[Genuine Realist]

Interesting also about Q1 for Sweden (thanks Mick) as the only positive bar on the chart. The Sweden example has appeared on this board as an alternative answer to the health vs. jobs dilemma, one that some thought was an alternative to the March-May shutdown. The Sweden question is turning now towards whether or not they optimized jobs at all, while sacrificing health. Maybe they just postponed the health measures until later, and will suffer them worse over the long term, for not having clamped down early on. Time will tell. 

What if they and a lot of us — many in the USA, this board  too — got the health vs. jobs comparisons dilemma wrong? What if, as it turns out, more stringent pandemic response would have been the optimal for both health and jobs? As we look at it today, doesn't this chart argue for a more stringent shutdown which would have been followed by a better health situation and a better economy later?



If so, too bad, this is just hindsight. We don't get a time machine to go back and do it right. My point is even if we are disastrously late, we might still be better off if we were to start today and do better from now on. Our trajectory right now sucks. Do we have to keep going this way, so we'll have to look back to this time and bemoan what we didn't do?

I heard that Pence today publicly advocated using masks. About damn time. Obviously too little and too late, but at least it's a change of direction and better late than never. I'm still hoping we get out of this without millions of deaths and crippling the economy for a very long time.

To borrow from an old African proverb, the best time to do this was last March. The second best time is today.

Good questions. What this points out IMHO is that nobody really knows what the "optimum" way ahead at any given moment in time actually is. It may turn out that the EU spikes up again and ends up where we are, just a different trajectory. Not saying I expect that, but we just don't know. What we also don't know is whether the American public would/will cooperate with a SIP until our curve falls like the EU did. If they won't, will our leaders have the guts/leadership to force it upon us?

I fear that the answer to the above is no and no. I think we got stuck on a plateau due to non-compliance, and our leaders were afraid the public would not tolerate more SIP or enforcement. They opened up knowing full well it probably was a bad idea, but hoping we would get lucky and pull it off. Once again, we see hope is not a strategy. Unfortunately, if our leaders don't think they can obtain compliance by persuasion and/or force, there is no viable alternative to what we are doing. If that is the case, the situation may become very ugly.

The data points presented on Sweden, which go well beyond what I first presented, are fairly decisive that the Swedish approach didn't work. One of the articles said as much (the one dated June 5th). It was a mistake not to lockdown the most vulnerable members of society. 

The reason for examining this experience, and the the suggestion of nuance, is simple. It isn't so much that persuasion or force won't work, but that we have run out of authority. The basic anti-authoritarian 'don't-tread-on-me', element in American culture is in full play now. The absence of Presidential leadership doesn't help, but it is also true that it runs very deep in this society. Generally, that's an aspect of the culture to be appreciated. However, no question it is a problem in a pandemic.

So you try to think of some way to finesse this situation. Generally speaking, the slow retreat being undertaken by Newsome and Abbot seems most practical.

[Genuine Realist]

Interesting also about Q1 for Sweden (thanks Mick) as the only positive bar on the chart. The Sweden example has appeared on this board as an alternative answer to the health vs. jobs dilemma, one that some thought was an alternative to the March-May shutdown. The Sweden question is turning now towards whether or not they optimized jobs at all, while sacrificing health. Maybe they just postponed the health measures until later, and will suffer them worse over the long term, for not having clamped down early on. Time will tell. 

What if they and a lot of us — many in the USA, this board  too — got the health vs. jobs comparisons dilemma wrong? What if, as it turns out, more stringent pandemic response would have been the optimal for both health and jobs? As we look at it today, doesn't this chart argue for a more stringent shutdown which would have been followed by a better health situation and a better economy later?



If so, too bad, this is just hindsight. We don't get a time machine to go back and do it right. My point is even if we are disastrously late, we might still be better off if we were to start today and do better from now on. Our trajectory right now sucks. Do we have to keep going this way, so we'll have to look back to this time and bemoan what we didn't do?

I heard that Pence today publicly advocated using masks. About damn time. Obviously too little and too late, but at least it's a change of direction and better late than never. I'm still hoping we get out of this without millions of deaths and crippling the economy for a very long time.

To borrow from an old African proverb, the best time to do this was last March. The second best time is today.

Good questions. What this points out IMHO is that nobody really knows what the "optimum" way ahead at any given moment in time actually is. It may turn out that the EU spikes up again and ends up where we are, just a different trajectory. Not saying I expect that, but we just don't know. What we also don't know is whether the American public would/will cooperate with a SIP until our curve falls like the EU did. If they won't, will our leaders have the guts/leadership to force it upon us?

I fear that the answer to the above is no and no. I think we got stuck on a plateau due to non-compliance, and our leaders were afraid the public would not tolerate more SIP or enforcement. They opened up knowing full well it probably was a bad idea, but hoping we would get lucky and pull it off. Once again, we see hope is not a strategy. Unfortunately, if our leaders don't think they can obtain compliance by persuasion and/or force, there is no viable alternative to what we are doing. If that is the case, the situation may become very ugly.

The data points presented on Sweden, which go well beyond what I first presented, are fairly decisive that the Swedish approach didn't work. One of the articles said as much (the one dated June 5th). It was a mistake not to lockdown the most vulnerable members of society. 

The reason for examining this experience, and the the suggestion of nuance, is simple. It isn't so much that persuasion or force won't work, but that we have run out of authority. The basic anti-authoritarian 'don't-tread-on-me', element in American culture is in full play now. The absence of Presidential leadership doesn't help, but it is also true that it runs very deep in this society. Generally, that's an aspect of the culture to be appreciated. However, no question it is a problem in a pandemic.

So you try to think of some way to finesse this situation. Generally speaking, the slow retreat being undertaken by Newsome and Abbot seems most practical.