Waiting for the wave to break

The theme song for teachers here, today (first day of online classes):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCe5PaeAeew

We need to cling to humor to ward off the despair…

– and as all of our work of the last year for Filmfestivals –
which won’t happen –
– we are waiting for the wave to break by adding one Act of the Virus Play to another one –
(and hope they aren’t too cynical?)

Act 2
https://youtu.be/6m22TXYUFPI

Act 3
https://youtu.be/GyPUHlXsjWc

– and see ALL the other ones…

I received an email yesterday from a colleague confirming that the start of classes at his university has been pushed back several weeks. Had there been more discussion, less social-media, and less panic, I expect many other institutions around the globe would have arrived at a similar consensus. We can afford to lose an entire term.

Instead, we’re about to inflict long-lasting damage to the public’s already crumbling faith in academic institutions. We’ve one son in a ‘good’ university and we’re already concerned about indifferent and ill-prepared instruction.

The Khan Academy and other for profit low-cost options are already moving to expand their customer base. Universities seem to believe that the ivory tower is either sacrosanct, or essential.

The inefficacies and lack of professional already on display within meat-space classrooms are now about to be magnified and exacerbated in this too-rushed and poorly-grounded effort to respond to a crisis by individuals whose very justification for existence is sound judgement and data-driven decisions.

Many online options allow users to capture and record the lecture experience for revue at a later date. Which means parents and others paying the bills will have a chance to judge for themselves, perhaps, for the first time just how seriously we take our educational responsibilities.

Most teachers don’t know what’s happening in the next classroom. Now everyone will. Forever. Unless, of course, the universities and teachers attempt to restrict recording and preservation. Which has it’s own problems. See below.

Dissemination and access – is already causing problems for institutions offering online options with students preferring to select online courses from other universities for accreditation. Guess how this debate mutates, (yes, let’s use the term!) as their own schools struggle to provide quality online education to students paying 20-50k per year.

My own meat-space pedagogies already feature ‘distanced’ dialogues and discussions, with students seated or standing two-three meters apart, simply because it helps students practice for public-speaking and presentations, and allows me to more easily monitor multiple conversations.

Simple is always best, if possible. Delay for a few weeks. Don’t be afraid to admit that maybe the ‘new’ delivery system isn’t going to best meet student need, and be ready with workable compromises. Lectures absolutely can and perhaps should be delivered online.

Every other problem can be fixed with a bit of common sense and imagination. And, yes, wearing masks in-class for the duration of the pandemic is on that list.

How many institutions or instructors will admit error, delay or cancel imperfect online instruction (make jokes about failing to meet student need, wtf?), will be an interesting test and one that’s sure to interest the general public.

Best hope we all pass. Early signs are far from promising.

Bay area we’ve been in “lockdown” for a few days now. As a senior, the guideline to stay in the house came a couple of days earlier. Struggling to work from home. Despite working for a software tech leader, they really hadn’t prepped us for a rapid transition to work from home. You’d think with dozens of high end mech engineers that the exponential function would have been understood, and the timescale of this momentous change would have been anticipated, -but it wasn’t. So its a struggle to get work done.
Bars closed. Restaurants are only open for takeout. Two kids have silicon valley jobs, work from home not a huge deal for them. Other kid is a musician, most kids have vanished. A bit on on line stuff, but maybe one or two hours worth per day. The shutdown in the bay area just expanded from six core areas to include the neighboring several counties as well.
Well one thing that looked encouraging: known cases in my county only went up by two (to 41), instead of 4 or 5. But, the noisiness of small numbers being what it is, its too early to have any assurance that R0 is being pushed downwards.

I’m sorry for what some will surely see as an over-reaction, but I have to say I react extremely negatively to the notion that “In theory we are all working from home, …” Even with the “In theory” thrown in, for it’s just as biassed a view of reality in theory as it is in practice. This isn’t the first time I have heard this in recent days, so I’m not picking on Chris Bertram in particular. Neither am I upset by such a claim only because my daughter happens to be on the front lines, so to speak, as a GP in Australia, though I imagine that contributes to my annoyance at the casual way this claim is so widely broadcast. But what about all those who could never in the foreseeable future, even if all the AI optimists worked full time to try to bring it about, “work from home?” “ALL OF US?” Get real! And acknowledge just how much we all depend on a great many people who actually have to work hard with their bodies every day of their working lives and who are going to be out there, unlike those of us who are more privileged and/or retired, even while the disease spreads.

PS. Greetings to Omega Centauri, my fellow ‘bay arean.” Note Berkeley Safeway is having a special shopping period for seniors where, to belabour my point, we’ll be relying on those who stock the shelves and serve at checkout.

AND –
there is this… riddle – as about right now:

The UK 2664 infected – 71 death
Italy 35713 infected – 2978 death
France 9054 infected -148 death
Japan 889 infected – 29 death
South Korea 8565 infected – 91 death
Germany – 12327 infected – 28 death

Why are so few deaths in Germany?

And as – supposedly – South Korea and Germany tested ”from the get go” –
and there is this… this… ”rumour” here – that nearly all the ”Infected” got and get… ”identified” – through very thorough testing.
Do the German numbers show: ”the real – infected to death – relation”?

I’m an LSA in a special school and still don’t know if we will be closing. It depends on government guidance on vulnerable children and student and staffing numbers. If we do close I don’t if I get paid or maybe sent to cover for care provision for the charity I work for.

One of my sisters works abroad my other sister and parents are local. Yesterday we had a video conference call together yesterday. It’s strange being nearby but having to be isolated.

On-line teaching has been part of my normal routine for almost three years now (alas) and I can say with a fair amount of confidence that it’s significantly less good for both students and teachers – more mechanical, more likely to make classes seem like a product, and much more superficial learning. It’s possible that I’m bad at it – I’m certainly less good at it than with in-person teaching – but even in the case of people who are clearly better at it than I am, it seems much worse.

As for meetings, at my place of employment, we are spread over three campuses, so people “dialing in” for meeting is normal, and again, I can report that all of the above problems do not go away with experience. In every single meeting we have these problems, over and over, and they make them even more tedious and annoying than the meeting themselves would be. I will add that this is a bit of evidence against John’s claim, in the last post, that video talks can adequately replace in-person talks. Not only are the informal parts lost, but all these problems exist for video talks, too, and are not likely to be eliminated.

In the present situation, we must all do as well as we can, of course, but my fear is that many will want to use the crisis to push for this being the new normal, and we’ll all loose insofar as that happen.

@
”Look at…”

We do and did – but as mentioned – it’s such a confusing… picture – as everybody wants to know ”the real mortality rate” –
-(also concerning different age groups – in order to know her – or his chances) –
and as in our area there are so called ”Corona Parties” – where groups of some very stupid and young idiots tell – that they don’t care if they ”get it” –
some… ”rumours” – that if you are young you won’t die –
perhaps never should have been spread?

The Leader of the Free World Gives a Speech, and She Nails It
A speech with compassion and forthrightness — imagine that.
BY JUSTIN DAVIDSON

https://nymag.com/

Angela makes her own intervention

@nastywoman & faustusnote: yes, Germany and South Korea, because they both adopted wide-spread (although not on demande) testing from the get-go, probably reflect the “real” mortality rates, provided excellent medical care. The “real” mortality rate in such a context would be under 1% (still 3 to 5 times the usual influenza though).

What is often missed or underplayed is that the real threat of CoVid-19 is not that crude mortality rate, but the very high rate of complications necessitating 8 to 20 days of hospitalization. 10 to 20% of patients (aged 25+!!) will need extensive hospitalization, about 5% will need about 3 weeks of intubation (and remember, the young will recover, but recovering from a 20 day intubation is no fun). Influenza necessitates hospitalization in less than 1-2% of cases, and that hospitalization tends to be much shorter and easier to handle. Influenza season already strains hospitals every year; no medical system would be able to face even an influenza epidemic requiring ten to fifteen times more hospitalizations.

Which takes us back to the “provided excellent medical care” caveat: if the medical system is insufficient to handle the massive case-load (which it is, in most countries in the world) or if it breaks down, the death rate will climb much, much higer, as those who would have recovered cannot be accomodated (and, of course, so will the death rate of many other conditions that will no longer be adequately treated).
So what the confinement policies are doing is saving that medical system, rather than the “lives of the old”; that’s it. If rich countries can keep treating the ill, they will have crude mortality rates of <1% (and yes, tens of thousands of older and sicker people will die). Poor countries will fare much worse though…
Remember, those critical cases are by no means limited to the old and frail. About half of CoVid-19 patients in French ICU's are under 60.

And this just in from Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-18/99-of-those-who-died-from-virus-had-other-illness-italy-says

Healthy people have little to fear it seems, stay safe.

As people have pointed out, the true CV fatality rate is much lower than reported, around 0.1 percent or less, which is comparable to the flu. The infection rate is also about the same as the flu, roughly 20 percent or less.

The problem with mortality rates is that the testing regimes preferentially test severe cases as well as vulnerable old people and people with preexisting conditions. These have a much higher mortality rate than the typical mild or asymptomatic case of CV which is not tested and not diagnosed. If the latter were put in the denominator, the fatality rates would drop dramatically, by an order of magnitude or more.

Germany is reporting fatality rates of 0.2-0.3 percent; Austria, Denmark, Sweden and Norway are almost as low, well under 1 percent. These countries have relatively small outbreaks so their testing regimes aren’t running behind and they can test a much larger percentage of people who come in with milder CV cases, people who then survive. Look for the fatality rates to rise somewhat as their outbreaks grow and outstrip the testing availablity and they start to triage the testing by excluding milder cases and less vulnerable people from testing and diagnosis. That increase will just be a statistical artifact, the true fatality rates will still be very low.

In fact the true fatality rates are much lower than in Germany, because Germany doesn’t test people who are asymptomatic; asymptomatics are at least half of the true CV infections. On the Diamond Princess, the only COVID population that has been fully tested, about half of the 700 people testing positive for CV never developed any symptoms. And that was for an elderly cruise-ship population; a younger, healthier general population probably has a much higher asymptomatic rate. (For the flu, the asymptomatic rate is up to 75 percent.) So for every case reported in Germany, there is at least one more asymptomatic case that won’t be reported, and possibly two or three. Factoring this in, the true German case fatality rate is probably 0.1 percent or below.

Then there’s the CV infection rate, also comparable to the flu. The Diamond Princess had 700 cases among a population of 4,000, an infection rate of about 18 percent. That agrees well with the flu’s typical infection rate of 20 percent among unvaccinated population. Again, CV infection rates in a younger, healthier general population will be lower than among Diamond Princess’s elderly population.

So the CV pandemic is not much different from a bad flu season—roughly the same infection rate, roughly the same fatality rate. The projections of millions of deaths from CV are way too high.

Thanks for your clarification and revision, Chris. I imagine most people many a time use such words as “we”, “them”, etc. without really thinking too much about it. I have a vague memory that Michael Billig takes note of that tendency in his book “Banal Nationalism.” So maybe it’s something everyone should think about more than they/we do.

@
Will Boisvert
”Most people have little to fear from COVID”.

Well – there is this friend of mine – who is working as a doctor in a hospital on the other side of the border in Switzerland – and then there is this other friend of US – who is working in the US in a hospital and – one friend of my parents as a nurse in the UK – and they all always considered themselves – like ”most people” –
AND I NEVER EVER SAW THEM MORE FEARFUL THAN RIGHT NOW!
– as are you aware – what it means to deal with a COVID Patient who doesn’t have just ”the sniffle” –
and I’m NOT talking about –
as you wrote –
some ”average age of fatal cases of 79.5 years” –
I’m talking about all of these patients who are under 50 years old -(like in NY) –
and this friend from NY told US are: ”F… sick as a dog”!

Sooo – ALL of these ”most people” are not as ”FEARED OUT” – as my Italian friends.
That’s true?

They are just pretty much ”FREAKED OUT”!
Capisce??!

No doubt extreme social distancing is non-sustainable. However hasn’t South Korea demonstrated that a combination of moderate social distancing coupled with extensive testing and aggressive contact tracing might be consistent with control of the epidemic. No the US is uniquely for developed economies here, as Trump’s decimation of our pandemic response capabilities, couple with his extreme NIH syndrome mean we are well behind the curve reconstituting our rebuild of such capabilities.

@ 39: In Seattle I am aware of a physician and a firefighter, both in their 40s, hospitalized with covid-19. The physician is in critical condition. Neither had other health problems.

Evidence is also building that survivors are suffering from significant lung damage, possibly permanent. An acquaintance of mine died on Tuesday. He was elderly but otherwise healthy. Attempts to minimize the risk of this virus are irresponsible.

Will Boisvert is spreading dangerous misinformation here, and needs to be corrected. First of all the “infection rate” is not a thing – the 700 people infected on the Diamond Princess yield a final size of the virus of 0.18, which Will says is similar to the 20% observed in influenza. Except that the Diamond Princess cruise ship was under a very strict quarantine, so that final size cannot be compared to a normal flu. In fact using the equation linking final size with basic reproduction number we can derive a basic reproduction number during quarantine of 1.09, which indicates that even with quarantine the virus population only stabilized after it burnt itself out – even that quarantine was insufficient to drive it to extinction.

The basic reproduction number for flu is between 1.3 and 1.5, but this virus is more likely between 4 and 5. Early estimates from the Imperial College crew put it at 2.5 and those estimates are the basis of the government’s 60% figure for herd immunity but they are wrong – the early published estimates of this virus’s epidemicity were wrong by a factor of almost 2. In fact the best fitting models to the Chinese data suggest much higher values, and those early published estimates generate epidemic curves that undershoot the true curve significantly.

Next, Will says the mortality rate is similar to influenza but this is also not true. This is because the data we have suggests that this disease does not affect children, and we don’t have properly standardized estimates. It appears that this disease is much more dangerous in elderly people than influenza and a larger proportion of cases are in elderly people, so it is likely much more dangerous. The only complete sample we have is in the Diamond Princess, with an elderly population receiving good quality health care, and they had a mortality rate of 1%.

You can do some simple calculations in Japan with this kind of information. With the known R0 we can expect a large proportion of the population to be affected, but let’s assume for conservatism that it’s 50%. At the 1% death rate observed on the Diamond Princess that means 60 million infected and 600,000 deaths. There are about 1 million deaths a year in Japan. You’re looking at a 50-60% increase in the total number of annual deaths in your country if you treat this like influenza. And that’s before taking into account the points passer-by made about hospitalization.

When Will and ph say that only the old and sick will die, they are basically saying you should throw your grandparents under the bus so you can go to the pub. Is this the level of respect western populations now have for our elders? They also show again that conservatives are simply incapable of understanding and assessing risk. This disease kills 10-15% of all the grandparents it infects, and it will infect all of them if their children and grandchildren just choose to wander about like it’s nothing special.

If you’re not a psychopath you should be taking this seriously and doing what you can to limit your exposure. It’s not apocalyptic but it’s definitely not normal.

The idea some commenters have that when the health care system is under siege from a viral epidemic anyone who isn’t vulnerable to it it will just be able to rely on it as normal is really, really dumb.

faustus notes.

R0 is not some fixed quantity of the (unmutated) virus, but depends strongly upon the human environment. Chinese cities are normally pretty cramped, and that aids spread. So R0 for Wuhan before steps were taken was much higher than it would be in places that are less dense. Japan while being crowded is said to not be into cultural stuff like handshaking, with the big risk factor being crowded commuter trains. Nevertheless the slope of LOG(infections) versus time had about half the slope that was seen in Europe and America. Now that Korean sect that drove the early exponential phase in that country had practices that were near ideal for spread, and R0 was probably 10 or more for that subpopulation. Clearly China and probably Korea have been able to drive R0 below one. China, which hasn’t reported a new infection in two days is now switching to containment of infections outside of their borders.

But the reality is any country/region/town has numerous subpopulation, each with its own R0, and various levels of cross contamination with the other subgroups. Simplistic analysis of aggregate infection numbers can miss the fact that over time, the subpopulation(s) with the highest R0 will become the drivers of the epidemic in the near future.

In the US it looks like the 20-54% age group is becoming the subpopulation driving the overall numbers. Reportly 40% of hospital admissions are now in that age group. Warnings that something like 20% of the infected in that age group need extended hosptalization have become the new frontline in the battle.

With apologies to the OP for a long ramble.

[First a disclaimer: While I am a scientist with a reasonable understanding of statistics, etc. I am not an expert in diseases, and so base – to the best of my knowledge – my understanding on the current evidence. If and where I am wrong, I’m sure it is possible to point that out and I will welcome evidence based correction.]

I’m not sure it is particularly helpful to attribute emotional states to the responses, but I must admit that I am confused as to why some people seem to think:

“Let’s follow the advice of the relevant global scientific community, and – as much as possible – minimise contact to slow the spread, and thus ‘flatten the curve’” = hysterical overreaction,

while

“Let’s carry on as usual to avoid any harm to the economy, and the sick and weak will have to be isolated (or if that isn’t possible just take their chances on dying)” = calm and rational wisdom.

However, to try and organise my usual ramblings a little:

Social isolation/distancing – do we really have to stay in indefinite isolation?

As far as I am aware, no expert is proposing the current recommended measures will prevent infection, or that they must or should continue indefinitely. The idea is to – as much as possible – slow transmission and spread. This is important for two reasons:

Firstly, as others have noted, this will help alleviate the strain on health systems so there is not a huge number of ill people requiring triage at the same time as having to continue all the usual work which will still be ongoing. This is critical to a) not killing our healthcare professionals trying to cope with the sheer volume of extra work all at once and b) not killing people (including those with unrelated but urgent medical problems) who have to wait because our ability to even examine and triage is completely overwhelmed.

Secondly, it slows things down to give us more time to plan and react. Much of the coronavirus is still a question mark. We have some examples of what happens when action isn’t taken in time (e.g. Wuhan, Italy, etc.), but the full extent, damage, reinfection, etc. is still being understood. The argument that it won’t affect the young and healthy and there is nothing to worry about is, therefore, a little premature to say the least. Buying time to study, understand, counteract, and put in place measures to mitigate as much as possible is, one would hope, fairly obviously rather valuable.

For what it is worth, in my part of the world there isn’t – as far as I can tell – anything like panic or hysteria. There are measures in place – sanitizers in public, limiting social gatherings, people being asked to not get too close to each other, staff in supermarkets wearing gloves and limiting interactions, etc. – but these are hardly extreme. There are no riots, no mass hysteria, people are just trying to limit contact and reduce the spread. And where I am is, currently, the epicentre and ground zero in thise country for an epidemic.

Again, as far as I can tell, it is not suggested that we all bunker down for 1 year and hope our tins of beans las long enough, but rather that we limit what we can (i.e. work from home where possible, and reduce our public exposure) in order to reduce exposure for those who still have to work (i.e. the people who have to keep the food and medicine flowing). While it is a purely personal opinion, of course, if my choice is to try to work from home as much as possible and only buy what I need vs. keep going out to restaurants and bars, the former doesn’t seem like much of a sacrifice if it helps the people who don’t have that luxury.

But what about the economy and workforce?

Gratifying though it is to see a purported concern for the working class from hitherto highly unexpected directions, it is rather interesting that it takes the case of “these people could lose their houses, so we must ensure they continue to work” rather than, for example, “these people could lose their houses, so let’s prevent that from happening”.

Now, that’s not to say there are no essential services – again, the argument is not “everyone must be in isolation forever” – but rather to say that non-essential services are..well..non-essential.

It seems to me that one way to look at it is to take the two cases

1) By adopting public health measures, we have an economic problem of the economy tanking and people facing loss of income. Let’s find an economic solution[1].

2) By not adopting public health measures, we have the problem of our healthcare service buckling and people facing an unknown degree of illness or even death. Let’s deal with this by letting people be sick and hope that it doesn’t prove to kill too many people or have any unexpected nasty side effects.

Now, I am not an economist and would welcome their input, but it does seem odd to me that of these two the first is considered an insolvable problem while the second being trivial. Particularly as the USA –hardly a bastion of socialism – managed to find a spare trillion or so for those poor and needy people scraping a living on Wall-Street (even though it has proven mysteriously problematic to find that amount as financial relief for those who are not hedge-fund managers). Maybe I am just missing the obvious.

Final comment

Once again it is apparent that in a time of crisis the people who are having the most impact – and are most at risk – are typically speaking the workforce (doctors, nurses, checkout staff, delivery drivers).

Reassuring though it is that so many are evincing great concern for stress levels (though how they supposedly know my state of mind better than I apparently do is also a mystery), I must confess I don’t feel particularly nervous or under any appreciable strain. I was under the impression I was calmly taking steps to try and be socially responsible – clearly that must just be my hysteria talking.

Perhaps it will prove that the measures being put in place were a vast overreaction (though the differences between China and South Korea, too early though it is to be definite, seem to suggest the reverse). Time will no doubt tell. But it is perhaps worth considering that even should this prove a storm in a teacup, some potential problems in many countries’s approaches to handling epidemics would seem to have been highlighted. Maybe, rather than being sanguine, it is worth considering how to address these better in future and to consider lessons we can learn[2]?

Quite why so many people seem invested in promulgating that we should treat a global pandemic as nothing to trouble us and we should keep business-as-usual is, perhaps, an exercise best left for the reader.

[1] Perhaps, for the sake of a purely random example, a massive redistribution of wealth downwards paid for by an increased tax on the ultra-wealthy. Who knows, if ti works maybe we could even keep it.

[2] At the risk of politicising this, perhaps – just as an example – we might consider whether or not making cuts to your public epidemiologists might be helpful?

It is plausible (I make no estimate of likelihood) that we will discover that COVID-19 is less dangerous that some of the current models suggest. This will prompt a difficult question: how much less dangerous does it need to be before we consider relaxing the lockdown, given that the lockdown’s economic cost will ultimately also be measured in human lives?

I’m not sure that anyone wants to answer that. The UK government’s volte-face was at least partially driven by the desire to avoid making such a calculation in public. We don’t have the data to make such a calculation reliably, and so the precautionary principle applies for the time being. Serological testing will give us a much better idea of how many people remained asymptomatic throughout, which is currently the largest unknown factor.

Either way, the cultural changes that need to happen involve hygiene and sensible social distancing: mask-wearing during “flu” seasons, more and more thorough hand-washing, fewer unnecessary large meetings or gatherings, less international travel. These sorts of things can be sustained indefinitely at very little cost (and may indeed be an overall benefit on any metric you care to name). Does anyone have thoughts on how that kind of cultural shift might work?

More on what we don’t know can’t hurt us. Japan’s non-testing approach, which will perhaps anger some. https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/a-coronavirus-explosion-was-expected-in-japan-where-is-it

Re: Fukushima. I’ve no interest in debates of any kind over the event. Five years after the event, some way wish to poo-poo the Tepco disaster. At the time, I don’t recall anybody not terrified watching the reactors explode. Germany was one of the best sources of data because they’d dealt with Chernobyl. I’ve no idea, really, why these discussions have to turn into points scoring.

Returning to the virus, Dr.. Ioannidis says we don’t have reliable data and given his job title and cv, I’m going to rely on his authority over that of any amateur.

The issue for me isn’t the current virus, but those which will follow next year. These bugs mutate and aren’t going to disappear.

Finally, ff you’re interested in hearing an academic argument for mandatory testing, multiple times, badges of good health to be worn at all times and checked by soldiers in the street this may be your cup of tea: https://bloggingheads.tv/videos/58468?in=00:01

I’ve no problem admitting I was terrified during Fukushima and still worry about the impact staying in Tokyo may have upon our kids, long-term. So, if the virus gives the jitters, you’ll get nothing but sympathy from me. My own approach may be suicidal, but I’ll let my immunes system handle the bugs. Best wishes to all, this looks to be with us for a while.

It was 9 years ago not five, and the best source of data is Japan. You really are incredibly ignorant, ph.

Further to my most recent post, re-reading shows a lack of clarity which could be misinterpreted. I should note that when I say:

“…Dr Ioannidis himself would be the first to – that his work is as someone who analyses data – not as an epidemiologist.”

I meant specifically that the comments being made regarding the lack of data are made as an expert on data analysis – I don’t mean to imply that he has does not have expertise or has not made significant contributions to the field of epidemeology (which perhaps my poor phrasing implies).

Fellow who has been known to write a dozen five-paragraph comments in a single thread on how safe nuclear power is thinks we have little to fear from COVID-19.

Quelle surprise!

I think most readers can get the point: we lack the data we need to make informed decisions about a real threat. The linked Ioannidis article is expert assessment on the reliability of the current data, which presents us with a situation I see as quite similar to the one Japan faced in 2011. Let me be clear.

The Japanese government knew within days one or two of the reactors would probably blow up. The reactors did blow up, and the government didn’t have reliable data about the health risks. The government had two sets of data: one directly connected to the health of the populace, the other connected to the health of the economy, with knock effects to the health of the populace. In the end, the decision, then and now, was to make decisions based on knowable data.

The national government decided to (white) lie to the public, as the government often does, and deny the obvious – the reactors had exploded (see linked video above). Which, at the time, meant turning to outside sources for clarity and fact. (The best modelling then available to the public was done and disseminated by academic teams based in Germany – see Chernobyl. Their concerns were two-fold, monitoring environment damage from Fukushima and replicating a Fukushima event in Germany.)

The Japanese government in 2011 had (ahem) reliable data confirming short-term exposure to high levels of radiation was fatal. The effects of long-term level exposure are/were far more difficult to assess,

The data regarding the economic impact of shutting down the northern half of Japan, and relocating significant parts of the population and industry was much clearer. Catastrophic damage to the economy and to Japan’s international reputation. (Radioactive water containment at Fukushima is currently failing and a topic of intense international scrutiny and concern. The government insists today that ‘all necessary and possible’ efforts are being made to address the water containment problem.)

Five years after the event, a much clearer picture of the health effects of the disaster could be formulated. Most of the damage to public health was related to imperfect government actions treating those who’d lost homes, or been relocated. Hindsight is 20-20.

Then, as now, tempers flared. Leave or stay. My own view is to respect both choices. Were I single I’d have relocated within Japan, as many of my friends did. Or left entirely, as others did. Living through the after-shocks was almost worse than the earthquake itself. Factor in nuclear reactors blowing up and government lies? Yes! Moving dd and still does seem the brighter move. Family roots in Japan meant setting aside my personal concerns.

I abhorred the ‘cut and run’ epithet and ‘fly-jin’ a play upon ‘gai-jin’ (outside person) which circulated then as much as I abhor the ‘virus denier’ slur currently being bandied about now.

Right now Japan is formulating it’s own response to the virus threat in much the same way it dealt with Fukushima. Given that we don’t know, yet, what the health impact of the virus will be on populations (see Ioannidis), and that we can calculate the costs of shutting down the economy, the best decision for Japan is to keep calm and carry on, and that means minimal public testing. https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/a-coronavirus-explosion-was-expected-in-japan-where-is-it

Others, especially in America it seems, believe that mandatory testing, long-term quarantines, and creating a ‘new normal’ of repeated tests, badges, and inspections by soldiers in the streets is the better move. That’s Italy right now.

This ‘new normal’ of martial law is advocated by Laurence Kotfkoff (Boston University) in the earlier linked discussion with Glenn Loury. Over-reaction, or the right response? https://bloggingheads.tv/videos/58468?in=00:01

Folks are making choices. Based on all the evidence, available to me, Japan is taking the more sensible approach – selective closing, delaying events, sensible cautions, but otherwise business as usual. It’s a beautiful spring day here in Tokyo and I’m looking forward to a long walk in the sun. Bad me.

Ph’s description of what happened in 2011 is completely wrong, as is his assertions about what govts knew about health risks and what the health risks are now. His interpretation of the reasons for Japan’s low testing rate is also completely wrong. Almost everything he says is ignorant and misleading. We do know what the consequences of the virus will be for populations, contra Ioannidis complaining, because we have clear evidence from Wuhan and Italy. We know exactly how fast it spreads (though a lot of people are being misled by some early low estimates) and there is now clear evidence it is not just bad flu. It’s really just astounding watching the way right wing people willfully assess risk so badly.

Also next time people try to claim anti-nuclear is a left wing ideology let’s all remember ph being terrified of a nuclear accident and advocating evacuating half of Japan’s agricultural land, with the likely deaths of thousands during evacuation. Good work ph, please make sure you never go near a decision-making body!

@ph
”That’s Italy right now”.

Italy ”right now” is a completely overwhelmed Health Care System – where for the Tsunami of cases and patients who have to be treated in hospitals – there are neither enough beds – nor enough helpful equipment or doctors or nurses.

AND if that isn’t the case (yet) in Japan – or never will be the case in Japan –
(and or helpful were I’m currently reside too) – we will see if ”minimal testing” is the more helpful… idea?

As very thoroughly testing and trying to catch every case from ”the get go” helps NOT to overwhelm even the utmost well working Health Care System.

And HOW TRUE: folks are making choices. Based on all the evidence, available to me, Germany was/is taking the more sensible approach – by testing about ten? times more than Japan – but otherwise business NOT as usual.
Today it’s overcast here – but it was a whole beautiful spring week here on the Lake of Constance and I took a long bike ride every single day – and I’m looking forward to a long ride today.

So – ”Bad me – TOO”?

Based on all the evidence, available to me, Japan is taking the more sensible approach – selective closing, delaying events, sensible cautions, but otherwise business as usual.

Nothing says “business as usual” like “please do not travel between osaka and kobe”.

Business as usual in japan: schools closed, museums closed, all musical events canceled, sumo with no audience, all JICA volunteers recalled globally, university commencement delayed and all ceremonies cancelled, and discussion about postponing the olympics.

Tell me ph, do you have any references on Fukushima to share?

Business as usual, with notably rare exceptions.

Ph, nobody is denouncing you as a fascist or a racist. We are pointing out that you are wrong about every single thing you write. You literally never produce a fact that is correct. Pointing out your mistakes isn’t an “attack” and it isn’t “not fair”. You’re like a broken record, always falling back on “don’t call me racist.” No one here is! Just once in your life try admitting you are wrong about something and all this pain will go away!

FWIW, I remember a discussion on the Japanese TV shortly after Fukushima comparing Japanese radiation standards to the reality in the rest of the world. New Jersey and Rome have higher background levels than are allowed in Japan. The TV station sent reporters to Rome, measured said levels, and asked local officials for comments. Said local officials were not amused.

Another remembrance from that time: they found a place in Tokyo that was over said limits and washed everything down in the area and measured again. Still over the limits. It took a while, but what they finally found was that a house on that street had been the site of a watch/clock maker, and some radium paint had been buried in the garden.

At any rate, diesel exhaust is grossly carcinogenic. Worrying about nuclear is nuts. And it’s of course completely insane that it’s legal to manufacture and sell cigarettes…

Also the reactors didn’t really “explode”: the reactors themselves remained intact despite the meltdown. The buildings above the reactors were blown up by escaping hydrogen. (Hydrogen explosions are preventable. Tepco saved money by not installing platinum scrubbers. The whole Fukushima thing was basically corporate malfeasance on parade: everything that went wrong didn’t have to. And didn’t at the Onagawa site (1/2 the distance from the epicenter), which shut down normally and was used as emergency shelter for several hundred local residents who lost their homes.)

And most (but not all) of the “radioactive wastewater” is processed with just tritium remaining. There’s no scientific reason not to just dump the tritium-only wastewater in the ocean. The local fishing industry opposes that, though, so it’s collecting and becoming a disaster.

The Go meetings I attend were all cancelled (at 67, I’m usually the youngest one in the room at Go clubs), and the bowling center measures your temperature before letting you in and has hand-sanitizer at every lane. The jazz things with older blokes were cancelled but my guitar lessons (private, teach is 10 years younger than I) and guitar teacher’s performances (at a small bar, usually with an audience of 10 or 12 mostly fellow students, mostly much younger than I) are still happening. I need to see my GP/PCP once a month, and in January, the place was crowded and I had to wait in a room full of sneezing coughing folks. And came down with a cold 5 days later. In March, said doc’s office is empty. (I.e., people are staying home with their colds.)

In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel has been placed under quarantine after a doctor who administered a vaccine to her on Friday tested positive for the novel coronavirus.

Convergence. Combining multiple concerns in one headline.