[Goose]

A well written piece on the covid-19 response and how it might end. (Though there are some jabs at the current administration)

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi...nd/608719/
(Paywall maybe but first few free)

It points out the single most unpredicted issue with our response was a failure to get out a working test quickly.   None of our prediction models had that factored in as a point of failure.

Unfortunately, I think this article points out what is wrong with the entire thesis of this thread. Some of the experts quoted in the article state that they never planned for not having a test available. By the thesis of this thread, they are therefore clearly all incompetent because they failed to anticipate and plan for something that actually happened. However, I think it is quite clear to anyone examining the situation worldwide that having the test did not stop the spread of the disease. Italy had the test (the Berlin test probably, I still don't know for sure). That wasn't enough. Clearly, having the test in place sooner would have helped. Having a functioning contact tracing capability would have helped even more, because one can do that even without having a reliable test. Even at this late date, I see no evidence we can do this.

The article quotes several experts saying that they never thought the US would execute the pandemic response so poorly. Anybody who has ever been involved in a large scale activity that has not been rehearsed over and over can tell you that things will not work as expected. Supplies and materials that are supposed to be available will be late or not there at all. Groups and functions that need to be ready to go into action at time T won't. Even plans that have been rehearsed will discover new problems unique to that particular instance, sometimes blocking the execution of critical actions. The guy with the keys to the truck doesn't show up because his car won't start.

This also assumes a plan that is actually any good. Essentially all plans that haven't been tried out aren't. Worse still, many plans made by government institutions rely on individuals or small committees making prompt, correct decisions. Many of the individuals involved have no experience in this kind of decision making. They want certainty, which they won't get. Taking action has costs, which are somewhat unknown. Not taking action also has costs, which are probably even more unknown. If these individuals are politicians, it can be even worse, as the political cost is added to the actual situational uncertainties. The idea that such a system will respond quickly and correctly (whatever that means at the time, not post facto), no matter who is running it, is very much wishful thinking. We are, I think, very fortunate that the Bay Area counties took what action they did when they did. I also think that Newsom responded pretty well. His path was very much eased by the example of the Bay Area counties I believe. It gave him lots of political cover. That said, we could also excoriate these same people for not acting sooner. The beauty of that is that since it is conter-factual speculation, we can assume any outcome of such action that we wish.

[Goose]

A well written piece on the covid-19 response and how it might end. (Though there are some jabs at the current administration)

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi...nd/608719/
(Paywall maybe but first few free)

It points out the single most unpredicted issue with our response was a failure to get out a working test quickly.   None of our prediction models had that factored in as a point of failure.

Unfortunately, I think this article points out what is wrong with the entire thesis of this thread. Some of the experts quoted in the article state that they never planned for not having a test available. By the thesis of this thread, they are therefore clearly all incompetent because they failed to anticipate and plan for something that actually happened. However, I think it is quite clear to anyone examining the situation worldwide that having the test did not stop the spread of the disease. Italy had the test (the Berlin test probably, I still don't know for sure). That wasn't enough. Clearly, having the test in place sooner would have helped. Having a functioning contact tracing capability would have helped even more, because one can do that even without having a reliable test. Even at this late date, I see no evidence we can do this.

The article quotes several experts saying that they never thought the US would execute the pandemic response so poorly. Anybody who has ever been involved in a large scale activity that has not been rehearsed over and over can tell you that things will not work as expected. Supplies and materials that are supposed to be available will be late or not there at all. Groups and functions that need to be ready to go into action at time T won't. Even plans that have been rehearsed will discover new problems unique to that particular instance, sometimes blocking the execution of critical actions. The guy with the keys to the truck doesn't show up because his car won't start.

This also assumes a plan that is actually any good. Essentially all plans that haven't been tried out aren't. Worse still, many plans made by government institutions rely on individuals or small committees making prompt, correct decisions. Many of the individuals involved have no experience in this kind of decision making. They want certainty, which they won't get. Taking action has costs, which are somewhat unknown. Not taking action also has costs, which are probably even more unknown. If these individuals are politicians, it can be even worse, as the political cost is added to the actual situational uncertainties. The idea that such a system will respond quickly and correctly (whatever that means at the time, not post facto), no matter who is running it, is very much wishful thinking. We are, I think, very fortunate that the Bay Area counties took what action they did when they did. I also think that Newsom responded pretty well. His path was very much eased by the example of the Bay Area counties I believe. It gave him lots of political cover. That said, we could also excoriate these same people for not acting sooner. The beauty of that is that since it is conter-factual speculation, we can assume any outcome of such action that we wish.