News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Fauci offers candid advice to city leaders by nickff on Friday May 22, 2020 @06:54PM (#23277996)
If we ignore the party politics of these decisions, and think about it from an abstract/philosophical point of view, should how much prosperity to trade for safety be a state-by-state decision? Given that states have the police power, should they be fully accountable for the consequences of their decisions, or should the federal government provide some sort of state-to-state redistribution? I think these questions go to the core of federalism.

More to the point of the article, I find Fauci's appreciation of non-sickness issues to be refreshing and helpful. Most doctors are so focused on the disease itself that they don't seem to take 'collateral damage' from containment into account.

Re:Fauci offers candid advice to city leaders by 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 on Friday May 22, 2020 @06:57PM (#23278015)
We’re already seeing a huge disparity between states, with strong enforcement of social distancing NOT correlating with a reduced death rate. The point is we don’t fully know yet what the best policy will be.

By leaving it up to the states, we’re creating a distributed system where there can be failure without bringing down the whole country.

Re:Fauci offers candid advice to city leaders by pfisch on Friday May 22, 2020 @07:04PM (#23278077)
There are thousands of confounding variables. It seems highly unlikely that social distancing is not having a significant effect on spreading covid.
Re:Fauci offers candid advice to city leaders by makomk on Friday May 22, 2020 @07:14PM (#23278164)
It's entirely possible that it doesn't have a huge effect on the death rate, though. It almost seems like there are two seperate but linked sets of outbreaks: one in the general population with a low death toll, and one in places like nursing homes and hospitals with a high death toll. Social distancing measures targeting the general population don't appear to have so much effect on the other, more deadly spread.
Re:Fauci offers candid advice to city leaders by nradov on Friday May 22, 2020 @07:16PM (#23278180)
That depends on which social distancing measures you're referring to. The results of contact tracing indicate that large indoor gatherings such as concerts, nightclubs, and sporting events do cause a lot of virus transmission. But there has never been any direct evidence that closing beaches and parks has a significant effect.
Re:Fauci offers candid advice to city leaders by clouddrover on Friday May 22, 2020 @07:22PM (#23278238)
> there can be failure without bringing down the whole country

Why not succeed as a country? Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and Taiwan are doing much better than the US with their country-wide responses:

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus

Re:Fauci offers candid advice to city leaders by cjslep on Friday May 22, 2020 @07:11PM (#23278145)
> social distancing NOT correlating with a reduced death rate.

The point is to reduce the infection rate so that the total number of hospitalizations (Covid19 or otherwise) does not exceed the healthcare system's capacity. I doubt your uncited claim here is comparing apples to apples.

Re:Fauci offers candid advice to city leaders by analog31 on Friday May 22, 2020 @07:03PM (#23278067)
Likewise, how much responsibility should the estates shoulder? There are trillions in private wealth that could be redistributed.
Re:Fauci offers candid advice to city leaders by nickff on Friday May 22, 2020 @07:28PM (#23278277)
I think you're talking about liability, as I think you're looking at the rich as a source of money. It doesn't seem like the accumulation of wealth was responsible for this pandemic.
Re:Fauci offers candid advice to city leaders by analog31 on Friday May 22, 2020 @07:49PM (#23278435)
Indeed, a virus was responsible. But I do think the accumulation of extreme wealth played a role in the following way: Wealth influences policy. So far, virtually all policy discussions have focused on a tradeoff between saving lives, and saving "the economy" implicitly while leaving private wealth untouched. A focus on protecting stock prices -- a measure of wealth -- definitely played a role.

A little more speculative is my suspicion that a capitalist society storing its surplus in private hands may be correlated with a society that is unprepared for a crisis of this magnitude. The first time the President came on the radio to talk about the crisis, his tacit message was: We are hopelessly unprepared for this.