Also, Vietnam says they've not had a single death ? Hmmm.
Otherwise, given an overall (global) aggregate mortality rate to date that totals 4%... while the current (global) experience is under 1% and (for now) declining... suggests, first, that the trend is positive enough... and, second, that it is very likely to continue improving, probably at an accelerating pace from here, given what is known to be in the pipeline already... and, third, if and as the realized risks stay on that trend, it reduces the pandemic risks toward that of a more typical flu... which suggests that wallowing in the accompanying noise of the day, is probably not worth much of my time.
I spent a lot of time addressing the virus issues... back when the focus was the then still unmet need to prevent overwhelming health care capacities. That effort was required, then, in order to keep the mortality rates DOWN to 4%... which I'd correctly predicted, in January, would prove to be the "native" rate... instead of the 14% and more that was experienced only when failures in decision making meant those capacities were exceeded.
It made sense for me to take the time to address what was being done wrong in Wuhan, back then, that made the problem there worse... and to address hard realities in the necessary corrections required... as it made sense for me to address the need for adopting change in the measures necessary to prevent accelerated spread... and the emergence of new Wuhan-like spreading centers.
But, the name calling now... or, "keeping score"... as partisans (whether China vs U.S., or Democrats vs. Republicans, Trudeau vs. Trump, etc.) seek leverage or advantage in accusing the other side of "being wrong"... while myopically ignoring how EACH OF THEM were just as wrong, and more... a few short months ago ? It's laughable... and pathetic... including, particularly, in that still dangerous element that has set its sights on political control of "science"... attempting to make facts and reality conform to political whim as part of grabbing power... which error is PRECISELY the ground zero in the origins of the Covid debacle.
Some of the worst of that is... having "mostly" contained the immediate crisis... nothing much of substance is being done to address the errors in origin, or to ensure that there won't be another very similar crisis, with similar dysfunction in the response... while the learning curve being adopted is of such limited utility that it fails in addressing anything other than the worst impacts in the specific instance. In the specific instance... the most notable feature is the MASSIVE failure of systems that were blind to their own failures... with normalcy bias imposing significantly more influence in decision making than facts or reason. And, that's with a focus that is limited to the responsible scientific and medical communities. The mire only grows deeper fast as you include politicians.
Those still hoping "centralized control" paired with suppression of dissent will ensure superior decision making that ensures competitive advantages... are blind enough that the risks they're needlessly imposing on their communities are "civilization ending" in scope. The virus is one instance, and one proof... still not giving a properly weighted and comprehensive risk assessment ?
Very reasonable to ask, why should we all be left depending on a single ophthalmologist to ask the right questions. And, how much of a moron do you have to be... to allow "policemen" to over-ride his judgment ?
FWIW... back in January... I was right... and I did the right thing... while focusing my effort on addressing the reality of the risk, while both avoiding and pointing out others errors... in logic and math... in basic epidemiology... and in normalcy bias. My effort focused on identifying the problems in systemic recognition and systemic responses, while helping to get it under control in Wuhan... and helping to prevent other Wuhan's from emerging... back when none of the current chest-thumpers understood the risks, at all... and most advocated for policy errors.
For me, that effort took a lot of my time... and it required dealing with a lot of frustration, as it meant dealing with a lot of smart people who should have been "on top of it"... but weren't... that made worse as, often, they weren't even listening... but were "going through the motions". But, beyond the time I spent, and my sharing in the same risks everyone had due to the early failures in containment... that frustration was the only cost, to me.
Others certainly paid a much higher price: Li Wenliang certainly not alone. Many heroes in China's hospitals. Note, still, that apologies given, after the fact, are much less useful to society, than policies that actually work, organically, without threats, to enable communication that helps us in avoiding easily avoided risks. Truth, and good faith... still much greater social virtues than power. While, as with Joshua Wong, who has been addressing exactly that issue in Hong Kong, perhaps, in spite of many misunderstanding the meaning of its banality, it takes great evil to show us that the greatness of heroes emerges in simple acts.
While China has clearly done far more than others to enable and institutionalize these systemic problems, that's still not a unique criticism of China. The attempt at imposing partisan PC control over "science" in the west is the exact same thing... only in the west. And, outside of China, others responses to the virus were hardly better... and essentially the same in character. Even if others costs were mitigated a bit more, it was cost mitigated mostly in degree, and as a function of distance... with the benefit of others experience.
A final irony, though, in the realization that it was the fact of free speech surviving, in the west... that saved China.
Without the communication in the scientific community, that did escape China's deliberate attempts in suppression... I would have been prevented, along with thousands of others, in making any contribution. If China would have succeeded in their effort in suppression of Li Wenliang... all of China would have become one giant Wuhan. That didn't happen... mostly, or in large part, because free speech in the west prevented China from succeeding in following the policy path of total secrecy and deliberate inaction that they'd set out upon.
And, done with the virus... moving on... |
