With this more diffuse spread of the disease and early warning from experience out of China, we could be implementing their late-stage practices right up front. Require people to check-in/check-out of each public gathering space, have them record their names and times when the enter and leave, and record their responses to health questions along with a quick temperature reading.
I don’t think the rapid declaration of emergencies and the cascading declarations at every state and local government was a prudent decision. I would like to imagine a dedomenocracy would have come up with a wiser plan of action. A wiser plan of action would be to be much more selective about declaration of emergency and focused in such a way to minimize the impact.
The current practice of ghost flights by airlines is a great analogy to what needs to happen in the workforce. To protect the nation from large numbers of hospitalizations and deaths, we could remove the people from their positions when they are over 50 or have one of the identified preexisting conditions. Eventually (hopefully), the crisis will abate where we can allow these people to return to their original roles.
This proposal would quarantine only healthy people having the preexisting conditions most at risk of having complications that will require hospital care and that can likely result in death. This population is easy to identify. The logistics of isolating healthy people from the rest of the population is easier than quarantining the infected While the current population of healthy with at-risk preexisting conditions is high, eventually it will be much smaller than the population of infected people. In this approach, the infected can safely move around because they are isolated from the ones most vulnerable to complications.
Unless we permit the algorithms to project the trends into the future, thus inventing modeled data for future values, the algorithms would conclude on policies that may not be distinguishable from the current politically biased decision making. Government by data must permit dark data, data generated by models, as equals to bright data of trusted observations.
This system of governance inevitably results in over criminalizing because it equates so many unrelated violations of law into a single category of a crime requiring a prison sentence. We may need these laws, and for argument’s sake I’ll grant that prison sentences are a valid form of punishment. I question the need for all of these laws to require prison penalties. I question the wisdom of equating any violation of such a wide range of laws to be a single category: an imprisonable convict.
My hypothesis is that men do have a tendency to prefer male voices for topics of high interest or importance, and that tendency is a consequence of the opportunity for a fruitful counterargument when we disagree. I follow more male voices than female voices, because there are many more people I disagree with than I agree with. I will listen to both sexes if I agree with them, but I will only follow men if there is a potential that I will disagree with them. It is only with other men that I can have any chance of gaining anything through argument.