Virus thread, the political one.

[guido]

New Covid-19 spikes are “totally predictable”: Some state reopenings have backfired - Vox

“One month ago, I asked epidemiologist Tara Smith if she was worried about states loosening their stay-at-home orders, despite most not meeting the government’s criteria for doing so.

“I am really fearful that by June 1 or June 15, after we’ve seen a couple weeks to a month of [state reopenings], that our cases are going to be climbing,” said Smith, a professor at the Kent State University College of Public Health.

Well, here we are. It’s June 12, and Covid-19 hospitalizations are rising in Arizona, the Carolinas, Utah, Arkansas, Texas, Tennessee, and perhaps Florida. Those states are also seeing higher numbers of positive Covid-19 tests, as well as increases in the percentage of tests that come back positive. This indicates that the higher case counts aren’t simply due to more widespread testing finding milder cases.

Call it a reopening backfire. But really: No expert thought that reopening this quickly was going to work in the first place.
“This is totally predictable”

Many states opened up in early May, hoping the economy would recover while a winning battle against Covid-19 continued apace.

Unfortunately, it’s now clear that in the areas where the virus has come roaring back, few gains against it were made in the last month.

“We managed to disrupt our economy [and] skyrocket unemployment, and we didn’t control the damn virus,” said Jeff Shaman, an infectious disease modeler at Columbia University."

[htwoopup]

I know what I am going to say is going to find violent disagreement. But I come from a place that is not one sided. There are plenty of LEO's in my personal life and I have worked closely with many PD organizations. I have been involved in a charity whose goal for the last 30 years has been to make NYC a safer place. We have given over 60 scholarships to LEO's to further their education in "justice" types of areas/ study of the criminal mind/ etc. We have also donated millions of dollars to programs run by police affiliated organizations that in theory tie the PD more closely into the community and in theory help the relationship with the community...think police athletic league etc. We have also honored and supported various LEO's for doing a job "above and beyond" their duties and so on.

We have also given millions in support both financial and expertise to a lot of organizations in the community that provide services that either used to be or should be provided by government but often had to be cut so that budgets (like the ever increasing PD budget) could be met. It should be pointed out here that often the same electorate that is screaming to cut taxes/ lower government budgets is the same electorate that screams for "keep me safe/ spend more on cops".

What is counter-intuitive but empirically true, from our looking at the efficacy of various programs that we have done is that spending more on PD actually becomes a self fulfilling spiral of increases. While, if you want to see a actual decrease in crime you should spend more on the social programs and educational programs and "caring" programs. Quite simply, in our work over 30 years we have seen that to decrease crime you should spend more on people and less on direct police support if you don't have money for both. Conversely, if you spend more on police (in lieu of other programs) you increase crime. This is not a matter of having more cops means you "capture" more crime...the internals show that you are creating more crime situations as you take away alternatives for food/ shelter/ recreation/ health/ etc.

It is that when you take away a person's hope, when you take away their line of sight to a better life situation, you give them no choice.

That is why over the last several years of seeing the measurable, tangible, factual results of specific efforts I am a big supporter of cutting back on expenditures on "protection" and a big supporter of increasing expenditures on those things that "prevent" the problems in the first place.

And I am not even getting into the systemic racism in the NYPD. In simple running a business and asking what do I get for every dollar spent there is absolute justification for reallocation of dollars to social programs from spending on PD from what we have seen in analyzing many many millions of dollars over a boatload of different programs over 30 years experience.

We must stop focusing on what we think the problem is and start focusing on fixing what are the root causes of those problems.

[davids]

Don't forget the fact the Police on the street puts his life at risk everyday he's out there.

How much of a salary do you think is fair for that?

I think they should be well-paid. They should make at least as much as schoolteachers.

I don't think this is the true issue. I think it's the militarization of the US police. I think it's the de-emphasis on conflict resolution, on social support, on intervention and mitigation. I think it's the punitive hostile interactions many officers have with the communities they're supposed to be serving.

I often think about a Boston cop I knew many years ago (husband of a colleague of my wife's) who could not believe we lived in the city. He saw Boston through his 'professional' eyes as a dangerous crime-ridden place. I thought, and still think, that's sad and problematic. Although I do recognize my N=1 sample size.

[guido]

+1

This is exactly the problem.

[dashDustin]

On the same day we open up sports, 3 days after going to 75% capacity at restaurants, Austin is now at level 4 covid risk. Not due to new cases, but hospitalizations. Bravo, Mr. Abbot.

[Sbti]

Ramps, water glasses, umbrellas, China plagues, solar eclipses, toilet paper on heels. When will these nemeses quit haunting dear leader?

[72gmc]

Far be it from me to defend Mr. Abbot, but at some point we the people need to decide if we're going to listen to the politicians, or to the people who actually know how viruses work.

[thollandpe]

I think they should be well-paid. They should make at least as much as schoolteachers.

I don't think this is the true issue. I think it's the militarization of the US police. I think it's the de-emphasis on conflict resolution, on social support, on intervention and mitigation. I think it's the punitive hostile interactions many officers have with the communities they're supposed to be serving.

I think de-militarizing the police is on the path forward. It not only better serves the community, it also better serves the police. The hardware and the tactics have further separated the police from the people they serve and protect. Militarization has made conflict and violence the default response and has put police lives in danger, as well as black lives.

Demilitarizing the police is an obvious and necessary first step that can be implemented quickly.

[gregl]

FDA pulls emergency use authorization of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19

Someone call 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue! And prepare a list of candidates to lead the FDA...

Greg

[mzilliox]

Loggers, traditionally, have the highest death rate per capita.
A quick search indicates that they, on average, earn about 40k per year.
Police don't even make the top 10 most dangerous (in terms of loss of life, or career-ending injury due to job responsibility) jobs in the US.

Agricultural (esp. meat workers) are more at risk. And they're paid cents on the dollar compared to police.

nuance is often lost on folks...
is policing really all that dangerous? does it need to be if they weren't such assholes and had a shoot first mentality? would it not be more safe if the other side didnt think the cops would shoot first and talk later? if our cops had a different role and attitude, would their lives be as dangerous. if we set up a society that addressed the issues the cops end up cleaning the mess for, would the job be even more safe? do they know the risks when they sign up? is that exactly the attraction for some?

bank robberies? cmon man, this aint the movies, i have been in 3 armed bank robberies as an employee, the only person in danger was the teller. anyone armed would have escalated things to a point of stupid, banks are insured. the cops show up after the robber leaves, its not like the movies. calling the cops for a bank robbery is a formality, they dont do anything at all. they arent even usually the ones who find the robber, partly because its not worth their time, and partly because the bank does its own work.

i have no issue defunding them if the funds then go back into the communities in other ways that will enhance lives and lead to less crime.

or something about personal responsibility blah blah blah privilege ease, every man for themselves, blah blah, it doesnt take a village, everyone is perfectly suited to capitalism, as its totally natural to humans to be greedy as hell and not help their brothers out... and all of these other myths people tell themselves.

[72gmc]

is policing really all that dangerous?

I'll propose that police work is more dangerous than it needs to be, for everyone, because police are called upon to address issues that would be much better addressed in other ways. But, when you keep removing investment in every tool save one ...

[Tom]

When all you've got is a hammer....

[mzilliox]

I'll propose that police work is more dangerous than it needs to be, for everyone, because police are called upon to address issues that would be much better addressed in other ways. But, when you keep removing investment in every tool save one ...

yes, that was what i was trying to say, totally agreed.

it could be a much more safe job if we as society prioritized social programs that help humans instead of pretending each of us has the resources to become a millionaire if only we had the work ethic, haha. what a joke.

[beeatnik]

Many law enforcement supporters conflate danger with hygiene. It's a dirty job for sure. But in most major cities firefighters serve as paramedics; however, the public health component of their of their occupation has not become the defining perception. In other words, they don't claim the job is any more dangerous because the majority of calls are to transport destitute individuals to the county ER.

nuance is often lost on folks...
is policing really all that dangerous? does it need to be if they weren't such assholes and had a shoot first mentality? would it not be more safe if the other side didnt think the cops would shoot first and talk later? if our cops had a different role and attitude, would their lives be as dangerous. if we set up a society that addressed the issues the cops end up cleaning the mess for, would the job be even more safe? do they know the risks when they sign up? is that exactly the attraction for some?

bank robberies? cmon man, this aint the movies, i have been in 3 armed bank robberies as an employee, the only person in danger was the teller. anyone armed would have escalated things to a point of stupid, banks are insured. the cops show up after the robber leaves, its not like the movies. calling the cops for a bank robbery is a formality, they dont do anything at all. they arent even usually the ones who find the robber, partly because its not worth their time, and partly because the bank does its own work.

i have no issue defunding them if the funds then go back into the communities in other ways that will enhance lives and lead to less crime.

or something about personal responsibility blah blah blah privilege ease, every man for themselves, blah blah, it doesnt take a village, everyone is perfectly suited to capitalism, as its totally natural to humans to be greedy as hell and not help their brothers out... and all of these other myths people tell themselves.

[guido]

Taxpayers Have a Right to Know Who Is Getting Their Stimulus Money | The New Yorker

"Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants, as Louis D. Brandeis—the future Supreme Court Justice—remarked, in his 1913 essay “What Publicity Can Do.” Seldom has this dictum been more apposite than it is now, when American taxpayers are handing out gobs of money to businesses affected by the coronavirus pandemic, the vast majority of which remain anonymous. On Sunday, the Treasury Department and the Small Business Administration published an update on the Paycheck Protection Program, which was designed to keep Americans employed during the shutdowns by providing financial support to businesses with fewer than five hundred workers. As of June 12th, the S.B.A., which is administrating the P.P.P., had approved about 4.6 million loans. The average size of the loans was about a hundred and twelve thousand dollars. The total amount committed was $512.3 billion, equivalent to about 2.4 per cent of G.D.P.

That’s a large sum to spend on what are effectively grants. (As long as a business participating in the P.P.P. maintains its payroll, most or all of its loan will be eligible to be forgiven.) And yet, with a few exceptions, taxpayers don’t know who has received all this money. Despite pressure from Congress and the filing of a Freedom of Information lawsuit by a number of media companies, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has refused to publish a list of P.P.P.-loan recipients and the sizes of their loans. The Trump Administration has not yet provided such data to the Government Accountability Office.

Appearing before the Senate Small Business Committee last week, Mnuchin said the secrecy was necessary to protect the “proprietary information” of loan recipients. The Administration’s argument is that if it publishes how much a certain business has received its competitors will be able to figure out its revenues, because the size of a P.P.P. loan is linked to a firm’s total outlays on payroll. But this argument flies in the face of at least two realities. In April, the S.B.A., which has routinely published the names of the businesses it has lent to, indicated that it would do the same for loans issued under the P.P.P. Moreover, the application form that borrowers have to fill out for a P.P.P. loan says that, under the Freedom of Information Act, “subject to certain exceptions,” the S.B.A. is obliged to supply information including “the names of the borrowers (and their officers, directors, stockholders or partners), the collateral pledged to secure the loan, the amount of the loan, its purpose in general terms and the maturity.” It’s all there in black and white."

[72gmc]

^^^ Saw that. For two administrations in a row now, huge bailouts with insufficient transparency and a feeling that the taxpayer is being patted on the head and sent to bed by "people who know better."

[guido]

What Mike Pence’s WSJ Covid-19 coronavirus op-ed got wrong - Vox

"The White House is pushing a narrative that renewed concerns over the coronavirus’s spread are merely a media concoction — a worrying strategy in light of the recent spike in cases in some parts of the United States.

What’s actually happening in the United States is much more complicated, and new research on the recent spike in Tennessee reveals some subtle ways in which the Covid-19 pandemic may be evolving.
Why the White House’s coronavirus narrative is wrong

The White House’s view is best represented by Vice President Mike Pence’s Wall Street Journal op-ed on Tuesday: “There Isn’t a Coronavirus ‘Second Wave.’”

The vice president ticks through various data points — increased testing numbers, low positive test rates in many states, a steady plateau in new cases nationally, and a decline in deaths — to make his case.

For starters, Pence’s choice of frame is a misnomer. The experts I’ve spoken with aren’t talking about a second wave at all.

“We are still in the first wave; we’re not yet seeing the second wave,” David Celentano, who chairs the epidemiology department at Johns Hopkins, told me last week.

Pence’s preference for focusing on the national numbers obscures the very basic fact that America is not experiencing one Covid-19 outbreak but many. The virus is hitting different places at different times and spreads differently depending on a variety of local factors.

Part of the reason for the national plateau in cases is a decline in New York City and the surrounding area, which were hit hardest by the coronavirus at first. But other places, spared in the early weeks of the pandemic, have now seen their first significant surge.

The states with new Covid-19 spikes — Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Texas, etc. — were able to lock down and stave off the coronavirus for a while because it hadn’t saturated their communities in the way it had New York and other early epicenters where the virus first landed in the United States. Social distancing prevented their outbreak from growing exponentially.

But now those states are seeing problematic trends, trends that Pence conveniently ignores in his op-ed: Hospitalizations are increasing and the rate at which Covid-19 tests are coming back positive is on the rise. Both suggest that the increase in cases is not simply the result of more testing, as Pence would clearly prefer Americans to believe, but also more spread within the community.

In other venues, Pence has outright falsely claimed a decline in cases when the opposite is true. As CNN documented, Pence said at a White House event that Oklahoma’s cases are falling but that’s wrong; new cases are up 123 percent over the last two weeks and the positive test rate has more than doubled over the same period. Local health officials say they wish the Trump campaign would postpone a planned rally in Tulsa because of the new spike.

Pence is right that, mercifully, daily coronavirus deaths have declined nationwide (to date, at least 117,000 Americans have died from Covid-19, though that is likely an undercount). But deaths lag behind all of the other pandemic indicators; they are the last place where any new spread would show up in the numbers.

First, people test positive and get counted as a new case. Next, those who develop severe symptoms are hospitalized and added to those figures. Last, some of the people who end up in hospital will die. It’s only at the end of the disease’s course, which can take several weeks to reach, when new trends in the pandemic are reflected in death data.

There is one other way in which Pence’s spin is troublingly Pollyanna-ish. He portrays the plateau in national cases as reason for celebration. But as Max Roser with the University of Oxford pointed out on Twitter, the US has not suppressed the virus to nearly the degree that Europe collectively has. (And don’t blame more testing; the US continues to see a higher positive test rate than many European countries.)"

[gregl]

If I were an immunologist, I would be jumping on this event as a great case study: Trump supporters crowd Tulsa ahead of Saturday rally. Another group Darwin award nominee?

Greg

[72gmc]

I hope immunologists do jump on that chance. I may not agree with their vote, but if there is a way those 45 supporters can contribute to better science, even reluctantly, we may owe them a bit of gratitude down the road.

In Seattle the protests may have spread the virus less than was feared: Seattle protests haven't contributed much to the spread of COVID-19 - so far | Crosscut

[gregl]

I hope immunologists do jump on that chance. I may not agree with their vote, but if there is a way those 45 supporters can contribute to better science, even reluctantly, we may owe them a bit of gratitude down the road.

In Seattle the protests may have spread the virus less than was feared: Seattle protests haven't contributed much to the spread of COVID-19 - so far | Crosscut

The nationwide protests over the past month have been outdoors. Trump's Tulsa rally will be 19,000 people, screaming and yelling, in close proximity INDOORS.

Greg