The reality is probably closer to the fact that there isn't anything governments can do about it. They can try to shut down the borders of the country, but that is going to a lot worse and probably won't stop it anyways.
Just because governments can do something and do do something doesn't mean that that something is meaningful or will have a positive impact.
Many things are just outside of their control.
Many decisions can be taken, but are not (for various reasons). Most experts recommend to limit contacts rather than closing down borders, and no one is pretending to stop the virus but they all should try to flatten the curve. You don't seem to pay attention to the current situation.
Afaik in Germany the country's government can't force schools to close or public events to be cancelled. These decisions have to be taken locally (at state/city or even district level). All the health ministry can do is tell people "you shouldn't do A B C and you should do X Y Z"
In the places where they have shut down schools, they can't really do it either. But when government says "do X" and has good reasons, the institutions comply. I'm in the board of a private institution in a country with a shutdown order, and there was really no discussion between the board members that this institution would shut down too, despite there being no legal backing at all.
In other places there are no real consequences for you, even if people die. But there are legal and economic consequences if you shut down without top cover. That is why the government and legislative paralysis is so damaging -- with no safety net, people will prefer the unknown loss over the certain loss.
Not saying it's good or bad, but it's definitely a different system.
Denmark population: 5.6 million.
Doesn't seem like an accurate comparison.
Is there a generic term for this sort of fallacy, where someone brings up a random difference between [cities/states/countries] as an excuse for why one can't do what the other has already done, without ever bothering to explain why the difference matters?
This is almost common sense in the business world. No one thinks BigCo and LittleStartup are capable of the same things or that one's ability or inability to do something is equivalent.
> small states turn out to be better for humans
Source/examples of this? In Europe, the larger countries like the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain don't seem obviously worse off to me than their smaller counterparts. Like if you compare the UK to Ireland, Germany to Austria, Spain to Portugal, etc.
Most of the actions taken are those most likely not affecting those in the target older or immuno-compromised demographic likely to have the serious consequences.
https://omny.fm/shows/inside-the-huddle/03-dr-laura-power-on...
It's a balancing act between lowering infections/death and economic impact.
If it has, there's no point in banning incoming people (maybe you can stop people from leaving so other regions don't get infected, but that's a less strong incentive). If you already have the virus in your country, the best thing you can do is slow its spreading, by banning large groups of people from congregating.
At this point we can trust authorities to have a reasonable approach to this and that they monitor the situation closely. Or we can assume they don't.
In the first case, we follow the action plan. In the latter we do what we can, best based on actions that worked elsewhere. Just complaining about how insufficient actions are in our eyes doesn't help.
Anyway, there plans for stuff like this government drawers everywhere. Ranging from school closures to plan keeping critical infrastructure up. Heritage from the cold war.
And even if the US federal government seems to screw up, states like New York and Washington seem to react rather decisively. And we shouldn't forget that things in China are calming down to an extent ad-hoc hospitals are closed down and medical supplies can be shipped to Italy.
a) There's a time-lag of probably 1-2 weeks between someone becoming infected, until their case hits the official statistics.
b) There will be different rates of testing between different areas, healthcare systems, and countries, which will be hard to quantify.
c) There will be fundamental differences between countries (e.g. patterns of population density, quality/availability of healthcare, etc.) which mean that direct per capita comparisons (as you made) are of little value.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-12/france-cl...
States struggle to get enough masks for medical staff, diverting any for the general public doesn't seem smart. And self made masks will have so little effect that they could be detrimental if people decide to be less careful because they wear a masks.
To the other points, education about hand washing and behavior in public is the one thing governments have all done for weeks now. It just seems that this isn't nearly enough.
Now I understand the logic behind there being shortages. But saying that the general populous shouldn't wear masks because it doesn't do anything doesn't sound accurate.
Most people don't get a good fit of the mask either. Respirators are a bit easier but nowhere near enough of them.
Practically speaking all it does is burn through a small supply of masks.
Thing is, it appears that there's little overlap between actions that seem reasonable and actions that are effective. If you wait until drastic actions seem justifiable, then by that time it's too late to be effective (i.e. the Italy lockdown which would have helped Italy if it was done 2-3 weeks earlier); and if you take effective actions, then most people and media will wonder why you're so authorative and unreasonable (e.g. the reaction to early Wuhan containment measure enforcement).
So the overall cost picture is strongly in favor of early action.
The Moscow Times is currently reporting that there are 28 cases so far. We'll see how that turns out, regardless of whether they're currently telling the truth about it.
Coronavirus in Russia: The Latest News | March 12
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/03/12/coronavirus-in-rus...
>— A religious procession in central Russia aimed at fighting the coronavirus has been canceled due to the threat of the virus itself.
Apparently they believe the gay isn't the only thing you can pray away.
Trump seeks a 'miracle' as virus fears mount
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/28/politics/donald-trump-cor...
>"It's going to disappear. One day it's like a miracle, it will disappear," Trump said at the White House Thursday as the virus marched across Asia and Europe after US officials said the US should brace for severe disruption to everyday life.
>The President also warned that things could "get worse before it gets better," but he added it could "maybe go away. We'll see what happens. Nobody really knows."
Doctors in Russia are accusing the government of covering up its coronavirus outbreak and denying them protective equipment
https://www.businessinsider.nl/coronavirus-russia-doctors-sa...
>“While the whole world is facing an outbreak of a new coronavirus, Russia is facing an outbreak of a community-acquired pneumonia,” Vasilyeva said. “And as usual, we’re facing the lie of the authorities.”
>She said Russian authorities were referring to coronavirus cases as ordinary pneumonia, implying that they’re distinct from the coronavirus pandemic.
>Russian authorities strongly denied her claims. A statement from the Moscow Department of Health accused her of seeking “to discredit Russian medicine and relevant government agencies” and called for authorities to investigate her.
Coronavirus: Reported spike in pneumonia cases in Moscow as Russia accuses critics of fake news
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/coronavirus-...
>“I have a feeling they (the authorities) are lying to us,” said Anastasia Vasilyeva, head of Russia's Doctor's Alliance trade union.
>“I don't believe the coronavirus numbers,” said Ekaterina, a Moscow accountant. “I remember what they told us about Chernobyl at the time. It's only now that we're finding out what really happened.”
https://metro.co.uk/2020/01/30/russia-closes-2700-mile-borde...
They can proactively close schools, government jobs. They can roll out bailout programs to encourage business closings that would otherwise cause the businesses to go bankrupt. They can aggressively close borders, and enforce quarantines with military force. They can mandate the production of respirators, testing kits and other medical necessities.
Government can do A LOT that no other actor can, so I don't quite get where you're coming from with this statement.
And there most certainly are many things the government can do about it. How about Medicare for all people, and for all diseases?
Republicans Want Medicare for All, but Just for This One Disease. Everyone’s a socialist in a pandemic.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/opinion/coronavirus-socia...
Closing borders, certainly at this point, seems largely futile.
I've read (true, who knows?) that in the USA this isn't legally possible. Federal government doesn't have that power.
This may be behind Trump's move to stop flights only to Europe, and not domestic flights. He has the power to do the former but not the latter, apparently.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_America...
I'm not sating that it is a good idea, just that judicial review doesn't seem particularly effective.
> there isn't anything governments can do about it.
Banning public events, locking down geographical areas, closing schools, pulling in retired medical workforce etc.
> doesn't mean that that something is meaningful or will have a positive impact
You can see the impact of measures such as enforcing lockdowns (e.g. Wuhan cases) and you can compare the spread of the virus in countries which take measures vs those that do not.
This is self-evident, both due to first-order and second-order effects. How the author manages to stand it on its head is amazing. It's worth noting that approaching, or exceeding, the capacity of the medical system (or any other) drives the costs sky high by and of itself - not to mention other, unrelated cases that also need treatment. With a few weeks worth of disruption to healthcare, even mild cases of other illnesses can spiral out of control and become costly (or even deadly) on their own.
I wouldn't read too much into a country having a muted or slow response to the pandemic; it's the expected outcome of political and economical systems differing across the globe. There is always a slow country to act, and its citizens might feel entitled to the kind of far-fetched speculation the author posted.
Sounds about right. Belgium and the Netherlands aren't doing very much yet.
One interesting fact I discovered when discussing with my wife last night that I think does shape the discussion here: In the Netherlands, seasonal influenza has ~1% mortality rate -- in the U.S. it's more like 0.1%. This leads to different framings of the comparative severity of Coronavirus in the Netherlands.
(I'm not a healthcare professional nor actuarian; the following is freehand speculation)
There are two key factors. Firstly, USA is much less densely populated, with various additional compounding aspects: social stratification, with many segments of society living mostly in their own areas, and lesser dependence on mass transport. Modern technology and abundance of land allows maintaining a degree of isolation when needed.
Secondly, the healthcare system in USA vs Netherlands is tale of semi-private vs nationalized system. The former has more incentives to be proactive and minimize costs, vs the later having incentives to make a good showing, with payments being assured anyway.
On an individual basis perhaps in theory, but not on a population basis. See underinsured people afraid to go to a doctor until their condition is so bad it warrants an ER visit.
The actual numbers of the cost-effectiveness of US healthcare also shows the complete opposite of "minimizing costs" where it's twice as expensive as any other system
Yikes! If true, do you know why that is?
Three days ago the government held a special meeting about the coronavirus, in which they deliberated that people should stop shaking hands. That's all. They tell people who have come back from a high risk area and have flu symptoms NOT to call their gp and just stay home.
It's more that the Dutch seem to be extremely... relaxed, maybe a bit fatalistic, about illness. It's a "suck it up" attitude. The fact that they're so slow in taking action now doesn't surprise me.
https://www.rivm.nl/sites/default/files/2019-09/TG_123539_01...
This might actually hold given the groups that are the most at risk are probably least productive: the old and the infirm.
I for one am working towards my old age, I'd hate to be left to just die.
That word doesn't work when describing people who are no longer part of the reproducing population.
Of course I'm not saying that anyone has done those tradeoffs optimally, especially considering that those relations probably are non-linear in practice.
Self perpetuation is fundamentally based only on the implications of the strategy. If keeping elders alive past nominal utility helps spread well then it is effectively favored. Which may or may not be known ahead of time.
That said by being smarter than it we have both the ability and responsibility for the consequences for decisions to follow or defy its nudges as we can and see fit.
Caring well is always better than not caring. Unless we won't care in the green scenario either. But then, who think we won't care if we have time and resources?
And yes, I am prepared to take a hit in my earnings, paying higher taxes if needed after this if that is what it takes for at least one person more to live.
Because grandparent said they would sacrifice a realistic tax increase to save lives in the COVID-19 outbreak, the parent asked about a confiscatory 99% tax rate and asset seizure, which would be wholly unnecessary for paying for the current crisis.
I don't see how the original comment was unreasonable in asking what is the threshold where economic losses are too high. Halting all economic activity to completely stop the spread of the disease and prevent deaths amounts to a 100% taxation since you are forced to not work and generate revenue. Whether that is acceptable or not isn't my point, but asking the question isn't a fallacy
These calculations have to be made because economic impacts also have a death toll. It all comes back to saving lives in the end.
>I am prepared to take a hit in my earnings, paying higher taxes if needed after this if that is what it takes for at least one person more to live.
As a side note, you can do this any time, and unrelated to the pandemic. There are charities you can donate to to save lives if you are so inclined.
From an ethical point of view, governments owe seniors the money and care, because they had worked for state prosperity. Also, if young people had more foresight, they would realize the way seniors are treated today will be more less the way they themselves will be treated. But old age and death is a depressing topic and no one likes to dwell on it.
At least in my country, we spend radically more per-capita on healthcare for the old than we do for the young [1] simply because the old need more of it.
For men age 5-45 we spend less than £1000, for men age 80-85 we spend more than £4500. It's a similar story for women, but with a bump for women of childbearing age.
I don't see any evidence of a bias in favour of the working-age population.
This seems implausible to me. Given that the rich tend to be of rather old age themselves, I'd wager that they'd invest in preventing their own deaths
The deaths from Coronavirus are mostly not people of working age. The death rate for 50-59 is around 1%, below that it drops to 0.2%. For seniors it's as high as 20%.
If you want to be cold-blooded about it, there is certainly a case to be made for shrugging and plowing on, as that will minimize the duration of the impact (quarantines, etc) and the people who will die are mostly not economically productive.
To be even more crass - before long we will probably be in a triage situation where there are more cases than resources available to treat. There are only about 20 full-service respirators per 100k people, around 62k nationwide, and many of those are already in use (people will still get in car accidents, have strokes, get meningitis, whatever). We can't treat everybody. So who gets it? Little Timmy who has a long and productive life ahead of him, or great-aunt Susan who's 75 and barely gets around anymore?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21149215
At a first approximation there will be around 100 times as many seniors who need treatment as youngs. From a social perspective it's pretty obvious that treatment should be prioritized for those younger patients.
(reminder that not making a choice is still making a choice, whether that means treatment ends up being first-come first-serve or a financial/insurance basis. Triage sucks, but you have to prioritize your resources somehow or other, the whole problem is there is not enough treatment to go around.)