Sure..that didn't need to be in place for someone with balls to have said CLOSE THE FUCKN BORDER EARLY! — schopenhauer1

They did close the border to China. They just didn't realize that It was in the process of exploding in Italy. COVID19 symptoms may not show up for two weeks after infection. A lot of infected people never have severe symptoms, if any at all. It's mutated into a very contagious pathogen. All these factors allow it to sneak up on a population.

It doesnt. For the most part, lockdowns were used to reduce the load on healthcare systems. In Europe and the US, the virus was out of control before it was clear how dangerous it was. That's partly because it mutated in Europe early on. — frank

You highlight the MAJOR difference in our individual countries goals. Here in the USA we went into lockdown to flatten the curve not eliminate it. We knew people were going to die and our best goal will be achieved when we reach herd immunity through mitigation and Vaccinations.

Where Australia is trying to eliminate the virus and as you rightfully note, it may be a short term mercy issued to Aussies that could breakout anytime in the future.

The Australia path is a ticking time bomb in my opinion, it could go off at anytime in the future.

Where in the USA we treated it like a live hand grenade and regular citizens chose to lay down on it for the survival of many, knowing the danger of death.

@frank
And I Thank you from the bottom of my heart and many more around me that I love, for being one of those average citizens who put your life at risk to save others. Again I humbly Thank you :heart:

They did close the border to China. They just didn't realize that It was in the process of exploding in Italy. COVID19 symptoms may not show up for two weeks after infection. A lot of infected people never have severe symptoms, if any at all. It's mutated into a very contagious pathogen. All these factors allow it to sneak up on a population. — frank

To be fair, I think the virus was in the US MUCH earlier than in March. However, you are making excuses. Once that shit was seen to be out of China, if there was ANYONE who had the foresight or wisdom to shutdown ALL borders, where were they, and why weren't they listened to? I already answered that though.

Also, Trump did NOT shut down all travel from China, only a partial shutdown.. It doesn't matter, it needed to be ALL international travel. Also, I agree that both sides were unhelpful in this stage for differing reasons. But the person in the executive branch WAS Trump and his people, so at the end, it was their decision.

The Australia path is a ticking time bomb in my opinion, it could go off at anytime in the future. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

...and that would happen if we followed the advice in the OP.

I think I've mentioned before that I find the inability of so many Americans to think in terms of a common wealth... puzzling.

All these factors allow it to sneak up on a population. — frank

Such a profound observation. Really.

All these factors allow it to sneak up on a population. — frank

Those who understand the nature of pandemics told the government what would happen. And they were correct.

But tragically, they were ignored.

The disease did not sneak up. It had been predicted for years. We knew this would happen. All else is mere political pretence.

and that would happen if we followed the advice in the OP. — Banno

Again I suggest remaining humble.

I think I've mentioned before that I find the inability of so many Americans to think in terms of a common wealth... puzzling. — Banno

Your mentions of how Americans are unable to help "insert current international crisis here" across the decades have been noted my friend, I promise you. What I continue to wonder and wait for is a little good news, a little balance to come from you about anything we in the USA do help with. If all you do is find fault in others and highlight their shortcomings, how do you allow any change?

As a fellow "thinker" I would hope you are still willing to move positions as the reality changes over time and in this case circumstances.

Those who understand the nature of pandemics told the government what would happen. And they were correct. — Banno

Sure. The trauma centers in the USA were prepared for a SPECTRUM of possible pandemics but we didn't know what part of our armor was going to be attacked so we had to adapt when we found out it was a respiratory disease and there was a greater need for ventilators. We had some but not enough but remember we DID NOT know what the pandemic was going to attack with. It was a good thing it wasn't Ebola or a host of other possible pandemics because we only prepared so much for the Ebola threat as well. And if my naive guess is correct, a shit ton of ventilators would be worthless.

The ability to adapt to a war like this pandemic takes time and experience. You can only predict so much.

To be fair, I think the virus was in the US MUCH earlier than in March. However, you are making excuses. Once that shit was seen to be out of China, if there was ANYONE who had the foresight or wisdom to shutdown ALL borders, where were they, and why weren't they listened to? I already answered that though. — schopenhauer1

Maybe if the Chinese hadn't suppressed information about it, Europe would have been saved. It passed to the US mainly from Europe.

The disease did not sneak up — Banno

I've noticed you have a habit of misunderstanding what other people say.

Such a profound observation. Really. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Just the facts, ma'am. :cool:

No one from either side of the aisle would have advocated mass shutdowns of international travel when it was most needed.. probably mid-February.. That would have taken foresight and wisdom no one had. — schopenhauer1

Some experts were advising the US to close borders in February 2020 and earlier. And the US did close their borders to China on January 31st (albeit leakily - foreign nationals only, and ignored Europe until mid-March).

Here's some foresight and wisdom from January, 2020. Not just for this pandemic, but for the next one.

Clearly, we are dealing with an extreme fat-tailed process owing to an increased connectivity, which increases the spreading in a nonlinear way [1], [2]. Fat tailed processes have special attributes, making conventional risk-management approaches inadequate.

..

Together, these observations lead to the necessity of a precautionary approach to current and potential pandemic outbreaks that must include constraining mobility patterns in the early stages of an outbreak, especially when little is known about the true parameters of the pathogen.

It will cost something to reduce mobility in the short term, but to fail do so will eventually cost everything — if not from this event, then one in the future. Outbreaks are inevitable, but an appropriately precautionary response can mitigate systemic risk to the globe at large. But policy- and decision-makers must act swiftly and avoid the fallacy that to have an appropriate respect for uncertainty in the face of possible irreversible catastrophe amounts to "paranoia," or the converse a belief that nothing can be done. — Joseph Norman, Yaneer Bar-Yam, and Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Systemic risk of pandemic via novel pathogens – Coronavirus: A note, New England Complex Systems Institute (January 26, 2020).

Well, it's good to know there were people there giving their more accurate predictions. I just wonder what it would take from a leader to listen to this kind of argument rather than the doubts placed from the other advisors. Although Trump certainly didn't/doesn't have the capacity for these critical judgements, I don't know someone else, even from a different party, would have done the right things either, especially in regards to international travel. Of course, with Trump you can add many layers of nefarious behavior in terms of how much he knew and still tried to make seem not a big deal and was going to end soon.. etc. Laughably false.

I think it's important to know that it wasn't a prediction. It was instead a note for how regions should act in the face of fat tail risk and uncertainty. You don't buy house insurance because you predict your house will burn down next year. You buy it to protect yourself against that possibility, and because the potentially bad consequences are much greater than the cost of the insurance.

This is where having experts and advisors that understand the nature of pandemics is important. The president's call shouldn't depend on being able to predict the future since no-one can.

This is where having experts and advisors that understand the nature of pandemics is important. The president's call shouldn't depend on being able to predict the future since no-one can. — Andrew M

True, so having the right people in the forefront of the subject matter that is at hand. Don't listen to an economist regarding an issue of public health maybe. But, I don't know the full story, wasn't there conflicting public health advise too though? How does one pick the correct one? I think you answered it though.. If one is in this much uncertainty about something that is known to be deadly, take the most cautious approach, not for the economy, but for the public health which would have been shutting down all borders as soon as possible, as that recommendation stated.

It is of course up to the leader to do this and convince the people it's right.

But, I don't know the full story, wasn't there conflicting public health advise too though? — schopenhauer1

The WHO declined to call it a global emergency.. They said it wasn't spreading human to human.

I think I've mentioned before that I find the inability of so many Americans to think in terms of a common wealth... puzzling. — Banno

Lots of Americans are surprised by this too. Michael Sandel is good on this.

The Australia path is a ticking time bomb in my opinion, it could go off at anytime in the future. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Not if the Australians have any say in the matter: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-australia/australia-begins-mass-covid-19-vaccination-programme-idUSKBN2AL0Q1

Yeah, it's clear they didn't know how serious this was going to be. It looks like they thought this would be more like a localized SARS. However, by the end of January, it was clear the virus was in dozens of other countries, and it was an UNKNOWN of how deadly it could be. Like South Korea, the US should have closed its borders to all foreign travel coming in and out at that time.. Instead there was two months of not doing anything until too late. People were waiting for community transmission. Ridiculous.

In fairness, though, Covid-19 was a new disease, even if it belonged to a group of viral diseases that had already been identified. We should be able to respond to new diseases quickly and effectively, but that expectation depends on knowing the future.

When the disease that would soon be called AIDS was first identified in 1981, it was anomalous, involving some very odd, but very serious, symptoms, like Kaposi Sarcoma and Pneumocystis in atypical patients. Had public health officials known then that this weird new disease would kill 700,000 Americans and 32,000,000 people around the world in the next 40 years, they might have been more proactive.

Ebola and Marburg viruses, both fairly recently identified tropical hemorrhagic fevers, were instantly frightening and had a fatality rate close to 90%, so people gave these diseases (and the infected) a very wide berth. Covid 19 and AIDS killed nowhere close to the speed of Ebola.

Influenza kills between 30,000 to 50,000 people a year, give or take a few thousand, and makes millions of people quite sick. Still, less than half of adults bother to get vaccinated. Covid 19 has killed over 500,000 Americans, and quite a few people (they tend to be Republicans) fail to see a reason to get vaccinated.

A good response to a health threat requires two things: An alert and proactive public health establishment, and a responsive public. If the public isn't paying attention, it becomes difficult to protect people. It took a long time and a lot of effort to drive smoking down from the one-time level of over half of adults smoking to the current 14%. Some people still don't believe seatbelts are worth a slight inconvenience.

Some people have their heads permanently stuck up their asses.

True true on all of this. I don't have much to add except that in hindsight it looked like people were watching this in slow motion but weren't acting.. They were pretending that COVID related deaths only happened in China or a certain province in China. Like...oh there it goes to other countries.. but China's deaths are in the hundreds.. that couldn't happen in other countries, etc. etc.

I think the shock of closing international borders was too much to fathom. But as @Andrew M pointed out there were groups very aware of this need right away. The two psychological factors working against people perhaps at that time were what that article highlighted- the idea of futility (it's inevitable and nothing can really be done anyways) and paranoia (you're going to shut travel down for this?). The uncertainty wasn't taken seriously, clearly.

The uncertainty wasn't taken seriously, clearly. — schopenhauer1

No, it wasn't. 911 brought about some fairly radical moves -- grounding all air traffic for a few days, for instance, It was mercifully quiet without airport traffic. Now we have the stupid theater of safety at the airport. Last summer was pretty wonderful though -- there was very very little air traffic. Much less auto traffic around town, too. The weather was great -- except for police murders and the riots (which were diverting, at least) it was perfect.

I'm talking at the very beginning.

'm talking at the very beginning. — schopenhauer1

I don't think there's any chance they would have closed the borders and locked down in January, especially since the WHO was advising a wait-and-see approach as late as January 25th.

By February it was too late.

Not if the Australians have any say in the matter: — EricH

I hope Australia can get to herd immunity quickly. You're going into autumn and it's in PNG. You're basically facing the same situation the rest of the world had to go through without any hope of getting vaccines.

You're very lucky.

I think I've mentioned before that I find the inability of so many Americans to think in terms of a common wealth... puzzling. — Banno

The people of our Great Republic are convinced they have what they choose to call individual "rights" by virtue of which they may do as they please, even when what they do or decline to do may result in harm to others, with certain limited exceptions. Our citizens have no conception of a common good. The result is they don't believe they (or their government) have any obligations beyond those necessary to the preservation of those rights. They may, if they choose, do something to benefit others, but they have no obligation to do that, nor do they have any obligation to refrain from taking any action which may harm others except to the extent that involves a violation of the rights they believe themselves to have. They object to their government doing anything to benefit others if doing so means a limitation of their rights (to property, for example). We owe each other nothing, provided certain "rights" are honored which don't infringe on our individual "rights." Nothing at all.

Our citizens have no conception of a common good. The result is they don't believe they (or their government) have any obligations beyond those necessary to the preservation of those rights — Ciceronianus the White

This wasn't true after WW2. People then believed that domestic tranquility was a matter of national security. They saw the upheaval of the first half of the 20th Century as the outcome of disregard.

What we're seeing now is the peaking of the pendulum swing in the other direction. It started at the end of the 1970s as a response to a loss of capital accumulation. It eventually hollowed Main St out. The pendulum will go the other way eventually.

People are actually pretty much the same wherever you go. Cultures differ, but that's often just a matter of where they are in the perennial cultural tale.

The idea that any people who believes in a minimal state must also believe they have no obligations beyond those necessary to the preservation of their rights, that they may do what they please without care for others, and that they have no conception of the common good, is not entirely accurate. Proponents of the minimal state simply don’t believe the state should (nor could) decide what one ought to believe, to dictate how we should treat or what we owe others. Such choices are best left to personal morality, whether derived from religion, philosophy, tradition, etc.

I would argue the opposite: that statism leads to the moral bankruptcy you describe. Paying a tax in the hope the state will work for the common good is no substitute for morality. Such behavior delegates moral obligations to others. Statists want the state to care for others precisely where they themselves refuse to. Really, I cannot blame them. Why should they feel an obligation to their fellow man when they already pay the government to do it for them?

A half-million dead. It doesn't seem to be working all that well.

Yep.

Cultures differ, but that's often just a matter of where they are in the perennial cultural tale. — frank

Perhaps. There is also what Zizek calls "ideology"; the unspoken actions that are just expected of the populace.

Perhaps. There is also what Zizek calls "ideology"; the unspoken actions that are just expected of the populace — Banno

Yep. I'm reading a book now on Neoliberalism. It's explaining how consent for it was constructed.

Per my tastes, there really isn't a villain in the story. As with Nazi Germany, a confluence of factors led to the ugliest manifestation of the potential of the people.