Singapore and South Korea responded much better , part of that is because they already had a problem with SARS before. Experience helped a lot in that.
But Korea has 51 million people and they have over 9300 cases. Maybe they will stay economically better off, but their culture would be much better at dealing and obeying directives to help.
Singapore has been much better, but in Singapore you get fined for leaving a toilet unflushed, 7 years in jail for theft and they still cane people as punishment. So they have a much stronger âholdâ over their populace. That would not go over well here. When they say stay indoors, I think everyone mostly stays indoors in Singapore.
In the west they do not have the controls over a populace to obey requests to stay inside even. Take New York city especially as a huge example. People were still milling around places when they were told to stay indoors. And then you have subways packed with people because that is the only way New Yorkers are used to getting to the grocery, to even the essential jobs etc.
I donât see any western country having enough control to do the same things. Nor would any of us want those restrictions as our normal way of life. Plus as I said before to stock up enough supplies for this and to constantly switch out those supplies would have been a huge cost that would have had to be budgeted for. And paid for by taxpayers.
What do you think your hospital costs would have been for every hospital to have 10 times, 20 times, 50 times 100 times of extra stock all the time. On something maybe if it was even going to happen. Your hospital bills would even be a lot more expensive than they already are.
It is not a matter of absolutes, black and white, none versus everyone, but even within the European countries some governments were, or are, grossly incompetent. Boris Johnson is now infected, as is his health secretary.
It is not just a matter of control, but public health, messaging, and resources. Our own government is a case in point, denying it was a problem, incompetently creating their own test, not creating enough tests, not moving fast enough, not developing clear messaging, and not listening to the science.
@Marie20 - Not ignoring your comment about costs, but that kind of discussion can go down a rabbit hole, of the system we have now, the most expensive but middling competent medical care - this is not about individuals but systems - of largely privatized care that is run disproportionately for profit. There are many ways to have better health care for less per person, with everyone covered, than our current system.
I think messaging is incredibly important. This is where I feel our government has done an excellent job. The federal and provincial governments all seem to be closely communicating and are putting out very consistent messaging across the board and across all areas of government. Our prime minister went into self-isolation quite early on when his wife was diagnosed with COVID-19, which I think set a really good example. And, even though there are some people who will always choose to ignore new regulations (which has resulted in the need to resort to implementing fines), most people seems to be taking the situation very seriously. Today, our provincial government said that the data looks like we may be starting to flatten the (provincial) curve; transmission rates have been cut by 50% and our provincial healthcare system will be able to manage all the new cases if that trend continues or intensifies. But itâs still very tenuous and could get worse tomorrow. Extra resources were ordered weeks ago just in case. Weâre being told these measures will be in place for the foreseeable future.
I agree with that statement but would we have been more prepared with a socialized care system. Socialized system only invite bureaucracies and it appears that bureaucracies are what has failed us now. Everyone was under the impression that these bureaucracies were going to take actions to save us all. It appears now that they are long on talk and short on actions.
This is a signature of our government, it doesnât keep you healthy, it just makes rules that others must follow to keep you healthy. These bureaucracies have failed in their duties to make the necessary rules, in some cases even making rules that harm instead of helping.
As pointed out or health care system is mostly a for profit system, it was not profitable to have stockpiled onsite the necessary PPE to manage an infection such as Covid-19 at least enough to get through till the supply chain could be ramped up. The CDC, HHS and a host of other three and four letter agencies have been warning us of this possibility for years. You would think someone at one of these agencies would have thought it wise to mandate such stockpiles. The same can be said for ventilators.
Much has been said about how slow the US has been establishing testing, you can lay blame for this at the feet of bureaucracies. Before a national health emergency was declared any testing lab was allowed to develop and use a test, they just had to insure a certain degree of accuracy. After an emergency was declared there was an existing rule requiring that all testing must be first approved by the CDC. After this went into effect all testing labs decided to wait for the CDC to develop the approved test even though some were ahead of the CDC in development. To add insult to injury the CDC blew it with its first test, it was found to be inaccurate. We would not have the testing we have today if the prior approval rule were not finally lifted.
All administrations are not evil, nor are all bureaucracies, even if we use a dictionary definition:
a system of government in which most of the important decisions are made by state officials rather than by elected representatives.
Bureaucracies are in many ways more efficient than administration by elected officials. The Fed is a case in point. Much government work is done by career administrators, and provided their aim is civil service, not self-enrichment - I mean more than success in oneâs career - government organizations are very effective unless they become captured, i.e., controlled by the same industries they regulate or subverted by political pressures.
As to the incompetence of our current government bureaus - you mentioned the CDC - that is a political issue, not inherently a problem of bureaucracies per se, and in fact, much of those types of problems can be explained by capture by corporations - the fox rules the henhouse - political hires with little expertise in their field nor expertise in government, and meddling by elected officials.
As a counter to the canât trust the government meme, this article mentions the high level of trust in the government. Although perceived as âsocialistâ theyâre more capitalistic in many ways than other countries, including the US, with a high level of individualism, innovation, and wealth creation, but where Scandinavian cultures differs has more to do with them culturally choosing the quality of life and equality over success and work. Also, I canât say this is a smart strategy, since only time will tell, but if successful, it might have less to do with government than with facets of Swedish culture.
In explaining Swedenâs current methods, experts point to other underlying factors: The country has high levels of trust, according to the historian Lars Tragardh, and a strict law in the Constitution prohibits the government from meddling in the affairs of the administrative authorities, such as the public health agency.
âTherefore, you donât need to micromanage or control behavior at a detailed level through prohibitions or threat of sanctions or fines or imprisonment,â Mr. Tragardh said in a phone interview. âThat is how Sweden stands apart, even from Denmark and Norway.â
Along the lines of discrimination going both ways, I was surprised by some comments from 20-somethings during a new hire orientation I was involved in at the end of 2018. For our 2-day introduction, we were divided in teams of 8, a mix of people, and we would listen to policy as well as engage in some team activities designed to educate us on corporate culture, like diversity and decision-making.
I was the oldest member at the table, a 58-year old software engineer. The other members ranged in age, but most were under 30, recent college graduates, medical school hopefuls, and early career medical professionals. As is common, I wound up leading most activities, either by contribution or by coordination.
At the end of the 2 days we were expected to say some nice things about each other, and I received compliments for my wisdom and leadership, which was very generous. As we were talking, I was surprised to hear how often these young people were criticized by older people or looked at with disdain. My comment, was that when I was their age, I never wanted to become one of âthose peopleâ that disdained and criticized youth.
This is something that I am reminded of from time to time, that we often talk of ageism - and I see/hear it when I am in large groups of younger people - but bias exists in both directions, and I donât mean to minimize the plight of older people, or the problem of ageism, since in this case it can be deadlyâŚ
For example, Italyâs hospitals are completely overwhelmed by the number of Covid-19 patients. Is it acceptable when age is one of the factors they take into account when deciding who is admitted to the ICU?
I suppose when I say that what you are saying is precisely one of the things Iâm talking about (who lives; who dies), indeed is right up there at number one, I should also add that of course we do not, I mean, I do not have all the answers or even an answer. I think in a way, even framing the question is unacceptable, and I do not mean and am not, accusing you of anything. What I mean is those of us outside of the hotspot areas are morally responsible as of this second for coming up with ANSWERS to prevent this sort of either or thinking. NOW. Which is why I have proposed what I did here and elsewhere about the need to develop a Covid Corps.
If you read the Atlantic article, the author details the implicit bias we all have when it comes to âthe elderly:â how it leads to a sort of cavalierness when it comes to dealing with things.
I guess in closing, Iâll cite Wanda Sykes - you be you, but Iâm gonna be me and maintain that allowing the elderly to just die IS UNACCEPTABLE.
Iâm gonna be me and maintain that allowing the elderly to just die IS UNACCEPTABLE.
There arenât going to be enough supplies to go around; itâs just a matter of a week or few in some locations. As an older type 1, I understand that if I get seriously ill with cov19 a few weeks from now I wonât get treated, but that decision may save 3 younger lives because they can get well and out of the hospital without lingering and tying up precious equipment for weeks the way I likely would. Youâre right that this outcome is discrimination and not fairness, but it truly is ethically correct and for the greatest good. I donât know whether this article on the reality and ethics has already been posted⌠Coronavirus: Extraordinary Decisions For Italian Doctors - The Atlantic
Men fare worse (so far) than women - so start the decision tree with women and rule out men and boys. Boom, 50% of the population - gone. But, OMG, what if you donât have any 60 or 70 year olds on your unit from whom to take a ventilator and gasp you have to choose between two 20 year olds: a 20 year old female with diabetes and a 20 year old (female) without diabetes, well, if itâs all about survivability then, give it to the non-diabetic. Yes, I see! This IS easy.
I think thatâs a misconception. It does not need to be a decision tree at all.
Yes, but when you compare the hospitalization rate and death rate, the sex ratios are the same, so once admitted to the hospital, the survival chances may be more or less equal.
