Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Settle in, shelter-in-placers, we’ve got another super-sized (and shall we say, impassioned) edition of the Ricochet Podcast. In addition to the robust debaters, we’ve got Deb Saunders (self-quarantined from an undisclosed location) and Arthur Brooks who provides some much needed optimism in these dark days.
Music from this week’s show: Life During Wartime by Talking Heads
Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
Isolate the people at high risk, and let everyone else be productive.
I hope the theory is right.
I don’t think there are nearly enough for a herd of 330 million, but sure. Maybe in NY, San Francisco, Seattle.
The curves get bent. This is not arguable. The only issue is when you do it and how long. Nobody knows.
Representative chip Roy keeps talking about this date certain thing. I think he’s right. They should have said three weeks and we are done no matter what until the fall or the winter. That would’ve been the best combination of health and economic considerations.
I support that. I mean, I think people think that people who hold my position about the economy don’t want to do anything. That’s not the case. I am absolutely fine with the short term drastic shut down to flatten the curve and let our medical system actually prepare. I am also, of course, practicing social distancing. There just needs to be some sort of “certain date” for the other considerations the society must also have. It just can’t be indefinite.
That is the better question. (Should we apologize to West Nile? Or Spanish flu? Or MERS = Middle East Respitory Syndrome)
Perhaps one reason to not prefer “China” is because there may be more than one China virus (due to the prime conditions they tolerate for viruses jumping from bats and other animals to humans). So as to leave room for other Chinese viruses without confusion, perhaps the “Wuhan” coronavirus would be better.
Plus, there is plenty of media precedent for calling it the “Wuhan” coronavirus. I recommend following either of these two finely crafted links and watching about a 2.5 minute excerpt from
The Leftist Flu | The Andrew Klavan Show Ep. 863
starting at 14:57, either
At The Daily Wire
or
at Andrew Klavan
Watch at least until the montage about 1.5 minutes after introducing the controversy. Quite enjoyable and not to be missed.
p.s. Andrew Klavan offers some other name options of his own!
I think the best thing would have been three weeks / date certain, and then just be really brutally honest about the fact that we will just suck it up if it doesn’t work. People could make personal and business decisions much better under those conditions. Credit would be easier to analyze. The government would have more time to figure out intelligent stimulus.
Well, there are people who claim that shutting down the economy for even a few weeks ends up destroying it “forever.” The full opposite of that would seem to be the virus killing EVERYONE.
I would not be too hasty in praising South Korea for self-discipline or concern for public health. It has been many years since I have been there, though I live just across the sea in Japan. European friends, first-time visitors, have reported remarkably clean facilities. Such, however, was certainly not the case when I resided there many decades ago. Back then, awareness of ordinary sanitation measures was beyond dismal. I shall spare you any description of the various ailments that everyone simply took for granted and stoically endured. South Koreans are at best recent converts, clearly influenced, though they are loath to admit it, by their hated island neighbors, who have long been known, as they themselves self-deprecatingly acknowledge, for their keppeki-shou (mysophobia).
As I posted earlier, I thought Peter sounded oddly obsessed with his children not getting great jobs right out of school, because of “the virus.” Poor dears. Things were far worse due to President Carter.
That seems unfair. I don’t see why Mr. Robinson’s concerns should be viewed as especially self-interested when compared to anyone else’s. The costs in these latest decisions are not limited to deaths.
Swipes at his concern for how this might effect young people seem like they’re in line with the way leftists have argued against “blood for oil” or suggestions that rich people are given undeserved medical attention.
Everyone can’t be fully accommodated. Let’s not pretend that differences of opinion here are the based on who cares about people versus who doesn’t.
That sounds like giving the stink-eye to @jameslileks since he remained quiet until the promo.
“Chinese Wuhan Red Death” would seem to address those concerns.
No. I’ve said before that this podcast would get along just fine if it were just James, Peter, and Rob. If that seems too bare, it’d suffice to have a single guest on each show, but, as it is, it’s an inevitability that one of the three is going to have to take the back seat on occasion.
My suspicion is that regular listeners would rather cut out a guest – I’d have enjoyed more of James this week – but if not, one of the big three will have to take the backseat, and I appreciate James’s tact in this episode.
My point was more like, why be… exceptionally?… upset about this being caused by a virus that actually kills people, versus when it’s just because of some stupid President’s stupid policies? And that’s likely to last at least FOUR YEARS!!! I was up to my 20s during the Carter years, so not just hearing stories at grandma’s knee or whatever, and it felt like everyone expected things like high unemployment and high interest rates to go on forever.
Maybe it is (mostly) just me, but it sounded like Peter thought employers have an OBLIGATION to answer the phone, and to hire people like his children, “no matter what.” Or at least that they automatically would, but for the virus. But Governor “Hair Gel” Newsom (I read someone use that yesterday) more or less tells them not to. And that makes Peter mad.
Someone commented elsewhere that people might have gotten too used to the idea that good health is an automatic human right. It may be that people have also gotten too used to the idea of a great job being similar.
Okay, fair enough, so the problem you’re pointing out is more like the GOP people – or especially the “leadership” – “at large” who won’t fight back against the slime tactics of the Dems because they don’t think it’s dignified.
But at least “That’s How We Got Trump.” :-)
I think he was just using his personal experience as exhibit A in his case that this might be (as many of us believe it is) an overreaction.
The overhaul of the economy in this instance seems to be consistent with FDR’s takeover in the 1930s. I think he was mistaken, and caused a lot more harm than he alleviated. I could be wrong, but that is what I believe…
I’ve literally – personally – bothered Peter with what could be described as frivolous fan mail, and I’ve gotten responses from the man. I think his point is that these trends are likely the result of crippling insecurity. When people know they’re fully staffed, they generally respond to applicants with a polite acknowledgement.
I think he’s correct that people are freaking out. Maybe he’s wrong about the seriousness of this pandemic, but he isn’t any less concerned for the fate of humanity than those who think all precautions are necessary precautions; in fact, I’d say he’s more consistent with the beliefs he has heretofore espoused than most have been.
I have to say that @peterrobinsons level of detail and complaint stuck in my craw.
My son in-law came home over a week ago having aged 10 years in one day. Want to hear about my three sons? My daughter with two small children and a dry cough ? My grandkids? My friend the nurse, who is taking his clothes off in the driveway and sleeping separate from his husband ?
No detail requires. Because #weareallinthistogether
Let’s buck the #%%% up
Not a fan of Dr Fauci like these guys. He’s wrong about no proven effective treatment for virus.
He’s also a big Hillary Clinton admirer and a deep stater.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/french-peer-reviewed-study-our-treatment-cured-100-of-coronavirus-patients?ref=hvper.com
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/03/anthony_fauci_the_nihs_face_of_the_coronavirus_is_a_deepstate_hillary_clintonloving_stooge.html
I don’t disagree, but my faith in bureaucracy hasn’t changed much from what it was before I heard of CoViD-19. Even with the measures I’ve taken, I can’t help but wonder whether I’ve actually nipped it in the bud, or, you know, just “done something” for the sake of doing something.
We’re always technically in it together, but, as a Ricochetti who comes from a liberal background, I don’t get the sense that most here have considered the American left as part of “us,” even if I haven’t ruled them out.
Why?
Well because they’ve taken virtually every stance that we consider dead-wrong. In this case, I don’t think the people I disagree with are not of my tribe, I just think they’re wrong about the measures that will help.
Same argument, different day.
I thought this was a good discussion about the drug they keep talking about. It sounds like they know quite a bit with statistical analysis and historical experience without even doing a clinical trial. Start at 21: 00. Three minutes.
The whole interview of that doctor was very good.
I would also like to point out that “wanting the president to succeed” is different now when it comes to stopping coronavirus, than when people said everyone should “want the president to succeed” when Obama wanted to “fundamentally transform” the country.
And I don’t see how homeostasis means we cannot, on a national level, set aside some extra ventilators and stuff. Because the “constant stimulation” would be a problem, somehow.
For herd immunity to work well, there needs to be a sufficiently large percentage of people with immunity. That is why there is concern if more than a small percentage of families choose to not vaccinate their children.
Viruses that spread more easily (higher R0 value) require a higher percentage of people to have immunity in order to reach the Herd Immunity Threshold (HIT). Table of Examples
To quickly reach that threshold for a new virus without overwhelming hospitals, a wiser path might be to enable and incentivize those people who are not likely to need hospitalization to intentionally become infected early within controlled quarantined settings.
(Before chickenpox vaccines, parents would intentionally bring children to play with others who had chickenpox so their children could gain immunity safely while they were young instead of getting it later, which is far more dangerous.)
For new viruses with no vaccine, that could take many forms, eg. ranging from quarantining the proactively infected on land to even the possibility of coronavirus cruises. Side benefit: That would provide a beneficial use of cruise ships that turns their combination of support systems, entertainments, close community, and isolation from society into a health advantage.
The common goal is to quickly give immunity to as many people as you can without having to use hospitals. For the Wuhan virus, the young and healthy are least likely to need hospitalization.
As long as only a small percentage of people have had the disease, there is no effective herd immunity.
I just saw Steve Bannon on Maria Bartiromo’s show. The only thing that matters is that the medical system doesn’t get overwhelmed. The Federal Reserve still has plenty of room to print money, so every other problem is manageable.
This is a good video. Three minutes:
If Wuhan spreads easily (likely), then you will need more people to have immunity to get effective heard immunity. (R0 > 2 means a Herd Immunity Threshold (HIT) of over 50% of people immune. R0 > 2.5 requires > 60% immunity. R0 3.9 = 74% immunity. Table)
You are right that most people (say 80%) don’t need hospitalization to get through the disease once they have it. However, that only applies once they have the virus. Everyone who goes into seclusion without having the virus doesn’t gain any immunity at all.
I was responding to the situation where large numbers of people are being asked to avoid getting the virus (no large meetings, no school, “shelter in place”) even when there are just a small handful of cases in a given state.
I’m raising the issue of what happens after that limited time ends and all those people with no immunity and no exposure suddenly mix again. They still lack effective herd immunity to protect them. The curve has been delayed (buying time), but the vast majority of people are still susceptible and the virus can then spread quickly again and potentially overwhelm hospitals.
Our fate is sealed.
This item is just for fun, with no implied claims about information content. I couldn’t insert the image, so I’ll link to it.
I laughed when I saw this poster on …
The face you make when realizing …
(Hat tip to Dan Mitchell’s Coronavirus Humor.)
Supposedly, the virus isn’t dying in Australian summer as would normally be expected with these things. I only heard that once, to be clear. Supposedly sunshine and humidity are bad for these types of viruses but it doesn’t always work that way. Dry skin is normally a risk.
Your main point about differences in capacity is good and important.
About whether “Single payer systems reduce costs”, I suspect even that isn’t necessarily so when government is the provider. This was illustrated vividly by Hinchingbrooke hospital.
The VA, the NHS, and choice
by Cal Thomas
The reason is that government providers lack the incentives of a private commercial entity that must find ways to do well or else risk losing business. This short video provides three contrasting historical examples.
Why Is America So Rich?
Burt Folsom
Our third party payer approach is unnecessarily expensive. As evidence, there is a small movement of providers that bypass insurance. Services are sold at publicized prices, so their direct payment model must operate competitively. The result is quality care at dramatically reduced costs. Their prices are a tiny fraction of usual medical bills.
Keith Smith on Free Market Health Care