|
In response to
"(My point on B2 is that when we get the risk/death numbers to numbers we can live morally with - clearly, the flu numbers, we will carry on)"
by
JackDawson
|
My point is that I think your posts were underplaying the issues here. Yes, we treat the flu differently, but that is in part because of experience,
Posted by
pmb (aka pmb)
Mar 17 '20, 09:41
|
the availability of at least something of a vaccine and known manageable care requirements. Our system can handle it as best it needs to be handled. This is new and on top of (not in replacement of) the flu. There is no vaccine available and we've seen countries overwhelmed. Yes, I agree completely that the federal government fucked this up in monumental ways. It is really in the testing and early containment. Treatment is not in any way the issue in any country. Nobody has a more effective treatment (and I doubt there will be one in any foreseeable future). It's about not overwhelming the system. South Korea did a far better job testing, but had its own issues from the start. Some of the other countries closed their borders quicker and are more easily contained. So I'm not in any way giving a pass to the administration, but I do think some level of this was unavoidable. The inexcusable part is that we're still so in the dark about how widespread it is and where it is bad. Where resources need to be allocated. We're terribly underprepared (I just don't think in exactly the ways or with the outcomes you were suggesting).
|
Responses:
|