I agree that we walk a fine line discussing what kind of deaths are "acceptable," because it hasn't all been in nursing homes, by a long stretch. It's also impossible to say that "it's not the plague we all thought it was," because we can't know how bad things might have been had no precautions been taken. I agreed with the idea of a lockdown, at least in some places, while we bought time to learn more. Which is also why I don't agree with keeping things too restricted now, as we do have to keep people and businesses solvent, and we DO know more, including how to be cautious. There is a real point to be made that the solution can't be made worse than the virus.
Well, the "fine line" I'm referring to is the line between where we may "take the virus more seriously" and where we "should dismiss this as just a flu," because both lines may have good things said for them, but to dismiss the virus out of hand as not threatening is as dangerous as the cure most governments prefer, such as blanket lockdowns. The virus is serious, even occasionally among the young, though the statists indicate that there are certain demographics more vulnerable than others
It's unfortunate that the virus and the approach to it has been politicized so outrageously in the US. (And there is certainly blame on both sides.) To answer your question about who controls local policy, it is the governors of the states and mayors of the cities. Senators and Representatives, on the Federal level, can pass stimulus and otherwise legislate, but it's generally more down to governors and mayors. However, as to the bolded above, you hit on something that I think is a problem: Trump shouldn't just sway states that his party "controls." The President's power is not to mandate from on high on this, but to lead us and unite us in a crisis, which he has failed to do. I don't blame him for every mixed message that we got, but he certainly has made it a lot about himself, as he does in all things. That's my opinion.
Thanks for that, sister! I agree about Trump, he's too volatile and partisan to unite or inspire both sides of the political divide. He's just too trigger happy of the lip to be taken seriously, because so many of his pronouncements, tweets and reactions don't seem like they're the product of careful or nuanced thought. To be kind about it.
As to your last question, about variables, I think that's the really complicated part, as it is across the globe. In this country, people that have been disproportionately sickened and have died also tend to be Black and brown people, and those who are poor. (One reason I say we can't just put it down to the elderly and those with pre-existing health problems.) However, here, in states where they have less-dense populations and fewer of the other circumstances that made the initial outbreaks so quick and sharp, those were the ones that ignored any protocols and got great outbreaks later, and I think that was much to do with policy...those that took the laissez-faire approach. We are 48 contiguous states, and if we don't work together, that's a problem, in terms of a contagious virus. That's where the decision from the top to be more divisive than unifying was a failure, IMO.
I don't know the stats in America, but largely this virus is killing and badly affecting those with underlying issues, and of course, the elderly. And among the elderly, the death rates aren't humongous among those who actually catch the virus. We always have this question about the role of Covid in deaths - my own dad was in a nursing home until he passed away in December 2018. Had he caught Covid and died he'd have been classified as having died from a "Covid related death", but really, Covid would have had little or nothing to do with it. A car backfiring in the car park might have affected him as badly, unfortunately. He was 83, and of course though this was a personal tragedy for us, we knew he wasn't taken from us too early.
But Covid is a decisive factor in many deaths among the elderly, but this is unavoidable, even though it's unfortunate. I know also that underlying issues are largely helping Covid's cause. Obesity, diabetes, poor diet, smoking etc, and if I maybe indelicate for a moment, in American some of these are as much an epidemic as Covid.
In terms of the stat that "black and brown people, and those who are poor" are more affected, I don't know what the numbers are, but there maybe many reasons for this. In Ireland, the least affected area is a wealthy suburb of Dublin, and one reason might be that the people who live there have jobs where they work from home. They don't have to get on the bus or train, they don't have to run the social gamut of facing queues anywhere. They switch on the computer and go to work, in their study. Working class people are not able to avail of this. In fact, I know many people who work from home and I find they're the ones more anxious to see a lockdown, and I put it to them that it's very handy for them, they lose no income, they in fact gain by staying at home, whereas for others, the economy crashing has been catastrophic on so many levels.
I get accused of being like Trump for saying this, but I dismiss this nonsense.
Other interesting things I'm considering lately is the initial surges in Italy and Spain, where as you know, the people are so tactile. I was in Italy 3 times this year, the first time at the end of February, the early stages of panic in the west, and I noticed how they still greeted each other with multiple kisses and hugs. My Roman friend was annoyed by this, she lives in Dublin now many years and she can't believe that they were still doing that then. They were still doing it in July. My sister lives in Madrid for 30 years and she says the same. Also, the Spanish have this strange policy of suppressing the immune system by insisting that people wear masks outdoors too, even in 40 degrees heat. That's strange, and I'd imagine counter-productive...
www.medpagetoday.com
