4B was pretty limited in South Korea according to Wikipedia and anecdotally the same appears to be true in US. Anecdotally I see it shared mostly by women who are dating or actively in relationships.
Nobody wants to go down in history as the person responsible for a large number of short-term deaths by giving the directive to lift the stay-at-home directives too soon.
Nobody else wants to go down for creating more Hoovervilles than ever thought imaginable. Millions upon millions of lives ruined, but hey we save 100K social security recipients right?
The virus itself did all this damage. Again, you're conflating the response as being the cause when it's really the virus itself that's the cause. Social distancing and economic shutdown isn't optional at this point; it would all be happening anyway.
By delaying the formal response it would have been possible to get most of of the economic harm of distancing while only getting a small part of the benefit.
Many people started distancing in the couple weeks before the shelter in place orders started. I know people that quit jobs to get away from the public, etc.
Yet many of those people who were increasing their distance, lowering their economic activities, etc. were also living with others who were in denial about the pandemic and where nothing short of a vague threat of citation/arrest or a closure of their hangouts would cause them to reduce their interaction... at least until people they know started dying, which would be too late for intervention (yet at that point they'd still drop out of economy!). In a "no order" world, you'd still get most of the economic hit of that household shutting down-- but they might often still get the infection, contribute load on the hospitals, and potentially die because one member of the household was less responsive to common sense.
Various legal and economic mitigations would also be less likely to exist absent an official response.
That's one explanation for politics, another explanation is that politicians do not care because they are not economically affected by their decisions, they have steady jobs and income, many have significant accumulated assets.
Unfortunately, both options are not mutually exclusive
Every elected official has to care about economic outcomes. Because the electorate cares. Hell, some political scientists think that this is the most prominent issue people vote on. And that's assuming elected officials actually don't care about their responsibilities to their constituents, which may well be true for some, but it's wrong to assume as a blanket motivation (and I'd go farther: it actively aids corruption to cast all politicians in the same mold, because to do so is to lazily shrug off the responsibility of making case-by-case judgments, which is itself what enables uncaring leadership to operate without pushback).
The only thing that might matter more broadly than prosperity/poverty is life and health.
Are you suggesting they’re shutting the economy down just for the hell of it? I can assure you that politicians do not harm the pocket books of their campaign donors on a whim. There is almost no one profiting from this.
I think we can all agree that the shutdown happened because of a genuine concern for what the new unknown virus could do. The last coronaviruses SARS and MERS could wipe 10-20% of the population, so that the baseline to prepare for.
Now we know the virus is not quite as deadly as anticipated (around 2%). And we know the economic impact is disastrous (+15% unemployment in the US after 3 weeks). So the strategy will have to be re-evaluated eventually.
My opinion is that politicians taking the decisions are too remote from people experiencing economic hardship, so they will let the economy get much much worse for way too long.
In all honesty, how is it irresponsible? New York is really bad. The rest of the country is in considerably better shape, and hospitals aren’t even close to being stressed in many areas. You’ve got nurses and doctors getting their hours cut back to nothing because no elective procedures are being done and the expected Covid surge never happened (again, not New York). Who honestly would’ve imagined there’d be doctors and nurses sitting idle during all of this?
There aren’t going to be any large gatherings or sporting events for the foreseeable future, lots of people are starting to wear masks and are doing much better as far as hygiene and social distancing are concerned. Why _can’t_ we start to think about getting things to slowly go back to normal? Keep the elderly (way easier for them to quarantine) and sick at home. If you can work from home, continue to do so. Everything else, figure out how to make it work within the framework of social distancing. There has to be more than a choice between “total lockdown” or “everyone’s gonna die.”
> The rest of the country is in considerably better shape, and hospitals aren’t even close to being stressed in many areas.
Why do you think that is? Because the stay-at-home orders worked. NY is the worst case scenario and you want to stop things before they get that bad.
If we had a magic dial for precisely tuning social distancing measures to cause minimum economic harm and death, we'd use it. Since we don't we have to err on one side or the other. So far we've erred on the side of caution, accepting short-term economic damage. As things get less crazy these measures will be gradually scaled back. It doesn't mean they were never necessary.
A lot of this situation reminds me of Y2K planning, but your comment is really spot on. Thank you.
Y2K is going to be a big deal if we don't do anything about it. We do something about it. People complain Y2K wasn't a big deal.
That, like this, means we're doing things right. Maybe we're going a little extreme, but the alternative is likely worse, and there is never a magic dial to spend just the right amount of effort/money/time.
I remember that article but not your comment; that article made me realize that I had forgotten the science behind soap, and just knew that it was good to use. :)
It's unfortunate that it's so easy to find preparation wasteful when it ends up not being necessary. But, we all have different life experiences.
We had plenty of warning and time to prepare for Y2K and knew for certain that it was coming - neither of which is true for Covid-19. If the entire world had somehow only realized in June 1999 that Y2K would be a problem, they absolutely would have done everything possible to gain even a few more weeks.
NY is not even the worst case scenario. The worst case is NO ONE sheltering in place. Or the entire population of the US getting simultaneously affected. And nurse/doctor strikes or walkouts would make it FAR worse.
> Why do you think that is? Because the stay-at-home orders worked. NY is the worst case scenario and you want to stop things before they get that bad.
To be fair, though I agree with you in general, NY-- esp NYC-- is much more dense than the rest of the country and as a result R(effective) may have been much higher there than other places. It may be the case that much stronger measures were needed there then in many other places.
So while it is true that part of the reason other places are less bad is because the policies worked, differences between the locations may also play a significant role.
New York waited for things to be bad before they shut down. San Francisco shut down incredibly early in comparison at a time when the city was essentially perfectly fine and largely unaffected. This led to an extraordinary difference in outcomes.
The interior of the country doesn’t have the infrastructure to support exponential growth. Nurses and doctors and hospitals being idle is a sign that we chose the SF path, not the NY path.
The economic impact is of course absolutely terrible and this is shaping up to potentially be as bad as the Great Depression was. But letting the virus ravage small towns and cities without adequate support would be worse both economically and in terms of loss of life.
SF also lacks the density, and more critically the scale of NYC. Though credit to Mayor London Breed and Gov. Newsom for early and effective action.
Regions hardest hit by COVID-19 seem (informal take) to have largely been large, dense, sprawling cities. with poor public health infrastructure or responses.
In the US, it's currently mostly Northeast cities, generally surrounding New York, doing the worst. Wuhan (11 million) is also huge. Milan (Italy), Madrid (Spain), Tehran (Iran), London (UK) have also fared poorly, especially relative to their countries.
Outbreaks in less populated regions can and do occur. -- though often within institutional populations or equivalents -- cruise ships, retirement / nursing homes, prisons and jails, as well as anti-science religious groups, notably.
And not all megacities have been hit, especially those with solid monitoring systems, response plans, and infrastructure: Hong Kong, Seoul, Taipei, Singapore, especially.
The combination of exponential growth with a sizeable lag means that you really don't want to come anywhere close to being stressed, because then you were just a few hours away from a calamity. Time for a car analogy: it's like braking on a wet road on a foggy night, then measuring the remaining few feet of road ahead and saying "we shouldn't have braked so soon".
While I think those that forgo social media while growing up are more likely to have better attention spans and ability to focus, I'd also guess they're just as likely to be significantly socially out of the loop.
This is a bold claim to make without citing anything.
Muni monthly pass for an adult is $85. A round trip commute pays for itself within two weeks not including any other trips. 95% of the city is covered and anything that isn't is within reasonable walking distance. Unlike any business, its nearly guaranteed cities will always subsidize the real cost. The average resident is not as dependent on Uber as you assume.
Everyone's seemed to gloss over this but this deal seems to be as much an acqhuisition as an acquisition. Do some research on who Gokul Rajaram is. He ran ads at FB and Google was a very significant leader. I don't think the margins of food delivery have changed. Remember Square couldn't get Uber to pick up Caviar for $100 million around the time Square had its IPO. Also I imagine the price involves DoorDash seems to be banking on a closer relationship with Square as well.
My general strategy around that is have the least amount of context possible. If context is necessary, then create multiple cards around it. For example, for a cloze deletion card, it's not uncommon I have up to 3+ clozes for a single note.
So the main tool that memory champions rely on is essentially 'visualizing/picturing' fake situations. Now, I have a solid memory outside of this. But when I picture things, it's pretty hard for me even for most familiar places like my home. Any memory experts with actual advice to see more vibrantly? I feel like I'm always fighting against the natural tendency to see black (as is natural with eyes closed) versus trying to focus on what I'm picturing.
'visualizing' isn't just 'seeing'. Try to think back in your mind to the house in you grew up in. Do you remember where the kitchen, bedrooms, and/or bathrooms were? Do you remember which way the beds/furniture were facing in most of the rooms, which side the sinks and counters were in the bathrooms and kitchens? Do you remember where in the house any other furniture, such as a desk, couch, television, or coat rack was? Most people can remember these things, even if they can't conjure forth before their mind's eye a vivid mental picture of their house.
Try answering all of those questions about, say, any of your neighbors houses growing up which you may have been in once or twice. About a recent home, building or room in which you may have only been in once, sometime within the past 6 months to a year.
While it's not perfect, and some particular facts might elude you, most people will find it surprisingly easy to answer most of these questions, even about buildings they may have only been in once or twice a decade or more prior. Yet, if they were to try to, say, answer detailed questions about a painting they may have seen around the same time, most will struggle.
We seem to have a certain kind architectural/location memory which is used for remembering the relative layouts of places we've been, and this sort of memory seems to have some different properties compared to just visual imagery. It seems to be retained long-term fairly effortlessly, with very little time actually spent 'memorizing' it.
Look up "aphantasia". It's a relatively new (and trendy) term referring to an inability to "see" things in your mind. Apparently, most people can engage the visual cortex and actually form mental images, though I haven't really experienced this myself. I just get brief flashes, but mostly remember things factually.
I've personally found memory palaces and whatnot to be largely useless, probably because I can't visualize anything. Soundalike-based mnemonics work better for me (cockney rhyming slang type stuff, etc.)
People are different. Each mind is different. Only over 30% of the population is highly visual.
When people talk about "images" in the memorization world, they are not just talking about visual memories. But also touch(we have millions of touch sensors distributed along the skin) "images". Speech images. Spacial 3d "images", "smell images","kinestesic or muscle memory and so on.
A persona that is born blind can't make visual images, a baby with malfunctioning ears will not develop sound images. In fact, you could restore vision or cochlea "sensors" later in life and they will not be able to hear or see because the brain as a baby did not have it and neural connections were not made. This is the reason they test for hearing on babies and operate them as soon as possible.
But that a blind or deaf person could not see or listen, it does not mean that he could not make an "image" of the world, in fact some areas of their brains will be actually stronger than on people that can see or hear.
You have to know thyself, what are your strong areas, and favor those sensory images. I am deeply kinesthetic for example, so I always favor space relationships and movement, actions and so on.
It is not just about visualizing but also the choice of visuals. One of the things that Harry Lorayne stresses on, is to visualize something out of the ordinary, so crazy that it sticks out in the memory (for e.g, to remember a sequence of man and pencil, imagine a man with pencil sticking out his head or a pencil walking like a man on the street). The second best option is to imagine something sensory, tactile or olfactory or anything visceral. Mundane items or events are the ones most likely to escape our complete attention and consequently slip through our memory. Truth is that the attention is the most important bit of memorizing. More often than not the act of processing the information registers it much more effectively than any of these details. Try it for yourself, you will be surprised.
I'm exactly the same! I've recently started to think that I don't actually have a minds eye. I can't hold an image in my head for more than a fraction of second - and even then, it's just parts of the image at a time (not a whole scene, and not in realistic color). The memory-castle type techniques seem to be visually "begging the question" - to remember things, first... remember things!
If you can see it for even a fraction of a second, you do have a minds eye; those with aphantasia can't see anything at all for any length of time. If you can see anything at all, you can improve that with practice.
Have you tried a strategy like method of loci? If not, I would try it first, to see how it goes.
Visualizing is one part of the strategy (depth of processing), but a huge other piece is that you are enlisting spatial cues to help prompt recall (cued recall).
LHTL is important for instilling a growth mindset in students and teaching effective science-backed learning techniques. If you know the 'why' behind an effective study method, you're more likely to continue to stick with it.
