Jerry Robinson56 said:🙄
It is perfectly clear that you lack comprehension and are solely focused on your own perspective. Furthermore, you clearly neglect to read the necessary material required to be coherent. From this exchange, it is evident that you embody everything I have observed.
Oh, and if you actually bothered to read
with any real comprehension what you were supposed to read to maintain some level of sanity, instead of just lazily slapping a label on anyone who disagrees with you...
Do you even pause to question the measures being taken or the rhetoric being pushed? If they told you tomorrow that the virus only spreads through your right hand and we all need to chop it off to stop the spread, you'd probably just head to the garage to grab a saw, wouldn't you?
Do you have any actual experience in leadership or crisis management? In an acute crisis, you have to act fast and decisively. At that stage, people tend to trust the authority inherent in a position or a title.
However, once a crisis transitions into a chronic phase—which is exactly what has happened here in the US—people start questioning that authority. At that point, mere titles don't carry weight anymore; people demand expertise. They want answers, and they start asking "how much longer." I'm not saying the task force lacks experts—there might be some folks in there twisting facts to suit their own agendas and obstructing the real professionals (which we see clearly through these political games played within the ruling circles)—but they are definitively failing to communicate the situation in a way that builds public trust. Even they have admitted it. How many times have we heard them say, "We are epidemiologists, not communications experts"?
Look, someone doesn't necessarily need to be an expert in both fields, but the task force absolutely must have someone capable of communicating effectively, otherwise, they simply lose all credibility.
Jerry Robinson56 said:🙂 Precisely, though that task falls to the local administrative levels, who are supposed to report directly to the central task force. Unfortunately, the very people tasked with relaying this information are often the ones entrenched in bureaucracy or simply incompetent. Therein lies the fundamental problem.
And whose job is it to organize the structure and functionality of those "lower levels"? The task force is composed of cabinet secretaries whose departments aren't structured or organized in a functional way, and that is the real reason this isn't working. If you hire someone mentally incapable, someone without even a high school diploma, to manage a nuclear power plant, then when a nuclear disaster happens, it isn't the fault of that individual—it's the fault of the person who put them in that position in the first place... and that's the real catch.
Jerry Robinson56 said:This measure has no objective? I will concede that the lack of control is problematic, primarily because it permits the unbridled whims of clergy to go unchecked... a sort of spiritual message, I suppose.
What is missing here is feedback.
Here we see yet another collision in your logic. Population density plays no role in the initial spread of an infection; it is solely dependent on individual movement.
Is that difficult to comprehend?
🤦
But where exactly should those passes be monitored?
This is merely the beginning; the sequel follows once the feedback arrives. One ought to have started somewhere, specifically with organizational units—local municipalities. Don't lecture me on psychology or requests; you can clearly see how many self-important intellectuals with "grand ideas" populate this forum. It is true that "bureaucracy does its thing"...
Think about the situation for a moment... and look at the statistics, regardless of their relativity...
With this massive volume of passes being issued, the current method of control is completely futile. The police rarely check everyone, and scanning a QR code is more the exception than the rule. Essentially, if I was granted a pass yesterday, but today I've been ordered into self-isolation, the chances of me getting caught using that pass—which looks valid but has been electronically revoked (though I sincerely hope they revoke them electronically the moment a measure is imposed)—are incredibly slim.
One of my suggestions was actually for the police to repurpose those surveillance vans used for traffic enforcement, but to expand the system so it tracks license plates belonging to people under quarantine and their families too. You’d need far fewer officers on the street, and it would be a much more efficient way to catch folks who are blatantly violating their isolation orders.
Jerry Robinson56 said:The risk of contagion isn't determined by the sheer volume of people present; rather, it rests entirely upon the behavior of those who are already infected....that is only the beginning. You have everything laid out right before your eyes.
It is tragically absurd to attempt a comparison between a small rural town and Washington, D.C. It isn't a matter of mere population statistics; it is about the fundamental necessity of infrastructure and systemic functionality. That being said, I suppose I understand why one might lean into such a caricature.
As I have already stated—this issue is fundamentally a matter for the lower levels of the hierarchy.
Well, the risk of infection—and even the severity of the symptoms you end up with—depends entirely on the viral load you're exposed to. If you just walk past three infected people in a park, you have a much lower chance of catching it than if you're sitting on a bus for thirty minutes just three meters away from one infected person; in the latter case, you're inhaling a significantly higher concentration of the virus. And if you do get sick in both scenarios, the second case will likely hit you harder with more complications. There are actual studies that back this up.
Jerry Robinson56 said:The risk of contagion isn't determined by the sheer volume of people present; rather, it rests entirely upon the behavior of those who are already infected....that is only the beginning. You have everything laid out right before your eyes.
It is tragically absurd to attempt a comparison between a small rural town and Washington, D.C. It isn't a matter of mere population statistics; it is about the fundamental necessity of infrastructure and systemic functionality. That being said, I suppose I understand why one might lean into such a caricature.
As I have already stated—this issue is fundamentally a matter for the lower levels of the hierarchy.
Sure, that's the starting point, but what follows is that you can end up with a massive swarm of asymptomatic spreaders. At that stage, your only real options are either a total, prolonged lockdown (if we even had the capacity to pull that off, which we might have tried) or a much more aggressive testing regimen combined with precise contact tracing, which has proven to be the most effective measure.
On top of that, one of our leading epidemiologists made this statement (while trying to explain why we aren't testing enough):
Italy tested a huge number of people, and you see what's happening there now. Germany only tests those with symptoms, and so far, they seem to have a somewhat better situation.
The truth was that we weren't testing much back then simply because we didn't have the resources to do more. I don't think she's a bad epidemiologist because of that specific comment—though, frankly, an epidemiologist shouldn't let a statement like that slip out—but I do think she's a poor leader. A true leader needs to be able to own up to their mistakes, as well as the problems they currently have no control over. A good leader would have said something along the lines of:
We are fully aware that our testing numbers are low, and we are working tirelessly to increase our capacity. Once we boost that capacity, we'll have a much stronger tool to combat the epidemic. However, it is important to note that this isn't a reason to panic, as we are closely monitoring the situation through several other indicators.