News has been - mixed.
Still an awful lot of illness and death, though it does appear that enough of us have been staying home to help flatten the curve. I really like the graphics on this site, as I can play around with linear vs. logarithmic, as well as looking at the nation as a whole, specific states, and rates as adjusted to the population. (Speaking of, New York sucks up most of the attention - for good reason - and a bit on Louisiana, New Jersey, and follow up to Washington and California, but I don't seem to hear much about states like Connecticut or Massachusetts? Which seems to be getting hit rather hard for the size of their population?)
Anyways, yes... the logarithmic graphs do show that the rate of growth in the US is slowing. So of course we already have people who want to say it's all over, and asking when we can open back up.
Going back to the 'learning from other people's experience' bit I'd mentioned in a previous post, it looks like every state that starts relaxing their countermeasures has immediately had to tighten them back up. That is, if it's not accompanied by mass testing in order to know which areas are safe to ease restrictions on.
Basically, I won't believe it's time to open back up until a) we have a vaccine or effective medical treatment b) enough people have recovered from the virus to give us herd immunity or c) we have widespread and easily accessible testing to catch any outbreaks and isolate them before they spread any further.
None of which seems to be happening yet, so whatever.
I do find it amusing, though, how state governors are stepping up to the plate and making it crystal clear that the presidency isn't actually as powerful as we make it out to be. I mean, Trump talks about ordering the country to open back up... but he only really ordered it to (partially) shut down after most of the governors had already done so. I guess he's doing a great job of shrinking the federal government and turning the clamor for states' rights into a real possibility. I just never expected that from an administration that has shown such authoritarian tendencies. I feel like there's a lesson there, somewhere? Something about incompetence empowering anyone willing to step up to the plate?
I don't know, we'll probably be years sorting out all the consequences of these last few months... and the next few, as well.
Anyways, I did want to add a little bit more to my analogy yesterday... on stakeholders, and pizza choices, and decision making.
I deliberately used the term 'stakeholders'. It came from a book on managing healthcare organizations that we used in school a decade ago, and I thought the material was applicable to all sorts of organizations. (That's the same one that talked about the problems with creating a blame-based culture, and how removing blame made it easier to fix problems. Like changing the coloring and/or size of pills so that it's harder to mix them up and give the wrong dose.) The book discussed how a good quality organization would take into account the needs of all the stakeholders - doctors, nurses, administrators, insurance companies, and of course patients and the medical needs of the community at large.
This stakeholder concept is important, I think. To bring it back to my pizza ordering analogy - every member of the group has a stake in the decision, and should be treated accordingly.
I consider certain strategies threatening to the whole, because they undermine that decision making process.
To continue with my pizza analogy, it's like if the majority of the group decided to 'screw the vegetarian, they can either eat what we like or starve' and insist on getting the meat lovers and supreme pizzas.
Or if one person said "Pepperoni is by far the superior pizza, you all are wrong. I'm going to make sure the order is pepperoni, because I know what's best."
It's not so much the policies or desires themselves, you see. It's the lack of empathy, the willingness to accept that anyone else's wishes matter. And it's the arrogance.
There are numerous examples, from both parties, but the most recent ones that spring to mind were the Republican attempt to create a coronavirus relief bill that did nothing to people who didn't pay any taxes. That is, people living off Social Security, disability, or just plain didn't earn enough to pay taxes that year - like college students - would get nothing.
I have heard people claim over the years that Republicans think the poor are lazy, and other such things, and I had sort of dismissed it as hyperpartisan hate. Or rather, I'm sure there are some isolated rich people who live in so much of a bubble that they honestly believe that, but I had thought it was just a small and isolated fraction and that the people forming policy would know better.
If there is nothing else the last few years have proven to me, it's that our system is far more fragile (and there is far greater rot) than I ever had believed.
It's not just about the bill itself, you see. It's that in the midst of the global pandemic they were seriously trying to save comparative pennies (when you consider how much they were willing to give to corporations and big business) by stiffing the least among us. Like they don't have any empathy at all, don't even see these people as human.
"Whatever you do for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me".
I guess the Republicans would stiff Jesus, too.
The second one? The second one was when the North Carolina Republicans seriously tried passing legislation on 9/11 while the Democrats were out. I mean, it's not just the short-sightedness of the strategy...
It's that when you get so focused on defeating the 'other', when you start demonizing Democrats or Republicans and acting as though they are somehow unAmerican, you are forgetting that at least a third of your fellow citizens agree with and chose to elect these guys.
Like, there are clearly politicians and policies I don't agree with, and I definitely think some of them are BS-ing and conning their constituents, but I acknowledge that there are many Americans who see something worth voting for... and that we have to take their concerns seriously, and address them.
Their concerns may not be what the politicians claim they are, of course. I don't think Trump, for instance, would have gotten the support he had if the Democrats and Republicans hadn't shown they were in the pockets of our growing oligarchy, but that's a whole different story. The point is that catering to one third of the American population, and acting like another third is somehow the devil... is NOT a good thing for the free marketplace of ideas, or negotiating amongst stakeholders, or much of anything beyond the short term satisfaction of riling up your base and scoring a few cheap victories.
Maybe you get the sausage pizza of your dreams, but the cost and long term consequences are too high.
Still an awful lot of illness and death, though it does appear that enough of us have been staying home to help flatten the curve. I really like the graphics on this site, as I can play around with linear vs. logarithmic, as well as looking at the nation as a whole, specific states, and rates as adjusted to the population. (Speaking of, New York sucks up most of the attention - for good reason - and a bit on Louisiana, New Jersey, and follow up to Washington and California, but I don't seem to hear much about states like Connecticut or Massachusetts? Which seems to be getting hit rather hard for the size of their population?)
Anyways, yes... the logarithmic graphs do show that the rate of growth in the US is slowing. So of course we already have people who want to say it's all over, and asking when we can open back up.
Going back to the 'learning from other people's experience' bit I'd mentioned in a previous post, it looks like every state that starts relaxing their countermeasures has immediately had to tighten them back up. That is, if it's not accompanied by mass testing in order to know which areas are safe to ease restrictions on.
Basically, I won't believe it's time to open back up until a) we have a vaccine or effective medical treatment b) enough people have recovered from the virus to give us herd immunity or c) we have widespread and easily accessible testing to catch any outbreaks and isolate them before they spread any further.
None of which seems to be happening yet, so whatever.
I do find it amusing, though, how state governors are stepping up to the plate and making it crystal clear that the presidency isn't actually as powerful as we make it out to be. I mean, Trump talks about ordering the country to open back up... but he only really ordered it to (partially) shut down after most of the governors had already done so. I guess he's doing a great job of shrinking the federal government and turning the clamor for states' rights into a real possibility. I just never expected that from an administration that has shown such authoritarian tendencies. I feel like there's a lesson there, somewhere? Something about incompetence empowering anyone willing to step up to the plate?
I don't know, we'll probably be years sorting out all the consequences of these last few months... and the next few, as well.
Anyways, I did want to add a little bit more to my analogy yesterday... on stakeholders, and pizza choices, and decision making.
I deliberately used the term 'stakeholders'. It came from a book on managing healthcare organizations that we used in school a decade ago, and I thought the material was applicable to all sorts of organizations. (That's the same one that talked about the problems with creating a blame-based culture, and how removing blame made it easier to fix problems. Like changing the coloring and/or size of pills so that it's harder to mix them up and give the wrong dose.) The book discussed how a good quality organization would take into account the needs of all the stakeholders - doctors, nurses, administrators, insurance companies, and of course patients and the medical needs of the community at large.
This stakeholder concept is important, I think. To bring it back to my pizza ordering analogy - every member of the group has a stake in the decision, and should be treated accordingly.
I consider certain strategies threatening to the whole, because they undermine that decision making process.
To continue with my pizza analogy, it's like if the majority of the group decided to 'screw the vegetarian, they can either eat what we like or starve' and insist on getting the meat lovers and supreme pizzas.
Or if one person said "Pepperoni is by far the superior pizza, you all are wrong. I'm going to make sure the order is pepperoni, because I know what's best."
It's not so much the policies or desires themselves, you see. It's the lack of empathy, the willingness to accept that anyone else's wishes matter. And it's the arrogance.
There are numerous examples, from both parties, but the most recent ones that spring to mind were the Republican attempt to create a coronavirus relief bill that did nothing to people who didn't pay any taxes. That is, people living off Social Security, disability, or just plain didn't earn enough to pay taxes that year - like college students - would get nothing.
I have heard people claim over the years that Republicans think the poor are lazy, and other such things, and I had sort of dismissed it as hyperpartisan hate. Or rather, I'm sure there are some isolated rich people who live in so much of a bubble that they honestly believe that, but I had thought it was just a small and isolated fraction and that the people forming policy would know better.
If there is nothing else the last few years have proven to me, it's that our system is far more fragile (and there is far greater rot) than I ever had believed.
It's not just about the bill itself, you see. It's that in the midst of the global pandemic they were seriously trying to save comparative pennies (when you consider how much they were willing to give to corporations and big business) by stiffing the least among us. Like they don't have any empathy at all, don't even see these people as human.
"Whatever you do for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me".
I guess the Republicans would stiff Jesus, too.
The second one? The second one was when the North Carolina Republicans seriously tried passing legislation on 9/11 while the Democrats were out. I mean, it's not just the short-sightedness of the strategy...
It's that when you get so focused on defeating the 'other', when you start demonizing Democrats or Republicans and acting as though they are somehow unAmerican, you are forgetting that at least a third of your fellow citizens agree with and chose to elect these guys.
Like, there are clearly politicians and policies I don't agree with, and I definitely think some of them are BS-ing and conning their constituents, but I acknowledge that there are many Americans who see something worth voting for... and that we have to take their concerns seriously, and address them.
Their concerns may not be what the politicians claim they are, of course. I don't think Trump, for instance, would have gotten the support he had if the Democrats and Republicans hadn't shown they were in the pockets of our growing oligarchy, but that's a whole different story. The point is that catering to one third of the American population, and acting like another third is somehow the devil... is NOT a good thing for the free marketplace of ideas, or negotiating amongst stakeholders, or much of anything beyond the short term satisfaction of riling up your base and scoring a few cheap victories.
Maybe you get the sausage pizza of your dreams, but the cost and long term consequences are too high.
No comments:
Post a Comment