Conten Proyek 123

Tuesday, March 10, 2020

&quot;Cancel Everything/Social distancing is the only way to stop the coronavirus. We must start immediately.&quot;

Writes Yascha Mounk (in The Atlantic). He offers "three crucial facts" that show it's wrong to tell people to "stay calm." The right answer is: Change "our behavior in radical ways—right now."

1. The cases are increasing exponentially. For example: "Italy had 62 identified cases of COVID-19 on the 22nd of February. It had 888 cases by the 29th of February, and 4,636 by the 6th of March."

2. It's "deadlier than the flu, to which the honestly ill-informed and the wantonly irresponsible insist on comparing it." We can't calculate exactly how deadly, but "the news from Italy, another country with a highly developed medical system, has so far been shockingly bad... suggest[ing] a case fatality rate of 5 percent—significantly higher, not lower, than in China."

3. Only "extreme social distancing" has been effective. It worked in China. "This suggests that anyone in a position of power or authority, instead of downplaying the dangers of the coronavirus, should ask people to stay away from public places, cancel big gatherings, and restrict most forms of nonessential travel.... Do you head a sports team? Play your games in front of an empty stadium. Are you organizing a conference? Postpone it until the fall. Do you run a business? Tell your employees to work from home. Are you the principal of a school or the president of a university? Move classes online before your students get sick and infect their frail relatives. Are you running a presidential campaign? Cancel all rallies right now."

In my household, we have radically changed our behavior. There's something I'm letting go that I've looked forward to for almost a year. It was a chance-of-a-lifetime experience on the highest level, and I have significant sunk costs. But I'm being rational and not agonizing about it or bullshitting some special rules for me that could make it okay to go ahead and do my special thing. I know it's way harder for most other people to embrace a lifestyle of social distancing, but I think these personal excuses and justifications amount to nothing when you're talking about participating in the exponential spread of a disease that could kill millions.

Don't be part of the problem. Control yourself.

&quot;Singapore, which has been heralded for its response to Covid-19, decided that closing schools would do more harm than good.&quot;

"Political leaders and health officials there have addressed concerns about Covid-19 through clear, consistent and transparent communications about their response to the virus. If schools remain open, officials could enact measures to limit any potential spread among children and staff. All students could be checked daily for fever, a possible sign of Covid-19 infection. Even more attention should be given to hand washing and reminding children not to touch their faces. Children should be taught to sneeze into their sleeves. Schools can consider changing seating arrangements to keep children six feet apart.... Nonetheless, government officials may feel pressure to close schools. For true effectiveness... [c]hildren couldn’t gather in other settings, which would be very difficult to enforce. If schools close, child care programs will likely close too and working parents may have to stay home to watch their children. Health care and critical infrastructure workers would not be able to do their jobs for the same reason...."

Writes Jennifer Nuzzo, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, in NYT.

Are classrooms big enough to put all the children 6 feet away from any other child? That strikes me as absurd, but the main message I'm seeing from this column is that schools are better than families at keeping an eye on children and controlling them. And also schools are childcare facilities, and if they shut down, vast numbers of adults won't be able to go to work, and that will have a terrible effect not just on the economy but on the provision of health care services.

&quot;But there’s more to the story of Harris’s endorsement. Yes, she genuinely likes Biden.&quot;

"The endorsement was real. 'I really do believe in Joe,' Harris told me. But coming days after the California primary, the timing of Harris’s announcement struck me as curious. ... I asked her about it. 'I had two women colleagues in the race, and I did not feel right putting my thumb on the scale [that] in any way would harm their candidacy,' Harris said, referring to Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). Both ended their campaigns last week. 'So, when Elizabeth announced that she was getting out of the race, I let Joe know that I would endorse him.... Elizabeth and I have a very special relationship'...."

Writes Jonathan Capeheart in the Washington Post.

IN THE COMMENTS: rehajm said: "Does she know Tulsi Gabbard is still in the race? Not a friend?"

To be fair, we are all forgetting about Tulsi. And Tulsi isn't a Senator. I think Kamala meant women of my rank when she said "I had two women colleagues in the race." Senators are not "colleagues" of the folk in the lower house. The OED gives the etymology:

< French collègue, < Latin collēga , one chosen along with another, a partner in office, etc.; < col- together + legĕre to choose, etc.

The OED points me to "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon, and I wanted to give you the full passage, because it's about separation of powers in government:

Ostentation was the first principle of the new system instituted by Diocletian. The second was division. He divided the empire, the provinces, and every branch of the civil as well as military administration. He multiplied the wheels of the machine of government, and rendered its operations less rapid, but more secure. Whatever advantages and whatever defects might attend these innovations, they must be ascribed in a very great degree to the first inventor; but as the new frame of policy was gradually improved and completed by succeeding princes, it will be more satisfactory to delay the consideration of it till the season of its full maturity and perfection. Reserving, therefore, for the reign of Constantine a more exact picture of the new empire, we shall content ourselves with describing the principal and decisive outline, as it was traced by the hand of Diocletian. He had associated three colleagues in the exercise of the supreme power; and as he was convinced that the abilities of a single man were inadequate to the public defence, he considered the joint administration of four princes not as a temporary expedient, but as a fundamental law of the constitution. It was his intention, that the two elder princes should be distinguished by the use of the diadem, and the title of Augusti; that, as affection or esteem might direct their choice, they should regularly call to their assistance two subordinate colleagues; and that the Cæsars, rising in their turn to the first rank, should supply an uninterrupted succession of emperors. The empire was divided into four parts. The East and Italy were the most honorable, the Danube and the Rhine the most laborious stations. The former claimed the presence of the Augusti, the latter were intrusted to the administration of the Cæsars. The strength of the legions was in the hands of the four partners of sovereignty, and the despair of successively vanquishing four formidable rivals might intimidate the ambition of an aspiring general. In their civil government, the emperors were supposed to exercise the undivided power of the monarch, and their edicts, inscribed with their joint names, were received in all the provinces, as promulgated by their mutual councils and authority. Notwithstanding these precautions, the political union of the Roman world was gradually dissolved, and a principle of division was introduced, which, in the course of a few years, occasioned the perpetual separation of the Eastern and Western Empires.

&quot;&#39;Protect Alex Trebek at all costs&#39;: Live audiences banished from &#39;Jeopardy!&#39; and &#39;Wheel of Fortune&#39; tapings amid coronavirus fears.&quot;

WaPo reports.

The cautious approach may protect audience members as well as the hosts and announcers, some of whom belong to high-risk populations that have been issued special precautions by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Jeopardy!” announcer Gilbert and “Wheel of Fortune” hosts Pat Sajak and Vanna White are all older than 60, which the CDC says puts them at “higher risk of getting very sick from covid-19.”

Trebek, the 79-year-old host of “Jeopardy!,” is doubly vulnerable because of his age and his recent cancer treatments. Since being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer last year, he has been undergoing chemotherapy, which can compromise the immune system.

Fans’ love for the “Jeopardy!” staples was obvious Monday, when many reacted to the news by cheering the producers’ decision to limit exposure to the public on the show’s set. “Protect Alex Trebek at all costs” became a common refrain on social media....