Thanks for posting that, @unreal24278…because I think it warrants some real, non-partisan/non-snippy discussion. (and I hope that is a good, reliable source, @unreal24278. Quite frankly in this days of “news” it really is hard to tell).
Almost from the beginning of this mess; Sweden was touted as “the” example of how to deal with this “fake” pandemic (I never was quite sure that if it was “fake”…what exactly was Sweden dealing with? But moving on…)
It was touted as “the” way to deal with the COVID issue, and all of the lock-downs, social-distancing, etc. were (fill in whatever you wish from the “fake” Pandemic-ers).
I pose some questions to the PWI family:
What are we to make of what is happening in Sweden?
Would the U.S. have tolerated the “Swedish approach” in the face of a much greater number of deaths than what we already have?
Was the rest of the West “wrong” in their approach…or do we have to give this some time…maybe years…before we can assess the true impact of different approaches to the Pandemic?
I will reiterate; as we look as what was done in the West (especially the U.S.); we will find that:
Some things we did RIGHT.
Some things we did WRONG.
Some things we continued to do wrong despite mounting evidence to the contrary.
I think this is the case, it’s too soon to say that one approach is significantly better at stopping the virus. The US couldn’t have done much worse though. What you can see at this point is that Sweden’s approach did not result in way more deaths than would have occurred otherwise, most deaths in Sweden like elsewhere were in nursing homes, and they were spared the other effects caused by shutdowns and all that. Canada is a country that has been said to have handled the pandemic well, but our GDP went down by double what Sweden’s did.
I certainly want you guys to correct me…but I think that all of measures that are taken (mask, distancing, limiting larger gatherings, “bubbles” etc.); are meant to lessen the overall effects and spread of the virus within a given population rather than “stop” it.
Setting aside the whole fake thing, which only the very dumb or mentally ill would believe, the question that no one from the ignore it/let it run its course/it’s not that bad/people die all the time/etc. side answers is: how many people need to be at risk of dying in order to take drastic steps to prevent all of those deaths? I read an article in which someone wrote that the bright side of the plague in England, which killed 25 - 50% of the population, was that wages went up. So we know where that author stands when it comes to death tolls.
This is the wrong assessment, IMO. This pandemic did not show us that we were unprepared to deal with a pandemic as much as it showed we are incapable of being prepared to deal with a pandemic. I don’t know if a different president would have done a better job but I do know that Trump failed. The following is what I believe to be a fair portrait of Trump: he is obsessed with the concept of ratings and fans. He does not behave or think like the president of all citizens, including those who did not vote for him and/or criticize him (even hate him). He only cares about those who support him. There is a time to play politics but not when the entire country is facing a crisis. Maybe a different president would have failed as well but for different reasons other than being petty and vindictive by nature (which Trump has demonstrated for decades).
At least here in Canada, the original plan was to “flatten the curve”, now the goalposts have shifted to “stop the spread”. It’s the new slogan. Just look at these pictures:
As for the US, I don’t think anyone is realistically expecting it to stop just like that so perhaps this sort of talk is foreign to you.
But when a large proportion of the population thinks it’s a fake crisis then why stop playing politics? Since when did politicians actually care about people?
Dignity, morality, patriotism… not being a scumbag.
The Ancient Greeks and Romans were able to come together and protect their people from outside threats. But then again, civics meant something back then.
The reason the vast majority of this group thinks it is fake is specifically BECAUSE Trump played politics with the virus and all but called it fake at the outset.
There are always going to be conspiracy nuts. However, he is responsible for the majority of these people holding the “fake” view, because by and large they are Trump supporters. If he’d been a decent leader he would have rallied everyone to take it seriously–whatever direction policies ended up taking (masks, shutdowns, etc.).
And it should be noted that Trump’s fake virus news coincided with the states where he didn’t win choosing to take measures to slow the spread. Now that states like Florida and Texas are being hit hard he is less vocal about the fake virus.
That’s if the politician in question actually values those things. Otherwise, it’s an opportunity to capitalize on a bad situation.
Times have certainly changed.
3D chess at it’s best.
Key word is “if”, and on the other hand you have leaders on the opposite end of the spectrum who have gone a bit too far with shutting down and putting excessive limits on freedom. It’s an election year, and as bad as it may be, it’s easier for most people to deal with this than what is happening in places like Australia.
Well, my comment wasn’t to say that the policy decisions were all correct, but that a decent leader would have encouraged the populace to take the virus seriously independent of policy decisions, whether they be conservative or not.
One of the reasons I dislike that the word “moderate” has become a flash point politically.
There will be a lot of review for these policies after the fact. I don’t support masks in an outdoor situation where you are not near anyone else. However, I accept that everyone is essentially flying blind on this thing so I understand why there will be varying reactions in policy.
All correct sir. He had a political layup here. Everyone do their part together, common enemy, blah blah blah. Simple simple stuff. Instead he cast doubt on scientists, downplayed it constantly, and largely vilified the people who know more than anyone about this stuff.
If he had done that he might be a heavy favorite in the election. And undoubtedly our results would be much better. We needed a leader and instead we got the opposite. Which in fairness was just Trump being himself because he doesn’t know how to lead.
I cannot fathom this. I see the reality of it with my senses, but I still cannot fathom how someone could deliberately be this fucking stupid politically. It’s the easiest sell in your entire presidency! Shit it’s easier than the sells made in previous real estate business.
His fucking ego can’t take anyone else having the attention.
