Unit2Sucks said:
What I would like to understand is what would Republicans consider success? Is ensuring that our healthcare system isn't overwhelmed like NYC and Nola success in and of itself? What if we have to institute new SIP measures in a month or two if our "social distancing" fails? Would that still be success? Does your definition of success involve healthcare outcomes or just economic ones?
Because I wouldn't ask a question like this that I wasn't prepared to answer, I will start by saying we obviously have already failed. We are the laughing stock of the world. We have the "best" healthcare system and the worst outbreak on the planet. The disparity in outcomes appears to correlate highly with wealth which bus another failure.
That said, just because we have failed doesn't mean we should give up. We are still early in what has the potential to be a miserable epoch and can impact the outcome. From here on out, I would define success in terms of how well we contain the virus and are able to protect our most vulnerable populations without whipsawing in and out of SIP orders. There may be a deus ex machina that saves us from even worse outcomes. That could be in the form of therapeutics or a successful vaccine. I had thought we were on our way to testing and contact tracing which would allow us to resume a semblance of daily life without undue risk but it appears our country doesn't have the fortitude for it. I would also consider it a success if our country gravitated toward trust in science and experts and away from magical thinking.
Man, is this post is revealing. You have a really low opinion of our country and it permeates your every thought. Living that way must be miserable.
By no reasonable metric does the US have the worst outbreak on the planet nor is the US a laughingstock re covid. In fact, the US is admired for both the statistical outcomes and how quickly its private industry has responded with medical and production innovations.
Measured by either deaths per 100,000 or mortality rate for observed cases, the US is actually at the very low end - particularly if you exclude China, Iran, Brazil N. Korea and other countries where the numbers are not accurate. The US has the "most" confirmed cases and most "confirmed deaths" simply because we have one of the the largest populations (excluding countries that lie or don't test, like China and India, respectively) and have done more testing (i.e, the gross/actual number of tests) then the other countries.
And if you look at the case fatality rate, the US has one of the lowest % which would suggest that the quality of medical care has been good - better than most other places.
And finally, if you take out the poop show that is NY metro areas which account for about 33% of total US deaths, the US numbers are remarkably low compared to other countries.
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality Trump, the CDC, Fauci, Cuomo, De Blasio, and many other leaders made mistakes and misjudgments - some were avoidable and some were not. But leaders in most other countries made the same mistakes and bad decisions. By no means is the US approach all that different than many other countries, the US health system was not overwhelmed (with limited exceptions in NY), and had much better outcomes than places like Italy and England with single payer insurance.
I'm not a republican, but I'm happy to answer your question. Success is defined as restoring as much of the economy as possible while mitigating the most obvious and significant risks which can be mitigated
at a reasonable cost. In particular, efforts should be focused on: (i) the elderly; (ii) people with comorbidity; and (3) family units living indoors that infect each other. In truth - it is not much different than what you're proposing.
The problem is we have leaders (mostly Dems like Newsome and Cuomo (a few weeks back), but also some republicans) who have moved the goalposts. SIP is no longer a temporary measure required to flatten the curve. Now we need to "save every life." Not going to happen. That is a prime example of the magical thinking you abhor. And what you might consider science - the models - actually were magical thinking as well.
We should acknowledge there will be seasonal spikes - but no more SIP unless there is a real and likely chance that there will be a shortage of hospital beds. And no more SIP unless we have models that are actually correct and don't include worst case projections.
