The experts are f* this up and it is going to have long term implications for already eroded public trust in institutions.
(1) Widespread testing is key. Testing symptomatic people is too little, too late. (2) You can't rely on people to self-quarantine. (3) Infected people need to be isolated from their households.
So now we have a massive, economy-strangling quarantine that is not even going to provide any relief, killing the economy and still not flattening the curve. All the pain with none of the benefit.
Anything I’ve read indicates China screwed up at almost every step only to have to do what the rest of the world is being forced to do now. Axios did a good timeline that leads me to believe the Chinese aren’t that special and if anything their government acted in such a way that doomed the rest of the world.
https://www.axios.com/timeline-the-early-days-of-chinas-coro...
Which country managed to get it under control it its own house since that date?
Maybe they are effective - it remains to be seen in an internationally vetted way. And they also had an opportunity to disseminate globally that they had doctors reporting issues, but instead they maintained until at least the middle of January (this started in November) that human-to-human transmission wasn't documented.
Nothing they say inspires confidence given their history and current actions, especially when it's ostensibly at odds with the experiences of almost the entire rest of the world with higher living standards and more uniformly modern systems.
Increasingly as time goes on, I have a harder time believing this is anything other than another shooting the messenger, Chernobyl-style event from an oppressive, information-deprived regime.
Watch one of the now-daily press conferences and you'll see Dr. Fauci trying to gently (so he doesn't get fired) correct inaccurate information from the President, in real-time from the same room.
Take a look at this editorial written by John Ioannidis. Excerpt that is relevant, though the whole thing is a worthwhile read:
>If COVID-19 is not as grave as it is depicted, high evidence standards are equally relevant. Exaggeration and over-reaction may seriously damage the reputation of science, public health, media, and policy makers. It may foster disbelief that will jeopardize the prospects of an appropriately strong response if and when a more major pandemic strikes in the future. [0]
Quick BIO rip from wikipedia:
>Ioannidis studies scientific research itself, especially in clinical medicine and the social sciences. He is one of the most-cited scientists in literature. His 2005 paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" is the most downloaded paper in the Public Library of Science, and has the highest number of Mendeley readers across all science."
>Ioannidis is a Professor of Medicine, of Health Research and Policy and of Biomedical Data Science, at Stanford University School of Medicine and a Professor of Statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences. He is director of the Stanford Prevention Research Center, and co-director, along with Steven N. Goodman, of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS). He is also the editor-in-chief of the European Journal of Clinical Investigation. He was chairman at the Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine as well as adjunct professor at Tufts University School of Medicine.
[0] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/eci.13222
Some of them still are. Bolsonaro went on TV to downplay the virus and is actively trying to reduce state agency because state governors aren't waiting on the federal government to protect their citizens.
It's worth reading [the rebuttal that followed][1] (as long as we're doing credentials: "Marc Lipsitch, D.Phil., is professor of epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and director of Harvard’s Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics."):
It agrees that the basic lack of good information is a failing and also certainly creates risk. But we have seen at least twice now the outcomes of doing nothing or almost nothing:
> First, the number of severe cases — the product of these two unknowns — becomes fearsome in country after country if the infection is allowed to spread.
> So acting before the crisis hits — as was done in some Chinese cities outside Wuhan, and in some of the small towns in Northern Italy — is essential to prevent a health system overload.
There are clearly no truly good choices available right now.
---
[0]:https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-a...
[1]:https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/18/we-know-enough-now-to-ac...
Here's speculation based on data:
I can't help but see the demographics of those who are dying and come to the conclusion that this is not a threat to the general population in the direct sense. No one aged 0-9 has died worldwide to date. No one in Italy under 30 has died. Of those that have died in Italy, 88% had one or more serious comorbidities; only 12% can be directly attributed to COVID-19. It seems that this is killing people who are already sick or in fragile health; it just so happens that the elderly of course dominate those categories. Consider this: nearly 3,000,000 people die every year in the USA. How many of those who will die this year from COVID-19 will overlap with that 3,000,000? In other words, could it be that the excess mortality rate of COVID-19 when amortized over the next two years isn't actually that high? Does it make any sense to throw ourselves into a depression because of this? Remember, the effects of eceonomic downturns affect every single aspect of peoples lives including their health. If we do this wrong even more people may die or have significant, long lasting, hardship because of an ill-considered and potentially unnecessary intervention.
I read a paper this morning that suggested some things that I believe need more attention:
> For example, we are learning that hospitals might be the main Covid-19 carriers, as they are rapidly populated by infected patients, facilitating transmission to uninfected patients. Patients are transported by our regional system,1 which also contributes to spreading the disease as its ambulances and personnel rapidly become vectors. Health workers are asymptomatic carriers or sick without surveillance; some might die, including young people, which increases the stress of those on the front line.
>This disaster could be averted only by massive deployment of outreach services. Pandemic solutionsare required for the entire population, not only for hospitals. Home care and mobile clinics avoid unnecessary movements and release pressure from hospitals.2 Early oxygen therapy, pulse oximeters, and nutrition can be delivered to the homes of mildly ill and convalescent patients, setting up a broad surveillance system with adequate isolation and leveraging innovative telemedicine instruments. This approach would limit hospitalization to a focused target of disease severity, thereby decreasing contagion, protecting patients and health care workers, and minimizing consumption of protective equipment. In hospitals, protection of medical personnel should be prioritized. No compromise should be made on protocols; equipment must be available. Measures to prevent infection must be implemented massively, in all locations and including vehicles. We need dedicated Covid-19 hospital pavilions and operators, separated from virus-free areas.[0]