There are fairly detailed plans in place in the US to address the Coronavirus and other such infectious diseases. The author does a thorough review of some concerns and issues that may not have been completely covered in those plans. But, in my opinion, he exaggerated the risks of a serious outbreak in the US because the Chinese government is now acting to prevent spread of Coronavirus, which will limit the spread to other nations. But this assumes the other nations act responsibly.
One concern of the author leads me to believe he follows the group-think of the Doomberg Media Empire:
“Once again, pandemic preparation is about the flexibility of decentralized institutions. These are not problems that can be solved by top-down planning. Instead, they rely on longstanding institutional capacities, high levels of social trust and improvisational skill.”
Clearly, he follows a liberal agenda of a Centralized government, and downplays local control of their citizens policies and politics.
“he exaggerated the risks of a serious outbreak in the US because the Chinese government is now acting to prevent spread of Coronavirus”
I think there’s one major piece of the puzzle you’re not considering when believing the risks are being exaggerated: China has a longstanding history of under reporting what’s really going on in their country.
If they say there are 4,500 cases, you should assume there are over 8,000. If they say 100 people died, you should assume at least 200 died. The other thing which has been confirmed is how the Chinese Gov’t is actually identifying those who are infected …. there are many reports that people who likely had the
virus and died in a Chinese hospital are not actually getting tested – their bodies are just being burned and the Gov’t isn’t including them in the overall count of infected individuals.
My point is you cannot rely on the Chinese Gov’t to accurately report the extent of this outbreak. It may not be as bad as people think, but it’s certainly not as good as the Chinese Gov’t wants everyone to believe.
The other part which is not discussed here is people can have the virus and be showing no symptoms. So there could be 5,000 CONFIRMED cases but an unknown number of people who have the virus, don’t have symptoms, and are unknowingly infecting others. This differs from some of the pandemics of the past, like Ebola where “no symptom = no virus” so it was pretty easy to identify who actually was a carrier.
Under-reporting is not to be confused with the pertinent issue; adequate treatment and prevention. Object to whatever you want to troll me whenever I post. I won’t follow you down rabbit holes.
Uh … if China said “one person has the virus” or they say “one million people have the virus”, that would have a direct impact on what we would consider ‘adequate’ prevention techniques to be. These things are 100% connected.
PS: I posted an on-topic point devoid of personal attacks or any other argument fallacies. I am not trolling you. I hope you retain the meaning of that word sometime in the near future.
No, it did not. It publish different, increasing counts over the last week.
The USA’s CDC and DHHS are as best prepared with current resources (vaccines, procedures, etc.) according to long-ago set plans for such.
OMG. Of course China didn’t say only 1 was infected (that’s why I said “IF China said” and not “China said”.
What I wrote was an example to illustrate the following point…
What we would consider ‘adequate’ prevention techniques in the USA is wholly dependent on the extent of the outbreak.
I don’t know why you can’t grasp that concept.
January 31, 2020 at 1:06 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
2
7
Argue in a mirror with yourself. China hiding the true number is irrelevant. We know this is a SERIOUS virus…. by deaths involved… and are acting accordingly. Tell us how you think Trump, et al are acting irresponsibly at this point.
January 31, 2020 at 1:18 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
4
3
Your straw man arguments are getting tiresome. Respond to the point I made and ask me questions about it, not some fictitious argument I never made in the first place.
January 28, 2020 at 12:12 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
4
11
Assuming ‘adequate reporting’ is your concern with China, do you have concerns over their CO2 emissions reports? If so, why not try to get them to properly report that, and put their feet to the fire to reduce CO2 emissions. You’ll make (better) friends with Climate Change by Man Hoaxers if you do… but not with plants and trees that need CO2 to produce O.
It IS about the trustworthiness of the Chinese government, a point YOU brought up. So it is very relevant. If they can’t be trusted in one area, why should we trust them in other areas?
And if you believe they ARE trustworthy on emissions reporting, then that would contradict your point about their reporting on the coronavirus.
VERY relevant.
January 28, 2020 at 3:05 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
8
3
We’re getting off-topic, but I’ve never said I trusted the Chinese Government nor argued it either.
If either of you reply, I hope you can stick to the topic of the article (Coronavirus) and not continue to veer into an off-topic discussion about Climate Change.
January 28, 2020 at 5:18 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
2
9
Quiz time: who said this, regarding the issue of trusting the Chinese government? (No bonus points for saying when he said it.)
“I think there’s one major piece of the puzzle you’re not considering when believing the risks are being exaggerated: China has a longstanding history of under reporting what’s really going on in their country.”
So, YOU brought up the issue of trusting the Chinese government and then YOU refused to say if you trust the Chinese government on emissions reports.
So which is it? You do or you don’t or sometimes you do and sometimes you don’t? Simple question on an issue YOU raised.
Is the Chinese government to be trusted on anything?
January 29, 2020 at 8:06 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
7
3
“I’ve never said I trusted the Chinese Government nor argued it….”
This should have answered your question if I do or do not trust the Chinese Gov’t.
If I said I trusted them or argued that I trust them, then I trust them.
Since I said I’ve NEVER argued that I trusted them, that means I don’t trust them.
I “refused” to answer because I already answered the question. I don’t understand why I have to repeat myself multiple times until what I’m saying sinks in.
Does that make sense?
Do you understand me now?
January 29, 2020 at 2:54 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
3
8
Ay yay yay!
Then why didn’t you just say “yes” to Polar’s question at the top about emissions, and save us all the blather?!!??!!???
Answer: because as Polar suspected at the outset, you are just here to be disagreeable.
January 29, 2020 at 3:12 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
6
3
“Then why didn’t you just say “yes” to Polar’s question”
Once again Craig, you need me to repeat myself before you understand what I said? Alright. Here you go again.
His question about Climate Change was off-topic.
I mean, take a second and please realize the first thing I wrote was “China has a longstanding history of under reporting what’s really going on in their country.”
If you and he can’t glean from that comment that I do not trust the reports coming out of China are accurate, that’s on you two.
I don’t think it’s hard to realize I don’t trust their reporting when I initially said they have a history of not reporting things correctly.
January 29, 2020 at 5:42 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
4
8
You are exhausting. Always arguing small, tiny nonsense points. If you would just answer Polar’s question directly and save us all the run around. Give him and everyone else the benefit of the doubt that you aren’t just looking to pick fights over trivia.
January 29, 2020 at 7:09 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
7
5
RIDICULOUS BOOMER MOMENT
LOL yeah how dare rosenblatt point out the BS argument tactics you purposefully are trying to use to obfuscate the truth, the nerve of him! Stop whining because you got caught in your BS, as usual.
January 28, 2020 at 10:55 am
* says:
Like or Dislike:
6
2
Sometimes, the nature of a crisis demands different approaches; centralized government may be exactly what is needed, as opposed to clinging to what are quaint and destructive notions, such as adherence to philosophies of limited government when the opposite is needed.
The only instances of necessity of a centralized government to address issues are the military and interstate highways, railroads, and bridges. Of course, interstate commerce laws are coordinated with state commerce laws, for efficiency wherever possible.
There are fairly detailed plans in place in the US to address the Coronavirus and other such infectious diseases. The author does a thorough review of some concerns and issues that may not have been completely covered in those plans. But, in my opinion, he exaggerated the risks of a serious outbreak in the US because the Chinese government is now acting to prevent spread of Coronavirus, which will limit the spread to other nations. But this assumes the other nations act responsibly.
One concern of the author leads me to believe he follows the group-think of the Doomberg Media Empire:
“Once again, pandemic preparation is about the flexibility of decentralized institutions. These are not problems that can be solved by top-down planning. Instead, they rely on longstanding institutional capacities, high levels of social trust and improvisational skill.”
Clearly, he follows a liberal agenda of a Centralized government, and downplays local control of their citizens policies and politics.
“he exaggerated the risks of a serious outbreak in the US because the Chinese government is now acting to prevent spread of Coronavirus”
I think there’s one major piece of the puzzle you’re not considering when believing the risks are being exaggerated: China has a longstanding history of under reporting what’s really going on in their country.
If they say there are 4,500 cases, you should assume there are over 8,000. If they say 100 people died, you should assume at least 200 died. The other thing which has been confirmed is how the Chinese Gov’t is actually identifying those who are infected …. there are many reports that people who likely had the
virus and died in a Chinese hospital are not actually getting tested – their bodies are just being burned and the Gov’t isn’t including them in the overall count of infected individuals.
My point is you cannot rely on the Chinese Gov’t to accurately report the extent of this outbreak. It may not be as bad as people think, but it’s certainly not as good as the Chinese Gov’t wants everyone to believe.
The other part which is not discussed here is people can have the virus and be showing no symptoms. So there could be 5,000 CONFIRMED cases but an unknown number of people who have the virus, don’t have symptoms, and are unknowingly infecting others. This differs from some of the pandemics of the past, like Ebola where “no symptom = no virus” so it was pretty easy to identify who actually was a carrier.
Under-reporting is not to be confused with the pertinent issue; adequate treatment and prevention. Object to whatever you want to troll me whenever I post. I won’t follow you down rabbit holes.
Uh … if China said “one person has the virus” or they say “one million people have the virus”, that would have a direct impact on what we would consider ‘adequate’ prevention techniques to be. These things are 100% connected.
PS: I posted an on-topic point devoid of personal attacks or any other argument fallacies. I am not trolling you. I hope you retain the meaning of that word sometime in the near future.
Did China say it has only 1 infected person?
No, it did not. It publish different, increasing counts over the last week.
The USA’s CDC and DHHS are as best prepared with current resources (vaccines, procedures, etc.) according to long-ago set plans for such.
OMG. Of course China didn’t say only 1 was infected (that’s why I said “IF China said” and not “China said”.
What I wrote was an example to illustrate the following point…
What we would consider ‘adequate’ prevention techniques in the USA is wholly dependent on the extent of the outbreak.
I don’t know why you can’t grasp that concept.
Argue in a mirror with yourself. China hiding the true number is irrelevant. We know this is a SERIOUS virus…. by deaths involved… and are acting accordingly. Tell us how you think Trump, et al are acting irresponsibly at this point.
Your straw man arguments are getting tiresome. Respond to the point I made and ask me questions about it, not some fictitious argument I never made in the first place.
Assuming ‘adequate reporting’ is your concern with China, do you have concerns over their CO2 emissions reports? If so, why not try to get them to properly report that, and put their feet to the fire to reduce CO2 emissions. You’ll make (better) friends with Climate Change by Man Hoaxers if you do… but not with plants and trees that need CO2 to produce O.
Please try to stay on topic. This article is not about climate change.
It IS about the trustworthiness of the Chinese government, a point YOU brought up. So it is very relevant. If they can’t be trusted in one area, why should we trust them in other areas?
And if you believe they ARE trustworthy on emissions reporting, then that would contradict your point about their reporting on the coronavirus.
VERY relevant.
We’re getting off-topic, but I’ve never said I trusted the Chinese Government nor argued it either.
If either of you reply, I hope you can stick to the topic of the article (Coronavirus) and not continue to veer into an off-topic discussion about Climate Change.
Quiz time: who said this, regarding the issue of trusting the Chinese government? (No bonus points for saying when he said it.)
“I think there’s one major piece of the puzzle you’re not considering when believing the risks are being exaggerated: China has a longstanding history of under reporting what’s really going on in their country.”
So, YOU brought up the issue of trusting the Chinese government and then YOU refused to say if you trust the Chinese government on emissions reports.
So which is it? You do or you don’t or sometimes you do and sometimes you don’t? Simple question on an issue YOU raised.
Is the Chinese government to be trusted on anything?
“I’ve never said I trusted the Chinese Government nor argued it….”
This should have answered your question if I do or do not trust the Chinese Gov’t.
If I said I trusted them or argued that I trust them, then I trust them.
Since I said I’ve NEVER argued that I trusted them, that means I don’t trust them.
I “refused” to answer because I already answered the question. I don’t understand why I have to repeat myself multiple times until what I’m saying sinks in.
Does that make sense?
Do you understand me now?
Ay yay yay!
Then why didn’t you just say “yes” to Polar’s question at the top about emissions, and save us all the blather?!!??!!???
Answer: because as Polar suspected at the outset, you are just here to be disagreeable.
“Then why didn’t you just say “yes” to Polar’s question”
Once again Craig, you need me to repeat myself before you understand what I said? Alright. Here you go again.
His question about Climate Change was off-topic.
I mean, take a second and please realize the first thing I wrote was “China has a longstanding history of under reporting what’s really going on in their country.”
If you and he can’t glean from that comment that I do not trust the reports coming out of China are accurate, that’s on you two.
I don’t think it’s hard to realize I don’t trust their reporting when I initially said they have a history of not reporting things correctly.
You are exhausting. Always arguing small, tiny nonsense points. If you would just answer Polar’s question directly and save us all the run around. Give him and everyone else the benefit of the doubt that you aren’t just looking to pick fights over trivia.
RIDICULOUS BOOMER MOMENT
LOL yeah how dare rosenblatt point out the BS argument tactics you purposefully are trying to use to obfuscate the truth, the nerve of him! Stop whining because you got caught in your BS, as usual.
Sometimes, the nature of a crisis demands different approaches; centralized government may be exactly what is needed, as opposed to clinging to what are quaint and destructive notions, such as adherence to philosophies of limited government when the opposite is needed.
The only instances of necessity of a centralized government to address issues are the military and interstate highways, railroads, and bridges. Of course, interstate commerce laws are coordinated with state commerce laws, for efficiency wherever possible.
But China is – by definition – a centralized government! How’s that working for you? SARS. Bird Flu. Coronavirus. Etc., etc., etc.