Comments on: Our next attack on COVID-19 must be smarter https://www.mitchalbom.com/our-next-attack-on-covid-19-must-be-smarter/ #1 New York Times Bestselling Author Sat, 25 Jul 2020 04:11:01 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.3 By: craigholz https://www.mitchalbom.com/our-next-attack-on-covid-19-must-be-smarter/#comment-1819 Sat, 25 Jul 2020 04:11:01 +0000 https://www.mitchalbom.com/?p=269761#comment-1819 In reply to craigholz.

(of course: Or, doctors getting rich by designating/prescribing relatively many people/patients as “most vulnerable”)

]]> By: craigholz https://www.mitchalbom.com/our-next-attack-on-covid-19-must-be-smarter/#comment-1818 Sat, 25 Jul 2020 04:06:43 +0000 https://www.mitchalbom.com/?p=269761#comment-1818 In reply to craigholz.

(In some or many cases of covid pandemic governing mandates for lowered staffing, probably will be needed to ensure that companies don’t stress the lowered amount of staff by pushing for pre-pandemic restriction production levels. ie, if restricted to example of 50% in-person staffing level (Very applicable to manufacturing type industry), then on-site production (Besides on-line / in-field production) needs auditing points to ensure on-site staff is not pressed for higher, or much higher than companies’ baseline of production.
As well, people “deciding who is most vulnerable” can not be the same old ongoing basis of “doctors serving the rich are the deciders that are not scrutinized, audited and don’t answer /aren’t held strictly accountable.”

]]> By: craigholz https://www.mitchalbom.com/our-next-attack-on-covid-19-must-be-smarter/#comment-1817 Sat, 25 Jul 2020 03:43:03 +0000 https://www.mitchalbom.com/?p=269761#comment-1817 Very true Mitch, our governing efforts have been largely not even close to even keeled – especially when faced with life’s storms (Storms ~ whether people made / manufactured, or combos of nature and people developments / activity and infrastructure).
This of course doesn’t mean we need heavy handed / oppressively centralized-everything planning government, yet some basic structures as you say instead of buckshot (Shutdown everything, and unless we as nation agree to the basics in life are important and eventually no-charge for – in this (the) “economy” will come to near standstill (With likely major psychosis, though one would hope for everyone understanding and sharing basis for meeting basic needs, yet something even moderately close to that needs some transition time). While I could do without much of contemporary “conveniences” I know most can not or are not williing to, unless relaizations go bit more deeply about what matters / valuations.
Anyway – more local, creative approaches within basic (strong) guidelines letting major amount of scientific understandings and needs of truly most vulnerable (probably could have saved much already lost in terms of public resources and debts taken on) be met (Spending ~ 25% more on meeting basic needs / keeping the most vulnerable maintained health/healthier; and, 75 to 90% less on general not so vulnerable population will keep the ship from sinking, and make people less dependent / more healthy and resilient in long run, nevermind the flow of goods and services to healthy enough degree. Perhaps some healthy transitions are made more possible by this pandemic, yet largely the reactions have generally been not towards this in terms of governing bodies. Even creative ways of working out 50 to 90% staffing / production capacities in not (so) “essential” activity is likely very doable. (Like schools that Mitch suggests the most vulnerable take time away – though I’m for homeschooling and or outdoor/higher ecology based schooling, quite a few are not). Even in some cities, “health clubs” that are centered on exercise, could sign up waivers (except for extreme / gross negligence) to handle general populations, with one health club site within (Say every 5 square miles) accepting only “vulnerable” people that otherwise strictly highly isolate, staff signs highly restrictive agreements that give small boost in (time off) benefits for helping, and relatively (To what we’ve seen, relatively) small federal funding for vulnerable services / served goes towards this and transportation to get out of extreme isolation approaches, except for those that want that of course. Our governing has generally sought/promoted politics of least resistence, while often portraying otherwise – making the messier the better for concentrating cash/resource flows that are more frequently proving to be very unhealthy in multitudes of ways.

]]>