One of the biggest mental shifts I had to make when working on Ebola was understanding that a virus doesn't give a damn about what anyone thinks is politically realistic, operationally achievable, or publicly tolerable.
This requires a very different mentality from normal policy-making. Typically we look at governance and politics as an exercise in balancing competing interests and equities. If everyone gets half a loaf, good job.
That doesn't work here. Partial measures mean you're losing.
That doesn't work here. Partial measures mean you're losing.
So our political red lines have to shift to accommodate the virus, not vice versa. Or the virus will happily carry on killing us and we will face an immense number of preventable deaths.
When epi folks point this out, they're not being politically obtuse, they're being rational.
When epi folks point this out, they're not being politically obtuse, they're being rational.
The countries that most rapidly shift their political goalposts to accommodate the virus will control it the fastest. S. Korea, New Zealand, etc have done so.
The continuing severity of the outbreak in the US is an reflection of our failure to fully do so.
The continuing severity of the outbreak in the US is an reflection of our failure to fully do so.
You don't stop fighting a war in the middle, just because its gotten expensive or burdensome. And you can't ask a virus for a truce.
The virus is still at our gates, besieging us. We're well into the siege; we're holding the attacker at bay; but we're not yet counter-attacking enough to win. If you think the merchants and citizens are suffering from the siege, watch what happens if you throw open the gates.
