This seems a little hypocritical given that the US still doesn't have an adequate SARS-2 testing regime in place, and will almost certainly see the first real rise in cases once a cluster of locally transmitted infections start becoming severely ill/dying, as in Italy/Iran. Calling China blind while we still have our eyes shut. It is possible we'll luck out and escape Wuhan-level consequences, but I'm predicting this piece may age very badly.
I'm "curious" how things will work out in the US when people
1) show up to work at, say, McDonalds even if they're not feeling great.
2) wait until the last minute to seek health care because it's expensive
And by "curious" I mean "extremely worried".
Edit: I'm certainly no expert though; it'd be nice to consider some actual data about how these things spread (is the flu a similar enough model?). Maybe the above points don't really matter that much. I'm still worried in any event. Several relatives-in-law live in one of the affected areas of Italy.
> 1) show up to work at, say, McDonalds even if they're not feeling great.
The US generally has extremely strict guidelines regarding food safety and hygiene. In terms of food safety, America ranks above all but the Nordic countries.[1]
I can assure you that American restaurants absolutely will not tolerate a food worker with an active upper respiratory infection. If anything US restaurants are more likely to order a worker to stay home, because unlike Europe they generally don't have to give hourly workers paid sick time.
While this is true, what worries me about Coronavirus is its weeks-long incubation period, where you can spread the virus even without any symptoms attached.
The obvious "dude is coughing / sneezing" case simply doesn't apply to Coronavirus. It can spread long before you show any symptoms.
Coronavirus is deadly enough to kill some people, but weak enough that some people's immune system represses it entirely.
In some ways, something like Ebola is easier to control. Because everyone who gets sick with Ebola actually shows symptoms (because Ebola is so deadly).
As above/below though, that goes for pretty much any country and if it's the biggest factor in contagion, then maybe we won't see large differences between wealthy-ish countries.
This is false. Ask any person working in a tip-based position to give up working for 2 weeks because of a sickness and they will more than likely say they cannot afford to (because they will fail to make rent).
"they generally don't have to give hourly workers paid sick time."
..is exactly why you should expect them to take something for their fever, turn up for their shift and say absolutely nothing to anyone about feeling unwell.
> I can assure you that American restaurants absolutely will not tolerate a food worker with an active upper respiratory infection.
I think you're speaking with too much certainty here. It really depends on the restaurant's management, just based on my personal experience. Some will just assign people to jobs that aren't customer-facing because they can't afford to be short-handed and it's difficult to get people to come in on their day off.
"But not all state and local food codes include FDA’s sick worker rules. In fact, 19 states have not adopted these rules. And some food workers work while sick even when their states or localities do have those rules. Indeed, 20% of food workers say they worked at least one shift with vomiting or diarrhea in the past year."
Fair enough. It's just an example though - there are a lot of other low-wage industries with lots of public contact, and people may try and hide their illness if they need the work.
And of course people may be contagious before exhibiting a lot of symptoms, but that's certainly not US specific.
Not sure to what degree you follow the markets, but ^SPX is down over 3%. A number of high level pandemic expert positions have been eliminated in this administration, and I think people are starting to have doubts about domestic preparedness in the US.
Yes, THIS. We're already seeing the U.S.'s fucked system causing consequences, as in this story of a Miami man getting several thousands of dollars in medical bills for getting tested[1].
We have a system where people are too terrified of their insurers to get tested or get medical care, and too terrified of their employers to stay home from work. It's a recipe for disaster in a pandemic.
Incidentally, the fact that authoritarianism and extreme predatory capitalism cause the same kind of fear that impedes things like public health might also suggest that maybe authoritarianism and extreme predatory capitalism are pretty similar, as folks like Elizabeth Anderson[2] and I[3] have argued...
~44 million people have no health insurance in the US, and another 38 million have inadequate health insurance. how many of them will skip the doctor and show up for work because they rather not face a surprise bill?
I got no doubt at this stage that the US will be hit the hardest from all the developed countries. No amount of testing and prevention mechanism the CDC can come up with, effective mitigation will depend on people seeking treatment and be willing to go to a doctor even without symptoms.
I'm pretty convinced that the only reason the US hasn't been hit as hard yet is that they aren't testing on the same scale.
In other news on twitter people from Vietnam, Thailand are currently boasting that the number of /their/ infected is tiny compared to South Korea - SK just tests on a massive scale. Not testing and educating people keeps your numbers low but you'll lose in the long run.
>hypocritical indeed: Miami man who flew to China worried he might have COVID-19. He may owe thousands
Hypocritical? Sounds like a completely orthogonal problem to me. You can have insanely unaffordable healthcare in authoritarian states and liberal democracies. If anything, the US is an outlier considering that healthcare works well in every other liberal democracy.
On top of the 25 million or so uninsured in America, there are a lot of underinsured who have gotten used to avoiding medical care due to the expense of even “covered” costs.
Ooh "diverse", is it because "homogeneous" countries would have the disease better in control, so like many things, it's a problem attributed to "diversity"?
Whenever I read "homogeneous nation" I take a glance at my racism-o-meter...
I think the problem isn't heterogeneity in ethnicity, it's heterogeneity in values. Many western European nations have a good amount of ethnic diversity, but they don't have half the population saying that nationalized healthcare (like in the UK) is "socialist" and they don't want it. The different ethnic groups there seem to be able to all agree on what kind of things are necessary to achieve an advanced, modern nation. We in the US simply cannot.
Where did you get those numbers? It certainly isn't seen in election results. Approximately half the population reliably votes GOP in every election, and they certainly don't want Medicare for All. On the Democrat side, MfA is seen as "extreme"; even in the current Primaries (which is mostly composed of voters who are reasonably strong Democrats), Bernie is only getting about 25% of the vote so far.
I have no idea how reliable these polls are, or how much things have changed since they were conducted, but I've heard the statistic before and I at least got the impression that it wasn't considered a controversial one.
From what I understand, there are similar statistics about various other policies that could be considered 'socialist' (but are more European-style social-democratic). While many Americans are strongly opposed to anything with the label socialism, they seem to often actually be in favor of the actual policy that these 'progressives' propose.
I haven't taken any kind of deep dive into this though, so for all I know this is more controversial than I assumed.
This article is making claims about several polls that Americans supposedly want a bunch of things that very progressive Democrats (not just regular Democrats) want. It sounds to me like their polling methodology is severely flawed, because their poll results are completely different from our election results.
This reminds me of the 2016 election. All the poll results said that Hillary would easily win the election. So much for those polls.
It's possible that the polling methodology is flawed, but I don't see the problem with there being a big difference between what people claim to want and who they vote for.
In fact, I'd say it's rather unsurprising that, whatever people might actually want, they would vote against their interest because 1) socialism is evil, and 2) "my team should win, no matter the policy".
Furthermore, there's a difference between a poll that predicts an election winner, which is notoriously difficult to do, and a poll that simply asks people whether they want <thing x>.
It's possible the wording of the questions is manipulative, or that they happened to poll an unrepresentative sample of the population. I don't know at this point.
But the fact that 1) the results of an 'issue' poll don't align with voter behavior and 2) that the results of an election winner poll doesn't in itself make a good case that the poll must be flawed.
>they would vote against their interest because 1) socialism is evil, and 2) "my team should win, no matter the policy".
If people are honestly this stupid, then why even bother polling them to see what policies they want? This is a serious question: if people don't bother voting based on policies they want, then why is that even important? If this theory of yours is true, then it really seems to call the voting population's basic intelligence into question, not to mention the fundamental idea of democracy itself. If the people are too utterly stupid to vote for their own best interests at least most of the time, then why wouldn't authoritarianism be a better system?
Honestly, I find it easier to believe that the polls are bad. I've seen way too many polls in my lifetime where the questions were manipulative, or just plain poorly worded or chosen. On top of that, the other problem with polls is that they only capture results from people who actually bother to respond to the polls, or are in a place where the pollsters are. Usually, when the latter is brought up, we're supposed to somehow believe that the pollsters have some great methodology that lets them determine what a larger population wants just by sampling a much smaller number of people in that population, but this is completely subject to bias and error. And finally, I point again to the 2016 election: predicting a winner is not as hard as asking if they want <thing x>. In this case, the poll is asking exactly the same thing as the election itself will: who do you plan to vote for? Asking about <thing x> is not as easy, because you can get wildly different results by asking the question differently. Do I want "Medicare for All"? Well, the answer might depend on many things, like how exactly it would be implemented. Is private insurance still allowed to exist as a supplement or alternative? Are non-citizens/"illegal aliens"/"migrants" (pick your term) covered? etc. You would probably get very different answers depending on those points in a large poll in America, so if you just ask a simple "do you want it? yes/no" question, that might not align at all with what actual candidates are proposing. Asking "who do you plan to vote for?" avoids that. And in the 2016 election, the polls were nowhere even close to the election results. That tells me the polls were either garbage, or rigged to try to influence the election.
> If people are honestly this stupid, then why even bother polling them to see what policies they want? This is a serious question: if people don't bother voting based on policies they want, then why is that even important? If this theory of yours is true, then it really seems to call the voting population's basic intelligence into question, not to mention the fundamental idea of democracy itself. If the people are too utterly stupid to vote for their own best interests at least most of the time, then why wouldn't authoritarianism be a better system?
All kinds of things play a role in this 'stupidity': tribalism, decades of anti-socialist propaganda, legitimate concerns based on history, and disengagement. It's completely understandable that one could reject 'socialism' and yet support most of what actual socialist argue in favor of.
> Honestly, I find it easier to believe that the polls are bad. I've seen way too many polls in my lifetime where the questions were manipulative, or just plain poorly worded or chosen.
If you're honestly engaging with me on this, and I'm hoping you are, I'd challenge both of us to do some research and further discuss this. I'm inclined to believe that in this case, with concrete policy questions, the questions and answers are not too manipulative, but of course I don't "know" this. Let's look into it.
> On top of that, the other problem with polls is that they only capture results from people who actually bother to respond to the polls, or are in a place where the pollsters are. Usually, when the latter is brought up, we're supposed to somehow believe that the pollsters have some great methodology that lets them determine what a larger population wants just by sampling a much smaller number of people in that population, but this is completely subject to bias and error.
True, but afaik this generally skews in favor of older, more conservative respondents and, crucially, more socalism-phobic, so to speak.
> And finally, I point again to the 2016 election: predicting a winner is not as hard as asking if they want <thing x>. In this case, the poll is asking exactly the same thing as the election itself will: who do you plan to vote for? Asking about <thing x> is not as easy, because you can get wildly different results by asking the question differently. Do I want "Medicare for All"? Well, the answer might depend on many things, like how exactly it would be implemented. Is private insurance still allowed to exist as a supplement or alternative? Are non-citizens/"illegal aliens"/"migrants" (pick your term) covered? etc. You would probably get very different answers depending on those points in a large poll in America, so if you just ask a simple "do you want it? yes/no" question, that might not align at all with what actual candidates are proposing. Asking "who do you plan to vote for?" avoids that. And in the 2016 election, the polls were nowhere even close to the election results. That tells me the polls were either garbage, or rigged to try to influence the election.
I think with the election polls one of the big issues is exactly the problem you describe earlier. Getting an accurate, representative sample is very difficult. Especially when voting for Trump was, for many people, a kind of social suicide.
That said, you might be right. I am inclined to believe that policy questions, even with all the hidden complication behind implementing said policies, are probably answered honestly and I'm assuming that the sampling is relatively 'honest' too. But I don't know this, and it's absolutely fair to challenge me on that.
What I'll do, one of these days, is look more into this because while I don't think my beliefs depend on the accuracy of these polls, I do think it's important that my beliefs are truthful (as well as my claims). If you're not just interested in defending your beliefs or attacking mine (which I'm not saying you are), I'd very much like it if we could both look further into this and at some point continue the discussion with more than our respective assumptions :). I'm happy to be corrected if the facts are on your side.
>This seems a little hypocritical given that the US [...]
How is it hypocritical when the article doesn't even mention the US at all? It's possible to be critical of China's authoritarianism AND whatever the US's failures are.
Except in the context of propaganda where they are in fact attempting to plant the idea of a dichotomy in people's heads without having to defend one side of it.
the point is the headline and the tone. there is absolutely no empathy in it. you don't need to be for or against authoritarianism to spot that. and I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't frankly.
It's easy to point fingers from the sidelines. I'm curious how this would've progressed if the virus had originated in the US instead and how much better it would've been handled.
These viruses don't originate in China by random chance.
Although, ironically, they originate in China because of too little government control over hygiene in wet markets and game meat, not too much authoritarianism.
Isn't it interesting that these deadly viruses don't tend to originate from India? Even though they're supposed to have worse sanitation and are poorer, and a similarly large population, both in density and total.
The Chinese government promotes "traditional medicine" for nationalistic reasons, and I suspect it's playing a significant role in these zoonotic diseases -- not to mention the extinction of rhinos and whatnot.
The last few have all come from miss handled wild and exotic meats/animals. Countries that have proper handling of meat, and rules around what can be eaten and owned don't have these problems.
Granted, there's an underground in every country I'm sure, and if all things were equal with the rules and enforcement, your argument would be much more reasonable.
> I'm curious how this would've progressed if the virus had originated in the US instead and how much better it would've been handled.
The federal and local governments in the U.S. do not have the same power as CCP to suppress the "rumor". The eight doctors would not have been reprimanded by the local police for discussing the new virus in private online groups. The Trump administration would not have power to tell the CDC to shut up. The Trump administration would not have power to force the CDC to under-report counts. The states would not cooperate with the federal government to under-report counts.
You should remember how the AIDS epidemic was handled in the US. A lot of people died before govt even acknowledged it was a problem, there was much lack of coordination between the federal and state/city governments in handling it.
AIDS had the unfortunate coincidence of (at least initially) mostly targeting marginalized groups that governments at the time had no problem with throwing under any bus that came. COVID-19 is spreading to everyone who can catch it across all socioeconomic groups.
The CDC is a federal agency, no? The larger point is that the US, being a democracy is “messier”, to its potential advantage. It’s harder to suppress information.
The dust-up with the NOAA and the White House last year over a hurricane is probably a good model for what a CDC / White House disagreement might look like. Recall that during that episode, the White House directed NOAA to disavow the claims of forecasters that went against the president’s claim that Alabama was in Dorian’s line of fire.
And there’s no way in hell a few states with a total population of 50 million would agree to be quarantined. Imagine they’ll tried to stop all flights from O’Hare and Detroit.
How is it hypocritical for the atlantic to state this? Maybe you dont realize it but unlike China, US newspapers are not mouthpieces for the government
With the Japan/Korean/Italy/Iran outbreak, I think most people that are outside of China are underestimating the impact of this virus and the effective measures that China has taken.
"Calling China blind while we still have our eyes shut."
There is likely already community spread going on especially in places like the SF Bay Area.
Many Chinese language forums in the US are reporting people with symptoms that match Covid-19 and testing negative for the common flu, yet are denied CDC RT-PCR testing because they do not meet the stringent criteria set. Add to this the fact that the CDC's initial test is flawed and a new test is still nowhere to be seen.
This will go very badly in the US. The average citizen need to start preparing for a pandemic.
The degree of blind-ness is what's at stake. See Italy & South Korea. As soon as it becomes obvious there's a problem, the governments start reacting. We can and do criticize the degree our governments respond, and that they're too reactive and not proactive enough.
The point is, it's not like in Wuhan, where you have reports of 10s to hundreds of people dying from a mysterious pneumonia, before the government even acknowledges it. It's not like you have the government telling people everything is okay, and to go back to work, and anyone who says anything differently gets welded into their apartment and shut off from the Internet.
Singapore, too. Singapore was one of the first affected and have been completely transparent on their numbers and how things are being handled. The result is a relatively low number of cases given their population density.
Meanwhile, nobody trusts China's numbers. Initially it was to to keep the narrative under control, and now it's probably because they've lost control of the situation. Now Iran suddenly says, "oops, we actually have coronavirus and it's pretty bad."
yeah, corruption and self-serving behavior among bureaucrats is not unique to authoritarianism and/or communism.
with that said, the underlying critique is valid: there is more overt pressure for information-hiding in an authoritarian regime. but boeing, for example, shows that you don't need an authoritarian communist system to want to look good to people who have influence over your livelihood and stature (and thereby suppress bad information).
