Wisconsin: Harbinger of Idiocy

[Elixir]

Updated 5/28. Prior to 5/13 there was a downward trend in the 7-day trailing average number of daily new cases.
Then, on 5/13 the (Republican) Wisconsin Supreme Court disallowed the social distancing measures imposed by the (Dem) Governor.
People immediately went out and partied like there was no tomorrow. Since that joyous day there has been a 54% increase.
Now some of those revelers will be looking at the very real spectre of no tomorrow.
All thanks to (more) Republican idiocy. "Open up the economy!" they said. "It'll be fun!", they said.

 

[prideandfall]

this is why i find the narrative that the trump admin's response to the pandemic was a failure, or that any other outcome was possible in the US.
my wife tried to argue that if they'd only issued a national stay at home order 2 weeks earlier, X number of cases would have been avoided... but the truth is that if you looking at the behaviors, even in the midst of active infections, people were denying the efficacy of any kind of collective response, and chomping at the bit to defy governmental orders and act like nothing was happening.

if mandatory government enforced shutdowns of society are the only thing stopping rampant infection rates, because people refuse to follow guidelines on their own, then i start to question whether or not you can really blame 'the government' for what's happening.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

this is why i find the narrative that the trump admin's response to the pandemic was a failure, or that any other outcome was possible in the US.
my wife tried to argue that if they'd only issued a national stay at home order 2 weeks earlier, X number of cases would have been avoided... but the truth is that if you looking at the behaviors, even in the midst of active infections, people were denying the efficacy of any kind of collective response, and chomping at the bit to defy governmental orders and act like nothing was happening.

if mandatory government enforced shutdowns of society are the only thing stopping rampant infection rates, because people refuse to follow guidelines on their own, then i start to question whether or not you can really blame 'the government' for what's happening.

If I understand you correctly, I believe that's a false dichotomy. If you have 100 contagious people and you quarantine them on day 1 of being infected, let's say, then no matter what percentage may break that quarantine subsequently, you've already managed to prevent an exponentially larger number of secondary infections as compared to if that quarantine went into effect on day 14 of being infected.

Iow, your wife is correct; it's the timing of the quarantine vs the amount of time the infected people who need to be quarantined have been allowed to roam around infecting people.

 

[prideandfall]

If you have 100 contagious people and you quarantine them on day 1 of being infected, let's say, then no matter what percentage may break that quarantine subsequently, you've already managed to prevent an exponentially larger number of secondary infections as compared to if that quarantine went into effect on day 14 of being infected.

on paper, yes. but in reality that's a logistical impossibility - there's no way you pick just the infected people and quarantine them.
in a situation like in the US if you just become aware that a highly contagious virus has entered the physical space of the continental land mass and a significant portion of your population refuses to isolate themselves and the virus gets within that segment of the population, there's nothing you can do to stop it.

i just tried googling this but i couldn't find any info, maybe my search terms are wrong... what is the current infection rate within the US population that is strictly adhering to self-quarantine? how many people who don't go out at all except when absolutely necessary and who have highly limited contact with the outside world have become infected?
i could be wrong here and making a completely baseless assumption, but logic tells me that infection rates are happening within groups that aren't following self-quarantine in the first place.

if the federal government had started telling people to not go to work and not go out and lock themselves in their homes 3-6 weeks earlier than actually happened... well, even when the news was reporting left and right that infection rates were skyrocketing in the US you had millions of people refusing to do it. if you did it 2 months earlier before there was widespread outbreak, do you really think more people would have gone along with it?
i suspect if you'd done it before the news cycle churned up herd panic, you'd simply have more of the anti-government reactionaries going out of their way to break quarantine best practices out of spite.

assuming the infection rates are primarily within the segments of the population that are NOT self isolating in the first place and would not self isolate under any circumstances, why is the assumption that earlier public self isolation would have made any difference, if these people weren't going to do it anyways?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

this is why i find the narrative that the trump admin's response to the pandemic was a failure, or that any other outcome was possible in the US.
my wife tried to argue that if they'd only issued a national stay at home order 2 weeks earlier, X number of cases would have been avoided... but the truth is that if you looking at the behaviors, even in the midst of active infections, people were denying the efficacy of any kind of collective response, and chomping at the bit to defy governmental orders and act like nothing was happening.

if mandatory government enforced shutdowns of society are the only thing stopping rampant infection rates, because people refuse to follow guidelines on their own, then i start to question whether or not you can really blame 'the government' for what's happening.

Except if you contain it before it has spread, you have a better chance at eliminating it, for a bit. The reported numbers are only confirmed and the actual cases must be 3x to 10x higher. So it has spread too far to be contained.

Kind of like Iraq, the clock is set when you start, you have until X to make things right, after that, you dun fucked up.

One thing I’d question is how long the lag is before you notice infections. The dumbass fuckwads were venturing out demanding freedom before this.

 

[prideandfall]

this is why i find the narrative that the trump admin's response to the pandemic was a failure, or that any other outcome was possible in the US.
my wife tried to argue that if they'd only issued a national stay at home order 2 weeks earlier, X number of cases would have been avoided... but the truth is that if you looking at the behaviors, even in the midst of active infections, people were denying the efficacy of any kind of collective response, and chomping at the bit to defy governmental orders and act like nothing was happening.

if mandatory government enforced shutdowns of society are the only thing stopping rampant infection rates, because people refuse to follow guidelines on their own, then i start to question whether or not you can really blame 'the government' for what's happening.

Except if you contain it before it has spread, you have a better chance at eliminating it, for a bit. The reported numbers are only confirmed and the actual cases must be 3x to 10x higher. So it has spread too far to be contained.

Kind of like Iraq, the clock is set when you start, you have until X to make things right, after that, you dun fucked up.

One thing I’d question is how long the lag is before you notice infections. The dumbass fuckwads were venturing out demanding freedom before this.

i don't want to simply repeat myself to the post i just made to koyaa, but you kind of hit directly on my point - it's not that i don't understand how limiting exposure works to prevent the spread of infections or that i'm suggesting if the whole country had gone hermit in early january that the numbers wouldn't be different... i'm saying that no matter when you called for a national lockdown and no matter how you implemented it, in the US a sizable portion of the population would not only ignore the orders but would act directly in opposition to it out of spite.
therefore, my contention is that 'containing it before it spread' was never an option in the US in the first place, so acting like it WAS an option and then trying to blame the government for not doing it seems kind of stupid to me.

 

[J842P]

this is why i find the narrative that the trump admin's response to the pandemic was a failure, or that any other outcome was possible in the US.
my wife tried to argue that if they'd only issued a national stay at home order 2 weeks earlier, X number of cases would have been avoided... but the truth is that if you looking at the behaviors, even in the midst of active infections, people were denying the efficacy of any kind of collective response, and chomping at the bit to defy governmental orders and act like nothing was happening.

if mandatory government enforced shutdowns of society are the only thing stopping rampant infection rates, because people refuse to follow guidelines on their own, then i start to question whether or not you can really blame 'the government' for what's happening.

I have maintained this all along, while the Trump administration is clearly woefully inept, I just don't think it is realistic to expect the American population to do something like what is being done in, say, Korea.

To put it another way, I don't know how much room there is for any administration, even the best possibly prepared ones, given the American populace. I mean, people are shooting each other over being asked to wear a mask in a store.

 

[barbos]

Yeah, other democratic countries are not doing that well. So it's doubtful that Obama would have done much better than president Deplorable.

 

[Rhea]

this is why i find the narrative that the trump admin's response to the pandemic was a failure, or that any other outcome was possible in the US.
my wife tried to argue that if they'd only issued a national stay at home order 2 weeks earlier, X number of cases would have been avoided... but the truth is that if you looking at the behaviors, even in the midst of active infections, people were denying the efficacy of any kind of collective response, and chomping at the bit to defy governmental orders and act like nothing was happening.

if mandatory government enforced shutdowns of society are the only thing stopping rampant infection rates, because people refuse to follow guidelines on their own, then i start to question whether or not you can really blame 'the government' for what's happening.

I have maintained this all along, while the Trump administration is clearly woefully inept, I just don't think it is realistic to expect the American population to do something like what is being done in, say, Korea.

To put it another way, I don't know how much room there is for any administration, even the best possibly prepared ones, given the American populace. I mean, people are shooting each other over being asked to wear a mask in a store.

Here are all the reasons why you CAN say Obama (or any other sane president) would do better

• Trump is deliberately and repeatedly undermining the messages on how to stay safe
• Trump is actively encouraging disobedience
• Trump is muzzling the scientists who people should hear
• Trump is not a kind person and cannot get people's cooperation on anything peaceful
• Trump is playing games with equipment and PPE
• Trump is deliberately and repeatedly undermining state efforts to help people stay safe

Other Democratic countries are doing better than the USA

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

this is why i find the narrative that the trump admin's response to the pandemic was a failure, or that any other outcome was possible in the US.
my wife tried to argue that if they'd only issued a national stay at home order 2 weeks earlier, X number of cases would have been avoided... but the truth is that if you looking at the behaviors, even in the midst of active infections, people were denying the efficacy of any kind of collective response, and chomping at the bit to defy governmental orders and act like nothing was happening.

if mandatory government enforced shutdowns of society are the only thing stopping rampant infection rates, because people refuse to follow guidelines on their own, then i start to question whether or not you can really blame 'the government' for what's happening.

Except if you contain it before it has spread, you have a better chance at eliminating it, for a bit. The reported numbers are only confirmed and the actual cases must be 3x to 10x higher. So it has spread too far to be contained.

Kind of like Iraq, the clock is set when you start, you have until X to make things right, after that, you dun fucked up.

One thing I’d question is how long the lag is before you notice infections. The dumbass fuckwads were venturing out demanding freedom before this.

i don't want to simply repeat myself to the post i just made to koyaa, but you kind of hit directly on my point - it's not that i don't understand how limiting exposure works to prevent the spread of infections or that i'm suggesting if the whole country had gone hermit in early january that the numbers wouldn't be different... i'm saying that no matter when you called for a national lockdown and no matter how you implemented it, in the US a sizable portion of the population would not only ignore the orders but would act directly in opposition to it out of spite.
therefore, my contention is that 'containing it before it spread' was never an option in the US in the first place, so acting like it WAS an option and then trying to blame the government for not doing it seems kind of stupid to me.

It is hard to predict. On one hand we have lots of deaths in Europe and "Trump's plan" has quelled cases in the US and saved tens of thousands of lies. He is vindicated as the death toll and cases in non-NYC areas are negligible. So that could help press on with that sort of plan. On the other hand, the lack of cases is mistaken for meaning the early shutdown wasn't needed at all and America was safe because we have oceans to both sides, so the shutdown was dumb, right-wingers revolt.

It could go either way.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Agreed, that Trump's schemes save (and promote) plenty of LIES! Yes, it's gotta be tens o' thousands.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, other democratic countries are not doing that well. So it's doubtful that Obama would have done much better than president Deplorable.

And Taiwan is not a democracy??

 

[barbos]

Yeah, other democratic countries are not doing that well. So it's doubtful that Obama would have done much better than president Deplorable.

And Taiwan is not a democracy??

Very recent one, people still remember military regime. Same with South Korea.
Old democracies are all doing badly. And In general Europian democracies are different from asian.

 

[Elixir]

Yeah, other democratic countries are not doing that well. So it's doubtful that Obama would have done much better than president Deplorable.

And Taiwan is not a democracy??

Very recent one, people still remember military regime. Same with South Korea.
Old democracies are all doing badly. And In general Europian democracies are different from asian.

New Zealand is a democracy that took the kind of action required in a democracy to minimize the effect of this pandemic. Those trying to excuse Trump's dereliction of duty like to posit that "you can't get the public to buy in" to such draconian measures. I believe that's true in cases where you have a "leader" more concerned with pandering to a minority base than with the public welfare. New Zealand is blessed with a leader who is more concerned with public welfare, and was able to inspire public cooperation and trust with an admittedly draconian shutdown. As a result, there has been minimal damage to the NZ economy and they are fully re-opened with ZERO new cases, ZERO new hospitalizations and ONE death reported yesterday.

So yeah - it's possible to have an effective response to this kind of event in a democracy. Unless it has a feckless, incompetent Russian puppet for a "leader". No way for the kompromatted head of a Crime Family to inspire public trust. Nor does Trump WANT public trust - that would go against the desires of his puppetmaster.

 

[Elixir]

Same picture updated through 5/29. Record WI cases yesterday. No surprise.

 

[Elixir]

It could go either way.

Pffft.

 

[barbos]

Very recent one, people still remember military regime. Same with South Korea.
Old democracies are all doing badly. And In general Europian democracies are different from asian.

New Zealand is a democracy that took the kind of action required in a democracy to minimize the effect of this pandemic. Those trying to excuse Trump's dereliction of duty like to posit that "you can't get the public to buy in" to such draconian measures. I believe that's true in cases where you have a "leader" more concerned with pandering to a minority base than with the public welfare. New Zealand is blessed with a leader who is more concerned with public welfare, and was able to inspire public cooperation and trust with an admittedly draconian shutdown. As a result, there has been minimal damage to the NZ economy and they are fully re-opened with ZERO new cases, ZERO new hospitalizations and ONE death reported yesterday.

So yeah - it's possible to have an effective response to this kind of event in a democracy. Unless it has a feckless, incompetent Russian puppet for a "leader". No way for the kompromatted head of a Crime Family to inspire public trust. Nor does Trump WANT public trust - that would go against the desires of his puppetmaster.

New Zealand was mostly lucky - small, isolated, not very urbanized

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Yeah, other democratic countries are not doing that well. So it's doubtful that Obama would have done much better than president Deplorable.

Obama would have at least tried, and would not have been so clueless as Trumpo the Clown. Obama would have backed up the experts, rather than undercut them as Trumpo has done. Obama tried at least to prepare the US for future pandemics which efforts the GOP controlled Congress undercut and Trumpo the clown systematically undid at every possible turn over the last three years. He owns this failure. The GOP gets a lot of blame for not listening to Obama and following his lead over the years to prepare for this moment. The GOP Congressional leader met even before Obama was seated and vowed to not cooperate with Obama on any efforts Obama wanted.

 

[Elixir]

Very recent one, people still remember military regime. Same with South Korea.
Old democracies are all doing badly. And In general Europian democracies are different from asian.

New Zealand is a democracy that took the kind of action required in a democracy to minimize the effect of this pandemic. Those trying to excuse Trump's dereliction of duty like to posit that "you can't get the public to buy in" to such draconian measures. I believe that's true in cases where you have a "leader" more concerned with pandering to a minority base than with the public welfare. New Zealand is blessed with a leader who is more concerned with public welfare, and was able to inspire public cooperation and trust with an admittedly draconian shutdown. As a result, there has been minimal damage to the NZ economy and they are fully re-opened with ZERO new cases, ZERO new hospitalizations and ONE death reported yesterday.

So yeah - it's possible to have an effective response to this kind of event in a democracy. Unless it has a feckless, incompetent Russian puppet for a "leader". No way for the kompromatted head of a Crime Family to inspire public trust. Nor does Trump WANT public trust - that would go against the desires of his puppetmaster.

New Zealand was mostly lucky - small, isolated, not very urbanized

Lame-ass excuse. Yeah, they are lucky all right. Lucky to have a President with integrity, a brain and the ability to inspire trust.
Your implication that the fact that we have a kompromatted, corrupt, stupid, incompetent, disinterested and manifestly un-trustworthy President has nothing to do with the fact that the US has more than SEVENTY FIVE TIMES the number of deaths per million citizens, is idiotic to say the least.

 

[barbos]

New Zealand was mostly lucky - small, isolated, not very urbanized

Lame-ass excuse. Yeah, they are lucky all right. Lucky to have a President with integrity, a brain and the ability to inspire trust.
Your implication that the fact that we have a kompromatted, corrupt, stupid and manifestly un-trustworthy President has nothing to do with the fact that the US has more than SEVENTY FIVE TIMES the number of deaths per million citizens, is idiotic to say the least.

It has something to do all right, but not 100%, not even 50%. And you did elect him. So you have nobody else to blame but yourself.

NZ IS a small country with a lot less per capita traffic to EU and other centers of corona-virus.
In NY and other large cities subways were a major way of spreading. NZ don't have that.