How much do the numbers mean given the extraordinary measures taken to make the numbers small? Are the extreme measures taken not the reason for the low numbers?
Conspiracy mongers and politicians that wanted to do nothing, and did nothing, for at least a month too long, will point to those low numbers to promote their theories and defend themselves, but they should not be allowed to do so without explaining why the extraordinary measures had no impact on the numbers.
The common view is that politicians overreacted because, being politicians, they did not have the option of underreacting and consequently being blamed for deaths. This view automatically degrades the decisions of a proactive politician, by suggesting that the holder of the view would have made different and better decisions, because they are not a politician.
What this view ignores, is the uncertainty that existed when the decisions to take extreme measures had to be made. One thing that politicians or news/entertainment personalities had in common if they were predicting outcomes at the time, was that none of them could possibly have known what they were talking about.
Three things that accumulate with age, if they accumulate, are wealth, wisdom and talent. Sure, many rich geezers were greedy bastards who might deserve little sympathy now, but much wisdom and talent reside among the old, while very little resides among the young.
So, it could be that the appropriate virus for a plan to do nothing in response, is one that kills the young while sparing the old – a virus that spares those most likely to possess wisdom and talent.
Note that the majority of those who earn, or try to earn, a Darwin Award, are not old people. A virus that kills the young will align well with any plan nature has to eliminate the unwise and the talentless.
PS: If you have any interest in what I think about coronavirus and low-wage workers who are declared critical natural resources, see my letter to the editor published today in the Seattle Times.
Defining a Better Virus
Conspiracy mongers and politicians that wanted to do nothing, and did nothing, for at least a month too long, will point to those low numbers to promote their theories and defend themselves, but they should not be allowed to do so without explaining why the extraordinary measures had no impact on the numbers.
The common view is that politicians overreacted because, being politicians, they did not have the option of underreacting and consequently being blamed for deaths. This view automatically degrades the decisions of a proactive politician, by suggesting that the holder of the view would have made different and better decisions, because they are not a politician.
What this view ignores, is the uncertainty that existed when the decisions to take extreme measures had to be made. One thing that politicians or news/entertainment personalities had in common if they were predicting outcomes at the time, was that none of them could possibly have known what they were talking about.
Three things that accumulate with age, if they accumulate, are wealth, wisdom and talent. Sure, many rich geezers were greedy bastards who might deserve little sympathy now, but much wisdom and talent reside among the old, while very little resides among the young.
So, it could be that the appropriate virus for a plan to do nothing in response, is one that kills the young while sparing the old – a virus that spares those most likely to possess wisdom and talent.
Note that the majority of those who earn, or try to earn, a Darwin Award, are not old people. A virus that kills the young will align well with any plan nature has to eliminate the unwise and the talentless.
PS: If you have any interest in what I think about coronavirus and low-wage workers who are declared critical natural resources, see my letter to the editor published today in the Seattle Times.