BBO Discussion Forums: Coronavirus - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 86 Pages +
  • « First
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Coronavirus Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it

#601 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2020-May-17, 10:10

View PostWinstonm, on 2020-May-17, 08:57, said:


I believe the authors cited the Feb 28 date to point out the absurdity of a NY official's assertion that NY acted faster than any other state based on the time between their first confirmed case and their decision to shut down.

The authors mention that nobody seems to be able to locate NY's plan for expanding hospital capacity in a pandemic scenario. I suspect this is also true of the NY/NJ Port Authority's plan to advise travelers returning from known hot spots to self quarantine and maybe also avoid using public transportation.
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#602 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,228
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2020-May-17, 11:48

Fwiw, I just checked my email. It was on Wednesday March 11 that I cancelled plans to play at the club on Friday March 13.

Here is the message I sent to my partner:

Quote


What would you think about skipping bridge for a couple of weeks until we see which way this virus thing is going to jump? I see that the University of Maryland will have classes through Friday, then spring break, but then they are planning for classes via internet after that. Other schools are doing the same, for example https://www.washingt...id-19-outbreak/ Maybe caution is warranted.

Ken


My partner agreed.

My point is that ordinary people were starting to understand the dangers, so it is reasonable to expect that those with political responsibility, having substantial staff and advice, could have moved at least a bit sooner. It would have saved lives, and would have helped in bringing this under some semblance of control. Maryland was slower than some, faster than others, in addressing the problem. . I have been supportive of our governor, Larry Hogan, even if he could have moved sooner.

A bit more than half, 984 out of 1876, of the covid deaths in Maryland have been of patients in nursing homes. Of course patients in nursing homes are older and often have other physical problems, and this makes them more vulnerable. But still, 984 out of 1876 is a bit stunning. The county I live in has more deaths than expected if you just look at our population. But we live in the Baltimore-Washington corridor, already a problem, and we have more than our share of nursing homes.

Nobody has been perfect in this. But some have stepped up and addressed this in a serious manner. Most unfortunately, not our president.


Ken
0

#603 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,289
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2020-May-19, 14:15

The U.S. CDC (centers for disease control and prevention) today announced that Covid-19 is not readily contracted from surfaces as originally thought but is spread in person-to-person contacts. My thinking is that aerosol particles are potentially a common source in close contact groups.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#604 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,613
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2020-May-19, 18:32

Woo hoo! I can stop pressing elevator buttons with my elbow.

#605 User is online   smerriman 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,113
  • Joined: 2014-March-15
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2020-May-19, 19:08

View PostWinstonm, on 2020-May-19, 14:15, said:

The U.S. CDC (centers for disease control and prevention) today announced that Covid-19 is not readily contracted from surfaces as originally thought but is spread in person-to-person contacts.

Do you have a reference? Can see no news about this.

The closest I can find on the CDC website is:

Quote

COVID-19 is a new disease and we are still learning about how it spreads. It may be possible for COVID-19 to spread in other ways, but these are not thought to be the main ways the virus spreads.

- From touching surfaces or objects. It may be possible that a person can get COVID-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or possibly their eyes. This is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads, but we are still learning more about this virus.

Going from this to 'not readily contracted from surfaces' is a giant leap.

And checking the wayback machine, this paragraph has been on their website since March. I guess they've grouped that paragraph with other paragraphs under a "The virus does not spread easily in other ways" heading, but that feels more like it's done for typography purposes, given the number of qualifiers.
0

#606 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,289
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2020-May-19, 20:22

View Postsmerriman, on 2020-May-19, 19:08, said:

Do you have a reference? Can see no news about this.

The closest I can find on the CDC website is:


Going from this to 'not readily contracted from surfaces' is a giant leap.

And checking the wayback machine, this paragraph has been on their website since March. I guess they've grouped that paragraph with other paragraphs under a "The virus does not spread easily in other ways" heading, but that feels more like it's done for typography purposes, given the number of qualifiers.


Here is where I saw it: https://www.yahoo.co...-153317029.html

and here: https://www.cdc.gov/...id-spreads.html

I may have misunderstood the time frame when the information was made available. Could be older than today.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#607 User is online   smerriman 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,113
  • Joined: 2014-March-15
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2020-May-19, 21:02

Yeah, both those sites link as a reference to the same page I quoted from. So they seem to be solely reading into the new heading that's on the page, which seems very tenuous to me.
0

#608 User is offline   shyams 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,678
  • Joined: 2009-August-02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2020-May-20, 04:35

Trump and his administration's new badge of honour (link). It's tragic because he is talking about the pandemic, but his comments display a mindnumbing lack of logic.

Separately, the BBC article talks about Russia in second place. What I want to highlight is that Russia seems to have a much more intensive testing policy than other countries. I say that because the Worldometer stats indicate that (a) Russia has conducted 7.5 million tests so far, and (b) Russia has an indicative death rate of 1% of Covid positives. Another country which I know is doing extensive testing is the UAE where the death rate of Covid positives is also 1% (or more accurately 0.9%).

Thus, by inference, what Trump claimed to be a "badge of honour" for the USA would actually be more appropriate if spoken by the Russian president about Russia.
0

#609 User is online   Cyberyeti 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,307
  • Joined: 2009-July-13
  • Location:England

Posted 2020-May-20, 06:23

View Postshyams, on 2020-May-20, 04:35, said:

Trump and his administration's new badge of honour (link). It's tragic because he is talking about the pandemic, but his comments display a mindnumbing lack of logic.

Separately, the BBC article talks about Russia in second place. What I want to highlight is that Russia seems to have a much more intensive testing policy than other countries. I say that because the Worldometer stats indicate that (a) Russia has conducted 7.5 million tests so far, and (b) Russia has an indicative death rate of 1% of Covid positives. Another country which I know is doing extensive testing is the UAE where the death rate of Covid positives is also 1% (or more accurately 0.9%).

Thus, by inference, what Trump claimed to be a "badge of honour" for the USA would actually be more appropriate if spoken by the Russian president about Russia.


Russia is interesting, I have an online gaming friend that lives on the outskirts of Moscow. Moscow has an enormous problem, the rest of the country not so much. She suggested that the virus had probably been in the country since Oct/Nov last year because there was a wave of unusual pneumonia cases then. Their lockdown was particularly tight (she was going stir crazy with a very active 6 year old that only left her flat once a week when they shopped). Now they're supposed to use masks with no possible way of getting them, a situation she described as typical for the country.
0

#610 User is offline   cherdano 

  • 5555
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,519
  • Joined: 2003-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2020-May-20, 06:49

View PostCyberyeti, on 2020-May-20, 06:23, said:

Now they're supposed to use masks with no possible way of getting them, a situation she described as typical for the country.
Which country?
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
0

#611 User is online   Cyberyeti 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,307
  • Joined: 2009-July-13
  • Location:England

Posted 2020-May-20, 06:53

View Postcherdano, on 2020-May-20, 06:49, said:

Which country?


Well she said she lived on the outskirts of Moscow so Russia, yes I'm aware other countries have similar issues (which Boris has partially got round by not recommending them), Muscovites seem to regard this as a money making measure rather than anything else as the fines are steep.
0

#612 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2020-May-20, 06:55

From Richard Flanagan at NYT: Did the Coronavirus Kill Ideology in Australia?

Quote

HOBART, Australia — Until four months ago few leaders seemed more influenced — even inspired — by President Trump’s worldview than Australia’s prime minister, Scott Morrison.

Mr. Morrison’s government was climate-denying, globalism-bashing and displayed an increasingly authoritarian bent. His rhetoric, even if it lacked the sriracha of Trumpetry, riffed on Trumpian themes.

And given a good crisis, Mr. Morrison’s administration seemed as determined as the White House to miss no opportunity to make matters worse — as it did with its grossly inept response to Australia’s summer of apocalyptic wild fires.

Having seen this almost impossibly low bar set for government action, many Australians have felt relief tinged with astonishment knowing that their country is today among the world’s most successful in dealing with the coronavirus epidemic. By some measures, it nearly rivals South Korea and has done better than Singapore and Germany.

As of Monday morning, Australia, with its 25.5 million people, had recorded a total of 7,054 infections and 99 deaths, according to Worldometers. That’s 277 infections and four deaths for every million people. In the United States, the per capita figures were 4,619 infections and 275 deaths per million by Monday; in Britain, 3,592 infections and 511 deaths per million.

What happened?

According to Mr. Morrison’s treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, the former prime minister John Howard, the eminence grise of Australian conservatism and its many culture wars, counseled Mr. Morrison and Mr. Frydenberg that “there’s no ideological constraints at times like this.” Mr. Frydenberg added, “That’s the advice we have taken.” Mr. Morrison went so far as to declare: “Today is not about ideologies. We checked those at the door.”

Mr. Howard spoke from experience. A fiercely right-wing prime minister, when confronted in 1996 with the horror of 35 people being shot dead at Port Arthur, in Tasmania, he moved decisively to enact strong gun-control laws. No mass shootings occurred in the next 20 years, according to a 2016 report, and the decline in firearm deaths accelerated. There have been only two mass shootings since, one of seven people and one of four.

Following Mr. Morrison’s own Damascene moment, things once deemed fantastical became commonplace. Scientists, whom Mr. Morrison’s party has derided for over a decade, were respectfully asked for their views about the novel coronavirus and, more remarkable still, these views were acted on and amplified. Mr. Morrison dismissed the idea of trying to build herd immunity among the population, calling it a “death sentence.”

A national cabinet was formed in which the states’ premiers (the equivalent of governors) from both the left and the right regularly met by video to plot the course of the nation through the crisis. In this way and others, a government that has been sectarian and divisive became inclusive.

There were, at the outset, missteps, hesitations, sometimes hapless communications and outright blunders. But the epidemic curve was not so much flattened as steamrollered: Australia’s per capita infection rate is now lower than that of New Zealand, which is much more frequently lauded.

The economic response was as extraordinary. Civil servants who had been told they existed to serve politics and politicians also found their expert advice heeded. A huge relief package of direct fiscal stimulus was rolled out, amounting to 10.6 percent of the country’s gross domestic product — second only in the world to Qatar’s (13 percent). Unemployment benefits were doubled, a generous (though not universal) program of wage subsidy was introduced and child care was made free — all measures that only a few months ago Mr. Morrison’s party would have pilloried as dangerous socialism.

The stimulus plan was designed after negotiations with various civil society groups, including the trade unions. “There are no blue teams or red teams,” Mr. Morrison said in early April. “There are no more unions or bosses. There are just Australians now; that’s all that matters.”

He thanked Sally McManus, the first woman to head Australia’s trade union movement — a socialist and feminist, a bête noire of the right and to the left of the Labor Party mainstream, Ms. McManus is an activist who allies her politics with the likes of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn.

It was a moment of grace, and as surreal as if Mr. Trump sought the counsel of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and then praised her.

As a consequence of the stimulus, the Australian economy is not expected to plumb the catastrophic depths foreseen for the United States or Europe. The unemployment rate rose to 6.2 percent in April. The Reserve Bank of Australia has predicted that it will peak at 10 percent in June and slowly decline to 6.5 percent by June 2022. While these sad statistics hide a larger tragedy, they still are preferable to those in the United States, where unemployment hit 14.7 percent last month and, according to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, may have reached 25 percent.

Australians’ trust in their government has soared from record lows in December: Ninety-three percent of respondents in a recent poll by the Lowy Institute said they believed it had “handled Covid-19 very or fairly well.” Peter Doherty, a leading Australian immunologist and Nobel laureate who on Twitter rails against “neoliberal idiocy” and Mr. Trump, spoke for many Australians when he said recently that Mr. Morrison had, in dealing with the pandemic, “basically done the right thing.”

And yet Australia’s success has received little global attention.

New Zealand’s prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, struts the world stage, leading in scores of stories about countries that are succeeding against the coronavirus, exuding charisma, but charisma excludes Mr. Morrison, who seems condemned to watch from the wings.

Could it be that Australia’s record somehow embarrasses commentators of both the left and the right? The left, because the Australian government is in every other respect Trumpian in its male-led, climate-denying, nationalist tub-thumping and authoritarian sentiments; the right because a conservative government has succeeded only by very publicly abandoning ideology. And if ideology, and the culture wars, are nothing when everything is at stake, the inevitable question arises: Did they ever mean anything at all?

Now, with the beginning of a return to normalcy, the strange miracle of this Australian consensus already is starting to vanish, with old habits renascent.

The government body overseeing the country’s recovery, the National Covid-19 Coordination Committee, has been criticized as secretive and unaccountable, and for promoting policies to revive the economy that favor the fossil-fuel industry. Sinister new powers for the national spy agency are being rushed through Parliament, and opposition is growing to the government’s plans to end, in the name of financial rectitude, its generous wage and unemployment packages in September.

Even so, these remarkable few months will remain a rebuke to the murderous madness of ruling through division, a testament of hope to all that can be achieved when ideology is ditched.

Presented with growing doubts about democracy’s ability to deal with the pandemic on the one hand, and the seeming ability of a totalitarian China to address the crisis on the other, Australia unexpectedly, if only briefly, returned to its best traditions of communality and fairness.

While the world searches for a vaccine for the virus, the vaccine for its coming crises — not least among them climate change — is perhaps hiding in plain sight: unite, listen and act with all, for all, rather than special interests. Perhaps this is the future, the only future, and not just for Australia, but for any democracy seeking to hold through this new, terrifying age.

Richard Flanagan won the Man Booker Prize for “The Narrow Road to the Deep North” and is the author, most recently, of the novel “First Person.”
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
2

#613 User is offline   shyams 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,678
  • Joined: 2009-August-02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2020-May-20, 07:57

This quote from the above article reminded me of a famous Daily Show clip:

Quote

Mr. Howard spoke from experience. A fiercely right-wing prime minister, when confronted in 1996 with the horror of 35 people being shot dead at Port Arthur, in Tasmania, he moved decisively to enact strong gun-control laws. No mass shootings occurred in the next 20 years, according to a 2016 report, and the decline in firearm deaths accelerated. There have been only two mass shootings since, one of seven people and one of four.


https://www.youtube....h?v=TYbY45rHj8w

Rob Borbidge (Australia) deserves to be mentioned alongside John Howard.
0

#614 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2020-May-21, 03:15

From the Editorial Board at FT:

Quote

“You go to war with the army you have”, was Donald Rumsfeld’s famous comment on the outbreak of the Iraq war. The former US defence secretary’s pithy statement is easily adapted to the coronavirus pandemic. When a global health emergency hits, the world has to respond with the international organisations that it has. In this case, that means the World Health Organization.

So it is particularly unfortunate that the US has chosen to launch an all-out assault on the WHO in the middle of the biggest global health emergency for a century. The Trump administration’s threat to cut off all funding to the WHO within 30 days — made in the midst of its annual assembly — threatens to hamper and confuse the international response to the pandemic.

As the world struggles to find treatments and a vaccine for Covid-19, the WHO remains a vital co-ordination centre for information, advice and the evaluation of best practice. For all its faults, the WHO is still a respected voice in most of the world. After the pandemic is over, there will need to be a reassessment of the world’s health infrastructure, including the role of the WHO. But now is not the moment for a major redesign.

Washington’s ill-timed assault on the WHO is also likely to weaken US global leadership. Countries that might normally be expected to follow America’s lead — such as the UK and Australia — show no sign of joining the Trump administration’s efforts to ostracise the global health body.

As the US steps back, so China has stepped forward. In a speech to the WHO’s virtual assembly, Xi Jinping, China’s president, pledged that his country would donate $2bn towards fighting the virus. The Trump administration’s strongest complaint about the WHO is that it has been far too close to China since the original outbreak of coronavirus in the Chinese city of Wuhan. But an American decision permanently to stop funding the WHO, while China steps up its own hitherto paltry payments, would have the perverse effect of strengthening Beijing’s hold over the organisation.

The WHO’s handling of the pandemic is certainly open to criticism. The organisation was too willing to accept China’s early reassurances about the lack of evidence of human-to-human transmission of Covid-19. Given what we now know about China’s early intimidation of whistleblowers in Wuhan, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the WHO’s director-general, was also wrong to praise China for “setting a new standard for outbreak control”.

The WHO was probably remiss, too, in waiting until March to declare a global pandemic. Whatever the official criteria, the delay in using the word pandemic may have meant that the world went into lockdown too slowly.

All of these issues deserve careful examination. So it is a positive development that the World Health Assembly, the WHO’s governing body, agreed to set up an “impartial, independent” investigation into the international handling of coronavirus, including the disease’s origins. The role the WHO itself plays in the probe has yet to be pinned down. Since the body’s own behaviour is one of the topics that needs investigating, the WHO itself should not play a leading role in setting up and running the process.

It is striking that the investigation initiative was led by Australia and the EU. For different reasons, neither the US nor China are trusted to take a lead on Covid-19. In their absence, middle-ranking powers have had to step up. If the US carries out its threat to pull the WHO’s funding, they will have to do so again to prevent Beijing from gaining dominance.

If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#615 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2020-May-21, 03:26

Jennifer Prah Ruger at FT: The World Health Organization can be reformed

The writer is the Amartya Sen professor of health equity, economics and policy at the University of Pennsylvania.

Quote

Untold suffering, loss of life and economic disruption. In health crises, the world usually looks to the World Health Organization for authoritative guidance. But the WHO today is a compromised institution.

US president Donald Trump has called it “China-centric” and suspended funding. Years before Covid-19 struck, former WHO director-general Margaret Chan suggested that others might “do a better job” in dealing with global health threats. The WHO certainly needs to change. But it should not be defunded now, amid a global pandemic. Rather, it needs to reform in four key areas.

For one, it lacks independence from its member countries, and not just China. In the early 1990s, Japan allegedly pressured small nations with trade actions, while also offering them aid, to win support for a second term for its director-general candidate. Historically, unwritten rules also required that five of the WHO’s six assistant directors come from the US, UK, France, the Soviet Union and China.

Global health challenges require that the WHO rise above such parochial interests. Moreover, an independent and objective international institution can best serve national interests too. Here the WHO can take a page from the IMF, which was taken to task in an internal report for its role in the eurozone debt crisis and urged to separate finance from politics, and to focus on its role as a “global financial truth-teller”.

The WHO also needs to be more accountable, transparent and fair. In 2009, its opaque management of H1N1, commonly known as swine flu, led to charges of undue influence. The emergency committee set up by Dr Chan during her leadership did not deliberate publicly. This undermined its subsequent declaration of H1N1 as a global pandemic, a decision that critics called scientifically unjustified. There were also widespread allegations that WHO advisers had ties to pharmaceutical companies. Estimated sales from vaccines reached several billion dollars in 2009.

Geopolitical interests have also shaped WHO actions. In 1955, it was roped into the west’s ideological struggle against the Soviet Union when the World Health Assembly, the WHO’s decision-making body, voted for a malaria eradication programme promoted by the US and its allies. Powerful commercial interests sometimes trump science too. In 1985, the US withheld WHO funding after big pharmaceutical companies objected to its “essential drugs programme” for priority needs.

Third, WHO funding needs to become bigger and more sustainable. Currently, powerful countries and organisations influence its actions via extrabudgetary funding tied to specific purposes. These are often associated more with donor interests than global health needs; misaligned with the WHO’s own programmes; and not evenly spread across programme areas. Currently, 80 per cent of the WHO’s budget is from voluntary contributions. This undermines the WHO’s institutional integrity, and opens a chasm between its stated objectives and performance. It requires reforms such as multiyear funding agreements.

Finally, the WHO must reclaim its scientific credibility to better protect global public health. One way to do that is to uncouple science from politics. It should separate its technical and implementation functions from the political functions while using the WHA to maintain representative democracy among the WHO’s 194 member nations.

It can be done. Gro Harlem Brundtland, often seen as the WHO’s best director-general, led the successful 2003 containment of Sars. Stopping the disease in its tracks required science-based decisions that always placed public health first. The world needs such a WHO, that puts science before politics. Our lives literally depend on it.

Can it be done?
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#616 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2020-May-22, 06:43

Kate Conger at NYT:

Quote

OAKLAND, Calif. — Facebook said on Thursday that it would allow many employees to work from home permanently. But there’s a catch: They may not be able to keep their big Silicon Valley salaries in more affordable parts of the country.

Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, told workers during a staff meeting that was livestreamed on his Facebook page that within a decade as many as half of the company’s more than 48,000 employees would work from home.

“It’s clear that Covid has changed a lot about our lives, and that certainly includes the way that most of us work,” Mr. Zuckerberg said. “Coming out of this period, I expect that remote work is going to be a growing trend as well.”

Facebook’s decision, the first among tech’s biggest companies, is a stark change for a business culture built around getting workers into giant offices and keeping them there. Using free shuttle buses, free cafeterias and personal services like dry cleaning, tech companies have done as much as possible over the years to give employees little reason to go home, let alone avoid the office.

If other giant companies follow suit, tech employment could start to shift away from expensive hubs like Silicon Valley, Seattle and New York. The option to work from home could also provide more reason for tech workers who complain that their enviable salaries still aren’t enough to buy a home in San Francisco or San Jose to consider settling in other parts of the country.

Remote work has been a growing trend in Mr. Zuckerberg's industry and others for decades because physical workplaces are irrelevant for 95+ percent of what IT workers do in an increasingly networked, cloud enabled world and because most workers trying to balance work and life appreciate the flexibility, commuting is a waste of time and somebody has to take care of the kids when they get sick and when they aren't in school. One of my neighbors ran a very successful construction business from his bass boat using a cell phone which he could do because he understood the importance of scheduling and he knew everybody in the business and they knew he always paid his bills on time.
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#617 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2020-May-22, 11:27

Indi Samarajiva at Medium:

Quote

Mongolia has had the best COVID-19 response in the world. Not only do they have zero deaths, they have zero local transmissions. Mongolia didn’t flatten the curve or crush the curve — they were just like ‘f3ck curves’. In Mongolia, there simply wasn't an epidemic at all.

And no, they didn’t just get lucky.

Starting in January, Mongolia executed a perfect public health response, and they have never let up the pressure since. COVID-19 did not just leave Mongolia alone. Mongolia kicked its ass.
For this all this hard work, however, they get little credit. Nobody’s talking about the ‘Mongolian example’. Instead, we talk about total failures like Germany or Sweden. Like I’ve said, success is ZERO, and Mongolia is as zero as you can get.

Just look for yourself. See the actions they took, when they took them, and how effective it was. I think you’ll be as mind-blown as I was. Mongolia’s response was intense, and somehow involved 30,000 sheep.


And then there's what Kerala India has done to control its coronavirus outbreak, which is a job so astonishingly effective that it calls into question some bedrock assumptions about how the world works.

Story by Amanda Taub at NYT: https://messaging-cu...896ed87b2d9c72a
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#618 User is offline   shyams 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,678
  • Joined: 2009-August-02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2020-May-24, 11:11

[UK comment]

Once upon a time, Prime Ministers used to back their key ministerial colleagues when things got tough. It's all topsy turvy now -- PMs sacrifice their ministers without hesitation; but will happily go out on a limb to back their unelected adviser.

Yes, this relates to the behaviour of the PMs closest adviser during times of Coronavirus.
2

#619 User is offline   pilowsky 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,787
  • Joined: 2019-October-04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Poland

Posted 2020-May-25, 02:50

Today I received an email advertisement from a popular bridge writer whose style I did not like very much but whose information content has helped me. In light of this email, I will not be dealing with this person in the future. I personally consider it racist and offensive in the extreme. you be the judge.

"I hope this finds you all healthy and safe. The local government is banning meetings of 50 people or more for the summer and bridge players are the most vulnerable to the Wuhan Chinese virus, so sadly I am cancelling the Trail Summer sectional for July 2020."


I also find it remarkable that the writer is sad about protecting the health of the individuals from whom the writer's income depends. Oddly some of those clients are likely to be Chinese given the location of the writers Club.
Fortuna Fortis Felix
1

#620 User is offline   o__nikos 

  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 2020-April-17

Posted 2020-May-25, 08:19

Do you have any idea when Bridge Clubs are going to reopen?
0

  • 86 Pages +
  • « First
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

36 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 36 guests, 0 anonymous users