[ExI] brits on covid

[spike at rainier66.com]

....> On Behalf Of Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat
Subject: Re: [ExI] brits on covid


Quoting spike jones via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>:

> >... The two states which had few if any restrictions are South Dakota and

> Florida.  Both did poorly in infection rates but better than average 
> in survival rates.  The states with the most restrictions (most severe 
> lockdowns, longest school closures, most sincere mask mandates etc) 
> are California and New York.  The results of all that just puzzle me.

>...It makes sense to me, but it wasn't a single reason...

Thanks for your response Stuart.  After I posted I realized the question was
far more complicated than I had originally realized, and the Brits might
have overlooked this as well, being as the analysis was done by state.  That
part makes sense, because the US government has little broad authority for
this kind of thing.  It is up to the state governors.  However...  (read on
please)...

>...States that imposed lockdowns only allowed "essential workers" to
operate...

True but states vary in the level of authority governors have, depending on
that state's constitution.  The constitution of California sets the
governor's authority level relatively low, considering how huge is the
population of California.  He can declare a state of emergency which lasts
60 days, and can even be renewed, however it is very difficult to renew, and
the level of authority an emergency declaration gives a governor is limited
and easily challenged in court, which can suspend the governor until the
case comes up, which is functionally equivalent to never, which means... in
practice... the governor can make emergency polite suggestions.  The
governor's Emergency powers are far less emergencyey than he would like and
the term "powers" refer mostly to increased authority over expenditures of
money rather than how law in enforced.

For instance, Governor I can't remember his name, New something... wrote
guidelines for what are essential businesses and essential workers.  But...
it was up to the county health departments to come up with specific rules,
but even then, it was up to counties to enforce their own rules.  So... they
varied widely from one county to the next (as they should (for California
has some counties so sparsely populated the rules for LA county would make
no sense.))  But for health stuff, the real seat of power is primarily at
the county level, and California has 58 of them.  We need to keep that in
mind in the list of lessons learned for the next pandemic: in the most
populated state, the governor makes suggestions, counties generally make the
call and counties are responsible for enforcement.

The essential workers nearly left it up to the worker to decide if they were
essential.  Grocery stores stayed open, but there were no rules on who could
put up a rack of potato chips and call themselves a grocery store.  Some
went this route.  Restaurants generally closed, but drive thru fast food
stayed open.  A lot of us realized we just don't need traditional
restaurants, as the fast food is good, it doesn't cost much and it is...
like... fast.  Cool!

>...but essential workers were self-selected to be mostly low-wage retail
and service sector employees...

Ja.  That too was open to interpretation.  I watched the local gun shop.  It
never closed, arguing that it was an essential service.  The county boys
didn't want to get into a legal battle when the gun shop had the
constitution as evidence.

>...High-level service employees and technicians like pharmacists, who could
afford not to work, didn't and it became harder to get prescriptions
filled...

I hadn't heard that.  Our local pharmacies kept right on going.

>...Medical services were so hobbled by fear and safety precautions that
people who had health issues other than COVID had to wait months for
appointments and were less-inclined to leave the home even for medical
issues...

They sure did, oy.  I lost two second cousins who died of covid without
covid.  One was a suicide after his business failed and one died of a
medical condition he stopped treating when the local hospital went out of
business.

>...With shopping malls closed elderly with mobility issues like those with
walkers had fewer large indoor climate-controlled venues to get their
morning exercise in...

Ja that part was really bad.  The local mall is a one kilometer mostly
circular track, popular with the geezer crowd for indoor exercise.  I missed
it while it was closed.  This is not to say I am part of the geezer crowd,
or even have friends who are.  Nope, no way.  Nor do I suggest I am even
thinking of joining that crowd, no, never.  EVER!  

Ah hell with it, I'm a geezer.

>...Lack of visiting and social outlets caused many people to become lonely,
depressed, and turn to alcohol and drugs...

Sure did.  I am seeing lingering scars everywhere, not in myself but scars
just the same.

>...The list could go on for much longer, but all are just the unintended
consequences of lockdowns. Which just goes to show that lockdowns should be
reserved for infections with high transmissibility AND pathogenicity.
Sometimes the cure can be worse than the disease.

Stuart LaForge

That's what the British study suggests.  New York was hit early and hard,
while governors still had a lot of credibility.  The New York constitution
gives the governor of that state a lot more power than does California.  He
ordered lockdowns, a lot of them, severe.  Ironically, the early indications
were that the lockdowns were not effective and might be making the problem
worse.  Somehow that message was lost.  Now, three years later, we need
British scientists to point out to us that the lockdowns were generally
ineffective and might have made the problem worse.

Sheesh.

BillK, thanks for the Lancet study, me lad.  We yanks owe you one.  

spike









_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat