Northern Europe during Pandemic -- Summers 2020 & 2021 & onwards

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

... It has been repeatedly said that is not all or nothing. Some very sensible CF members have kept repeating this . You do not have to leave the virus raging unchecked to protect those in care homes (and these people make up a huge chunk of the vulnerable)...
SWL

Do as much as you can – not as little as you (think you) can get away with.
It’s true, anything is better than nothing, but that’s not a reason to do the minimum amount possible

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Do as much as you can – not as little as you (think you) can get away with.
It’s true, anything is better than nothing, but that’s not a reason to do the minimum amount possible

Hi Gord
I certainly do not advocate doing only the minimum amount possible, particularly when it comes to measures that are both easy and low cost, instead simply inconvenient or unpleasant. I do think it is extremely selfish for anyone not to be following all the basic things that could help protect those around them even if the evidence is not hard and fast regarding the exact impact of these precautions (this includes hand washing/sanitising, face masks, physical distancing, avoiding large groups, staying quarantined if ill ...). I am doing all I can, not just to protect myself and my husband, but the vulnerable around me and it has been tough going at times.

On the other hand, I feel very uneasy about measures being enforced and policed, particularly the forcing of healthy people to stay confined in their homes, the closures of businesses and the restriction of education.

We do not take extraordinary measures to prevent all other deaths, including other contagious diseases. It puzzles me why we are taking such extreme measures with COVID-19 when the risk of serious illness is so very low for most of the population (and high primarily for those who could isolate or be protected more easily), particularly as these measures may result in poverty, mental health issues and shortened lifespans for countless others either in the short or long term.

SWL

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Hi Gord
I certainly do not advocate doing only the minimum amount possible, particularly when it comes to measures that are both easy and low cost, instead simply inconvenient or unpleasant. I do think it is extremely selfish for anyone not to be following all the basic things that could help protect those around them even if the evidence is not hard and fast regarding the exact impact of these precautions (this includes hand washing/sanitising, face masks, physical distancing, avoiding large groups, staying quarantined if ill ...). I am doing all I can, not just to protect myself and my husband, but the vulnerable around me and it has been tough going at times.

On the other hand, I feel very uneasy about measures being enforced and policed, particularly the forcing of healthy people to stay confined in their homes, the closures of businesses and the restriction of education.

We do not take extraordinary measures to prevent all other deaths, including other contagious diseases. It puzzles me why we are taking such extreme measures with COVID-19 when the risk of serious illness is so very low for most of the population (and high primarily for those who could isolate or be protected more easily), particularly as these measures may result in poverty, mental health issues and shortened lifespans for countless others either in the short or long term.

SWL

But that is excactly where the problem lies. If everybody would do these " measures that are both easy and low cost, instead simply inconvenient or unpleasant" the pandemic would die in a month or so. But not doing as they are asked to do for they are forcing the governments to use more restrictive measures and make more harm and cost to all..

[goboatingnow]

With second waves occurring throughout Europe, we have a far better understanding of this pandemic than we did in March, yet recent measures are are not dissimilar to those used in the first wave. I wonder how much of this is politically driven? As you have suggested, I think bold measures, “whether or not they are actually beneficial, are seductive to politicians”. Engendering fear in the population makes these measures easier to apply.

Once you start this sort of tin foil hat conspiracy stuff, I loose all interest in your posts

If anything politicians , certainly " round here" absolutely hate " bold " measures , because it inevitably gets the public back up. Hence we tend to get actually very mediocre often bumbling responses because politicians are reluctant

Whats is unusual is that its the Medical advisory groups , who are not politicians , are the ones advising bold moves and this gives the Gov a form of cover .

as to politically driven , whats the point what have politicians to gain by keeping people at home , etc

it makes no sense

Here , lockdowns had 70% public support , thats hardly politically driven

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Once you start this sort of tin foil hat conspiracy stuff, I loose all interest in your posts

If anything politicians , certainly " round here" absolutely hate " bold " measures , because it inevitably gets the public back up. Hence we tend to get actually very mediocre often bumbling responses because politicians are reluctant

Whats is unusual is that its the Medical advisory groups , who are not politicians , are the ones advising bold moves and this gives the Gov a form of cover .

as to politically driven , whats the point what have politicians to gain by keeping people at home , etc

it makes no sense

Here , lockdowns had 70% public support , thats hardly politically driven

I have no interest in conspiracy theories and besides, tin foil hats don’t suit me .

I am not naive enough though to believe all politicians make all decisions based purely on the best interests of the nation with zero regard for their own skins.

It would be political suicide to go against the advice of your medical advisory board, against what 70% of the nation wanted you to do and also if your actions were contrary to how neighbouring nations were handling the same situation.

SWL

PS Keep in mind that medical opinions can differ wildly, even between experts in a field. This is not exclusive to pandemics.

Plus, the most popular decisions are not necessarily those that will best serve a nation.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Do as much as you can – not as little as you (think you) can get away with.
It’s true, anything is better than nothing, but that’s not a reason to do the minimum amount possible

Well, but, no. In a question like this, like with many policy questions, you don't just "do as much as you can" -- because what you do, has costs, and causes collateral damage. Therefore you try to do the RIGHT amount, which optimally balances the costs and collateral damage against the effect you are trying to achieve.

So indeed you DO try to do the "minimum amount possible" -- if by "minimum", we mean the least destructive/least costly measure which achieves the policy goal.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Once you start this sort of tin foil hat conspiracy stuff, I loose all interest in your posts

If anything politicians , certainly " round here" absolutely hate " bold " measures , because it inevitably gets the public back up. Hence we tend to get actually very mediocre often bumbling responses because politicians are reluctant

Whats is unusual is that its the Medical advisory groups , who are not politicians , are the ones advising bold moves and this gives the Gov a form of cover .

as to politically driven , whats the point what have politicians to gain by keeping people at home , etc

it makes no sense

Here , lockdowns had 70% public support , thats hardly politically driven

I think it's very different, in different countries.

As SWL said, opinions differ among different experts, and furthermore, different countries and even regions might need different responses. Furthermore different countries are pursuing different strategies. So it's somewhat hard to generalize.

But I do think we see -- sometimes -- an appetite -- among some citizens -- for bold action which is reassuring because of its boldness, and not because it makes sense. If a few eggs have to be broken then so much the better. This is how people get talked into wars, by the way. And not only politicians are tempted by that but even scientists in a position of authority -- not wanting to err on the side of caution, because they won't pay the bill for having caused collateral damage, but they WILL pay the bill if they are seen to be insufficiently decisive.

So yes, I do think a certain number of fearful people feel reassured when the state is taking drastic measures, forcing people to stay at home, forcing businesses to close, and harshly punishing their neighbors if they fail to comply, whether or not any of this is really contributing to public health as a whole or not. It's human psychology. And you see that reaction in some of these threads where some people just freak out when any of this is even questioned.

"Mediocre, bumbling responses" come generally from a level of incompetence so great that the politicians can't even figure out how to make themselves LOOK like leaders -- can't even pretend. You see that all over the U.S. So this is even a level worse than the demagogic thing. In the U.S., the politicians are whip-sawed from one side to the other -- first taking bold action which satisfies one group of people, then when this generates a political storm among enough other people, reversing it -- merely reactive, with no long term plan at all, and of course with no help from the bully pulpit.

But the right response, in my opinion, to something like this, is the sober de-politicized technocratic approach which looks at public health as a whole, looks at society as a whole, makes rational decisions based on maximum amount of data and science, and implements those decisions with technocratic competence according to a well-worked out long term plan. I think the best examples of that kind of approach we see in Germany and the Nordic countries, which are all following their actual pandemic plans, and are being led by scientists in a de-politicized atmosphere. I guess this approach won't work in highly polarized societies like the U.S., because it requires a certain amount of trust, it requires politicians willing to defer to scientists and resist temptation to claim credit or assign blame, but it works over here. In Germany and the Nordic countries you see a very high level of trust which cuts across party lines -- that's where you see whole societies coming together to get through the crisis. That's really important in a crisis like this.

In the U.S., nuanced policy is impossible, because everything is politicized. Over there, you are necessarily fighting one side or the other, because society is at war with itself. You are in one camp, or the other. That's exactly why it's so hard to discuss some of these questions on here. If someone senses that something is being said, which doesn't fit one party line, or the other, they simply start dropping bombs. There is zero intellectual curiosity, zero interest in a real conversation, zero questioning of one's own beliefs.

[Dockhead]

Just look at this:

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/12...19-coronavirus

"Gavin Williamson, Britain’s education secretary, appeared to be crowing when he said that Britain had won the race to authorize the first fully tested coronavirus vaccine because its regulators were superior.
“We’ve obviously got the best medical regulators,” Mr. Williamson said. “Much better than the French have. Much better than the Belgians have. Much better than the Americans have.”
"Then he extended his praise to cover not just bureaucrats but his entire country.
“That doesn’t surprise me at all,” Mr. Williamson said of Britain’s supposedly superior regulatory prowess, “because we’re a much better country than every single one of them, aren’t we?”
Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, seemed more than a little skeptical.
The British authorities, he said, moved more quickly only because they had not scrutinized the vaccine test data as carefully as their American counterparts in the Food and Drug Administration.
“We have the gold standard of a regulatory approach with the F.D.A.,” Dr. Fauci said. “The U.K. did not do it as carefully and they got a couple of days ahead.”

Asinine and childish willie-waving between Fauci and the UK Secretary of Education, over what country has the best vaccine regulators. Absolutely unbelievable. Idiots. So telling of the whole climate. I have had a lot of respect for Fauci, but reading this I wonder.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Just look at this:

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/12...19-coronavirus

"Gavin Williamson, Britain’s education secretary, appeared to be crowing when he said that Britain had won the race to authorize the first fully tested coronavirus vaccine because its regulators were superior.
“We’ve obviously got the best medical regulators,” Mr. Williamson said. “Much better than the French have. Much better than the Belgians have. Much better than the Americans have.”
"Then he extended his praise to cover not just bureaucrats but his entire country.
“That doesn’t surprise me at all,” Mr. Williamson said of Britain’s supposedly superior regulatory prowess, “because we’re a much better country than every single one of them, aren’t we?”
Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, seemed more than a little skeptical.
The British authorities, he said, moved more quickly only because they had not scrutinized the vaccine test data as carefully as their American counterparts in the Food and Drug Administration.
“We have the gold standard of a regulatory approach with the F.D.A.,” Dr. Fauci said. “The U.K. did not do it as carefully and they got a couple of days ahead.”

Asinine and childish willie-waving between Fauci and the UK Secretary of Education, over what country has the best vaccine regulators. Absolutely unbelievable. Idiots. So telling of the whole climate. I have had a lot of respect for Fauci, but reading this I wonder.

Fauci's comment reads much worse than it sounded. Either way he apologized.

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Asinine and childish willie-waving between Fauci and the UK Secretary of Education, over what country has the best vaccine regulators. Absolutely unbelievable. Idiots. So telling of the whole climate. I have had a lot of respect for Fauci, but reading this I wonder.

Gavin Williams has already been sacked as a cabinet minister once before. He was Sec of State for Defence for a few months, but couldn't keep his mouth shut and briefed the press behind the backs of other Cabinet Ministers. Mrs May the then pm sacked him.

The USA was on the BBC national news last night with soring figures in the US. Made it sound like a fire storm over there. This vaccine can't come soon enough.

Pete

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Pete7

. . . The USA was on the BBC national news last night with soring figures in the US. Made it sound like a fire storm over there. This vaccine can't come soon enough. . . .

It's pretty grim in the U.S. I intended to go to the States to have Thanksgiving with my parents, and was somewhat taken aback when they refused to receive me (step-mom is a retired nursing professor). But now I'm glad -- I wouldn't want to be in that country, right now.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Fauci's comment reads much worse than it sounded. Either way he apologized.

How could it have sounded any differently? The words speak for themselves.


I don't think Fauci is a fool -- I think he just got caught up in this poisonous politicized atmosphere. It's good, of course, that he was thoughtful enough to apologize.

[goboatingnow]

When , one would have to wonder that the UK approving 2-3 weeks ahead of the EU was entirely politically driven.

[Paul L]

[QUOTE=Dockhead;3288471]How could it have sounded any differently? The words speak for themselves.


I don't think Fauci is a fool -- I think he just got caught up in this poisonous politicized atmosphere. It's good, of course, that he was thoughtful enough to apologize.[/QUOTE]
Because the audio includes all the words in the multiple paragraphs, not just the select inner quote.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

When , one would have to wonder that the UK approving 2-3 weeks ahead of the EU was entirely politically driven.

Or maybe just working bloody hard in order to save however many lives will be saved by having the vaccine out 2-3 weeks earlier?