Why Coronavirus isn't China's fault.
Read this.
It says everything.
We knew soon enough to prepare. We chose not to.
We mocked, insulted and challenged politicians who suggested early action.
But, in the few places where it actually happened. The results are undeniable. We're not talking about places where measures were put in effect before China let it be known what was happening. We are talking about places where these measures were put in effect AFTER that time span.
As I said; the article says everything. There was enough information available to prompt the mayor of a US city to impose social distancing, shut down large venues and so on. And it says that the information WAS available soon enough.
That same information was available to Trump and to other mayors. And other countries for that matter.
They didn't act on it. Period.
You can't blame China for that. Sorry, (not sorry).
You are to blame for that. Well, maybe not the specific individual you. But, the collective you. Which includes me. And yes, maybe even you specifically if you were actively spreading dissent against such actions.
The fact is, governments didn't act quicker because it would be unpopular. Who makes a decision popular or not? The people.
Here is the bit that's gonna kick you while you're down. EVERY OTHER COUNTRY had MORE information, EARLIER on in their outbreaks than China did. China had the first cases. They would have had no way of knowing initially what it was, how quickly it spread or what measures might be successful in containing it.
By the time it started to spread elsewhere, a lot more information on all of this was available. And anyone with a basic understanding of how this sort of thing spreads already knew it was too late to stop it from being introduced globally.
So, like I said, we had the information we needed. And we still did not act.
Behind that backdrop, the planet, almost collectively, responded slower than China.
Now, I'm not here trying to praise China. While I do think China's reaction was comparatively quick, all things considered. I also think China's ability to act as quickly as it did was rooted very much in something we would typically consider a bad thing; a lack of democracy.
Those pesky people who are to blame for how politicians act? Well, that effect is muted in non-democratic countries. Basically, you can act as fast as you want, as long as it won't incite rioting or a civil war. But, it is worth noting, that those are likely real concerns even in that government.
Read the article. And don't read it for the specifics of San Francisco. Read it for what it says more broadly:
The facts are clear; the information was available early enough. And it was largely ignored. Regional impacts can be traced almost exclusively to how early and how stringently measures were taken. Nothing else. And, almost without exception NO ONE acted until well after cases started appearing.
How to F*** can you justify blaming anyone else? Here in Ontario, we had cases reported for days before the Premiere decided that "hey, maybe advising people to run off on March break was a bad idea". There is no way we can say we acted quickly enough.
And, once he changed his tune, he changed it pretty hard and fast. And thus far, I would say that is reflected in the data. We have a decent number of cases here in Ontario. But, the rate of growth is much slower than it has been elsewhere. We're not doubling in cases every 2-4 days. We're almost double that. In a Province with almost half the countries population, we currently have just 1/3 the cases, and that is despite being one of the first to get hit, alongside Quebec and BC.
Alberta is a prime example of what not to do. I'm almost sickened that they are bragging about their response. Their Premiere publicly lamented about the impact of the virus on oil and gas while their Province still had no cases. They were one of the latter Provinces affected. BC, which got hit weeks earlier and has a larger population than Alberta sits at 1445 cases right now, where Alberta sits at 1651 cases.
Yes, once the Province acted, it probably acted faster and harder than the others. But hindsight is important here. It was a lot easier to slap down restrictions by the time it hit Alberta because Quebec was already overwhelmed.
These numbers SHOULD be terrifying to Albertans. And yet, their Premiere is sending their PPE all over the country while claiming how well they are handling things.
In short, we're still failing to act responsibly. And I'm not suggesting that if roles were reversed people in Ontario would act differently. Just, pointing out just how badly we are mishandling this, even now, while we're in the midst of blaming others.
According to this, BC saw it's first case at the end of January. And according to this, Alberta saw it's first case on MARCH F***ING FIFTH. More than a full month later.
This means that even with a lower population, and a month long head start, Alberta has already surpassed BC, in terms of cases per capita (and then some) for a virus with an exponential spread rate.
Furthermore, while Quebec is unequivocally the hardest hit, Ontario is getting a lot of criticism as well. And I'm perplexed. Especially as Alberta gets praised. Looking again at the numbers. Ontario's population is roughly 3.33 times larger than Alberta (14.57 million vs. 4.37), and yet we only have 4.2695 times more cases (7049 vs. 1651) despite, again, having our first case in late January.
In short... Alberta's total cases would need to be lower than 2114 cases in a over a month's time for them to ACTUALLY be doing better than Ontario. But, they currently have 1651. To meet that, they would need to limit their new case rate to an average of around 15 new cases a day. Which would mean that they would need to add less than 1% of their current cases, daily, for that whole period.
Statistically speaking... we're not seeing rates like that ANYWHERE. Most places are adding 10-25% of their total cases daily. At which point, Alberta will pass Ontario, per capita, in less than a week.
And, Ontario has more than double the population density of Alberta (14 people per sq. KM vs. 6 in Alberta). Making containment a larder logistical effort here.
I don't want to make this about comparing how well individual Provinces are reacting.
I simply want to draw attention to the fact that we're TOTALLY failing at even the most basic levels of attempting to quantify the scenario we're in, EVEN NOW.
You can't just compare current numbers in one place to current numbers in another. And you can't compare them irrespective or relative population sizes or densities. To get any realistic picture you really need to compare numbers per capita at the same number of days into some comparable point in time, like the first confirmed case. I don't think you need to adjust the number for the population density. But, if you're going to compare performance, and draw conclusions, I think metrics like that need to be considered.
And, in that light, BC, not Alberta, should be the Canadian model for success. Alberta should really not even be in the discussion. At this point they're in second last place. They are worse off than Ontario per capita at the same point in the outbreak. And only outpaced by Quebec. They shouldn't be spreading their PPE around the country. We're not out of gear. And, we're addressing the shortages. By the time the gear gets here, the shortages may be a thing of the past.
BTW, if you want an idea of just how farcical the presumption that Alberta may not beat Ontario... a month ago, when Ontario was roughly the same number of days into the outbreak as Alberta... we had... 79 cases. SEVENTY NINE. On a population of 14+ million. Compared to 1651, on a population of 4+ million.
THAT is how fast exponential growth inflates numbers. THAT is the scope of how bad we are at interpreting this data.
I don't expect Alberta to balloon at the same rate as Ontario did. Getting impacted later has many benefits. For instance, a month ago, air travel was still a thing. Federal assistance wasn't in place, forcing a lot more people to feel they NEED to keep working and being out. We also know more about the virus. How to test for it. How to contain it.
But, the notion that Alberta won't surpass Ontario's per capita number when they reach where we are now on the timeline? That is a fantasy.
A month ago in the curve in Ontario, compared to Alberta now? We were almost 70x better off. A 7000% improvement. I have VERY serious doubts that the situation in Alberta is presently 7000% better. And, because the spread is exponential and Alberta was 7000% worse off at the same time in the curve, they actually need to be a LOT more than 7000% better off to fend off the same outcome.
BTW, how is Alberta handling things recently? 82 new cases yesterday. A good number over all. But, a far cry from the 15/day or less needed to stay below Ontario's pace per capita. If this pace were sustained, well, about a week and they will pass our current per capita rate, 3 weeks ahead of our timeline. Which is more or less what I suggested was reasonable. Exponential growth is a hard beast to defeat.
It says everything.
We knew soon enough to prepare. We chose not to.
We mocked, insulted and challenged politicians who suggested early action.
But, in the few places where it actually happened. The results are undeniable. We're not talking about places where measures were put in effect before China let it be known what was happening. We are talking about places where these measures were put in effect AFTER that time span.
As I said; the article says everything. There was enough information available to prompt the mayor of a US city to impose social distancing, shut down large venues and so on. And it says that the information WAS available soon enough.
That same information was available to Trump and to other mayors. And other countries for that matter.
They didn't act on it. Period.
You can't blame China for that. Sorry, (not sorry).
You are to blame for that. Well, maybe not the specific individual you. But, the collective you. Which includes me. And yes, maybe even you specifically if you were actively spreading dissent against such actions.
The fact is, governments didn't act quicker because it would be unpopular. Who makes a decision popular or not? The people.
Here is the bit that's gonna kick you while you're down. EVERY OTHER COUNTRY had MORE information, EARLIER on in their outbreaks than China did. China had the first cases. They would have had no way of knowing initially what it was, how quickly it spread or what measures might be successful in containing it.
By the time it started to spread elsewhere, a lot more information on all of this was available. And anyone with a basic understanding of how this sort of thing spreads already knew it was too late to stop it from being introduced globally.
So, like I said, we had the information we needed. And we still did not act.
Behind that backdrop, the planet, almost collectively, responded slower than China.
Now, I'm not here trying to praise China. While I do think China's reaction was comparatively quick, all things considered. I also think China's ability to act as quickly as it did was rooted very much in something we would typically consider a bad thing; a lack of democracy.
Those pesky people who are to blame for how politicians act? Well, that effect is muted in non-democratic countries. Basically, you can act as fast as you want, as long as it won't incite rioting or a civil war. But, it is worth noting, that those are likely real concerns even in that government.
Read the article. And don't read it for the specifics of San Francisco. Read it for what it says more broadly:
- The mayor acted on advice of medical professionals.
- This means that people in the field DID have the information at a stage which was early enough to produce a curve similar to SFs.
- Any statement to the contrary is at odds with now verifiable real world results.
The facts are clear; the information was available early enough. And it was largely ignored. Regional impacts can be traced almost exclusively to how early and how stringently measures were taken. Nothing else. And, almost without exception NO ONE acted until well after cases started appearing.
How to F*** can you justify blaming anyone else? Here in Ontario, we had cases reported for days before the Premiere decided that "hey, maybe advising people to run off on March break was a bad idea". There is no way we can say we acted quickly enough.
And, once he changed his tune, he changed it pretty hard and fast. And thus far, I would say that is reflected in the data. We have a decent number of cases here in Ontario. But, the rate of growth is much slower than it has been elsewhere. We're not doubling in cases every 2-4 days. We're almost double that. In a Province with almost half the countries population, we currently have just 1/3 the cases, and that is despite being one of the first to get hit, alongside Quebec and BC.
Alberta is a prime example of what not to do. I'm almost sickened that they are bragging about their response. Their Premiere publicly lamented about the impact of the virus on oil and gas while their Province still had no cases. They were one of the latter Provinces affected. BC, which got hit weeks earlier and has a larger population than Alberta sits at 1445 cases right now, where Alberta sits at 1651 cases.
Yes, once the Province acted, it probably acted faster and harder than the others. But hindsight is important here. It was a lot easier to slap down restrictions by the time it hit Alberta because Quebec was already overwhelmed.
These numbers SHOULD be terrifying to Albertans. And yet, their Premiere is sending their PPE all over the country while claiming how well they are handling things.
In short, we're still failing to act responsibly. And I'm not suggesting that if roles were reversed people in Ontario would act differently. Just, pointing out just how badly we are mishandling this, even now, while we're in the midst of blaming others.
According to this, BC saw it's first case at the end of January. And according to this, Alberta saw it's first case on MARCH F***ING FIFTH. More than a full month later.
This means that even with a lower population, and a month long head start, Alberta has already surpassed BC, in terms of cases per capita (and then some) for a virus with an exponential spread rate.
Furthermore, while Quebec is unequivocally the hardest hit, Ontario is getting a lot of criticism as well. And I'm perplexed. Especially as Alberta gets praised. Looking again at the numbers. Ontario's population is roughly 3.33 times larger than Alberta (14.57 million vs. 4.37), and yet we only have 4.2695 times more cases (7049 vs. 1651) despite, again, having our first case in late January.
In short... Alberta's total cases would need to be lower than 2114 cases in a over a month's time for them to ACTUALLY be doing better than Ontario. But, they currently have 1651. To meet that, they would need to limit their new case rate to an average of around 15 new cases a day. Which would mean that they would need to add less than 1% of their current cases, daily, for that whole period.
Statistically speaking... we're not seeing rates like that ANYWHERE. Most places are adding 10-25% of their total cases daily. At which point, Alberta will pass Ontario, per capita, in less than a week.
And, Ontario has more than double the population density of Alberta (14 people per sq. KM vs. 6 in Alberta). Making containment a larder logistical effort here.
I don't want to make this about comparing how well individual Provinces are reacting.
I simply want to draw attention to the fact that we're TOTALLY failing at even the most basic levels of attempting to quantify the scenario we're in, EVEN NOW.
You can't just compare current numbers in one place to current numbers in another. And you can't compare them irrespective or relative population sizes or densities. To get any realistic picture you really need to compare numbers per capita at the same number of days into some comparable point in time, like the first confirmed case. I don't think you need to adjust the number for the population density. But, if you're going to compare performance, and draw conclusions, I think metrics like that need to be considered.
And, in that light, BC, not Alberta, should be the Canadian model for success. Alberta should really not even be in the discussion. At this point they're in second last place. They are worse off than Ontario per capita at the same point in the outbreak. And only outpaced by Quebec. They shouldn't be spreading their PPE around the country. We're not out of gear. And, we're addressing the shortages. By the time the gear gets here, the shortages may be a thing of the past.
BTW, if you want an idea of just how farcical the presumption that Alberta may not beat Ontario... a month ago, when Ontario was roughly the same number of days into the outbreak as Alberta... we had... 79 cases. SEVENTY NINE. On a population of 14+ million. Compared to 1651, on a population of 4+ million.
THAT is how fast exponential growth inflates numbers. THAT is the scope of how bad we are at interpreting this data.
I don't expect Alberta to balloon at the same rate as Ontario did. Getting impacted later has many benefits. For instance, a month ago, air travel was still a thing. Federal assistance wasn't in place, forcing a lot more people to feel they NEED to keep working and being out. We also know more about the virus. How to test for it. How to contain it.
But, the notion that Alberta won't surpass Ontario's per capita number when they reach where we are now on the timeline? That is a fantasy.
A month ago in the curve in Ontario, compared to Alberta now? We were almost 70x better off. A 7000% improvement. I have VERY serious doubts that the situation in Alberta is presently 7000% better. And, because the spread is exponential and Alberta was 7000% worse off at the same time in the curve, they actually need to be a LOT more than 7000% better off to fend off the same outcome.
BTW, how is Alberta handling things recently? 82 new cases yesterday. A good number over all. But, a far cry from the 15/day or less needed to stay below Ontario's pace per capita. If this pace were sustained, well, about a week and they will pass our current per capita rate, 3 weeks ahead of our timeline. Which is more or less what I suggested was reasonable. Exponential growth is a hard beast to defeat.
Comments
Post a Comment