER side can ever do this again. Unfortunately, legislation may not be sufficient or even applicable here. It may have to be a constitutional amendment.
Although there are novel features about how the virus works that are not yet fully understood, there's nothing magical about it. Experience has shown that the disease can be controlled if people are willing to take appropriate precautions against it. Doing that carries its own costs though and I think there may have been a certain amount of relaxation in Africa in the last month or two (as in some other parts of the world). While Africa has certainly been affected far less to date than was initially feared, that doesn't mean there's not still the potential for things to get much worse - there have been some worrying increases in Covid-19 in some African countries recently.