Will pandemic deepen divisions?

Will pandemic deepen divisions? - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Will pandemic deepen divisions? (/thread-19458.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

RE: Why the Chinese Narrative Matters - Genuine Realist - 04-18-2020

(04-18-2020, 10:35 PM)2006alum Wrote:
(04-18-2020, 10:23 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: We are all in this other, with of immense proportions, infinitely debatable decisions that have to be made going forward. We might at least begin by trusting one another.
I agree, but the "we" is the entire world, as viruses don't see borders.

(04-18-2020, 10:23 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote:
The Chinese narrative - of mis-, and dis-, information extending well into February matters, because I think it is essential to take the war against the virus out of the realm of partisan, and particularly Presidential politics.

Seems like this contradicts your very valid takeaway.

Not really. I'm talking about the US political ambiance. The Chinese surely are included in the larger global 'we', but my concern at this particular point in time is the national dialog.

RE: Why the Chinese Narrative Matters - BostonCard - 04-18-2020

In 1979, Iranians revolted and took American hostages in the US embassy in Tehran. The fact that this was clearly an action taken by Iranian hardliners didn't absolve Jimmy Carter from mismanaging the hostage crisis, for which voters held him to account a year later.

However much culpability you want to assign China (and whether or not the virus originated in the institute of virology, the Chinese Communist Party has a lot to answer to) is irrelevant ; the response here has been pathetic at the federal level, and I firmly believe that the leaders who insisted that it was going to go away while cases started mounting should be voted out in November.

BC

RE: Why the Chinese Narrative Matters - Genuine Realist - 04-19-2020

(04-18-2020, 11:21 PM)BostonCard Wrote: In 1979, Iranians revolted and took American hostages in the US embassy in Tehran. The fact that this was clearly an action taken by Iranian hardliners didn't absolve Jimmy Carter from mismanaging the hostage crisis, for which voters held him to account a year later.

However much culpability you want to assign China (and whether or not the virus originated in the institute of virology, the Chinese Communist Party has a lot to answer to) is irrelevant ; the response here has been pathetic at the federal level, and I firmly believe that the leaders who insisted that it was going to go away while cases started mounting should be voted out in November.

BC

That's just about all of them.

I don't think the type of lockdown of the scale in which we are participating now was politically possible back in January. It requires a political will and public awareness that just wasn't there. The fact that there was no awareness owes much to Chinese disinformation.

RE: Why the Chinese Narrative Matters - burger - 04-19-2020

(04-18-2020, 10:23 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: prominent Democrats labored under exactly the same false assumptions he did.

Prominent democrats were warning about the virus and calling for action as early as January and much more so in February.

All of the institutions that matter--NIH, FEMA, HHS, FDA, CDC--were controlled by Trump. And, while Trump spent January and February downplaying and lying about the virus, these agencies did almost nothing to prepare the country for what was coming.

And your take from these facts is, somehow: Bothsides!

RE: Why the Chinese Narrative Matters - chrisk - 04-19-2020

(04-19-2020, 07:13 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote:
(04-18-2020, 11:21 PM)BostonCard Wrote: In 1979, Iranians revolted and took American hostages in the US embassy in Tehran. The fact that this was clearly an action taken by Iranian hardliners didn't absolve Jimmy Carter from mismanaging the hostage crisis, for which voters held him to account a year later.

However much culpability you want to assign China (and whether or not the virus originated in the institute of virology, the Chinese Communist Party has a lot to answer to) is irrelevant ; the response here has been pathetic at the federal level, and I firmly believe that the leaders who insisted that it was going to go away while cases started mounting should be voted out in November.

BC

That's just about all of them.

I don't think the type of lockdown of the scale in which we are participating now was politically possible back in January. It requires a political will and public awareness that just wasn't there. The fact that there was no awareness owes much to Chinese disinformation.

Taiwan started early and competently, so they didn’t let the virus get out of control and require going from containment to mitigation phase. They are already playing basketball and baseball in Taiwan. It didn’t have to be like it is in the US. It was a lack of competence and political will. Sometimes, the America First meme gets tiresome. The US can learn a lot from other countries. That’s something Trump apologists are unable to grasp.

RE: Will pandemic deepen divisions? - OutsiderFan - 04-19-2020

I really hate to do this because it is an ad from Joe Biden's campaign, but I don't believe any assertions made in it are incorrect. So if we are interested in truth here, who the hell cares from where it comes? What difference does it make? I'd like to edit out some of it, to focus on the really important points, but can't. And I really would like some mention of the fact most cases in the USA owe their introduction to being from Europe when I'm not aware any POTUS candidate was calling for travel bans from Europe. FWIW, I'm skeptical travel bans work unless they are decisive for all inbound travel from everywhere. Otherwise, quarantine and testing and tracking are the best tools available.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/JoeNBC/status/1251624069398749184[/tweet]

RE: Why the Chinese Narrative Matters - Genuine Realist - 04-19-2020

(04-19-2020, 07:30 AM)burger Wrote:
(04-18-2020, 10:23 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: prominent Democrats labored under exactly the same false assumptions he did.
Prominent democrats were warning about the virus and calling for action as early as January and much more so in February.

All of the institutions that matter--NIH, FEMA, HHS, FDA, CDC--were controlled by Trump. And, while Trump spent January and February downplaying and lying about the virus, these agencies did almost nothing to prepare the country for what was coming.

And your take from these facts is, somehow: Bothsides!

The Speaker of the House and the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee both denounced travel bans as xenophobic in early February, in response to Presidential action. We can only imagine what they would have said to the notion of locking down the nation or even NYC, which was strongly opposed by the Democratic mayor of Chicago when it did happen. Etc. You can choose the villains you like. To me, there is no point.

Major US health agencies were influenced by the wHO, which bought into the Chinese line through the end of January. I've posted somewhat neutral recounts of the actual dawning of awareness elsewhere. But you can believe whatever history is most convenient for you. That's what mostpeople do.

RE: Will pandemic deepen divisions? - Genuine Realist - 04-19-2020

(04-19-2020, 07:34 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I really hate to do this because it is an ad from Joe Biden's campaign, but I don't believe any assertions made in it are incorrect. So if we are interested in truth here, who the hell cares from where it comes? What difference does it make? I'd like to edit out some of it, to focus on the really important points, but can't. And I really would like some mention of the fact most cases in the USA owe their introduction to being from Europe when I'm not aware any POTUS candidate was calling for travel bans from Europe. FWIW, I'm skeptical travel bans work unless they are decisive for all inbound travel from everywhere. Otherwise, quarantine and testing and tracking are the best tools available.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/JoeNBC/status/1251624069398749184[/tweet]

This is the last post I'm going to make on this. There are equally devastating ads the Trump campaign can make, relating to the unpreparedness that started doing the Obama administration, and Biden's criticisms of the measures Trump did take.

It all leads nowhere.

RE: Will pandemic deepen divisions? - 2006alum - 04-19-2020

Note that the divisions aren't just domestic. I thought this excerpt from this Saturday Essay in the Wall Street Journal by their chief Foreign Affairs correspondent was quite striking (and includes a quote from Stanford's Larry Diamond at the end):

Quote:All of this is happening at a time when the public health emergency is only beginning to morph into an economic calamity that may rival the Great Depression in pain—and in consequences for the democratic order and international peace. “This is a crisis like no other,” said IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva. “Never in the history of the IMF have we witnessed the world economy coming to a standstill.” In its latest forecast, the IMF predicts that the American economy will shrink by 5.9% this year and the economies of the 19 EU nations sharing the euro by 7.5%.

Amid this economic meltdown, the absence of American political leadership has been conspicuous—a shock to a world accustomed to having Washington lead in global crises. In Italy and Europe, “the United States is not even part of the debate these days,” said Nathalie Tocci, director of the Institute of International Affairs in Rome and a former European Commission foreign policy adviser. “It’s off the map.”

Instead, attention has turned to China, which has rushed planeloads of supplies to distressed countries and promised recovery aid. Beijing’s newfound influence won’t necessarily last. Europeans and others won’t quickly forget about the origins of the virus that has upended their nations. Yet for now, China is racking up victories. This month, it secured one of five seats on the body that makes appointments to the U.N. Human Rights Council, gaining a powerful tool to shape the global human rights discourse.
“If we don’t get our act together, by the time we return to something close to normal, it will not be the status quo ante in terms of freedom in the world,” cautioned Larry Diamond, a scholar of democracy at Stanford University. “It will be a dramatically diminished world.”

RE: Why the Chinese Narrative Matters - BostonCard - 04-19-2020

(04-19-2020, 07:52 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote: The Speaker of the House and the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee both denounced travel bans as xenophobic in early February, in response to Presidential action. We can only imagine what they would have said to the notion of locking down the nation or even NYC, which was strongly opposed by the Democratic mayor of Chicago when it did happen. Etc. You can choose the villains you like. To me, there is no point.

Major US health agencies were influenced by the wHO, which bought into the Chinese line through the end of January. I've posted somewhat neutral recounts of the actual dawning of awareness elsewhere. But you can believe whatever history is most convenient for you. That's what mostpeople do.

You talk about this as if the only choices facing our leaders were 1) shutdown and 2) travel ban, but completely ignore the many public health measures that would have could have made a difference had they been pursued earlier and would have made a shutdown unnecessary (as was the case in Taiwan and South Korea).

I don't understand the defense of the travel ban. The travel ban was clearly ineffective; the proof is in the pudding. You talk about the travel ban as if it would have been helpful on its own and the only reason it didn't get implemented was opposition to Trump. But of course, the travel ban was implemented and it was implemented as designed by the administration without congress or the courts intervening. To my knowledge, despite some people complaining about it, there were no lawsuits, no district courts that held it up, and compared to a lot of Trump administration actions, opposition was fairly muted. Yeah, it was opposed, mostly because epidemiologists believed that it would be ineffective, because there was already community transmission in the US when it was implemented. And it turns out that the opponents were right; it didn't work by itself! At the point that the travel restrictions were implemented, there were already 300,000 people who had come from China in the previous month. I'd be more sympathetic to Trump's position if he had tried to pursue a complete travel early and been prevented from doing so by the opposition. Then we might ask what the counterfactual would have been like had he not been prevented from implementing the restrictions. But Trump looks at the restrictions as necessary and sufficient to prevent a pandemic, and they were clearly not sufficient on their own. Whether they were even necessary is also under debate. Maybe a travel ban, implemented along with aggressive contact tracing and other public health interventions early would have worked, and then maybe we could be holding the debate as to how much the travel restrictions helped, and some people are arguing the travel ban was a linchpin in success and others arguing that the travel ban was unnecessary and it was the other measures that were critical in stopping the pandemic, and maybe some people arguing that everything was unnecessary and the threat of the virus was overblown from the beginning. That's a debate I wish we were having. But the travel ban was tried, and it failed spectacularly. At this point, support for the travel ban falls along the lines of "we had to do something; the travel ban was something; therefore we had to do the travel ban".

There is also a long set of measures that could be implemented in between only a travel ban and a complete nationwide shelter in place system. So here goes.

Obviously, the first thing would have been to expand testing earlier. The seminal moment to the problematic response was the delay in identifying community transmission in the US. The biggest problem we had in our response was believing for far longer than was the case that only people traveling from China or their close contacts could have COVID-19. The travel restrictions were announced on January 31. The first case of community transmission in the US was announced on February 26 (long after the CDC had reversed itself on person-to-person transmission)! That's basically an entire month where we had community transmission in the US without knowing it. Moreover that patient's doctors wanted to test her for COVID-19 a week before; the CDC kept denying the request, because the patient didn't meet the criteria, because she had not traveled to China or been in close contact with someone who had. Now, anyone with a brain could see the problem here. If the criteria for testing requires travel to China or close contact with someone who has, you will never test anyone who got the virus due to community transmission, so you will never know that community transmission is occurring.

Identifying community transmission two weeks earlier would have made a demonstrable difference in the trajectory of the outbreak in the US. It would have accelerated the widespread roll out of testing, and would have changed the criteria for testing, enabling much more testing of community members without direct ties to China. It would have allowed local health authorities to test and track while the numbers were still small and testing and tracking was still possible. It would have allowed local governments and health authorities to implement more limited social distancing measures (like canceling large gatherings) earlier slowing its spread. Instead, the virus was allowed to fester in the community, so that by the time we realized there was widespread community spread, a lot of the more limited measures we could have pursued back then, which might be effective for a small outbreak, are no longer effective.

Also, it would have helped if government leaders from up and down local to federal levels were speaking in one voice. I am sympathetic to your argument that a very early shutdown would have been near impossible to implement. But it would have been easier to implement earlier if, instead of minimizing the extent of the pandemic, the administration was telling the American people directly why the relatively few number of cases were a big deal. Also, we would have tested and diagnosed more people, so the extent of the spread would have been obvious to more state and local officials and they would have implemented measures earlier. I have in the past criticized Bill DeBlasio (especially) and Andrew Cuomo for their pissing match which delayed shutting down New York. If that had been implemented even a few days earlier, the outbreak in New York would have been much milder. Even a one day delay in implementing measures makes a very big difference (compare the Bay Area to Southern California, and California to New York).

Here's one illustration of that:

[Image: 1*4kOJv8hmd5VFPcBL1mywsw.png]

A one day delay in implementing social distancing measures results in a 40% increase in your final case count. That is, unfortunately, the problem with exponential growth. So here is where federal leadership would have been helpful. I praised the administration's guidelines for opening up the country. Imagine if there had been a similar document for how to implement social distancing that offered guidance to states and local communities as to which measures carried the highest "bang for the buck" (slowed transmission the most for a given disruption to daily life) and when to implement increasingly severe restrictions. You might have still seen severe restrictions placed in some parts of the country, but in others restrictions of large gatherings without shelter in place might have been enough.

So to sum up, the travel ban was ineffective on its own, and the administration could have implemented a lot of measures short of a shutdown that would have had a meaningful effect on the pandemic. At the very least, the administration could have avoided undermining local efforts. Maybe a shutdown would have happened anyways because less intrusive measures would eventually have proven not effective enough, but the actions of the administration made the shutdowns inevitable.

BC

RE: Will pandemic deepen divisions? - magnus - 04-19-2020

A big problem was our inability to mobilize.

It wasn't until the nursing home tragedy in WA that the powers that be really took this seriously, it seems. I sometimes wonder if we (as a country and not as anyone related to those unfortunate family and staff) were lucky that it was something as optically jarring as a nursing home event as opposed to say, an industry conference, where fatalities may not have been so pronounced, that was the early event. Otherwise, it might have been at least a week if not two before the action timeline really started moving. And that kind of delay, as BC points out, would likely have meant many many more cases.

RE: Will pandemic deepen divisions? - Goose - 04-19-2020

I believe that one factor is being greatly ignored in this discussion, although we are all aware of it. Nothing like this has happened in the US in 100 years. Back then, the idea of a "shutdown" never reached the table. It is always going to be very, very difficult to get people and institutions to respond as if the "impossible" is about to happen. You can't cite a precedent. You have to submit a chain of data and establish that your prediction of events is credible. In hindsight, it will be "obvious", but it was far from obvious before the fact. It was especially difficult in the face of the first SARS forecasts of doom not actually happening (in the US anyway).

Even now, many of the models have not delivered very accurate predictions. This is not surprising, given that this is a "novel" virus. However, when there are lots of unknowns, making decisions on a National or State wide level is not easy and will always be behind events. It is very unfortunate that all politicians today seem to believe the idea of uncertainty is not admissible into public discussions. You have to pick a "side" even when there is little evidence to go on. This causes them to say lots of things that make them look stupid later. Fortunately for these same politicians, the public doesn't seem to care.

RE: Why the Chinese Narrative Matters - Genuine Realist - 04-19-2020

(04-19-2020, 11:31 AM)BostonCard Wrote: [
A one day delay in implementing social distancing measures results in a 40% increase in your final case count. That is, unfortunately, the problem with exponential growth. So here is where federal leadership would have been helpful. I praised the administration's guidelines for opening up the country. Imagine if there had been a similar document for how to implement social distancing that offered guidance to states and local communities as to which measures carried the highest "bang for the buck" (slowed transmission the most for a given disruption to daily life) and when to implement increasingly severe restrictions. You might have still seen severe restrictions placed in some parts of the country, but in others restrictions of large gatherings without shelter in place might have been enough.

So to sum up, the travel ban was ineffective on its own, and the administration could have implemented a lot of measures short of a shutdown that would have had a meaningful effect on the pandemic. At the very least, the administration could have avoided undermining local efforts. Maybe a shutdown would have happened anyways because less intrusive measures would eventually have proven not effective enough, but the actions of the administration made the shutdowns inevitable.

BC

I'm not being as clear as I'd like. My point is not about the efficacy of the travel ban as such, but that - if you have that kind of reaction to the travel ban, you can only imagine what the reaction would have been to January national measures of social distancing.

The lockdown could have been implemented on a State or local basis much earlier. No one did so, not even the governors who are now gaining deserved credit for reactions that are more timely, but still not all that timely. I believe Ohio was the exception.

The issues with testing are a point on which the Administration feet can be held to the fire, though even there the problem seems to be not recognizing that the problem was so urgent that basic procurement regulations should have been ignored. Still, there were iceberg warnings and they should have moved faster.

The bottom line is that much of the response which now seems to be so unduly delayed was impossible in the absence of an aroused public. And if you want to blame Trump for being too insouciant (and you would be right), you'd better blame his opposition for firing away at what he DID do - i.e., similarly insouciant, but from a different perspective.

So can we move forward?

RE: Why the Chinese Narrative Matters - 2006alum - 04-19-2020

(04-19-2020, 01:07 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: So can we move forward?

The leader of this country spends half his day on twitter dropping playground insults on most of the people responsible for helping us "move forward" or else subverting them through quasi-calls to arms on twitter. The other half of the day he stands behind a podium spouting lies and disclaiming any responsibility for our national crisis.

Most of us in this forum have devoted serious time and energy to mapping the virus, tracking potential treatments and remedies, discussing the efficacy of various social distancing efforts, anticipating how the economy will (and won't) recover, and sharing tips on how to cope during this crisis.

So you tell me, who is the impediment to moving forward?

RE: Why the Chinese Narrative Matters - Genuine Realist - 04-19-2020

(04-19-2020, 01:19 PM)2006alum Wrote:
(04-19-2020, 01:07 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: So can we move forward?

The leader of this country spends half his day on twitter dropping playground insults on most of the people responsible for helping us "move forward" or else subverting them through quasi-calls to arms on twitter. The other half of the day he stands behind a podium spouting lies and disclaiming any responsibility for our national crisis.

Most of us in this forum have devoted serious time and energy to mapping the virus, tracking potential treatments and remedies, discussing the efficacy of various social distancing efforts, anticipating how the economy will (and won't) recover, and sharing tips on how to cope during this crisis.

So you tell me, who is the impediment to moving forward?

This positively is the last.

I've had a pox-a'-both-your-houses position for some time. Trump is an obnoxious narcissistic spoiled rich kid, who is only happy when he is the center of attention. He could have made friends instead of enemies, since he has controlled the political dialog for four years now. (I hope future leaders will learn from him on how to use Twitter, only with more style and grace.)

However, the opposition has fallen into line completely, ALSO making the persona of Trump the central issue. The basic platform of the Democratic PArty has become, If He's For It, We're Against It'. The more substantive causes for Trump's elevation to the office, which have more to do in my view with abandonment of the traditional Democratic FDR liberalism than anything Trump did, have not been addressed. Trump was actually elected DESPITE his personal defects, rather than because of them, because of the Democratic failure in principle, and because it managed to nominate the second worst Presidential candidate in US political history.

Bringing this back to C-19, between the two of them, the partisans made the political consensus that is the necessary prerequisite for acceptance of a regime this drastic, and this unprecedented, impossible to achieve. You can cite disgracefully insouciant tweets by Trump, or disgracefully insouciant criticism by Democrats. Take your pick. It gets you nowhere. This would have been a tough sell even for a super-popular President, and it just wasn't there. The public had to have its nose rubbed in the reality of this thing, and you can't do that while everyone is sniping on a personality (or anti-personality) basis.

That's my take, and now I am done.

RE: Why the Chinese Narrative Matters - BostonCard - 04-19-2020

(04-19-2020, 02:57 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: Bringing this back to C-19, between the two of them, the partisans made the political consensus that is the necessary prerequisite for acceptance of a regime this drastic, and this unprecedented, impossible to achieve. You can cite disgracefully insouciant tweets by Trump, or disgracefully insouciant criticism by Democrats. Take your pick. It gets you nowhere. This would have been a tough sell even for a super-popular President, and it just wasn't there. The public had to have its nose rubbed in the reality of this thing, and you can't do that while everyone is sniping on a personality (or anti-personality) basis.

That's my take, and now I am done.

The "they are opposing everything because it is Trump" is overblown. Democrats and Republicans came together to in near unanimity pass a $2 trillion economic package. Democrats could have sunk the bill in the House or filibustered it in the Senate, but they didn't. And they were wise not to; I think they would have (righteously) come under a lot of criticism had they held it up. And now it looks like we are going to pass another rescue package. For an intractably divided government, and for an opposition party that supposedly is dead set against anything the president wants, that's pretty impressive.

Look, if Trump had advocated more aggressive measures and Democratic governors had resisted them at every turn because they were suggested by Trump, then I think it would be appropriate to criticize the Democratic governors who resisted. But he didn't and the federal response has been incompetent and its message counterproductive, so it is very appropriate to criticize it.

Indeed, even across states there has been variability in how local officials responded. I think Mayor London Breed in San Francisco and Governor Newsom for the California have worked together better and been more aggressive than Andrew Cuomo and Bill DeBlasio in New York. Mike DeWine, the Republican governor of Ohio has done a nice job in a way that Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida has not.

There are times when "a pox on both houses" is appropriate. But this is a time when a pox on the house who screwed up the response is appropriate.

BC

RE: Why the Chinese Narrative Matters - teejers1 - 04-19-2020

(04-19-2020, 04:13 PM)BostonCard Wrote: There are times when "a pox on both houses" is appropriate. But this is a time when a pox on the house who screwed up the response is appropriate.

BC

I agree. Having said that, I think it's pretty clear that some folks in MSM (and even here) are soooo virulently anti-Trump that they view everything in the world through that prism. It would be an interesting psychological study as to what inclines folks that way, because I view the POTUS, generally speaking, as having a minimal impact on my day-to-day life. I can agree/disagree with policy or take or comment w/o turning up the heat to boil - it just doesn't matter that much to me and my family. Oh wait, think there is a word for folks like me: apathetic.

P.S. There were also anti-Obama folks (and other regimes, too) - and I knew folks who would froth at the mouth because of how they perceived MSM to fawn all over the guy and give him the kid glove treatment. I have little doubt that the MSM liked Obama more than prior presidents (particularly Bush) and were "soft" on him; however, it didn't get me too riled up, either.

RE: Why the Chinese Narrative Matters - BostonCard - 04-19-2020

(04-19-2020, 04:32 PM)teejers1 Wrote:
(04-19-2020, 04:13 PM)BostonCard Wrote: There are times when "a pox on both houses" is appropriate. But this is a time when a pox on the house who screwed up the response is appropriate.

BC

I agree. Having said that, I think it's pretty clear that some folks in MSM (and even here) are soooo virulently anti-Trump that they view everything in the world through that prism. It would be an interesting psychological study as to what inclines folks that way, because I view the POTUS, generally speaking, as having a minimal impact on my day-to-day life. I can agree/disagree with policy or take or comment w/o turning up the heat to boil - it just doesn't matter that much to me and my family. Oh wait, think there is a word for folks like me: apathetic.

P.S. There were also anti-Obama folks (and other regimes, too) - and I knew folks who would froth at the mouth because of how they perceived MSM to fawn all over the guy and give him the kid glove treatment. I have little doubt that the MSM liked Obama more than prior presidents (particularly Bush) and were "soft" on him; however, it didn't get me too riled up, either.

By the way, one could envision circumstances where it turns out that certain governors are overly cautious about reopening the economy and the President's aggressive efforts in that vein are vindicated. The opposite is also possible.

BC

RE: Will pandemic deepen divisions? - M T - 04-19-2020

(04-19-2020, 12:56 PM)<doesn't matter> Wrote: Nothing like this has happened in the US in 100 years.

Recognize these?

Quote:became the worst epidemic in our nation’s history. 58,000 cases were reported that year. Of those, 3,200 died and 21,000 were left with mild to disabling [effect]
One of the most startling statistics associated .... is that up to 95 percent of cases had no symptoms at all!

6 years earlier:

Quote:A ... epidemic struck the San Antonio area in May. After state health official made recommendations at a special Saturday conference, certain schools were closed to slow the spread of the disease. The closure was extended to all schools, including colleges and universities, the following day. ... The following Monday, the paper announced schools and colleges would not reopen that term.

And, 100 years before that, New Orleans lost 7% of its population to an epidemic. A couple of years after that, more than half the population of Norfolk fled from an epidemic. Of the population that didn't leave, 1/3 died.

The first of those was 1952 and 1946 & polio. (The 58K cases is equivalent to 116K cases today.) 1853 and 1855 were yellow fever epidemics.

The Norfolk epidemic wiped out a branch of my family. A thumbnail: June 7, 1855: A ship arrived & underwent a 12 day quarantine (as it had yellow fever in route). 2 days later, another crewman got sick. The epidemic was in full force in August. "The homes and all their contents on Barry’s Row were burned to the ground on the night of August 9, a futile attempt to curb the spread of yellow fever. Citizens fled both cities in panic. At Old Point, they were turned away by soldiers with bayonets. Other cities enforced quarantine or imposed fines. ...By August, businesses and offices had closed. Church services were suspended. Doctors and nurses came from around the country to offer their services, many falling prey to the disease. ... The fever abated after the first frost in October"

RE: Will pandemic deepen divisions? - 2006alum - 04-19-2020

Incidentally, stories like this evidence, in part, for why divisions are emerging: the feds are literally forcing hospital administrations to import PPE as if they are running a blockade in order to get necessary equipment for their healthcare providers.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/dwallacewells/status/1251922312770748417?s=20[/tweet]

Here's a snippet of the most interesting part from the New England Journal of Medicine letter writer:

Quote: It’s worth reading the correspondence, written by an executive running a small health system, at some length:

Our supply-chain group has worked around the clock to secure gowns, gloves, face masks, goggles, face shields, and N95 respirators. These employees have adapted to a new normal, exploring every lead, no matter how unusual. Deals, some bizarre and convoluted, and many involving large sums of money, have dissolved at the last minute when we were outbid or outmuscled, sometimes by the federal government. Then we got lucky, but getting the supplies was not easy. . . .

Hours before our planned departure, we were told to expect only a quarter of our original order. We went anyway, since we desperately needed any supplies we could get. Upon arrival, we were jubilant to see pallets of KN95 respirators and face masks being unloaded. We opened several boxes, examined their contents, and hoped that this random sample would be representative of the entire shipment. Before we could send the funds by wire transfer, two Federal Bureau of Investigation agents arrived, showed their badges, and started questioning me. No, this shipment was not headed for resale or the black market. The agents checked my credentials, and I tried to convince them that the shipment of PPE was bound for hospitals. After receiving my assurances and hearing about our health system’s urgent needs, the agents let the boxes of equipment be released and loaded into the trucks. But I was soon shocked to learn that the Department of Homeland Security was still considering redirecting our PPE. Only some quick calls leading to intervention by our congressional representative prevented its seizure. I remained nervous and worried on the long drive back, feelings that did not abate until midnight, when I received the call that the PPE shipment was secured at our warehouse.

In this instance, the executive managed to secure the supplies, but what is most horrifying about his account is that this experience was not all that surprising to him — he expected interference from federal officials, and did everything he could (including staging the shipment in food-service trucks to avoid detection) to get around that interference.

And we wonder why there's a catastrophic shortage of PPE and dissatisfied governors. Reminds me of that old aphorism, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way."