The Politics of a Health Crisis

[Griff]

He is apparently still on board. I think avoiding the President's bullshit news conferences is important because by being there he either calls him on his shit or is seen as endorsing it. We need him to keep this job. The press needs to turn down the Bad Orange Man's microphone or just report it as jazz vocals.

[Griff]

Something I'm finding interesting is that this is right in Cuomo's wheelhouse. He sticks to the facts as known, labels opinion as opinion, focuses on the actual mechanics of supply chains and rational responses. I never really liked the dude but he was built for this. He has an authoritarian streak like Trump but in this case he is guided by reason. He was talking about a "rolling response" yesterday where the equipment gathered in NY gets moved to the next hot spot when the wave crashes. He volunteered to manage that effort.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Pictures of Manilla before and after Kung Flu arrival...



Must have shut down the envelope and folder plants.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Pictures of Manilla before and after Kung Flu arrival...

Which proves it must be an pandemic created by aliens so they can find good landing pads. The invasion is coming. I heard it on Fox News. It must be true.

Trump would say that. But he has already blamed it on Chinese who did it to increase profits of protective masks and suits.

A 30 second attention spam makes it so easy to discover these things.

[Undertoad]

Australia is also short of masks and other supplies. Guess why oh you'll never guess

Chinese company shipped out millions of Australia’s masks, hand sanitiser, glove supplies

A Chinese government-backed property giant has secretly raided in bulk Australia’s supplies of masks, hand sanitiser, antibacterial wipes and essential medical supplies and shipped them back to China.

The Greenland Group, which manages high-end real estate projects in Sydney and Melbourne, proactively drained Australian supplies of anti-coronavirus equipment, The Sydney Morning Herald reported.

Three million surgical masks, 500,000 pairs of gloves and bulk supplies of sanitiser and wipes were bought up in Australia and other countries where Greenland operates.

While the bulk purchases and shipping were perfectly legitimate, the goods shipped in bulk to China include the very items that have been in short supply for Australian citizens as well as health professionals.

They were accumulated at Greenland’s Sydney headquarters and sent to China over weeks in January and February.

As coronavirus locked down Wuhan, the global Fortune 500 company put its normal work on hold and instructed staff in Australia, Canada, Turkey and elsewhere to source supplies.

A real estate management company. Three million masks. Seriously.

Happen here as well? How could it not have? I'm not saying it's why there's a shortage. But nobody was watching in January.

[Undertoad]

Yes: happened around the world as well. NY Times 3/13

The World Needs Masks. China Makes Them — But Has Been Hoarding Them.

China did not just stop selling masks — it also bought up much of the rest of the world’s supply. According to official data, China imported 56 million respirators and masks in the first week after the January lockdown of the city of Wuhan, where the coronavirus emerged.

China: the toilet paper hoarder of medical supplies. Well, I guess it went OK for them.

[tw]

Meanwhile, South Korea suffered same infection rates at that same time. South Korea leaders listened to people who come from where the work gets done. Addressed the problem in January. And do not have the problems that now exist in America.

Trump refused to admit the virus was even a threat until about March 15. And only because stock markets were crashing.

Similar pattern of bombastic leadership skills exist in Australia, UK, Italy, and Iran.

85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. 99% if they blame others (ie China).

[Clodfobble]

Boris has got it. Whether he lives or dies will no doubt dramatically affect public sentiment in the UK as to the seriousness of the pandemic. If he recovers quickly, the "it's just like the flu" crowd will be emboldened. If he dies, many who weren't taking it seriously may begin to, but I predict we'll also see a spike in conspiracy theories, a la "it's only killing conservatives," "someone infected him deliberately," "the virus was used to cover his assassination," etc.

Best case scenario, politically, is probably that he gets very, very ill, but recovers. Even in that case, there will be a lot of public resentment if he gets a ventilator when others didn't.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Boris has got it. Whether he lives or dies will no doubt dramatically affect public sentiment in the UK as to the seriousness of the pandemic.

People who come from where the work gets done and were warning about this in the UK, provided numbers from their models.

A UK model assumes a typically infected person will pass this virus on to 2.4 others. Of them, 4.4% will require hospitalization. By doing nothing (until even he was infected), models suggest that the infected would peak in mid-May. With various suppression strategies, that peak may happen in November.

Estimated ICU capacity is about 8 beds per 100,000. Numbers say Boris is unlikely to require hospitalization. But if he does, he will be a 'lucky' one who gets an ICU bed.

[Undertoad]

People who come from where the work gets done and were warning about this in the UK, provided numbers from their models.

Guess what.

Oh you'll never guess. The dude from where the work gets done decided yesterday that his models were wrong.

Dr. Neil Ferguson, the extremely influential epidemiologist behind the coronavirus model that led the United States and the United Kingdom to enact shutdown measures to combat the pandemic, has now drastically revised his estimates.

Ferguson, who leads a team of researchers at the Imperial College in London, informed members of the U.K. Parliament Wednesday that deaths in the country as a result of COVID-19 are unlikely to exceed 20,000, and in fact could be much lower, the New Scientist reported.

"There will be some areas that are extremely stressed, but we are reasonably confident — which is all we can be at the current time — that at the national level we will be within capacity," Ferguson said.

[DanaC]

But isnt that new prediction as a result of social distancing etc?

[DanaC]

Neil Ferguson at Imperial College London gave evidence today to the UK’s parliamentary select committee on science and technology as part of an inquiry into the nation’s response to the coronavirus outbreak.

He said that expected increases in National Health Service capacity and ongoing restrictions to people’s movements make him “reasonably confident” the health service can cope when the predicted peak of the epidemic arrives in two or three weeks. UK deaths from the disease are now unlikely to exceed 20,000, he said, and could be much lower.


The need for intensive care beds will get very close to capacity in some areas, but won’t be breached at a national level, said Ferguson. The projections are based on computer simulations of the virus spreading, which take into account the properties of the virus, the reduced transmission between people asked to stay at home and the capacity of hospitals, particularly intensive care units.

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article...#ixzz6HwFn6Stx


That isnt saying his model was wrong - it's suggesting reduced social contact and increased hospital capacity among other factors should bring those initial projections down - partly because of when the social controls were implemented

[Undertoad]

The New Scientist story also says it's new data from Europe that drives the change in the model

We'll see how it goes I guess!

[sexobon]

That isnt saying his model was wrong -

That's a hard sell.

Going from projecting 500K to 20K (UK deaths) is quite a disparity considering there's been no vaccine or treatment, only more pathogen information and social distancing. Something wasn't right with that earlier model even for the prevailing circumstances. Variables used in the equation were probably too low of certainty to yield statistically meaningful results and shouldn't have been employed without a disclaimer.

[DanaC]

Those initial projections were based on the information available at the time on rates of infection - and based on what we understand of how infectious the virus is - each person infected 2.5 others leading to exponential growth. We are now seeing the impact of social distancing measures in countries which are further along the path - we are also testing more so getting more data

There are many different statistical models and they are very fluid as the situation develops. One of the key factors was the potential for health systems to become overwhelmed by the speed of the disease. In some places that is happening, but these tend to be at a local rather than national level as yet.

Maybe those figures would not have been so far off the mark had so many places not gone to full or partial lockdown