https://web.archive.org/web/20200430140410/https://www.nytim...
CA got off easy, relatively speaking. Probably fewer nursing homes. It's amazing how idiotic government officials can be.
And when people were desperate for relief it was the governor that decided to ban off-label use of drugs for COVID meanwhile his brother sprang back into action fairly quick after becoming infected and taking: https://nypost.com/2020/05/20/chris-cuomo-took-less-safe-ver...
These two brothers are also not the same person, so it's entirely possible for one of them to ban something while the other still wants to use it.
You're being gaslit.
Wonder what the justification was. Hindsight 20/20 as they say, but wasn’t it known the age and various conditions that older patients might have are risk factors early on?
Sorry, but that excuse won't fly for several reasons:
1) We had sars-1 and mers earlier, both corona viruses
2) China was slow in providing info initially, but eventually they did. There's a number of papers to read online. (Same as in sars-1, where world notification was delayed from Nov. 2002 to about Mar. 2003.)
3) The CDC and other agencies are supposed to be on top of pandemics. The White House has a pandemic playbook. These are paid professionals who are supposed to have foresight, not blame hindsight.
(FYI: one of the US disease pros involved said that false alerts essentially neutered pandemic response since 2010 in this country. I empathize with that. All I can suggest is to point out that sars-1 killed thousands, and mers and sars-2 are also coronas.)
The white house HAD a pandemic playbook. They didn't use it.
An excellent case study on why overly pessimistic models not only lead to high economic cost, but also a cost in lives.
California's is not. (https://www.mercurynews.com/coronavirus-how-can-the-states-m...)
At some point the responsible thing to do is to use a more accurate model, but that's not what's happening.
Newsom plans to run for President, so it's hard to believe anything he says, doubly so with the incorrect stats available.
The only good thing I can say about the proposed rail system so far is that both San Jose and SF have "terminals" for it, so it could be built more quickly in the future.
When I was looking at the US fatal accident rate recently (about 37,000/year), what struck me was that it was basically 1 fatality per accident (ie. Americans really do drive sole occupant trips.)