While Trump plays a part, this is so much bigger than him. It's worldwide in Western democracies. Heck, I might even blame anti-democracies entities more than anyone for trying to "destabilize" western institutions. But it's more than that. It's profit seekers and it's political. Now, there are honest criticisms (and that must be maintained) but unfortunately, many of their opinions are being weaponized as well by the no-good doers.
Agreed... it is much bigger, as the debate over the response to COVID-19 was global. But can you think of a single time a sitting U.S. president had such a direct role in something like this? (What am I asking, can someone name a previous U.S. president that had such a direct role in the weakening of American democracy?).
Not compared to their neighbors such as Norway. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34609261/ I like this study because Norway has similar socioeconomics and it tracks death rates of the preceding years which helps establishes a base. Some of the ones that compare to other parts of Europe with many more variables aren't as valid. This one is a little broader and examines the reasons why Sweden failed in its Covid-19 response. https://www.scienceopen.com/documen...tral/444b398e-6aaa-4cfe-aafb-04d9b158dd33.pdf
Geez, that's not my job I'll give it a try. Since we are on the path of dropping all restrictions (and assuming the goal is to keep hospitals up and running) ... When dropping all restrictions, I would like policy makers to say a few things. The responsibilities are now pushed onto individuals to safeguard themselves. We expect yearly Omicron infection for most folks. We expect 200k death per year from Omicron. Long covid might be significantly higher, we don't fully know yet. There is a chance of a new variant that changes all of this, and we will continue to monitor (well hopefully they would) and act accordingly.
Covid is a very different disease. We got to stop thinking of it as eventually being like the flu. That's an assumption that we hope to be true, but it's not. Maybe there is a new variant that overtakes Omicron and is even less virulent. Everyone and their mothers have been saying Omicron is mild. In the US, Omicron has killed more than Delta already. When Delta started this past summer, there was ~600k covid death. When Omicron wave started this winter, there was ~750k covid death. We are now at 925k covid death and will surpass 1M in a few weeks. This was predicted - while Omicron is inherently milder and the population has more immunity, it infects many more people in its path than Delta. A lower CFR x a much larger pool = more death. The bad news is so far, indications are being infected from Omicron doesn't protect you from being re-infected again. Booster will wane also. I want public officials to be honest about what they think the expectations are.
Do you realize how problematic this is? The first sentence doesn't make much sense as the responsibility has always been on individuals - but it's a team effort. Each entity, including the individual has a role to play. The 200k deaths isn't something any agency can do - there's no way to know a precise number given the inexact science. If it turns out to be 20k, they will be flamed for being wrong. If it turns out to be 400k, they will be flamed for being wrong. And the chances are - they will be very wrong. The rest actually doesn't tell anyone anything as well as being a mix of what they already do tell you. Basically the only thing here that is missing in the number of deaths, and the agency can never put a number that it simply doesn't know. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s1227-isolation-quarantine-guidance.html Instead of playing guesswork with what will happen in the future, they give updates based on their current info. They have a whole website dedicated to covid by the way - so there's tons of information on there. ------ Wear a mask Everyone ages 2 years and older should properly wear a well-fitting mask indoors in public in areas of substantial or high community transmission, regardless of vaccination status. You might choose to wear a mask regardless of the level of community transmission, if you or someone in your household is at increased risk for severe disease or has a weakened immune system, or if someone in your household is not up to date on their COVID-19 vaccines or not eligible to receive COVID-19 vaccines. Improve how well your mask protects you, and learn about how to choose a mask to protect yourself and others. In general, people do not need to wear masks when outdoors. In areas of substantial or high transmission, people might choose to wear a mask outdoors when in sustained close contact with other people, particularly if They or someone they live with has a weakened immune system or is at increased risk for severe disease. They are not up to date on COVID-19 vaccines or live with someone who is not up to date on COVID-19 vaccines. People who have a condition or are taking medications that weaken their immune system may not be fully protected even if they are up to date on their COVID-19 vaccines. They should continue to take all precautions recommended for unvaccinated people, including properly wearing a well-fitted mask, until advised otherwise by their healthcare provider. For more information, see COVID-19 Vaccines for Moderately or Severely Immunocompromised People -------- You look at all the situations of people complaining about the gov't forcing their kids to wear masks on the playground and you can see when you look at the CDC guidance they clearly state its unnecessary. Yet people claim the CDC is forcing them otherwise which shows that part of the problem isn't the information coming from the CDC, its that people don't actually bother to read the guidance!
It has been individuals + community. Once all NPI are removed, it's all on the individual. It's what most Americans understand and like anyway, so I don't think that's problematic at all. Public officials will be flamed anyway. But their job is to tell us what they honestly see from their data, not hide it because of fear of being flamed. And I'm just throwing out a single number, but I would imagine you provide a range. The point is don't assume it's normal. 200k death based on what we know about Omicron today. 100-300k if you want. It will change because Omicron won't be the last variant of concern (VoC). Remember when everyone was sugar high on covid vaccine? It stops all infections and almost all illnesses. There was basically no talk about waning (especially antibodies waning, which is normal) and about variants. People want it over, people like good news. While those in the profession knew these risks, they weren't communicated. The high expectation opens the door to "vaccine doesn't work" when waning and new variants reduces its effectiveness. That was clearly a huge problem for vaccine uptake. We need to talk about a realistic future that we know and do not know and not just deliver only good news. The reality is we will have new VoC. The experts are also so much better equipped to handle them. We have great worldwide collaboration. We have a great surveillant system that has improved drastically over the past year and will continue to. We have mRNA vaccine that can turn on a dime (4m vs years in the past). With Omicron, they were able to within 2-3 weeks provide lab data, within 4-5 weeks, understand quite a bit on how well the countermeasure works against it (diagnostic, monoclonal antibodies, vaccine, prior immunity), and within 8 weeks, have real-world data on the severity at different cohort's level. The point here, go ahead and state the unknown but also state we have the tool to handle them fairly quickly (amazingly quickly compared to 1 year ago). And this will continue to improve over time with data acquisition and forecasting. The future I hope to see is one where we can detect quickly and react quickly. This means we still might need to quickly bring back NPI as needed but it should be more targeted and only last as long as needed and no more. I know the CDC is working on this real-time forecasting capability and I want to see that expectation get set - the new normal is the virus will change, we have good tools, and we should use them. Taking down all restrictions and not communicating something about the future and capabilities leaves a vacuum, where some think it's over, some think we gave up, and some are just confused. And I expect that the vacuum will also allow more room for the politicization of it, as we saw with vaccine's high expectation with almost no communication on known and unknown risks.
yeah I have to disagree. You're asking them to communicate a lot of things that is going to cause more confusion, not less. It's too confusing as is. The vaccine side effects have been grossly overblown and a lot of mistruths around them. Also a lot of side effects made up that have nothing to do with the vaccine. The issue has been they haven't explained the rationale for the recommendations well, not that they haven't given enough info. There's no way they can manage what you are asking them from a communication standpoint.
@Sweet Lou 4 2 We had an exchange related to this. Norway is certainly not the US, but the idea of communicating honestly (in this case, uncertainties) is a big lesson the Norwegian claim for their success. This was what I wanted to see from our Gov. Norway Was a Pandemic Success. Then It Spent Two Years Studying Its Failures. - WSJ The odd thing about Norway’s low placement in the original rankings was that a social-welfare state with a small population, a high level of societal trust, universal healthcare and paid sick leave was always going to have advantages in a pandemic. But one look at the U.S. is all it takes to see that riches and resources weren’t sufficient. In the hypothetical pandemic rankings where Norway was 16th, the U.S. came in first place. In the actual pandemic, if you sort those 16 countries by their per-capita excess death rates, the U.S. came in last place. This sense of communal solidarity that goes back centuries was especially useful when Norway shut down on March 12, 2020. Timing mattered. Any sooner would have been too soon for the public. Any later would have been much too late. Norway’s case rate in the initial outbreak peaked almost exactly two weeks after March 12 and then plunged. The distinctly Norwegian social trust was a valuable source of capital that the authorities spent wisely early in the pandemic, and they recouped their investment by easing restrictions when the first wave of cases receded. The next lesson from the Koronakommisjonen reports is the power of not pretending to know more than you do. Nobody really knew anything early in the pandemic. Anybody claiming otherwise should have known better. “It’s been very important to communicate openly with the public about uncertainties and disagreements and the difficulties and dilemmas involved with managing a crisis,” said Camilla Stoltenberg, the director of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. One example is how Norway navigated school closures. While schools did close for roughly six weeks starting in March 2020, officials like Dr. Stoltenberg were remarkably blunt about their process. They argued that the evidence for closing down schools was weak, but it could be a reasonable precautionary measure at that particular moment, since there wasn’t much evidence for any course of action. Instead of projecting confidence in their answers, they admitted these were hard questions. They also reserved the right to change their minds. Later that spring, they reopened schools, which have remained mostly open and maskless throughout the pandemic. In short, the authorities acted less authoritative, which made them more effective. “They were honest about the uncertainty,” Lt. Gen. Jakobsen said. “By expressing that uncertainty, they gained much trust from the population.”
Sweden also did better than many countries, despite keeping everything open. As we all know, there are so many different ways to interpret statistics, but at the very least, I would argue that the positions represented in the Great Barrington Declaration should not have been treated as something that must be censored - that was overreach. And the scientists involved should not have been vilified and ostracized. Science means that different theories must be heard and can compete with each other. "The science" cannot be a government-dictated "truth".
I hate to play the "superior Nordic culture" debate, but I would imagine Swedish people overall have more trust in institutions in general (not just the govt) and higher scientific literacy. It probably also doesn't hurt that you had church leaders in the US, who have a prominent influence more comparable to a Latin American or Middle Eastern country than a European one, basically calling the vaccine and any restrictions as a sign of the end times. Combine that with a general, but understandable, panic and the Federalist system the US has and you get what happened here.
