My sons girl friemd always sees my son out to his car when he leaves for work and today he said she didn't need to do that, then he told her? Did you know there are so many 3,287 car fatalities every day? No,...... she did not know that!
3,287 deaths
Nearly 1.25 million people are killed in car accidents each year. That means, on average, auto accidents cause 3,287 deaths per day. An additional 20-50 million people are injured or disabled. More than half of all road traffic deaths occur among young adults ages 15-44
Back in March, when sheltering in place was
still a novelty, Airbnb Chief Executive Officer Brian Chesky hung an
oversized print from his company’s in-house magazine on a bare wall
above his sofa, hoping it would brighten up his home office. The image,
of a rustic cabin set against snowcapped mountains, seemed to signify
the monumental task of running a home-sharing website during a deadly pandemic.
Or perhaps it signified the absurdity of managing a multinational
company via videoconference, appearing before employees, investors, and
lenders exclusively from the waist up. “I do wear pants,” Chesky says in
an interview over Zoom. “I want to be clear.”
Airbnb Inc.,
which Chesky founded in a much more modest San Francisco living room in
2008, is among the world’s most valuable lodging companies.
Vanquish the Virus? Australia and New Zealand Aim to Show the Way
The
two countries, led by ideological opposites, are converging on an
extraordinary goal: eliminating the virus. Their nonpolitical approach
is restoring trust in democracy.
Australian officials closed Sydney’s iconic Bondi Beach on March 21.Credit...Matthew Abbott for The New York Times
SYDNEY, Australia — Thousands of miles from President Trump’s combative news briefings,
a conservative leader in Australia and a progressive prime minister in
New Zealand are steadily guiding their countries toward a rapid
suppression of the coronavirus outbreak.
Both
nations are now reporting just a handful of new infections each day,
down from hundreds in March, and they are converging toward an
extraordinary goal: completely eliminating the virus from their island nations.
Whether
they get to zero or not, what Australia and New Zealand have already
accomplished is a remarkable cause for hope. Scott Morrison of
Australia, a conservative Christian, and Jacinda Ardern, New Zealand’s
darling of the left, are both succeeding with throwback democracy — in
which partisanship recedes, experts lead, and quiet coordination matters
more than firing up the base.
“This
is certainly distinct from the United States,” said Dr. Peter
Collignon, a physician and professor of microbiology at the Australian
National University who has worked for the World Health Organization.
“Here it’s not a time for politics. This is a time for looking at the
data and saying let’s do what makes the most sense.”
The
dreamy prospect of near normalcy, with the virus defeated, crowds
gathering in pubs and every child back in school, is hard to imagine for
much of the United States, where testing shortages and a delayed response by Mr. Trump have led to surges of contagion and death.
And it may end up being a mirage or temporary triumph in Australia and New Zealand. Elimination means
reducing infections to zero in a geographic area with continued
measures to control any new outbreak, and that may require extended
travel bans. Other places that seemed to be keeping the virus at bay,
such as China, Hong Kong and Singapore, have seen it rebound, usually with infections imported from overseas.
Image
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand and her Australian counterpart, Scott Morrison, in Sydney in February.Credit...Bianca De Marchi/EPA, via Shutterstock
And
yet, if there are any two countries that could pull off a clear if
hermetically sealed victory — offering a model of recovery that elevates
competence over ego and restores some confidence in democratic
government — it may be these two Pacific neighbors with their sparsely
populated islands, history of pragmatism and underdogs’ craving for
recognition.
Far
from any global hot spot, they’ve had the advantage of time: Australia
reported its first case on Jan. 25, New Zealand on Feb. 28. But compared
to Mr. Trump and leaders in Europe, Mr. Morrison and Ms. Ardern
responded with more alacrity and with starker warnings.
Mr. Morrison banned travelers from China on Feb. 1 (a day before the United States did) and labeled the outbreak a pandemic
on Feb. 27 (two weeks ahead of the W.H.O.), while forming a national
cabinet of federal and state leaders to build hospital capacity and
guide the response.
In
New Zealand, where the government is more centralized, Ms. Ardern
introduced an alert system that led to a total lockdown less than a
month after the country’s first case emerged.
“We must fight by going hard and going early,” Ms. Ardern said.
In
both countries, the public initially resisted and then complied, in
part because the information flowing from officials at every level was
largely consistent.
Playing their own versions of explainer in chief, Mr. Morrison has veered toward conservative radio, while Ms. Ardern prefers Facebook Live. But they’ve both received praise from scientists for listening and adapting to evidence.
Image
A coronavirus testing station in Christchurch, New Zealand, last week.Credit...Mark Baker/Associated Press
“It’s
a case of politicians just not being in the way,” said Ian Mackay, an
virologist at the University of Queensland who has been involved in
response planning for the pandemic. “It’s a mix of things, but I think
it comes down to taking advice based on expertise.”
The
results are undeniable: Australia and New Zealand have squashed the
curve. Australia, a nation of 25 million people that had been on track for 153,000 cases by Easter, has recorded a total of 6,670 infections and 78 deaths. It has a daily growth rate of less than 1 percent, with per capita testing among the highest in the world.
New
Zealand’s own daily growth rate, after soaring in March, is also below 1
percent, with 1,456 confirmed cases and 17 deaths. It has just 361
active cases in a country of five million.
Sign up to receive an email when we publish a new story about the coronavirus outbreak.
These
figures put the two countries closer to Taiwan and South Korea, which
have controlled the virus’s spread for now, than to the United States
and Europe — even places seen as success stories, like Germany.
It
all started with scientists. In Australia, as soon as China released
the genetic code for the coronavirus in early January, pathologists in
public health laboratories started sharing plans for tests. In every
state and territory, they jumped ahead of politicians.
“It meant we could have a test up and running quickly that was reasonably comparable everywhere,” Dr. Collignon said.
The government then opened the budgetary floodgates to support suffering workers
and add health care capacity. When infections started climbing, many of
the labs and hospitals hired second and third rounds of scientists to
help.
Image
Wellington, New Zealand, during a lockdown on Tuesday. Credit...Mark Tantrum/Getty Images
That
collaboration set the tone. Many of the state and local task forces
spurred on by Mr. Morrison’s early action have stayed in constant
contact, drawing in academics who independently started to model the
virus’s spread. Their findings, hashed out by email, text or group
calls, have been funneled up to national decision makers.
The newly formed national cabinet
has delivered a surprising level of consensus for a country with a
loose federal system subject to high levels of discord among state
premiers, whose roles and powers resemble those of American governors.
In
late March, for example, Mr. Morrison announced an agreement to
severely tighten restrictions, banning international travel and telling
all Australians not working in essential services to stay home. Though
there was some divergence, mostly over schools, state leaders expressed
bipartisan support and have held the line even as case numbers
plummeted.
In New Zealand, public health experts pushed for an even bolder move.
Dr.
Michael Baker, a physician and professor at the University of Otago in
Wellington, became a prominent voice outside the government pushing for
elimination of the virus, not just its suppression.
He
argued that New Zealand, an island nation with a limited number of
cases, should think of the virus more like measles than influenza —
something that should be made to disappear, with rare exceptions.
Image
Police patrolling during a Sydney beach closure this month. Credit...Matthew Abbott for The New York Times
“The
modelers said we had to go into lockdown for two months to have a high
probability of eliminating it entirely,” he said. “You have to wait
until the numbers are very low so you have the ability to stamp out an
outbreak if it occurs.”
Worrying
that the virus would spread too rapidly, Dr. Baker said he was racked
with anxiety in the first few weeks after the initial case appeared in
New Zealand. “We were on a knife’s edge,” he said. “Would we commit?”
Ms.
Ardern announced on March 23 that the country would aim for
elimination. Critics questioned whether it was possible, noting that
there might be too many asymptomatic cases to guarantee elimination.
Dr. Baker responded by citing Taiwan,
which has contained the outbreak to a point where socially distanced
normal life has returned on a densely packed set of islands with over 23
million people.
“It’s
a matter to get all the systems working,” Dr. Baker said. “The borders,
the contact tracing, the testing, the surveillance.”
In
Australia, officials are mostly discussing elimination in private, as a
potential side effect of a strategy they still describe as suppression.
Dr. Brendan Murphy, Australia’s chief medical officer, told a New
Zealand parliamentary committee last week that elimination would be a
“nirvana” scenario — an achievement that would be tough to maintain
without indefinite bans on international travel or 14-day quarantines
until a vaccine arrives.
Image
A closed exercise area in Sydney. Credit...Matthew Abbott for The New York Times
Nonetheless,
if it happens, Dr. Murphy and his counterpart in New Zealand, Dr.
Ashley Bloomfield, would be the ones receiving accolades. Like Dr.
Anthony Fauci, the face of the American government’s scientific
response, they are known for extensive public health pedigrees, calm
demeanors and no-nonsense adherence to facts.
Dr.
Bloomfield, who, tieless and with rumpled hair, has hosted online
question-and-answer sessions almost every day, has become a celebrity of
straight-talking reassurance. An artist in Wellington has even started selling towels that show his face surrounded by hearts.
He and others like him at the local level are key factors in a revival of trust in government that has appeared in poll after poll lately, even as the two countries’ economies have cratered and people have been told to severely restrict their lives.
The question is what that revival might produce in the future.
Ms.
Ardern and Mr. Morrison have already discussed reopening travel between
the two countries, and some scientists wonder if eliminating the virus
with good management might rebuild some faith not just in democracy, but
also in the value of expertise.
“It
does feel like we’re pulling together and pulling in the same direction
at the moment,” said Dr. Mackay, the immunologist at the University of
Queensland. “I hope we can maintain that.”
“Maybe we’ll see the return of science,” Dr. Mackay added. “I doubt it, but who knows.”
Image
A Sydney suburb, usually packed with partygoers and tourists, was quiet on a recent Saturday night.Credit...Matthew Abbott for The New York Times
Correction:
An earlier version of this article misstated the population of Taiwan. It is over 23 million, not 18 million.
People are getting touchy on line and are going a bit crazy about?
Photos not being big enough or clear enough?
Or hate bangs :) On our foreheads? Call them shadows?
Our Wording is Wrong as it makes them sad? Because they lost friends to this Virus?
Their Mother or Father died in all of this Virus sickness ?
Are very sad!
Sigh!
Sorry is no longer Enough or the Right Words to say?
“All you really need to say
is some variation of: “I'm sorry you're going through this. I'm here.
I'm thinking about you, I love you,” says McDowell, who also has a line
of empathy cards. “Your job here is to let the person know you care, and making the effort of sending a card is a great way to do this.Oct 31, 2019
When someone you know is grieving, it’s natural to want to reach out and help. But often, it’s difficult to know what to say
when someone dies. Faced with the enormity of loss, words feel
inadequate. It’s not uncommon to feel paralyzed, terrified of saying the
wrong thing.
There’s
no perfect combination of words that will take away a grieving person’s
pain. But there are ways for you to show them that you care, from
sending a card, to bringing over a home cooked meal, or just showing up
in person.
From
what to write in a sympathy card to when it’s appropriate to pick up
the phone, we asked grief advocates, therapists, and other experts for
their advice on how to support friends and loved ones when someone dies.
But before you pick up the phone, it’s worth considering your
relationship with the person. “If you aren’t close, definitely don’t
call within days of a tragic event or difficult news,” says Emily
McDowell, co-author and illustrator of There’s No Good Card for This. “Phone calls can feel intrusive and overwhelming at this time. A card,
an email, or a text is better. However, if you are good friends or
close family, call! The person can always choose to not pick up.”
“I tend to make eye contact,” Devine says. “And maybe a little nod of the head to say I see you, and I’m going to respect your space right now, but I want you to know that I see you.”
Show up in person
The best way to show support for someone who’s grieving is to let them know you’re there for them — and then actually show up.
“When words are inadequate, it’s your presence that makes a difference,” says Dr. Alan Wolfelt, the director of the Center for Loss and Life Transition.
If there’s a funeral or memorial service, make an effort to attend.
“You’ll always remember the people that do, in fact, show up,” Wolfelt
says.
Anticipate their needs
When someone is grieving, one of the simplest ways to show support is to offer to help with chores and other practical tasks.
Don’t try to “fix” their grief
Some
phrases to avoid: everything happens for a reason; God wouldn’t give
you more than you can handle; what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger;
at least they lived a good life.
Another phrase to avoid: “I know how you feel.”
Don’t avoid saying the deceased person’s name
Keep checking in
Even
after everyone else goes back to their day-to-day lives, it can be
helpful to keep checking in on the person in the weeks and months after
their loss.
“Loss
doesn’t have an expiration date,” McDowell says. “If something truly
bad has happened, a person’s life has changed forever, and just because
time has passed, they probably haven’t stopped thinking about their
grief.”
Don’t worry about getting it 100 percent right
Reaching
out to a friend who has just lost a loved one can be daunting, but it’s
better to try and risk making a mistake than not try at all. When
people avoid addressing a tragedy out of fear of making things worse,
the person grieving can end up feeling abandoned.
Go
There looks at how unemployment offices are dealing with a record
number of workers in the US filing for unemployment and other benefits,
with phone lines jammed, websites crashing, and lines only getting
longer. CNN's Vanessa Yurkevich speaks with small business owners, gig
workers and furloughed employees to find out how they're coping.
“It really makes me hope and pray the public takes things seriously.”
n
Easter Sunday, as the noon sun bore down on New York City in bloom
during what is surely its saddest spring in a century, a 50-foot
white-hulled sailboat named Turning Point arrived in New York Harbor to berth in an otherwise empty marina
in Brooklyn Bridge Park. On deck and ready to throw a line to the
waiting dockhands was 26-year-old Rachel Hartley, an ICU nurse who had
just sailed the nearly 250 miles from Hampton, Virginia — keeping watch
overnight with her husband, Taylor, over the 34-hour passage — and ready
to make the boat her home for the next two months. She is one of
thousands of out-of-town medical professionals answering the call to
provide reinforcements to the city’s hospitals.
Hartley,
who has been a nurse since 2015 and spent two years working in an ICU,
was working in surgical pre-ops in Lynchburg, Virginia, when, in early
March, her hospital began to cancel all but the most urgent surgeries.
Then, for several weeks, she said not a day went by when she was not
“called or emailed or texted by one of the nurse-staffing companies”
seeking people with intensive-care experience for coronavirus epicenters
like New York: “Holy cow! There was such a need!”
To Tell Someone They’re Wrong, First Tell Them They’re Right
A philosopher’s 350-year-old trick to get people to change their minds is now backed up by psychologists
The 17th century philosopher Blaise Pascal is perhaps best known for Pascal’s Wager
which, in the first formal use of decision theory, argued that
believing in God is the most pragmatic decision. But it seems the French
thinker also had a knack for psychology. As Brain Pickings
points out, Pascal set out the most effective way to get someone to
change their mind, centuries before experimental psychologists
began to formally study persuasion:
When we wish to correct with advantage, and to
show another that he errs, we must notice from what side he views the
matter, for on that side it is usually true, and admit that truth to
him, but reveal to him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied
with that, for he sees that he was not mistaken, and that he only failed
to see all sides. Now, no one is offended at not seeing everything; but
one does not like to be mistaken, and that perhaps arises from the fact
that man naturally cannot see everything, and that naturally he cannot
err in the side he looks at, since the perceptions of our senses are
always true.
Pascal added:
People are generally better persuaded by the
reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have
come into the mind of others.
Put simply, Pascal suggests that before disagreeing
with someone, first point out the ways in which they’re right. And to
effectively persuade someone to change their mind, lead them to discover
a counter-point of their own accord. Arthur Markman, psychology
professor at The University of Texas at Austin, says both these points
hold true.
“One of the first things you have to do to give
someone permission to change their mind is to lower their defenses and
prevent them from digging their heels in to the position they already
staked out,” he says. “If I immediately start to tell you all the ways
in which you’re wrong, there’s no incentive for you to co-operate. But
if I start by saying, ‘Ah yeah, you made a couple of really good points
here, I think these are important issues,’ now you’re giving the other
party a reason to want to co-operate as part of the exchange. And that
gives you a chance to give voice your own concerns about their position
in a way that allows co-operation.”
Markman also supports Pascal’s second persuasive
suggestion. “If I have an idea myself, I feel I can claim ownership over
that idea, as opposed to having to take your idea, which means I have
to explicitly say, ‘I’m going to defer to you as the authority on this.’
Not everybody wants to do that,” he adds.
In other words, if it wasn’t enough that Pascal is
recognized as a mathematician, physicist, and philosopher, it seems he
was also an early psychologist.
