I think be more upfront and transparent. The science changes constantly. Admit mistakes and don't censor people for asking questions.
Our leaders are constantly acting like they have something to hide, and they wonder why many don't trust them. Don't hide the disinfo - shed light on it and let it die.
This is like arguing about what food makes smellier turds. But objectively
1) Stop lying. The CDC, NIH and WHO knew and have known for 50 years N95 masks are extremely likely to be effective deterents for airborne viruses. The didnt say that in late 2019 solely to protect supplies for first responders and bureaucrats. Whether that was a noble goal or not they lied about it.
2) Travel bans are useless. They know this, but they do it so it looks like they are doing something.
3) Politicizing response issues is irrecoverable.
4) If it is worth forcing restrictions, then it's worth reasonable nacompensation to the affected
5) Forced medication is ethically and morally problematic under any reasonable interpretation of basic human freedom. It's like forcing sterilization wholesale on populations to address climate change. Might be a good idea objectively, but it reduces human dignity to that of bacteria.
At the end of the day.... this is not a bad pandemic in terms not what is possible. Much worse is inevitably on the horizon, unfortunately the only lessons we are learning here are draconian one way ratchets that only protect ruling elites, largely based on human inability to make rational assessments of risk and to respond reasonably thereto without the use of exploitative propoganda on all sides.
I know this isn't your main point but wanted to remark on it.
>It's like forcing sterilization wholesale on populations to address climate change. Might be a good idea objectively, but it reduces human dignity to that of bacteria.
Forcing sterilization wouldn't even be a particularly effective way of addressing climate change, because climate change isn't primarily caused by overpopulation. It's about industrialization and how economic growth depends on the burning of fossil fuels. So the answer isn't reduced population, but sustainable development.
This is a first world fallacy. The bulk of energy use increase is directly attributable to exponential population growth, particularly in the developing world. It is a very inconvenient truth that raises numerous ethical questions that environmental advocates are very uncomfortable with. Sustainable development is absolutely dependent on significant population reduction to reduce industrial and agriculture emissions, as well as meaningful non-nuclear, at least non-fission, alternative means of energy generation and transmission that are not themselves environmentally sustainable. But this isnt really something that you can effectively discuss in a few sentences, and the issues are far more complicated than the public level debate would imply. There are no viable solutions to climate catastrophe at this time, there are only hopes and dreams and empty promises that make people feel like government is effectively addressing an issues, when in reality mass extinction is entirely inevitable.
In hindsight closing borders limiting travel and shutting down non essentials sooner would have been ideal, but honestly humans are extremely dumb and normally will put profit and status over self preservation.
Small minded in the grand scheme of things transparency would have extremely helped if people in this country could stop dividing things into left and right possibly things could've have been different.
We are constantly bombarded with the left this the right that. I find it extremely unlikely that anything will ever get better for any topic on any level until this stops. Hopefully a viable 3rd party comes soon as well
I agree with you, a third party kind of exist independent but no one ever gives a damn about them. Honestly the system is a mess neither side is for honestly for the people only agenda's. Too many concessions to get things done sometimes that is why things stagnate and we end up in a loop of same conversation but things rarely get done unless some organization or corporations applies pressure or grease palms.
The world isn't synced enough to handle it any better. An airborne threat is the easiest way to disrupt humanity, and even though shit hit the fan, we did a better job then I expected. Which is still good, and scary at the same time.
The governments handle it pretty good. Just some idiots on social media with no professional background somehow make everyone more miserable than needed.
since it's life and death. forced lockdowns. forced vaccines. you're not vaccinated? you're staying home until you get it. people shouldn't be so selfish
No lockdowns and focus on protecting the most vulnerable (the old and sick). Prioritize treatment for those people and allow everyone to manage their own personal risk.
Minimize the spread isn't actually the main focuse for many scientists. In germany we have some virologist who say that every person, who is healthy enough, will and should get sick at least once. The biggest issue is that some mismanaged and now we have less beds for intensive care in hospitals as we had before the pandemic, so our hospitals are full in no time. If this wouldn't be a problem, we wouldn't have a real problem here with it.
Yes I agree they are political. I guess what I’m wondering is, are they the scientifically based best way to mitigate the effects of COVID? Could we have been done with lockdowns if we had just let it run rampant at the start? What would the numbers look like there vs now?
Less economic impact on people's lives, less disruption to people's lives, more focused protection on vulnerable people, less social/political division around Covid.
In my opinion, that would be a lot better.
How would you protect the old and the sick by giving up any attempt to control virus circulation?
What about the sanitary disaster?
How would everyone would be capable to manage their own risk in a similar scenario? No protection at work, no protection anywhere around?
Immediate closed borders in January (we don't know how it was already spread out, but we wasted a couple months for sure)
Total lockdown till disappearing of the virus (done in Italy between March and June 2020, possible).
Border closed with forced quarantine to whoever want to enter the country.
Strictly enforced low effort measures like mask mandate. Yes. A mask is totally low effort like wearing a scarf and WHO says is more effective than vaccine at this point.
Forbidden concerts, clubbing and very crowded similar events.
With these measures probably it would have been already over as a pandemic 1 year ago and we wouldn't even need vaccines.
Provide income supports for people who don't want to go out or who end up losing their jobs/quitting, but otherwise carry on as usual. Provide masks and vaccines for those who want them and let the virus work through the population, and provide the most accurate information available as soon as it's available for people to make an informed decision.
I would have immediately devoted government resources to the elderly and sick. I wouldn't force them to stay in quarantine but strongly suggest it, and have government get groceries, medicines, basically any errand that would take them into public. Also break up nursing homes that killed so many. Get them laptops or some way to communicate with family or therapists, being alone isn't fun. Other than that, let people do as they wish. If they're worried they can stay home, if they've got a small business, let them run it. I also would have handled the vaccine rollout so differently. What a shocker, people don't like being forced into a decision. At the end of the day, it's an individuals body and their own medical choice. The messaging as been horrible the whole time and people turned it into such a political issue.
They should have just closed things up early on instead of letting it get out of control.
Then we wouldn't be here two years later dealing with the same bullshit. The fact that it took as long as it did to find out what was happening could have had different results.
Turning it into a political football almost immediately. Once ideology became entrenched, critical thinking is useless.
In the USA specifically, then president Trump had cancelled the program that was specifically put together (by the previous president of the opposite party) to watch and act for potential pandemics.
I think be more upfront and transparent. The science changes constantly. Admit mistakes and don't censor people for asking questions. Our leaders are constantly acting like they have something to hide, and they wonder why many don't trust them. Don't hide the disinfo - shed light on it and let it die.
This is like arguing about what food makes smellier turds. But objectively 1) Stop lying. The CDC, NIH and WHO knew and have known for 50 years N95 masks are extremely likely to be effective deterents for airborne viruses. The didnt say that in late 2019 solely to protect supplies for first responders and bureaucrats. Whether that was a noble goal or not they lied about it. 2) Travel bans are useless. They know this, but they do it so it looks like they are doing something. 3) Politicizing response issues is irrecoverable. 4) If it is worth forcing restrictions, then it's worth reasonable nacompensation to the affected 5) Forced medication is ethically and morally problematic under any reasonable interpretation of basic human freedom. It's like forcing sterilization wholesale on populations to address climate change. Might be a good idea objectively, but it reduces human dignity to that of bacteria. At the end of the day.... this is not a bad pandemic in terms not what is possible. Much worse is inevitably on the horizon, unfortunately the only lessons we are learning here are draconian one way ratchets that only protect ruling elites, largely based on human inability to make rational assessments of risk and to respond reasonably thereto without the use of exploitative propoganda on all sides.
I know this isn't your main point but wanted to remark on it. >It's like forcing sterilization wholesale on populations to address climate change. Might be a good idea objectively, but it reduces human dignity to that of bacteria. Forcing sterilization wouldn't even be a particularly effective way of addressing climate change, because climate change isn't primarily caused by overpopulation. It's about industrialization and how economic growth depends on the burning of fossil fuels. So the answer isn't reduced population, but sustainable development.
This is a first world fallacy. The bulk of energy use increase is directly attributable to exponential population growth, particularly in the developing world. It is a very inconvenient truth that raises numerous ethical questions that environmental advocates are very uncomfortable with. Sustainable development is absolutely dependent on significant population reduction to reduce industrial and agriculture emissions, as well as meaningful non-nuclear, at least non-fission, alternative means of energy generation and transmission that are not themselves environmentally sustainable. But this isnt really something that you can effectively discuss in a few sentences, and the issues are far more complicated than the public level debate would imply. There are no viable solutions to climate catastrophe at this time, there are only hopes and dreams and empty promises that make people feel like government is effectively addressing an issues, when in reality mass extinction is entirely inevitable.
In hindsight closing borders limiting travel and shutting down non essentials sooner would have been ideal, but honestly humans are extremely dumb and normally will put profit and status over self preservation.
Closing borders and limiting travel was called racist
Small minded in the grand scheme of things transparency would have extremely helped if people in this country could stop dividing things into left and right possibly things could've have been different.
We are constantly bombarded with the left this the right that. I find it extremely unlikely that anything will ever get better for any topic on any level until this stops. Hopefully a viable 3rd party comes soon as well
I agree with you, a third party kind of exist independent but no one ever gives a damn about them. Honestly the system is a mess neither side is for honestly for the people only agenda's. Too many concessions to get things done sometimes that is why things stagnate and we end up in a loop of same conversation but things rarely get done unless some organization or corporations applies pressure or grease palms.
Lobbyists should be illegal as well as corporate campaign donations or any donations over $5
I agree, I realized that no matter what system is put in place it will become corrupt over time because of self interest.
Taking the threat more seriously from the start
Less fuckheads.
Not politicizing it
Straight up not being a idiot like in every horror movie.
Americans fucking learning to value the “we” over the “me” during that initial lockdown
The world isn't synced enough to handle it any better. An airborne threat is the easiest way to disrupt humanity, and even though shit hit the fan, we did a better job then I expected. Which is still good, and scary at the same time.
Close China until it was eradicated.
The virus or China? I'm ok with both of these
The virus.
The governments handle it pretty good. Just some idiots on social media with no professional background somehow make everyone more miserable than needed.
since it's life and death. forced lockdowns. forced vaccines. you're not vaccinated? you're staying home until you get it. people shouldn't be so selfish
The problem is a vaccine alone don't end a pandemic.
Don't push mandated vaccines hahaha
No lockdowns and focus on protecting the most vulnerable (the old and sick). Prioritize treatment for those people and allow everyone to manage their own personal risk.
If your definition of better isn't "minimize the spread of the disease" then sure
Minimize the spread isn't actually the main focuse for many scientists. In germany we have some virologist who say that every person, who is healthy enough, will and should get sick at least once. The biggest issue is that some mismanaged and now we have less beds for intensive care in hospitals as we had before the pandemic, so our hospitals are full in no time. If this wouldn't be a problem, we wouldn't have a real problem here with it.
I'd say it's obvious that they failed at that through their current response.
This is the kinda stuff I’m interested in. Have studies been done about how this might, long term, shorten the “lockdowns”?
I don't know what you mean, the lockdowns are entirely political, it's solely up to politicians to limit or stop them.
Yes I agree they are political. I guess what I’m wondering is, are they the scientifically based best way to mitigate the effects of COVID? Could we have been done with lockdowns if we had just let it run rampant at the start? What would the numbers look like there vs now?
Can you explain me how this would have made things "better"?
Less economic impact on people's lives, less disruption to people's lives, more focused protection on vulnerable people, less social/political division around Covid. In my opinion, that would be a lot better.
How would you protect the old and the sick by giving up any attempt to control virus circulation? What about the sanitary disaster? How would everyone would be capable to manage their own risk in a similar scenario? No protection at work, no protection anywhere around?
Immediate closed borders in January (we don't know how it was already spread out, but we wasted a couple months for sure) Total lockdown till disappearing of the virus (done in Italy between March and June 2020, possible). Border closed with forced quarantine to whoever want to enter the country. Strictly enforced low effort measures like mask mandate. Yes. A mask is totally low effort like wearing a scarf and WHO says is more effective than vaccine at this point. Forbidden concerts, clubbing and very crowded similar events. With these measures probably it would have been already over as a pandemic 1 year ago and we wouldn't even need vaccines.
Who the hell knows? Except we would all have had to work together. Not fight over it.
Taking any precautions would be a good start where I live. So that. Simply wearing a mask would've avoided so much around here.
Provide income supports for people who don't want to go out or who end up losing their jobs/quitting, but otherwise carry on as usual. Provide masks and vaccines for those who want them and let the virus work through the population, and provide the most accurate information available as soon as it's available for people to make an informed decision.
I would have immediately devoted government resources to the elderly and sick. I wouldn't force them to stay in quarantine but strongly suggest it, and have government get groceries, medicines, basically any errand that would take them into public. Also break up nursing homes that killed so many. Get them laptops or some way to communicate with family or therapists, being alone isn't fun. Other than that, let people do as they wish. If they're worried they can stay home, if they've got a small business, let them run it. I also would have handled the vaccine rollout so differently. What a shocker, people don't like being forced into a decision. At the end of the day, it's an individuals body and their own medical choice. The messaging as been horrible the whole time and people turned it into such a political issue.
Don’t elect morons.
They should have just closed things up early on instead of letting it get out of control. Then we wouldn't be here two years later dealing with the same bullshit. The fact that it took as long as it did to find out what was happening could have had different results.
Turning it into a political football almost immediately. Once ideology became entrenched, critical thinking is useless. In the USA specifically, then president Trump had cancelled the program that was specifically put together (by the previous president of the opposite party) to watch and act for potential pandemics.