The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: Wayward Son on March 11, 2020, 02:17:49 PM

Title: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Wayward Son on March 11, 2020, 02:17:49 PM
I think this deserves it's own thread, apart from what we know about the virus and the proper responses to it.  One on how well Trump and his Administration are reacting to it.

So far, so bad.

I was reading his article on Trump ignoring his own CDC's advice on how to not spread the virus. (https://apnews.com/55466402fcfd1234f4120623f364772a)

Quote
At the Pentagon, top military brass have been begun “social distancing” to avoid spreading disease. At the Capitol, legislators have been encouraged to forgo hand shakes and flash the “Star Trek” Vulcan greeting instead.

But at the White House, President Donald Trump is flouting his own government’s advice on how to stay safe. He continues to shake hands with supporters and visitors, hold large events and minimize the threat posed by a coronavirus outbreak that has infected more than 115,000 people and killed over 4,000 worldwide...

“I think it’s beholden upon our leaders to follow the public health recommendations that the CDC, the government, public health are recommending and to emulate those practices,” said Dr. Jason Farley, a nurse epidemiologist and professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Nursing. He said that it sends “mixed messaging to the public” when recommendations aren’t heeded.

When it comes to Trump, he added, “There’s nothing special about being the president of the United States that protects you from a virus like this unless you’re following the practices recommended for every 70-year-old.”

Trump has repeatedly played down the risk, both to the public and himself, even as he claims that his administration is “taking this unbelievably seriously.”

“It will go away. Just stay calm,” Trump told reporters Tuesday. “Everybody has to be vigilant and has to be careful. But be calm. It’s really working out. And a lot of good things are going to happen.”

When it comes to Trump’s continued glad-handing, Vice President Mike Pence said Tuesday that’s unlikely to change despite going against the administration’s “broad recommendation” for other Americans.

“In our line of work, you shake hands when someone wants to shake your hand,” he said. “And I expect the president will continue to do that. I’ll continue to do it...”

Trump, at 73, is considered at higher risk, although his press secretary said Monday he “remains in excellent health...”

Overall, the CDC has suggested that workplaces encourage employees to stop shaking hands, use videoconferences for meetings when possible and hold meetings in well-ventilated spaces if meetings are necessary.

That hasn’t happened at the White House, where Trump, a self-professed “germophobe,” sat shoulder-to-shoulder Tuesday with aides and health insurance executives, traveled to Capitol Hill for a Senate lunch and awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom at a well-attended ceremony, where he also shook hands with those in the front row.

On Monday, Trump was spotted shaking hands with supporters on a tarmac in Florida. And on Thursday, he’s set to travel to the West Coast, where he’ll attend fundraisers and the annual gathering of the Republican Jewish Coalition in Las Vegas.

All that, despite the fact that Trump has already had personal contact with several individuals known to have been exposed to the virus. They include Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, who traveled aboard Air Force One with the president on Monday and found out midflight that he was among a handful of GOP lawmakers who were exposed to a person who tested positive for the virus after last month’s Conservative Political Action Conference...

Lawrence Gostin, a public heath expert and professor at Georgetown University, said he believed it would be appropriate to implement enhanced screening at the White House to keep the president and Cabinet safe.

“This is no different than being protected by a bullet from the Secret Service,” he said. “Not only should they be following general health advice we give to the public, they should be following much more rigorously ... because we can’t be in a political crisis at the same time we’re in a public health crisis...”

On Capitol Hill, Democratic lawmakers were barred from helping themselves to a breakfast buffet or touching serving utensils, and told to avoid kissing, hugging and shaking hands.

But not Trump — a pattern that Robert Blendon, a professor of health policy at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, said appeared motivated by Trump’s desire to protect the economy in an election year.

“Right or wrong, the president’s decided he wants to minimize the economic impact of this pandemic. ... He’s trying to do everything he can to protect the economy by saying, ‘It will be over,’ ‘It’s not that bad,’ ‘Feel free to go places,’” Blendon said. While much uncertainly remains, “if it turns out to be more serious, the president’s contributing to people not protecting themselves.”

“The president should be keeping us safe. He shouldn’t be amplifying the risk,” added Gostin of Georgetown University.

“The message should be: Let’s have social distancing, let’s avoid the usual cultural symbols of shaking hands, let’s separate from one another and avoid either contracting or transmitting a very dangerous infection,” Gostin said. “And it’s baffling to me that the president, who should be the model of good behavior, is modeling exactly the opposite.”

In so many ways, it would be much easier for Trump to follow the CDC guidelines than the rest of us.  You gotta wonder why he is ignoring them. :(
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 11, 2020, 06:33:33 PM
Shocking to hear that orange man bad.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Wayward Son on March 11, 2020, 06:35:18 PM
No, orange man stupid.  :D

You going to the next rally?  ;)
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDeamon on March 11, 2020, 06:41:13 PM
What I get from this is Orange Man and Pence both are trying to get infected.

I thought most Democrats would be eagerly awaiting Trumps encounter with Covid-19, and hope he becomes part of the mortality rate.

The Dems might win a Biden vs Pence race.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 11, 2020, 06:46:55 PM
I hope Nancy's ready.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 11, 2020, 06:53:55 PM
No, orange man stupid.  :D

You going to the next rally?  ;)

Went to an XFL game last weekend (awesome). Movie last night(Emma, pretty good). Out to dinner tonight.

With the incredible travel deals right now, I’m thinking I’ll take that $88 round trip to Napa and do a wine tour. Hotel is under $100/night but I’m thinking i can wrangle a free night after this weekend.

If there’s a rally anywhere near me, I’d go but anticipate crowds typical for a Trump rally and not really keen on camping out the night before to get in so I’d have to see.

Going to the coast this weekend, do a little sailing.


What are you doing, hunkering down in a closet? Or will you be going out?


Quote
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom praised the Trump Administration’s response to the Coronavirus outbreak Monday.

“We had a private conversation, but he said ‘We’re gonna do the right thing’ and ‘You have my support,'” Newsom said. “All of our support, logistically, and otherwise.”

“He said everything that I could have hoped for,” Newsom added. “Every single thing he said they followed through on.”

I know, doesn’t fit the narrative so you don’t post it and instead ignore it in favor of a bias confirming, orange man bad, hit piece.

You’re consistent.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 11, 2020, 07:26:29 PM
I think Trump tonight is supposed to make a speech about it and I anticipate the threat level is going to be bumped up significantly. So far, I don't think nearly enough has been done to contain it but I guess I'll admit to being in the chicken little camp on this one.

I think it's starting to hit close to home now. And far from home too. We had whoever it was at CPAC expose it to Ted Cruz and another guy who are wisely self-quarantining just to be on the safe side. Of course we have the reports out of Italy. We saw what happened to the guys at the top in Iran who took it lightly. It's just reported that a British health minister got it. You had Boris Johnson saying he'd go to a hospital and shake everyone's hands. That's just absurd: "British Prime Minister Boris Johnson says the coronavirus won't stop him greeting people with a handshake, adding that he had shaken hands with everyone at a hospital where he said infected patients were being treated."

Trump is about to come around on this and see it for the total emergency that it is. Hopefully.

The thing I'd like to point out is that even if people like Boris Johnson aren't afraid of it, they should still be considerate of others and not spread it around recklessly. I hope he's changed his tune by now just like I hope Trump will. It's too late to get out of this without significant damage but it's never too late to try to do better to minimize it as much as possible, or at least practicable.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: wmLambert on March 11, 2020, 07:54:55 PM
...It's too late to get out of this without significant damage but it's never too late to try to do better to minimize it as much as possible, or at least practicable.

It appears to most people that Trump jumped fairly early to control the spread of vectors, but also focused upon minimizing economic impact. He's used the bully pulpit fairly well, even with the "loyal opposition" decrying abject failure of everything he's done.

Tonight I'm sure he will use his new regulatory relaxation of rules to allow faster research. What else he says should be interesting.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 12, 2020, 07:43:13 AM
Stopping all travel to Europe (except UK, heh). The flow of people is really getting addressed aggressively.

It’s interesting to compare this to H1N1 in 2009. Trump is moving vastly more quickly and aggressively than Obama did on that.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 12, 2020, 08:06:30 AM
Stopping all travel to Europe (except UK, heh). The flow of people is really getting addressed aggressively.

It’s interesting to compare this to H1N1 in 2009. Trump is moving vastly more quickly and aggressively than Obama did on that.

Please back up that claim.  (Hint: I'm pretty sure you're breathing too much bad FOX air)
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 12, 2020, 09:55:30 AM
You can easily look it up, weird that you don't even try. Well, maybe not.

So here you go:
Quote
On 11 June 2009, the WHO declared an H1N1 pandemic, moving the alert level to phase 6, marking the first global pandemic since the 1968 Hong Kong flu. On 25 October 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama officially declared H1N1 a national emergency

Note, I'm not being critical here, just stating the facts.

So 4 months after WHO declared a pandemic, Obama declared a national emergency. WHO declared it yesterday and, while Trump has not declared a national emergency yet, I'm pretty sure he will before July. Trump has taken some pretty incredible steps in containing this over the last few weeks and seems to be willing to do more very quickly. Obama did not declare an emergency until the death toll exceeded 1000 (quite a few children). As of right now, we are at 38 and most are over 70.

Let's have some more comparison:

Quote
A few weeks ago, I think, I mused about some previous pandemic about which I’d forgotten, except that I bought masks, and noted a run on rice at Costco, That was the Swine Flu pandemic, of course. It was declared by the WHO to be A Thing in June 2009. I decided to go back to the StarTribune archives to see how it played out. From what I recalled, there was concern, but nothing like we're seeing today. See if you recall any of this, or your local variant.

April 28: Front page Sunday story., "Is This the Big One, and Are We Ready Here?"

May: few stories, precautions relaxed.

June 9: the graduation ceremony for a local high school at Target Center was using fist bumps instead of handshakes. Front page story, written without alarm: just a sign of the times.

June 12: Front page lead story, with 30 cases reported per day.

It looks really bad:<graphic>

An epidemiologist quoted says it's not the Spanish Flu, "but we just don't know." Public health officials criticize the press for giving the flu too much attention earlier in the year, then soft-pedaling the story when the lethality appeared much less than advertised.

Article notes that half the people who died from the swine flu were "young and healthy."

Let's just imagine how the news would handle that fact with COVID19.

June 21: 10 kids get swine flu at Muscular Dystrophy Camp; national organization cancels all summer camps.

Aug 7 2009: Hennepin County “ramps up” for a swine-flu surge, after a summer hiatus; 252 people had been hospitalized for the flu; the hospitals were preparing for 30-40% absenteeism in hospital workers due to the flu.

Sept 17: Headline, in Metro: Flu Cases Rapidly increasing. Twenty-eight percent of students at Elementary school kept home with flu or flu-like illness! TWENTY-EIGHT PERCENT!

Oct 6: Healthy first-grader dies of the flu. Front page news.

Oct 29 four months after the declaration of the pandemic: <graphic>

This is the only result for "Obama Flu" in 2009, except for a story about the new CDC director, who was appointed in May.
The article notes in the third Graf that 46 states have been hit, and the national death toll is more than 1,000.

Nov 05: Local cases appear to have peaked, with 182 people hospitalized the previous week, as opposed to 225 the week before that.

Nov. 12: China’s “aggressive steps appear to be paying off,” with the flu, although it reported 5,000 new cases in the last three days.

December: flu vaccines recalled for ineffectiveness; third wave of H1N1 predicted.

Feb 2010: the only stories concern free shots, and the fact that the usual flu season had been quite mild.

April: three stories, one of which describes how mint leaves can loosen phlegm, another concerning some local basketball players who won’t be playing because of flu-like symptoms. A story on the 8th notes two more deaths, bringing the state total up to 70.

May: a story about Tiger Woods dropping out of a tournament, which he hadn’t done for a while; last time was years ago, when he had the flu.

The global death toll, by the time it was over, was estimated at over half a million people.

Quite the contrast to current coverage!

So now is the part where you admit that facts, right?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: rightleft22 on March 12, 2020, 10:14:16 AM
Quote
Stopping all travel to Europe (except UK)

The US delay in testing pretty much means the houses our out of the barn.  By all means close the barn doors.
Stopping all travel from the US is likely the best bet in slowing this down.
 
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDrake on March 12, 2020, 10:23:38 AM
All travel from the US? Or to the US?

Meanwhile, shouldn't we also stop all travel within the US? Just air travel, or trains, buses, and cars?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 12, 2020, 10:35:00 AM
Those look like facts, but depending on the source might be questionable.  I won't spend the time finding out, so I'll accept the fact parts, but not the editorializing.

Quote
Note, I'm not being critical here, just stating the facts.

Of course not. I wouldn't expect you to take a position on facts.

Quote
So 4 months after WHO declared a pandemic, Obama declared a national emergency. WHO declared it yesterday and, while Trump has not declared a national emergency yet, I'm pretty sure he will before July. Trump has taken some pretty incredible steps in containing this over the last few weeks and seems to be willing to do more very quickly. Obama did not declare an emergency until the death toll exceeded 1000 (quite a few children). As of right now, we are at 38 and most are over 70.

But some facts are not shown in your sequence.  Are you unaware that Obama declared a public health emergency in April 2009?  Since you're reporting facts without bias, how is it possible that you omitted that?  Here are a few things that were done in response to that declaration:

Quote
The emergency declaration in the United States lets the government free more money for antiviral drugs and give some previously unapproved tests and drugs to children. One-quarter of the national stockpile of 50 million courses of antiflu drugs will be released.

Border patrols and airport security officers are to begin asking travelers if they have had the flu or a fever; those who appear ill will be stopped, taken aside and given masks while they arrange for medical care.

Note that in June when the WHO declared the pandemic, they also made clear they did so even though most cases were mild.  Studies showed that H1N1 had a mortality rate of .01%-.08% globally, which was about the same as ordinary flu.

No question that it was bad, as all viral outbreaks can be, but a vaccine was available in November 2009 (7 months after the public health emergency was declared) and over 3 billion doses were produced.  The pandemic subsided, but the disease is still out in the world.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 12, 2020, 10:36:31 AM
Stopping all travel to Europe (except UK, heh). The flow of people is really getting addressed aggressively.

It’s interesting to compare this to H1N1 in 2009. Trump is moving vastly more quickly and aggressively than Obama did on that.

You think he stopped all travel to Europe?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 12, 2020, 10:48:19 AM
Those look like facts, but depending on the source might be questionable.  I won't spend the time finding out,

Everything after that is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: wmLambert on March 12, 2020, 10:50:15 AM
The main difference that I see, is not about the flu vs. Covid-19 - but is about the media coverage and public panic which that caused.

Obama probably responded as conditions became an issue in the news and was never associated with being part of the problem.

Trump does not get that pass.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 12, 2020, 10:57:34 AM
Those look like facts, but depending on the source might be questionable.  I won't spend the time finding out,

Everything after that is irrelevant.

Not to people who want a fuller picture than you provided.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Seriati on March 12, 2020, 10:59:22 AM
I think this is a particularly dangerous thread that reflects an increasingly common problem.  Wayward gets his news from the left, and therefore it's a "fact" in his mind that Trump's response is not only inadequate, but without historical precedent in the level of it's inadequacy.

Others get their news from the right and there it's a "fact" that not only has Trump done more than any President in history to slow or stop the spread - while trying to save the economy - the media has engaged in historical levels of propaganda to paint him as failing.

Which is correct?  Honestly, it takes an open mind and probably hours to figure out.  You can't rely on media sources because they've long since given up on reporting facts. 

So why is this thread so dangerous?  Because it's not here to actually spread information.  It's here to spread misinformation.  You started the thread Wayward, so compare an contrast Trump's response to the response of say 3 prior administrations to a similar situation, and tell us where he's faster or slower or whether his administration applied or failed to apply lessons learned.  Be particuarly careful not to attribute opinion as fact. 

Why did you focus on a tiny part of the response in selecting the material to start the thread, which has a much broader title?  It may appear I'm asking  for a lot of work, but hard to see how you can evaluate an administration's response without any sense of how administrations actually respond.  And you have to take some responsibility for creating yet another thread purpose designed to trigger no-nothing anti-tribe diatribes and their responses.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: NobleHunter on March 12, 2020, 11:02:22 AM
While we'll probably have to wait until the after action report to find out, I suspect part of the botched response to COVID occurred below what Trump can be reasonably expected to have direct influence over. Between that and the Saudi/Russian price war over oil, a measure of the coming storm isn't Trump's fault. Even moreso since the global economy is going to go in the crapper regardless of how well the US deals with the virus. He's still screwing up in a spectacular fashion but it won't be all his fault.

And that doesn't even consider state- or municipal-level screw ups. Which begs the question of how much authority should the Federal government have in the case of an epidemic.

Seriati, the three prior administrations did not face similar situations. COVID appears to be notably different for other recent pandemics (I don't think any of them even approached 100k infections worldwide).
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 12, 2020, 11:03:40 AM
Quote
Why did you focus on a tiny part of the response in selecting the material to start the thread, which has a much broader title?  It may appear I'm asking  for a lot of work, but hard to see how you can evaluate an administration's response without any sense of how administrations actually respond.  And you have to take some responsibility for creating yet another thread purpose designed to trigger no-nothing anti-tribe diatribes and their responses.

Your post suggests that we can't evaluate what Trump has and is doing, that somehow we have to find out how much better or worse it is than what other administrations did.  That is the epitome of relative analysis.  If 60,000,000 to 150,000,000 people get the COVID-19 disease, which has a far higher mortality rate than other diseases, like the flu, which might have had infections in something like the same order of magnitude, then he did a pretty good job, right?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Seriati on March 12, 2020, 12:39:53 PM
While we'll probably have to wait until the after action report to find out, I suspect part of the botched response to COVID occurred below what Trump can be reasonably expected to have direct influence over.

"the botched response" assumes that it was botched.  What exactly was botched, specifically in the context of our actual laws, historical practice and legal powers of the government?

For example, it's not "botched" that we didn't impose mandatory quarantines, if the government doesn't have that legal authority.  Or banned travel if that's neither the plan nor the practice.

I mean on travel bans, Trump put in place restrictions on China travel on Jan 31st.

On Jan 27 Biden said this:  "I remember how Trump sought to stoke fear and stigma during the 2014 Ebola epidemic. He called President Barack Obama a “dope” and “incompetent” and railed against the evidence-based response our administration put in place — which quelled the crisis and saved hundreds of thousands of lives — in favor of reactionary travel bans that would only have made things worse."  https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/01/27/coronavirus-donald-trump-made-us-less-prepared-joe-biden-column/4581710002/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/01/27/coronavirus-donald-trump-made-us-less-prepared-joe-biden-column/4581710002/)  This is an Op Ed Biden pending that naturally is completely derrogatory of Trump and praising himself and Obama.  Sounds like Biden is flat out saying travel bans should not be used, that they are effectively "reactionary" (which could be code for racist) and make things worse.

At a campaign event on Jan 31, Biden said this:   “The American people need to have a president who they can trust what he says about it, that he is going to act rationally about it. In moments like this, this is where the credibility of the president is most needed, as he explains what we should and should not do. This is no time for Donald Trump’s record of hysteria and xenophobia – hysterical xenophobia – and fearmongering to lead the way instead of science.”  That's on the day, Trump imposed restrictions.  Sounds like Biden doubling down on travel restrictions being ineffective and racist.

Seven day's later is CNN still effectively saying that Trump's travel ban on people being in China was the wrong move and may actually make things worse. https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/07/health/coronavirus-travel-ban/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/07/health/coronavirus-travel-ban/index.html).

That still hasn't changed, you can read anti-travel ban articles on CNN, the NYT's or virtually any left media today.  While I understand the technical points they are making, I think for something this communicable they are being absurd to make the argument that travel bans don't work.  China screwed everyone with their secrecy, they 100% are responsible for helping to turn this into a global pandemic, but they have been able to slow the spread with ruthless internal travel bans.

It's also true that large numbers of the cases in the US are directly connected to specific individuals who came in from infected regions, didn't "self quarantine" and managed to create epicenters.  There are several local ones where individuals not ignored those protocols they travel on mass transit, went to large events and parties, and in some cases continued to operate as religious leaders and meet with large numbers of people.  There are  articles out there today that say it violates the law to impose quarantines on them.

Quote
Seriati, the three prior administrations did not face similar situations. COVID appears to be notably different for other recent pandemics (I don't think any of them even approached 100k infections worldwide).

I said 3 prior, not the prior 3.  In any event, Obama/Biden dealt both with H1N1 - which was transmitted far more broadly and with no hope of containment; and the Ebola scare, which was far more fatal but 100% more containable.  The latter could be looked at in the context of a travel ban, the former in the context of public information, funding, emergency declarations and other responses.

I think we've all heard of the Spanish flu, and while it's from a different era, it certainly provides lessons.

Not to mention, up until we discovered anti-biotics, wide spread fatal illnesses were actually fairly common.  Is how to respond to them just forgotten knowledge?  Granted, travel today is like light speed compared to then, which explodes the expansion rate.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: wmLambert on March 12, 2020, 12:42:11 PM
... it's not here to actually spread information.  It's here to spread misinformation.

There is another aspect than news from the Left vs. news from the Right. There is a middle ground, and I am personally aggravated that anything an honest broker puts out there is labeled Left or Right, when it is just correct. It is hard to get to the beginning of circular arguments,  but sometimes you can. When an argument is nailed down and one can suss out the parameters of the spread of incorrect data, it is the honest duty of all of us to try to dispel the disinformation. I get called out for this all the time, but actually check out the disinformation thoroughly before commenting upon it. I usually ask those who push it to please check what they are saying, but they just get mad, instead of getting smart.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Seriati on March 12, 2020, 12:45:26 PM
Quote
Why did you focus on a tiny part of the response in selecting the material to start the thread, which has a much broader title?  It may appear I'm asking  for a lot of work, but hard to see how you can evaluate an administration's response without any sense of how administrations actually respond.  And you have to take some responsibility for creating yet another thread purpose designed to trigger no-nothing anti-tribe diatribes and their responses.

Your post suggests that we can't evaluate what Trump has and is doing, that somehow we have to find out how much better or worse it is than what other administrations did.  That is the epitome of relative analysis.  If 60,000,000 to 150,000,000 people get the COVID-19 disease, which has a far higher mortality rate than other diseases, like the flu, which might have had infections in something like the same order of magnitude, then he did a pretty good job, right?

You tell me, or just continue with know nothing team responses.

What were the possible end results here given our actual options?  What decision tree points were failures - and yes that part is a relative analysis, declaring an emergency at day x+90 may be "too late" to achieve a specific positive result, but if the average for other admins was x +150 it's still remarkably faster.

If you want to "evaluate" Trump's responses then explain what the basis for your evaluation is.  Lately, my belief on your comments is the basis is:  whatever Trump did is wrong; and I don't have to explain what he should have done.  So prove me wrong, and tell us not only what was wrong, but what would have been right and how it was within his actual legal options to implement and justified by the information available at that time.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 12, 2020, 12:48:40 PM
Lately, my belief on your comments is the basis is:  whatever Trump did is wrong; and I don't have to explain what he should have done.nly what was wrong, but what would have been right and how it was within his actual legal options to implement and justified by the information available at that time.

This type of behavior is a symptom of COVEFE-16. ;D
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 12, 2020, 12:52:26 PM
Quote
You tell me, or just continue with know nothing team responses.

Ping pong response.

Quote
This type of behavior is a symptom of COVEFE-16.

Interesting that you use one of Trump's many incoherent tweets as some sort of attack or defense, I can't tell which.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 12, 2020, 12:55:02 PM
Quote
This type of behavior is a symptom of COVEFE-16.

Interesting that you use one of Trump's many incoherent tweets as some sort of attack or defense, I can't tell which.

One of the more serious signs is a complete loss of sense of humor. You should self-quarantine immediately.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 12, 2020, 12:57:36 PM
Quote
This type of behavior is a symptom of COVEFE-16.

Interesting that you use one of Trump's many incoherent tweets as some sort of attack or defense, I can't tell which.

One of the more serious signs is a complete loss of sense of humor. You should self-quarantine immediately.

I'm on the verge of self-isolating, but taking it one day at a time as new information comes out.  For instance, there haven't been any reported cases in the city I live in.  I found more beer in the cupboard, but 'll need more bourbon first.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Wayward Son on March 12, 2020, 02:31:32 PM
Quote
Earlier this week, I met with the leaders of health insurance industry who have agreed to waive all copayments for coronavirus treatments, extend insurance coverage to these treatments, and to prevent surprise medical billing.

That's from Trump's speech last night.  It needs some amendment, though. (https://q13fox.com/2020/03/12/ap-fact-check-trump-is-wrong-about-insurers-and-coronavirus/)

Quote
No, they did not say they will cover co-pays for treatment. And Trump’s statement about surprise medical billing is questionable.

As Vice President Mike Pence stated more accurately, the insurers agreed to cover coronavirus testing with no cost sharing — so no co-pays or deductibles. That assurance applies to tests that can confirm or rule out the virus, and doesn’t extend to treatment or to other tests that the patient’s doctor may order. Consumers should check with their insurance company because policies may vary on this. They should not count on the president’s word.

What’s more, in the process of diagnosing COVID-19, other tests may be ordered. Insurers have not pledged to waive cost-sharing for those. Co-pays and deductibles may apply for imaging tests such as X-rays or CT scans of the chest, for example, and hospital stays are also subject to cost-sharing.

Federal programs including Medicare, Medicaid, children’s health insurance and “Obamacare” all cover the coronavirus tests. Of particular importance, clinical diagnostic tests are covered under Medicare with no cost-sharing, a longstanding policy. However, cost-sharing may apply for other tests, such as imaging.

When people get sick from the coronavirus, there currently is no antiviral treatment that can cure the disease. Instead, the current treatment is geared to relieving patients’ symptoms and helping them to recover. For those who are very sick, that can involve using machinery to help them breathe. Insurers cover such treatment based on the terms of the individual’s health plan, including any applicable deductibles and co-pays.

As for “surprise billing,” that’s not something insurers can waive because they’re not the ones who do it. Doctors and hospitals generally spring those surprises.

Overall, says Karen Pollitz of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation: “We don’t have a rule yet that says all insurers must do ‘x,’ so flip your insurance card over and call the 800 number.”

So insurers have agreed to make the test free.  The rest is pure fantasy.

Nice to know the President's on top of this.  ::)
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: yossarian22c on March 12, 2020, 02:32:41 PM
Trump:
Quote
"To keep new cases from entering our shores, we will be suspending all travel from Europe to the United States for the next 30 days.  The new rules will go into effect Friday at midnight.  These restrictions will be adjusted subject to conditions on the ground.

"There will be exemptions for Americans who have undergone appropriate screenings, and these prohibitions will not only apply to the tremendous amount of trade and cargo, but various other things as we get approval.  Anything coming from Europe to the United States is what we are discussing." 

Announcing these changes without being clear to Americans abroad how they were getting back home is troublesome. A couple other strange factors is that if you're in continental Europe it seems like you can just travel to the UK and fly from London. The UK hasn't implemented all of their new boarder enforcement yet. Also strange was the omission of South Korea on the banned list. They have the 3rd most active cases in the world.

For everyone who supports Trump and holds things up like the travel ban as him being effective at his job. He still isn't good at implementing the details. Establishing a travel ban with enough details that people have time to get home - or at least know the process for getting home. Getting all the source countries on the list. And getting testing up to speed in the US.

Trump likely isn't personally responsible for the botched roll out of the test kits inside the US. However, cutting the position of "senior director for global health security and biodefense" probably doesn't help matters when trying to coordinate a response to a disease like this. The US testing roll out has been a disaster. States and private labs are now scrambling to develop their own. So honestly I think we're way under-reporting cases right now because there aren't enough tests to go around.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Seriati on March 12, 2020, 03:18:08 PM
Kas makes a literal non-response, Wayward cites to a detailed response to a single line in a speech (which may or may not be actually correct), even though a speech is of necessity short and wouldn't cover all of those points and yoss adds as a throw away that Trump doesn't seem to be responsible for CDC delays but let's blame it on Trump because he did something different that isn't related.

The CDC's issues seem to be very largely bureaucratic and related to their processes for approving, testing and signing off on new treatments.  That's a process Trump has been railing against since before he was elected (and even passed right to try legislation to get around), and has no relation to not keeping a team permanently on staff.

So again the goal seems to be to spread misinformation or misleading takes on information, rather than to actually make a case for what is right or wrong about an approach.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 12, 2020, 03:23:59 PM
Look, you guys are gonna pick it apart no matter what. That's just a given, I'm surprised you haven't called that travel bans xenophobic (many on the left are). There is literally nothing Trump can do that you guys won't say it's wrong, or too late, or ... whatever.

It is clear how Americans abroad will get home.
Quote
The ban restricts European travelers from 26 countries for the next 30 days and will begin Friday. The U.K. and Ireland are exempt, and the suspension applies only to people, not cargo. American citizens will still be able to fly home, but after the start of the ban they will be subject to quarantine upon their return.

It's literally, get on a plane and come home. But, they can also stay where they are and roll the dice on getting back or stuck in the host country.

The European restrictions are because that's where cases are still increasing, it's where most of the virus is expected to come from. The rate of infection in South Korea is leveling off, that's why it was omitted according to officials.

We are absolutely underreporting cases. That's a fact. I know, we should have had COVID-19 test kits stockpiled starting years ago or something according to critics (should we start stockpiling COVID-23 kits now?).

Could things be better? Sure. Always room for improvement. But the frigging hysteria now is absurd.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDeamon on March 12, 2020, 04:34:56 PM
Lately, my belief on your comments is the basis is:  whatever Trump did is wrong; and I don't have to explain what he should have done.nly what was wrong, but what would have been right and how it was within his actual legal options to implement and justified by the information available at that time.
This type of behavior is a symptom of COVEFE-16.

Interesting that you use one of Trump's many incoherent tweets as some sort of attack or defense, I can't tell which.

One of the more serious signs is a complete loss of sense of humor. You should self-quarantine immediately.

I'm on the verge of self-isolating, but taking it one day at a time as new information comes out.  For instance, there haven't been any reported cases in the city I live in.  I found more beer in the cupboard, but 'll need more bourbon first.

Given the comment was Crunch to Seriati, both of whom have no history of animus towards each other. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it has a nearly 100% chance of being a joke which went completely over your head.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: fizz on March 12, 2020, 05:53:27 PM
Quote
We are absolutely underreporting cases. That's a fact. I know, we should have had COVID-19 test kits stockpiled starting years ago or something according to critics (should we start stockpiling COVID-23 kits now?).

Well, the often mocked for its disorganization Italy have managed to do a total of 86000 tests at today, so I think something could have been done.

From what I read, production of new tests has been held back by a global shortage of a key component, reagents used to extract RNA from samples. The US was last in line putting its order in, for some reason.

Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 13, 2020, 08:10:42 AM
Well, looks like it’s out of control now. It’ll take drastic action to protect us.

First, copy Italy and lock it all down. Trump has to do it. Anything less simply won’t work. Total lockdown nationwide. Has to happen.

Second, we gotta postpone the election. It’s too dangerous to campaign, it’s too dangerous to have crowds go to the polls. The only fair thing, the right thing, is to push the election until it’s safe to hold it. Maybe next year, restart the primaries. Trump must postpone the election to save America.

Some of you may object but you have to consider the POTENTIAL. Once you account for the POTENTIAL, I’m sure all of you will agree that this must happen.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: rightleft22 on March 13, 2020, 09:27:58 AM
The cat is out of the bag and most of us will become infected at some point. I think the goal now is to flatten the curve so we don't overwhelm the health care system

To soon to call what should be done with the upcoming elections. A mouth or two from now we may be talking about the next thing...
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: NobleHunter on March 13, 2020, 09:37:29 AM
"the botched response" assumes that it was botched.  What exactly was botched, specifically in the context of our actual laws, historical practice and legal powers of the government?

For example, it's not "botched" that we didn't impose mandatory quarantines, if the government doesn't have that legal authority.  Or banned travel if that's neither the plan nor the practice.

I mean on travel bans, Trump put in place restrictions on China travel on Jan 31st.

On Jan 27 Biden said this:  "I remember how Trump sought to stoke fear and stigma during the 2014 Ebola epidemic. He called President Barack Obama a “dope” and “incompetent” and railed against the evidence-based response our administration put in place — which quelled the crisis and saved hundreds of thousands of lives — in favor of reactionary travel bans that would only have made things worse."  https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/01/27/coronavirus-donald-trump-made-us-less-prepared-joe-biden-column/4581710002/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/01/27/coronavirus-donald-trump-made-us-less-prepared-joe-biden-column/4581710002/)  This is an Op Ed Biden pending that naturally is completely derrogatory of Trump and praising himself and Obama.  Sounds like Biden is flat out saying travel bans should not be used, that they are effectively "reactionary" (which could be code for racist) and make things worse.

At a campaign event on Jan 31, Biden said this:   “The American people need to have a president who they can trust what he says about it, that he is going to act rationally about it. In moments like this, this is where the credibility of the president is most needed, as he explains what we should and should not do. This is no time for Donald Trump’s record of hysteria and xenophobia – hysterical xenophobia – and fearmongering to lead the way instead of science.”  That's on the day, Trump imposed restrictions.  Sounds like Biden doubling down on travel restrictions being ineffective and racist.

Seven day's later is CNN still effectively saying that Trump's travel ban on people being in China was the wrong move and may actually make things worse. https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/07/health/coronavirus-travel-ban/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/07/health/coronavirus-travel-ban/index.html).

That still hasn't changed, you can read anti-travel ban articles on CNN, the NYT's or virtually any left media today.  While I understand the technical points they are making, I think for something this communicable they are being absurd to make the argument that travel bans don't work.  China screwed everyone with their secrecy, they 100% are responsible for helping to turn this into a global pandemic, but they have been able to slow the spread with ruthless internal travel bans.

It's also true that large numbers of the cases in the US are directly connected to specific individuals who came in from infected regions, didn't "self quarantine" and managed to create epicenters.  There are several local ones where individuals not ignored those protocols they travel on mass transit, went to large events and parties, and in some cases continued to operate as religious leaders and meet with large numbers of people.  There are  articles out there today that say it violates the law to impose quarantines on them.

Quote
Seriati, the three prior administrations did not face similar situations. COVID appears to be notably different for other recent pandemics (I don't think any of them even approached 100k infections worldwide).

I said 3 prior, not the prior 3.  In any event, Obama/Biden dealt both with H1N1 - which was transmitted far more broadly and with no hope of containment; and the Ebola scare, which was far more fatal but 100% more containable.  The latter could be looked at in the context of a travel ban, the former in the context of public information, funding, emergency declarations and other responses.

I think we've all heard of the Spanish flu, and while it's from a different era, it certainly provides lessons.

Not to mention, up until we discovered anti-biotics, wide spread fatal illnesses were actually fairly common.  Is how to respond to them just forgotten knowledge?  Granted, travel today is like light speed compared to then, which explodes the expansion rate.

All those words and you couldn't find any to discuss where the response is actually screwing up?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 13, 2020, 09:51:16 AM
What are the "actual" screw-ups?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Wayward Son on March 13, 2020, 11:52:04 AM
Quote
...Wayward cites to a detailed response to a single line in a speech (which may or may not be actually correct), even though a speech is of necessity short and wouldn't cover all of those points...

I'm sorry, Seriati, but what part of Trump's line was a completely and entirely untrue did you miss?

Quote
Earlier this week, I met with the leaders of health insurance industry who have agreed to waive all copayments for coronavirus treatments, extend insurance coverage to these treatments, and to prevent surprise medical billing.

There is simply not a single point in that sentence that is true, except maybe him meeting with leaders of the health insurance industry.

According to my insurer, we still have copayments for treatment.

According to my insurer, there is no "extension" of coverage to anything Covid-19 related.  If it was covered before, it is still covered.  If it wasn't, you're SOL.

According to my insurer, they still only cover costs among preferred providers (which is mainly in-house).  If there are any unusual charges, like by some outside doctor or outside lab, you will still get charged extra, even if it wasn't your decision to use them.

Every single promise he made was false.  How much more detail do you need?

And these are the things most people were concerned about.  While knowing how much money he intends to loan small businesses to keep them afloat is good in the long term (in knowing they will still have jobs once this crisis is over), that's not their immediate concern.  Whether they will go bankrupt in the meantime is more pressing.

Trump told them not to worry.  They're covered.

It ain't true.

So why should they, or us, trust anything this man says when he can't get a few simple facts correct about a subject that most people consider really important?

He can't even get his own travel ban right.  ::)
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Wayward Son on March 13, 2020, 11:54:08 AM
Well, looks like it’s out of control now. It’ll take drastic action to protect us.

First, copy Italy and lock it all down. Trump has to do it. Anything less simply won’t work. Total lockdown nationwide. Has to happen.

Second, we gotta postpone the election. It’s too dangerous to campaign, it’s too dangerous to have crowds go to the polls. The only fair thing, the right thing, is to push the election until it’s safe to hold it. Maybe next year, restart the primaries. Trump must postpone the election to save America.

Some of you may object but you have to consider the POTENTIAL. Once you account for the POTENTIAL, I’m sure all of you will agree that this must happen.

You can almost hear Bill Maher saying it:

"I nailed it.  I told you Trump wouldn't leave the Presidency." ;)
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 13, 2020, 12:02:40 PM
Quote
...Wayward cites to a detailed response to a single line in a speech (which may or may not be actually correct), even though a speech is of necessity short and wouldn't cover all of those points...

I'm sorry, Seriati, but what part of Trump's line was a completely and entirely untrue did you miss?

Quote
Earlier this week, I met with the leaders of health insurance industry who have agreed to waive all copayments for coronavirus treatments, extend insurance coverage to these treatments, and to prevent surprise medical billing.

There is simply not a single point in that sentence that is true, except maybe him meeting with leaders of the health insurance industry.

According to my insurer, we still have copayments for treatment.

According to my insurer, there is no "extension" of coverage to anything Covid-19 related.  If it was covered before, it is still covered.  If it wasn't, you're SOL.

According to my insurer, they still only cover costs among preferred providers (which is mainly in-house).  If there are any unusual charges, like by some outside doctor or outside lab, you will still get charged extra, even if it wasn't your decision to use them.

Every single promise he made was false.  How much more detail do you need?

And these are the things most people were concerned about.  While knowing how much money he intends to loan small businesses to keep them afloat is good in the long term (in knowing they will still have jobs once this crisis is over), that's not their immediate concern.  Whether they will go bankrupt in the meantime is more pressing.

Trump told them not to worry.  They're covered.

It ain't true.

So why should they, or us, trust anything this man says when he can't get a few simple facts correct about a subject that most people consider really important?

He can't even get his own travel ban right.  ::)

According to my insurer, they're doing all that. No co-payments for testing or treating COVID-19. Anything covered previously is still covered, obviously, and that would include things like pneumonia or respiratory illnesses. It's not like they're gonna say that could be related to COVID-19 and refuse it.

So for me, every single promise he made was true. Maybe your provider sucks, ever think of that? Maybe not relying on a single anecdote to make a global pronouncement would be a good idea.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: fizz on March 13, 2020, 12:04:07 PM
Well, *Italy* is going to postpone the administrative (local) elections that were planned during spring, plus a referendum, to a period between 15 October and 15 December.
Ofc we are used to not having fixed dates for elections, so its not a big deal.

I guess depending on how bad the epidemic will be by then you could consider it too... and maybe that was the plan all along! (just joking, if the thing were in doubt ;-))
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 13, 2020, 12:25:29 PM
Quote
World Health Organization chief says Europe now the epicenter of the world's coronavirus pandemic.

So apparently the flight ban from Europe was pretty smart.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDrake on March 13, 2020, 12:41:38 PM
Quote
...Wayward cites to a detailed response to a single line in a speech (which may or may not be actually correct), even though a speech is of necessity short and wouldn't cover all of those points...

I'm sorry, Seriati, but what part of Trump's line was a completely and entirely untrue did you miss?

Quote
Earlier this week, I met with the leaders of health insurance industry who have agreed to waive all copayments for coronavirus treatments, extend insurance coverage to these treatments, and to prevent surprise medical billing.

There is simply not a single point in that sentence that is true, except maybe him meeting with leaders of the health insurance industry.

According to my insurer, we still have copayments for treatment.

According to my insurer, there is no "extension" of coverage to anything Covid-19 related.  If it was covered before, it is still covered.  If it wasn't, you're SOL.

According to my insurer, they still only cover costs among preferred providers (which is mainly in-house).  If there are any unusual charges, like by some outside doctor or outside lab, you will still get charged extra, even if it wasn't your decision to use them.

Every single promise he made was false.  How much more detail do you need?

And these are the things most people were concerned about.  While knowing how much money he intends to loan small businesses to keep them afloat is good in the long term (in knowing they will still have jobs once this crisis is over), that's not their immediate concern.  Whether they will go bankrupt in the meantime is more pressing.

Trump told them not to worry.  They're covered.

It ain't true.

So why should they, or us, trust anything this man says when he can't get a few simple facts correct about a subject that most people consider really important?

He can't even get his own travel ban right.  ::)

According to my insurer, they're doing all that. No co-payments for testing or treating COVID-19. Anything covered previously is still covered, obviously, and that would include things like pneumonia or respiratory illnesses. It's not like they're gonna say that could be related to COVID-19 and refuse it.

So for me, every single promise he made was true. Maybe your provider sucks, ever think of that? Maybe not relying on a single anecdote to make a global pronouncement would be a good idea.

Maybe you're one of the millions of people stuck on a HDHP, where copayments aren't even a thing. Maybe you're one of the millions of people who don't have a health plan at all. Ever think of that?

An anecdote? It's a *censored* prepared speech in teleprompter. There's no excuse for a lack of precision. Although I blame Trump less for that than his speechwriters - unless he flubbed the line, and we'll never know.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 13, 2020, 12:46:31 PM
Quote
Maybe you're one of the millions of people stuck on a HDHP, where copayments aren't even a thing. Maybe you're one of the millions of people who don't have a health plan at all. Ever think of that?

I did think of that. That's why I used my anecdotal story to prove that anecdotal stories are useless. Maybe you should think about that.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDrake on March 13, 2020, 12:55:14 PM
But you see, even one anecdote that refutes a statement refutes the statement. If you've made a logical assertion, it only takes one negative proof to refute the assertion. You don't have to take a survey about it and find out what percentage of people are not covering it.

I suspect they will all waive copayment, eventually, but as usual the administration sprung this so quickly that maybe the major insurers haven't passed the information down yet. Or maybe only a couple of the biggest insurers were included in "the leaders of the health insurance industry".

A better phrasing would probably couch the assertion in proper hedging language.

And in any event it should never have said "treatments" right? Can you at least admit that much?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 13, 2020, 02:26:03 PM
Yeah, he said treatments. I'm not sure if that was appropriate or not. I guess impeachment is the only option now.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: yossarian22c on March 13, 2020, 02:33:08 PM
I'm not sure if that was appropriate or not.

Not. Just like announcing the travel ban from Europe but taking 2 hours to clarify what it meant for Americans abroad is not appropriate, even if a travel ban is. Just like announcing all trade was going to be subject to the travel restriction when there is no such ban is not appropriate. Just like downplaying the seriousness in the early days wasn't the right strategy. If every policy roll out is poorly communicated or bungled then we have a problem. The WH has already come out and retracted most of the parts about the insurance companies paying for everything.

Announcing Trump would negotiate a stimulus/response package with congressional republicans, ignoring democrats was a mistake. Pelosi still controls the house and trying to ignore that fact isn't going to get Trump anything.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 13, 2020, 03:11:34 PM
Sorry, what I meant was I don't know the content of the meeting so I don't know if Trump said something out of line or not based on what was discussed in the meeting.

I am 100% certain that clarifications are always going to be needed due to the intense interest in mischaracterizing everything Trump to paint it in the worst possible light imaginable. When the media willfully misinterprets what he says, it makes clarification necessary.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Wayward Son on March 13, 2020, 04:50:31 PM
Quote
So for me, every single promise he made was true. Maybe your provider sucks, ever think of that? Maybe not relying on a single anecdote to make a global pronouncement would be a good idea.

Except it isn't anecdotal.  Review my link to qfoxnew.com.  No insurance company said they were doing anything special about Covid-19, except not charging for the test.

And so what if it is anecdotal?  Trump said that "the leaders of health insurance industry who have agreed to waive all copayments for coronavirus treatments, extend insurance coverage to these treatments, and to prevent surprise medical billing."  Even one exception proves the lie.

Sounds like you have an exceptional insurer.  Do you ever pay co-pays at all?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Seriati on March 16, 2020, 11:52:58 AM
"the botched response" assumes that it was botched.  What exactly was botched, specifically in the context of our actual laws, historical practice and legal powers of the government?

All those words and you couldn't find any to discuss where the response is actually screwing up?

I'm at a loss to understand your response.  You said it was botched, gave no details on what was botched, I not only asked what you thought was botched, but I even walked through several points and you're acting like I should have made a case for you?  Did I miss something?

What exactly do you think was "botched" and what should have been done instead?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: NobleHunter on March 16, 2020, 12:21:35 PM
The main thing I'm thinking of is the problems about testing and too strict definitions of who was at risk of being infected. Obviously, they should have used the WHO tests or not distributed faulty tests and should have been less strict about only people coming (directly?) from being potentially infected.

My post was also in response to the fact that your post was largely about what Trump did or could have done when I was suggesting that Trump might not be directly responsible.

Sidenote: IRRC, it was public sanitation and germ theory that put an end to the great epidemics of Europe. I'm 60% sure the last proper plagues in Europe notably predate effective antibiotics.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: yossarian22c on March 16, 2020, 01:18:17 PM
What exactly do you think was "botched" and what should have been done instead?

1) Limited and delayed testing - tests are still in short supply.
2) The whole cruise ship - don't let it dock to impact my numbers statement.
3) His false health insurance claims.
4) Causing panic to Americans in Europe by announcing a travel ban without immediately making it clear they would be able to travel home.
5) Generally providing poor information about the disease and its seriousness to the public.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Seriati on March 16, 2020, 02:18:56 PM
Quote
...Wayward cites to a detailed response to a single line in a speech (which may or may not be actually correct), even though a speech is of necessity short and wouldn't cover all of those points...

I'm sorry, Seriati, but what part of Trump's line was a completely and entirely untrue did you miss?

The part where your citation actually proved any of it was untrue.  You seem to have missed that Trump was discussing in a speech a CEO level discussion, an agreement in principle.  Implementation is the step that follows, not the step that proceeds that agreement.  Since that speech, you've seen more and more of the steps being implemented, including in Friday's press conference (which, by the way if you missed it, was phenomenal and should have been what happened instead of the speech).

But even based on what he said, the analysis is poor in the passage you cited.  Trump said:

quote]Earlier this week, I met with the leaders of health insurance industry who have agreed to waive all copayments for coronavirus treatments, extend insurance coverage to these treatments, and to prevent surprise medical billing.[/quote]

Waive copayments, for treatment.  You can look for yourself:  https://www.ahip.org/health-insurance-providers-respond-to-coronavirus-covid-19/ (https://www.ahip.org/health-insurance-providers-respond-to-coronavirus-covid-19/).  It's pretty expansive, with most all health insurance companies agreeing to waive copayments and sometimes any fee sharing on testing for coronavirus - you have to understand of course that when you include self insurance (most corporate plans), we have tens of thousands of plans.  Cost sharing is different from co-payment and most fact checkers (your included) pretended they were the same to say that cost sharing would not be waived.  Some did waive all co-pays, but he didn't say that treatment was free or that deductibles were waived or co-insurance was waived, he said co-pays.

On this one, I think your article and the "fact checkers" are more misleading than he was.  And that's before we even consider what his CEO level conversation may lead to in the future.

Extend insurance coverage to treatments.  This seems to be 100% the case.  Doesn't mean its free, just means it's not excluded from coverage.

Prevent surprise billing.  This one seems like signalling, that surprise bills will get the hammer from regulators.  I think that's very easily a message that could have been agreed in a CEO conference and very likely will be implemented going forward, however, with 10's of thousands of separate plans there will be cases that have to be addressed.

So what did they quibble:

Quote
As Vice President Mike Pence stated more accurately, the insurers agreed to cover coronavirus testing with no cost sharing — so no co-pays or deductibles.

Pence made it clear it was to testing only (which isn't true either if you follow the link, as some company plans may still apply co-pays and some plans will waive co-pays in larger amounts of areas) and deductibles (which Trump didn't even mention).

Quote
That assurance applies to tests that can confirm or rule out the virus, and doesn’t extend to treatment or to other tests that the patient’s doctor may order. Consumers should check with their insurance company because policies may vary on this. They should not count on the president’s word.

Lol.  Yes, if you have non-coronavirus issues they are not covered in the emergency coronavirus coverage. Trump didn't say they were, neither did Pence.  This is just a partisan dig, could easily have just left the last sentence out.  But they go on to list out all the non-coronavirus things that could be wrong with you and not paid for by emergency coronavirus aid, as if it were relevant.

Then they point out that Federal programs literally match with what Trump said - but oh yeah once again they "importantly" point out that non-coronovirus tests aren't covered (nor were they ever, nor did Trump say they were).

Quote
When people get sick from the coronavirus, there currently is no antiviral treatment that can cure the disease. Instead, the current treatment is geared to relieving patients’ symptoms and helping them to recover. For those who are very sick, that can involve using machinery to help them breathe. Insurers cover such treatment based on the terms of the individual’s health plan, including any applicable deductibles and co-pays.

Yes, and some of those deductibles and co-pays are already waived.  In this case, this statement isn't inconsistent with what Trump said, and if anything doesn't reflect updates that Trump was flagging.

Quote
As for “surprise billing,” that’s not something insurers can waive because they’re not the ones who do it. Doctors and hospitals generally spring those surprises.

This one is profound stupidity.  Insurers do in fact have a lot to do with surprise billing.  Almost everyone of those bills is triggered off a permission to bill the patient in an insurers contract with the Hospital.  This one is so obviously a matter that will be the subject of legislation and regulation, and one that insurers are on notice is worth the fight.[/quote]

Quote
So insurers have agreed to make the test free.  The rest is pure fantasy.

So again, pretty much it's an announcement that at the CEO level insurers are agreeing this is the path forward, its a bit industry though and there were not 10k CEOs in the room.  It takes alot to implement a deal.

So that's pretty much why I short hand criticized you.  You cited to a detailed write up that looked in bad faith to try and find fault with an announcement of top down agreement that still has to be implemented.  They could have pointed that out, or read the actual announcements that are implementing it in good faith, instead they basically mislead everyone to try and undermine a fairly straight forward message.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Seriati on March 16, 2020, 02:38:12 PM
The main thing I'm thinking of is the problems about testing and too strict definitions of who was at risk of being infected. Obviously, they should have used the WHO tests or not distributed faulty tests and should have been less strict about only people coming (directly?) from being potentially infected.

The testing problems we have are a direct result of governmental control of the process and bureacray.  The CDC and FDA refused to approve, or even fast track, the WHO tests insisting on maintaining their own monopoly over the process.  If you watched Fridays press conference you heard them talk about it in code (presumably not to offend the bureaucrats), where they praised the prior process as being adequate but for the emergency, while simultaneously announcing they were scrapping it and directly authorizing states and private companies to start producing tests.  Effectively, they ordered the FDA and CDC to get out of the way.

Cuomo's announcement (trying to blame Trump as much as possible) specifically explains that he requested that NY be permitted to manufature its own tests - but the whole reasons they couldn't before has nothing to do with Trump (who expedited their approval to do so) and everything with that bureucratic process that the Dems put in place at the CDC and  FDA.

DeBlaisio's announcement is even worse.  As a result of the CDC/FDA screw up we didn't have enough tests, the private sector freed by Trump is picking up that slack rapidly, therefore deBlaisio is proposing that we nationalize all the medical manufacturers involved so that the government can control this important process.  Only the blind would believe that nationalizing private actors fixing a government mess turning them into government workers is going to help anything.

Quote
My post was also in response to the fact that your post was largely about what Trump did or could have done when I was suggesting that Trump might not be directly responsible.

I actually think his response has been pretty good.  It's pretty clear if you listen to Biden and the left media that they were opposed to travel restrictions, which in this case seem to be the only thing that could have worked (it's an uncurable, highly communicable virus, it's basic health medicine that non-exposure is the only currently effective counter measure).  It's also crystall clear he pushed his legal authority to ban travel pretty close to the limit - I don't believe, for instance,  that he can impose internal travel bans or mandatory quarantine (it's laughable that one of the criticisms of his travel ban is that he upset US citizens abroad by making them afraid they wouldn't be able to return).

Quote
Sidenote: IRRC, it was public sanitation and germ theory that put an end to the great epidemics of Europe. I'm 60% sure the last proper plagues in Europe notably predate effective antibiotics.

I shouldn't have to right the entire history of something to make basic points.  The Spanish flu was a world wide epidemic that predated antibiotics and was after public sanitation and germ theory.  And yes it's a virus, but it's death toll was so high in part because of secondary infections that attacked already weakened immune systems.  Antibiotics completely re-wrote that equation, not to mention directly attacking numerous conditions that good hygeine was previously the only way to slow.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Seriati on March 16, 2020, 02:49:21 PM
What exactly do you think was "botched" and what should have been done instead?

1) Limited and delayed testing - tests are still in short supply.

It troubles me how much people don't understand that the short supply is directly attributable to the administrative state, and it's the political state - ie Trump - that broke that logjam.  After talking to some people in the FDA who were adamant their process had to be followed and the WHO tests couldn't be used, frankly I'm amazed he was able to do so.

Quote
2) The whole cruise ship - don't let it dock to impact my numbers statement.

The cruise industry has been mismanaged on a global basis.  No cruises should have been allowed to dock and exchange passengers in hot spots.  Off ship mandatory quarantines should have been required.  I mean if you look at the Diamond Princess in Japan, they pretty much sentenced those people to become infected by requiring they stay on the ship.

Without the power to impose mandatory quarantine there is no good solution.  So what do you think should have been done differently?

Quote
3) His false health insurance claims.

Except pretty much not false, and if you watched Friday's press conference pretty clear him and/or his administration mobilized the private sector at a level and buy in that we haven't seen since World War II.

Quote
4) Causing panic to Americans in Europe by announcing a travel ban without immediately making it clear they would be able to travel home.

Without the ability to mandatory quarantine, I can live with that.  It should be a condition of return, even for citizens, that you agree to quarantine under legal penalty.  In any event, the "panic" was caused entirely by the media, the details were available before people in Europe even woke up the next morning (Trump's speech would have been midnight or later for much of Europe).

Quote
5) Generally providing poor information about the disease and its seriousness to the public.

I see.  I think that's entirely in the eye of the beholder.  Accurate information has been available at all times.  Most of the criticism of Trump's information is quibbles and bad faith challenges - effectively if Trump didn't lay out the worst possible case then it was misinformation in their mind, and if he did then it was mishandled. 

I get you don't like Trump, but in none of that did you actually describe the specific thing that was "botched" and what the correct answer would be.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: NobleHunter on March 16, 2020, 02:58:10 PM
So you agree with me that Trump is catching flack for stuff he probably couldn't affect directly?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 16, 2020, 03:45:40 PM
What's happening is the media is lying. They are lying.

For example, how many of you believe Trump “dissolved the office” in charge of pandemic preparedness? It's been heavily reported - did it get mentioned in this thread anywhere? The problem is, that is a half-truth designed to mislead. Trump did shrink the NSC --  it went from 100 persons to 400 in just a few years under the Obama administration. But the NSC retained its epidemic personnel -- they just merged with biodefense and counterproliferation.  Yes, an "office" was dissolved. But most of the personnel making up that office were retained and added to a new, merged office. So they say "the office" was dissolved and intend you to take that to mean that the epidemic unit was disbanded. A lie.

Another lie making the rounds today, I'll quote Mara Gay of the NYT editorial board:

Quote
Trump told governors this morning they are on their own:
 “Respirators, ventilators, all of the equipment — try getting it yourselves,” Mr. Trump told the governors during the conference call, a recording of which was shared with The New York Times.

She selectively edited the quote. Immediately after that, Trump said, "We will be backing you, but try getting it yourselves. Point of sales, much better, much more direct if you can get it yourselves."

This is the NYT blatantly lying to us.

If you read anything from the NYT or anyone that works for it, you should assume it's a lie. Odds are, it is.

If you think Trump is doing something stupid or not responding properly, consider your source of information. If that source pushed any of these lies, then it's safe to assume they are lying to you again.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 16, 2020, 05:46:37 PM
Quote
What's happening is the media is lying. They are lying.

I am so glad that I'm not playing this game with you anymore.  Are you a bot?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDrake on March 16, 2020, 06:32:56 PM
The media is lying, as published by... The media? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/16/no-white-house-didnt-dissolve-its-pandemic-response-office/)

Quote
When I joined the National Security Council staff in 2018, I inherited a strong and skilled staff in the counterproliferation and biodefense directorate. This team of national experts together drafted the National Biodefense Strategy of 2018 and an accompanying national security presidential memorandum to implement it; an executive order to modernize influenza vaccines; and coordinated the United States’ response to the Ebola epidemic in Congo, which was ultimately defeated in 2020.

It is true that the Trump administration has seen fit to shrink the NSC staff. But the bloat that occurred under the previous administration clearly needed a correction. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, congressional oversight committees and members of the Obama administration itself all agreed the NSC was too large and too operationally focused (a departure from its traditional role coordinating executive branch activity). As The Post reported in 2015, from the Clinton administration to the Obama administration’s second term, the NSC’s staff “had quadrupled in size, to nearly 400 people.” That is why Trump began streamlining the NSC staff in 2017.

By his own guy, defending him, he shrank the staff. Now maybe that's bloat, or maybe it was necessary in order to handle the crisis most effectively. That's up for debate.

They also took a unit that was dedicated to eat sleep and breathe something, and munged them in.

So I could say that the criticism is partially deserved, but I don't disagree that there's more nuance than the soundbites.

Quote
“It would be nice if the office was still there,” Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institute of Health, told Congress this week. “I wouldn’t necessarily characterize it as a mistake (to eliminate the unit). I would say we worked very well with that office.”

So that is a hedge.

But setting all that aside, Trump might have been able to make that defense himself. After all, he was the one who ordered it streamlined? Instead he said this (full transcript - no selective editing):

Quote
Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President. Yamiche Alcindor from PBS NewsHour. My first question is you said that you don't take responsibility, but you did disband the White House pandemic office, and the officials that were working in that office left this administration abruptly. So what responsibility do you take to that? And the officials that worked in that office said that the White House lost valuable time because that office was disbanded. What do you make of that?"
President Trump: "Well, I just think it's a nasty question, because what we've done is, and Tony [Fauci] has said numerous times, that we've saved thousands of lives because of the quick closing. And when you say me, I didn't do it. We have a group of people. I could perhaps ask Tony about that, because I don't know anything about it. I mean, you say we did that. I don't know anything about it."
Reporter: "You don't know about the reorganization that happened at the National Security Council?"
Trump: "It's the administration, perhaps they do that, let people do, you used to be with a different newspaper than you are now, you know things like that happen."
Reporter: "But this is a reorganization at the National Security Council."
Trump: "Please go ahead. We're doing a great job. Let me tell you, these professionals behind me, these great, incredible doctors and businesses people, the best in the world, and I can say that, whether it's retailers or labs or anything you want to say, these are the best in the world. We're doing a great job. And we are 40 people right now, 40, compare that with other countries that have many, many times that amount, and one of the reasons we have 40 and others have, and again, that number is going up, just so you understand. And the number of cases, which are very small relatively speaking, it's going up. We've done a great job, because we acted quickly, we acted early, and there's nothing we could have done that was better than closing our borders to highly infected areas."

So he doesn't defend the action. He's either unaware it ever happened, or is lying about not knowing about it. He might well be unaware it ever happened. He might have just told somebody "reduce the NSC staff by 50% I don't care how you do it".

It is also unclear exactly what impact, if any, it had on preparedness and response. It might have gone down the same way. But it's just silly to say that the press is lying.

If my division gets dissolved, but some of us find a job elsewhere in the company with some of the same responsibilities, the division still got dissolved. The leadership was gone. The focus was gone.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDeamon on March 16, 2020, 07:18:00 PM
2) The whole cruise ship - don't let it dock to impact my numbers statement.

The cruise industry has been mismanaged on a global basis.  No cruises should have been allowed to dock and exchange passengers in hot spots.  Off ship mandatory quarantines should have been required.  I mean if you look at the Diamond Princess in Japan, they pretty much sentenced those people to become infected by requiring they stay on the ship.

Without the power to impose mandatory quarantine there is no good solution.  So what do you think should have been done differently?

The Cruise Ship situation is a bit more complicated than that, several of those ships had thousands of people on board. The long-term impact on how that one gets addressed will be interesting to see. Okay, a highly contagious and dangerous disease has broken out on one of the 5,000 passenger (+several hundred crew) cruise ships. You now need get everyone off the ship and into a better suited quarantine facility. Where are most host nations going to be able to securely and safely handle nearly 6,000 people?

The "Easiest fix" on that front is that new design mandates are likely for the (new construction) mega-cruise ships. They're likely going to be mandated to have some kind of "quarantine mode" that can be engaged with regards to the ventilation system if nothing else.

The simple truth of the matter is that most areas would have nowhere to put those people. What they did was the best of a bunch of bad options. Sure some middle ground probably should have been pursued, maybe commandeer a hotel or three(or more), hold "a lottery" to get people relocated from off the ship and into those hotels instead where they could then ride out the rest of the quarantine period before continuing on with their life. Except they would have had the same contagion problem to potentially address within many hotels as well. But with the added need to provide food services to the people who are essentially locked in their hotel rooms, and creating an even larger group of people(the hotel staff) potentially being exposed in the process. Meanwhile, the cruise ship was already setup to feed everyone, and the service staff has already been exposed. Might as well make use of them and the resources at hand.

Thing is the re-hosting in hotels option gets expensive for parties beyond the cruise line, and gets into a "who is paying for this" fight that I'm sure was going on regardless. Once they're off the ship, I'm sure the cruise lines wanted to wash their hands of any responsibility beyond transportation costs.

Quote
Quote
4) Causing panic to Americans in Europe by announcing a travel ban without immediately making it clear they would be able to travel home.

Without the ability to mandatory quarantine, I can live with that.  It should be a condition of return, even for citizens, that you agree to quarantine under legal penalty.  In any event, the "panic" was caused entirely by the media, the details were available before people in Europe even woke up the next morning (Trump's speech would have been midnight or later for much of Europe).

Which isn't to mention all they'd have to do is contact the local consulate or embassy and probably get answers that way. Upon hearing about the ban, I was reasonably certain that even if they missed the Friday cutoff, the state department would help make "special arrangements" to get them out of the area, much as they did for Americans in the Wuhan Province in China.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDeamon on March 16, 2020, 07:29:34 PM
The media is lying, as published by... The media? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/16/no-white-house-didnt-dissolve-its-pandemic-response-office/)

Quote
It is true that the Trump administration has seen fit to shrink the NSC staff. But the bloat that occurred under the previous administration clearly needed a correction. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, congressional oversight committees and members of the Obama administration itself all agreed the NSC was too large and too operationally focused (a departure from its traditional role coordinating executive branch activity). As The Post reported in 2015, from the Clinton administration to the Obama administration’s second term, the NSC’s staff “had quadrupled in size, to nearly 400 people.” That is why Trump began streamlining the NSC staff in 2017.

By his own guy, defending him, he shrank the staff. Now maybe that's bloat, or maybe it was necessary in order to handle the crisis most effectively. That's up for debate.

From the defense made by Trump's own guy, it sounds to me like the NSC staff had bloated to the point that they were trying to exercise control over things at a level that was inappropriate for the office that it was. Maybe the better response would have been to create a government agency specifically focused on that issue(which I thought was a CDC thing already?), but hey, administrators love adding more levels of administration to things.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: yossarian22c on March 17, 2020, 09:20:19 AM
What exactly do you think was "botched" and what should have been done instead?

1) Limited and delayed testing - tests are still in short supply.

It troubles me how much people don't understand that the short supply is directly attributable to the administrative state, and it's the political state - ie Trump - that broke that logjam.  After talking to some people in the FDA who were adamant their process had to be followed and the WHO tests couldn't be used, frankly I'm amazed he was able to do so.

It took 2 months for him to address the testing issue. That's the problem. He's the head of all those agencies. There is supposed to be an emergency use license process for developing tests in a pandemic type situation. It managed to function properly during the H1N1 pandemic, with labs being able to get their tests approved in less than a week. The same process didn't function properly under Trump. Maybe we're seeing the effects of Trump consistently under staffing positions that require Senate approval and disbanding groups of government that focus on pandemic response. Saying Trump is the hero in this story is a bunch of crap. He's only the hero in his own analysis.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: yossarian22c on March 17, 2020, 09:25:32 AM
Quote
2) The whole cruise ship - don't let it dock to impact my numbers statement.

The cruise industry has been mismanaged on a global basis.  No cruises should have been allowed to dock and exchange passengers in hot spots.  Off ship mandatory quarantines should have been required.  I mean if you look at the Diamond Princess in Japan, they pretty much sentenced those people to become infected by requiring they stay on the ship.

Without the power to impose mandatory quarantine there is no good solution.  So what do you think should have been done differently?

Cruise ships are like kids day care for adults. They've always been hotbeds of disease. The fact that cruises didn't immediately begin shutting down as the pandemic ramped up is crazy. But my issue is that Trump was advocating for the diamond princess solution. Don't let them dock - I don't want it to hurt my numbers.

The Diamond Princess happened several weeks prior to the boat in American waters. We didn't have a plan for getting the people off the boat nor had we canceled cruises. That's the problem.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: yossarian22c on March 17, 2020, 09:40:57 AM
Quote
4) Causing panic to Americans in Europe by announcing a travel ban without immediately making it clear they would be able to travel home.

Without the ability to mandatory quarantine, I can live with that.  It should be a condition of return, even for citizens, that you agree to quarantine under legal penalty.  In any event, the "panic" was caused entirely by the media, the details were available before people in Europe even woke up the next morning (Trump's speech would have been midnight or later for much of Europe).

And their families or friends wouldn't have watched the speech and called people oversees at the time? It was a planned speech. How hard would it have been to have the policy paper come out first or to add two sentences to the speech to clarify that their would be a process for allowing all American's oversees to return home normally? Announcing the policy vaguely then clarifying hours later was poor governing. The order of events should have been the other way - put out a press release with all the details, then state it clearly in the speech so people oversees don't needlessly panic.

This is a relatively minor issue - it doesn't really effect how quickly the virus spreads but is an example of poor governance. Causing US citizens abroad and their families undo anxiety or panic for absolutely no reason.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: yossarian22c on March 17, 2020, 09:56:48 AM
Quote
5) Generally providing poor information about the disease and its seriousness to the public.

I see.  I think that's entirely in the eye of the beholder.  Accurate information has been available at all times.  Most of the criticism of Trump's information is quibbles and bad faith challenges - effectively if Trump didn't lay out the worst possible case then it was misinformation in their mind, and if he did then it was mishandled. 

I get you don't like Trump, but in none of that did you actually describe the specific thing that was "botched" and what the correct answer would be.

A couple things here. Someone on another thread posted a detailed list of Trump quotes that definitely underplayed the seriousness of the threat. I won't go through those again but he consistently downplayed the threat.

I will agree that accurate information has been available, just not from Trump. We could discuss his promises of testing vs what is feasible to even deliver, much less what has actually been accomplished.

In terms of actually botched that has a big impact on the spread of the disease. Testing, testing, testing. We had about 1-2 months before the disease started spreading in the US. We should have had a much more robust testing infrastructure in place by now. If you want to blame a mid-level bureaucrat for that failure then fine, but the WH should have addressed that issue before last week.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDrake on March 17, 2020, 01:16:19 PM
Quote
Trump told governors this morning they are on their own:
 “Respirators, ventilators, all of the equipment — try getting it yourselves,” Mr. Trump told the governors during the conference call, a recording of which was shared with The New York Times.

She selectively edited the quote. Immediately after that, Trump said, "We will be backing you, but try getting it yourselves. Point of sales, much better, much more direct if you can get it yourselves."

Except none of that even makes sense. Why on earth would a state government be more capable of acquiring a respirator than the federal government? Why would 50 negotiations be better than one? What on earth does "backing you" even mean? With funds?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDeamon on March 17, 2020, 01:19:01 PM
Quote
Trump told governors this morning they are on their own:
 “Respirators, ventilators, all of the equipment — try getting it yourselves,” Mr. Trump told the governors during the conference call, a recording of which was shared with The New York Times.

She selectively edited the quote. Immediately after that, Trump said, "We will be backing you, but try getting it yourselves. Point of sales, much better, much more direct if you can get it yourselves."

Except none of that even makes sense. Why on earth would a state government be more capable of acquiring a respirator than the federal government? Why would 50 negotiations be better than one? What on earth does "backing you" even mean? With funds?

Bureaucracy is a thing, getting the Federal Government out of playing middle man helps speed along the process.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: NobleHunter on March 17, 2020, 01:21:06 PM
Unless every manufacturer has 50 RFQs to process instead of one.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 17, 2020, 01:31:16 PM
And, well, if there is a shortage of stock and manufacturing needs to ramp up, 50 competing bids will absolutely work better than a single order... not
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: yossarian22c on March 17, 2020, 01:35:00 PM
And, well, if there is a shortage of stock and manufacturing needs to ramp up, 50 competing bids will absolutely work better than a single order... not

Well, the manufacturer may be able to get a better price with 50 desperate customers bidding against each other. So there’s that.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDrake on March 17, 2020, 01:55:51 PM
And Idaho can get a jump on New York and corner the market.  :P
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 17, 2020, 02:15:30 PM
Quote
Well, the manufacturer may be able to get a better price with 50 desperate customers bidding against each other. So there’s that.
Wrong.  George in Topeka already placed an order effectively scooping up all available manufacturing for the next month - Amazon is currently trying to delist his ads...
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 17, 2020, 02:38:10 PM
Quote
CNN host Dana Bash offered rare praise of President Trump’s handling of the Coronavirus Tuesday; saying the Commander-in-Chief is “being the kind of leader that people need” in times of “crisis and uncertainty.”

“If you look at the big picture, this was remarkable from the President of the United States. This was not partisan, an important thing to note from an American standpoint, from a human standpoint,” said CNN’s Dana Bash.

“He is being the kind of leader that people need… That people need, and want, and yearn for in times of crisis and uncertainty,” she added.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDrake on March 17, 2020, 02:45:49 PM
Finally I might agree with Trump that CNN is fake news. :)

Here is the actual context:

Quote
Many have noticed the notable change in President Donald Trump’s tone in publicly talking about the coronavirus, and on CNN Tuesday, Dana Bash offered some words of praise to the president for that shift.

Trump spoke and took questions at a coronavirus briefing Tuesday afternoon, after which Bash said, “This was remarkable from the president of the United States, this is a non-partisan — this is an important thing to note and to applaud from an American standpoint, from a human standpoint. He is being the kind of leader that people need, at least in tone, today and yesterday… that people need and want and yearn for in times of crisis and uncertainty.”

Bash did say it’s likely POTUS was “convinced” to change his tone by others and was encouraged by what his shift means for the public response to the virus:

“The fact that the president has been convinced to be different, whether it was Chris Christie’s op-ed asking him to do it, whether it was Newt Gingrich sitting in Italy watching firsthand what’s happening, or his friends at Fox news who have changed their tone — probably all of the above is what happened. But it is so important to hear him strike that tone of calm and of understanding of how incredibly dire this is.”
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDeamon on March 17, 2020, 02:54:02 PM
And Idaho can get a jump on New York and corner the market.  :P

So far, none of Idaho's confirmed cases have needed hospital care last i heard. Hopefully steps were taken in time that it remains that way.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDrake on March 17, 2020, 03:26:49 PM
And Idaho can get a jump on New York and corner the market.  :P

So far, none of Idaho's confirmed cases have needed hospital care last i heard. Hopefully steps were taken in time that it remains that way.

They haven't. That doesn't stop the state from buying all the capacity and reselling it to New York.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 17, 2020, 05:03:47 PM
Quote
Andrew Cuomo praises the Trump admin:

“His team is on it. They have been responsive late at night, early in the morning. And thus far, they have been doing everything that they can do, and I want to say thank you, and I want to say that I appreciate it.”
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 17, 2020, 05:06:09 PM
Finally I might agree with Trump that CNN is fake news. :)

Here is the actual context:

Quote
Many have noticed the notable change in President Donald Trump’s tone in publicly talking about the coronavirus, and on CNN Tuesday, Dana Bash offered some words of praise to the president for that shift.

Trump spoke and took questions at a coronavirus briefing Tuesday afternoon, after which Bash said, “This was remarkable from the president of the United States, this is a non-partisan — this is an important thing to note and to applaud from an American standpoint, from a human standpoint. He is being the kind of leader that people need, at least in tone, today and yesterday… that people need and want and yearn for in times of crisis and uncertainty.”

Bash did say it’s likely POTUS was “convinced” to change his tone by others and was encouraged by what his shift means for the public response to the virus:

“The fact that the president has been convinced to be different, whether it was Chris Christie’s op-ed asking him to do it, whether it was Newt Gingrich sitting in Italy watching firsthand what’s happening, or his friends at Fox news who have changed their tone — probably all of the above is what happened. But it is so important to hear him strike that tone of calm and of understanding of how incredibly dire this is.”

Yeah, had to go “clarify” herself on Twitter.  Cuomo will too, deviations from the message will be addressed promptly. 
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDrake on March 17, 2020, 05:37:23 PM
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he finally seems to be taking it seriously also.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 17, 2020, 06:00:51 PM
Everyone seems to have a limit on how much damage they’re willing to accept.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: wmLambert on March 17, 2020, 06:55:08 PM
Everyone seems to have a limit on how much damage they’re willing to accept.

Sure, everyone sets their own parameters on everything, but that does not make it a negative factor.

I've listened intently to all the medical professionals, and I have not yet seen anyone stake out a position this Covid-19 is worse than other flus. It may be too early for that, but the main difference seems to be the lack of an effective vaccine. Even with vaccines, no one seems too upset with the high contagion and death rates for the legacy flues. This one seems more targeted toward respiratory illnesses, but you never hear the conditions that combined with the other flues to cause deaths. so I don't know how to really compare.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDeamon on March 17, 2020, 07:51:45 PM
I've listened intently to all the medical professionals, and I have not yet seen anyone stake out a position this Covid-19 is worse than other flus. It may be too early for that, but the main difference seems to be the lack of an effective vaccine. Even with vaccines, no one seems too upset with the high contagion and death rates for the legacy flues. This one seems more targeted toward respiratory illnesses, but you never hear the conditions that combined with the other flues to cause deaths. so I don't know how to really compare.

Uh what? An estimated 20% hospitalization rate, with 4%(of the 100, not the 20) requiring intensive care and 1%(of the 100, not the 20, or the 4) needing ventilators makes it worse than just about every strain of "the flu" encountered in the past few decades.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 17, 2020, 09:38:36 PM
Not to pile on, but... I'm going to pile on.

First off covid-19 is not influenza - it is not a "flu".

Secondly, you haven't seen anybody what?  Have you simply been avoiding all media, or is your filter that strong?

Up until recently, essentially everybody outside of the Trump administration was saying just that, that the novel coronavirus is going to be much worse than a seasonal flu.  Now, since the report from London's Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team was published suggesting upwards of 500,000 deaths in the UK and upwards of 2,000,000 deaths in the USA if the countries did nothing to specifically address the pandemic, even the Trump administration and Fox News are accepting that there needs to be a concerted effort to reduce deaths involving case isolation, social distancing of the entire population, household quarantine and school/university closure.

So yes, 2,200,000 dead Americans is way worse than a seasonal flu.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 18, 2020, 08:56:40 AM
Quote
2,200,000 dead Americans

Anyone truly believe this will happen?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: fizz on March 18, 2020, 09:03:07 AM
Quote
2,200,000 dead Americans

Anyone truly believe this will happen?

Well, that's the worst-case scenario of letting the virus run free without intervention, following from statistics and epidemiological models.

I've already posted it, but this https://xkcd.com/2278/ (https://xkcd.com/2278/) continue to be relevant...
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: yossarian22c on March 18, 2020, 09:04:13 AM
Quote
2,200,000 dead Americans

Anyone truly believe this will happen?

No. But that is what could happen if we treated this like the flu and went about our daily lives as normal. That's why everything is being shut down - to prevent 2.2 million deaths.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 18, 2020, 09:24:31 AM
Quote
2,200,000 dead Americans

Anyone truly believe this will happen?
No.  That was the worst case projection if the USA did nothing as far as mitigation or suppression. What part of "if the countries did nothing to specifically address the pandemic" was unclear?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 18, 2020, 11:43:59 AM
So maybe you should make sure you say that when you float the 2.2 million dead. Stop making hysterical comments, that's the point I'm getting at. It's so irresponsible to throw out worst-case scenarios without any context.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: yossarian22c on March 18, 2020, 11:50:08 AM
Quote
...2,000,000 deaths in the USA if the countries did nothing to specifically address the pandemic,...

Emphasis mine. The proper context is there already if you were looking for it.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 18, 2020, 11:51:12 AM
Quote
...2,000,000 deaths in the USA if the countries did nothing to specifically address the pandemic,...

Emphasis mine. The proper context is there already if you were looking for it.

That is not the post I was addressing. Thanks for playing.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 18, 2020, 11:53:22 AM
So, response to the pandemic - here's one. 

Due to the coronavirus crisis, Philadelphia police will no longer be making arrests for all narcotics offenses, theft from persons, retail theft, theft from auto, burglary, vandalism, bench warrants, stolen autos, economic crimes such as passing bad checks, fraud, & prostitution.

This sounds great.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: yossarian22c on March 18, 2020, 11:56:03 AM
Quote
...2,000,000 deaths in the USA if the countries did nothing to specifically address the pandemic,...

Emphasis mine. The proper context is there already if you were looking for it.

That is not the post I was addressing. Thanks for playing.

Okay, then maybe you could clarify what post you were referring too. Because that is in the original post where the 2 - 2.2 million figure came from that everyone else was replying too. No one else seemed to have that hard a time understanding it was a do nothing scenario.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 18, 2020, 12:22:28 PM
It was literally the post directly above mine. actually the exact sentence. Right in the flow of conversation.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 18, 2020, 12:23:57 PM
Trump has invoked the Defense Production Act:

Quote
The Act contains three major sections. The first authorizes the President to require businesses to sign contracts or fulfill orders deemed necessary for national defense. The second authorizes the President to establish mechanisms (such as regulations, orders or agencies) to allocate materials, services and facilities to promote national defense. The third section authorizes the President to control the civilian economy so that scarce and/or critical materials necessary to the national defense effort are available for defense needs.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: yossarian22c on March 18, 2020, 12:32:07 PM
Trump has invoked the Defense Production Act:

Quote
The Act contains three major sections. The first authorizes the President to require businesses to sign contracts or fulfill orders deemed necessary for national defense. The second authorizes the President to establish mechanisms (such as regulations, orders or agencies) to allocate materials, services and facilities to promote national defense. The third section authorizes the President to control the civilian economy so that scarce and/or critical materials necessary to the national defense effort are available for defense needs.

Socialist.

Just kidding - this is maybe justified I don't know what the logistics/supplies he's hoping to address right now are.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: fizz on March 18, 2020, 01:00:15 PM
It was literally the post directly above mine. actually the exact sentence. Right in the flow of conversation.

Yes, and in that same post there is also the "if the countries did nothing to specifically address the pandemic,..."

Read all the post that you commented to, the one exactly before yours, from beginning to end.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 18, 2020, 02:01:16 PM
Here are the two posts, verbatim, as they display one immediately following the other:
Not to pile on, but... I'm going to pile on.

First off covid-19 is not influenza - it is not a "flu".

Secondly, you haven't seen anybody what?  Have you simply been avoiding all media, or is your filter that strong?

Up until recently, essentially everybody outside of the Trump administration was saying just that, that the novel coronavirus is going to be much worse than a seasonal flu.  Now, since the report from London's Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team was published suggesting upwards of 500,000 deaths in the UK and upwards of 2,000,000 deaths in the USA if the countries did nothing to specifically address the pandemic, even the Trump administration and Fox News are accepting that there needs to be a concerted effort to reduce deaths involving case isolation, social distancing of the entire population, household quarantine and school/university closure.

So yes, 2,200,000 dead Americans is way worse than a seasonal flu.

Quote
2,200,000 dead Americans

Anyone truly believe this will happen?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 18, 2020, 02:15:28 PM
Everyone seems to have a limit on how much damage they’re willing to accept.

Sure, everyone sets their own parameters on everything, but that does not make it a negative factor.

I've listened intently to all the medical professionals, and I have not yet seen anyone stake out a position this Covid-19 is worse than other flus. It may be too early for that, but the main difference seems to be the lack of an effective vaccine. Even with vaccines, no one seems too upset with the high contagion and death rates for the legacy flues. This one seems more targeted toward respiratory illnesses, but you never hear the conditions that combined with the other flues to cause deaths. so I don't know how to really compare.
As an aside - Donald Trump is now claiming that he has always known the novel coronavirus was a pandemic.  He's always known... That it's real... That it's a pandemic. He felt it was a pandemic long before it was even called a pandemic.  You might want to add Trump to that long list of non-existent people who think Covid-19 is worse than a seasonal flu.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDeamon on March 18, 2020, 02:53:36 PM
So, response to the pandemic - here's one. 

Due to the coronavirus crisis, Philadelphia police will no longer be making arrests for all narcotics offenses, theft from persons, retail theft, theft from auto, burglary, vandalism, bench warrants, stolen autos, economic crimes such as passing bad checks, fraud, & prostitution.

This sounds great.

Not just them. It makes a degree of sense, Jails/prisons have a lot of people living in close contact with one another. The LAST thing any state, county, or city wants to deal with is a medical emergency brought on by Covid-19 getting into their jails/prisons. If they have the least bit of reason to suspect a person might have it, they have every reason to NOT introduce them into the population already in custody at corrections. (Where they would then have to cover any and all medical expenses incurred)

Which means a weird kind of reverse triage is in play at this point. In order to keep their inmate population healthy, they can't bring new inmates into the system without a really compelling case for doing so. Basically, anything short of Violent crime is likely to be "catch and release" for the next couple of months.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 18, 2020, 03:07:44 PM
Quote
Basically, anything short of Violent crime is likely to be "catch and release" for the next couple of months.
At the very least, the police should tell the offenders to self-quarantine.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: yossarian22c on March 18, 2020, 03:08:35 PM
Quote
Basically, anything short of Violent crime is likely to be "catch and release" for the next couple of months.
At the very least, the police should tell the offenders to self-quarantine.

Lots of ankle monitors and house arrest.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 18, 2020, 05:28:01 PM
Remember Trump saying treatment would be free? Well:
Quote
Health system Baylor Scott & White made the decision Tuesday night to waive out-of-pocket fees for patients who have had e-visits with medical professionals prompted by the BS&W COVID-19 questionnaire.

Quote
those who appear to be at risk for COVID-19, based on their symptoms and experiences, won’t be charged for the e-visit whatsoever.

So there's some truth to it. Not as far as some of you may like but definitely not just smoke.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 21, 2020, 06:59:59 AM
Washington Post: US intelligence warned Trump in January and February as he dismissed coronavirus threat (https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/20/politics/us-intelligence-reports-trump-coronavirus/index.html)
Quote
(CNN)President Donald Trump ignored reports from US intelligence agencies starting in January that warned of the scale and intensity of the coronavirus outbreak in China, The Washington Post reported Friday.

Citing US officials familiar with the agencies' reports and warnings, the Post reported that intelligence agencies depicted the nature and global spread of the virus and China's apparent downplaying of its severity, as well as the potential need for government measures to contain it -- while Trump opted to dismiss or simply not address their seriousness.
Putting aside Trump, who 'owns' the intelligence generated by intelligence agencies paid for by a government?

One can debate whether it is the president's responsibility to hide information from 'the markets' with the goal of manipulating them in certain ways, but what rationales exist for hiding information about health risks from the public?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 21, 2020, 07:17:40 AM
The police are probably also worried about catching it. They will be in close proximity to these people. They'd have to be wearing gloves and in the care they'd have to be wearing masks and the Surgeon General says the masks wouldn't help them anyway.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 21, 2020, 08:11:32 AM
Washington Post: US intelligence warned Trump in January and February as he dismissed coronavirus threat (https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/20/politics/us-intelligence-reports-trump-coronavirus/index.html)
Quote
(CNN)President Donald Trump ignored reports from US intelligence agencies starting in January that warned of the scale and intensity of the coronavirus outbreak in China, The Washington Post reported Friday.

Citing US officials familiar with the agencies' reports and warnings, the Post reported that intelligence agencies depicted the nature and global spread of the virus and China's apparent downplaying of its severity, as well as the potential need for government measures to contain it -- while Trump opted to dismiss or simply not address their seriousness.
Putting aside Trump, who 'owns' the intelligence generated by intelligence agencies paid for by a government?

One can debate whether it is the president's responsibility to hide information from 'the markets' with the goal of manipulating them in certain ways, but what rationales exist for hiding information about health risks from the public?
CNN, dude. Might as well quote Alex Jones.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 21, 2020, 08:27:29 AM
Don't be an idiot, dude.  It's a direct reference to a Washington Post article behind a pay wall.

Do you dispute the facts, and do you also disparage links I post from Fox because... Fox News?

Good on ya though for using an ad hominem to completely avoid the topic though.  +1
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 21, 2020, 08:38:17 AM
Here are the two posts, verbatim, as they display one immediately following the other:
Up until recently, essentially everybody outside of the Trump administration was saying just that, that the novel coronavirus is going to be much worse than a seasonal flu.  Now, since the report from London's Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team was published suggesting upwards of 500,000 deaths in the UK and upwards of 2,000,000 deaths in the USA if the countries did nothing to specifically address the pandemic, even the Trump administration and Fox News are accepting that there needs to be a concerted effort to reduce deaths involving case isolation, social distancing of the entire population, household quarantine and school/university closure.

So yes, 2,200,000 dead Americans is way worse than a seasonal flu.

Quote
2,200,000 dead Americans

Anyone truly believe this will happen?

Those 2 posts were followed by these:
Quote from: DonaldD
No.  That was the worst case projection if the USA did nothing as far as mitigation or suppression. What part of "if the countries did nothing to specifically address the pandemic" was unclear?
Quote from: Crunch
So maybe you should make sure you say that when you float the 2.2 million dead. Stop making hysterical comments, that's the point I'm getting at. It's so irresponsible to throw out worst-case scenarios without any context.
To quote Crunch: "SMH".  Just read the actual post to which you are responding.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: LetterRip on March 21, 2020, 09:01:40 AM
Not paywalled here, I think it might be exempt due to the agreement by many news sites that coronavirus related articles are exempt,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/us-intelligence-reports-from-january-and-february-warned-about-a-likely-pandemic/2020/03/20/299d8cda-6ad5-11ea-b5f1-a5a804158597_story.html
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 21, 2020, 09:26:58 AM
Hmmm... That link still prompts me to subscribe in order to read the article.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 21, 2020, 09:38:58 AM
Don't be an idiot, dude.  It's a direct reference to a Washington Post article behind a pay wall.

Do you dispute the facts, and do you also disparage links I post from Fox because... Fox News?

Good on ya though for using an ad hominem to completely avoid the topic though.  +1

It’s CNN and, like Infowars, complete horse*censored*.

I’m not disputing facts, I’m disputing hysteria and the near constant “orange man bad” message you and others focus on.

And I didn’t use an ad hominem, as you just did. You should have gone for poisoning the well. Jesus, as much as you use logical fallacies it seems like you’d get the names of them right.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 21, 2020, 11:44:11 AM
a) telling you not to be an idiot is not an ad hominem fallacy, and
b) kudos on posting yet still continuing to avoid the point/topic
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 21, 2020, 01:19:23 PM
Ignore every lie told by FOX and Limbaugh and their acolytes like Crunch.  You can never win an argument with them because of how they cherry pick facts and deny things that they had previously insisted were true while attacking anyone who held a different view.  Instead, look at how they have influenced their audience as the crisis has developed.  The key indicator for their dishonesty about the coronavirus is that in the last month, as the number of reported cases and deaths has steadily declined, only about 40% of their FOX viewers and Limbaugh listeners now see the pandemic as a serious crisis.  Many people in their audience continue to insist on going out to eat where possible and ignoring self-isolation guidelines.  It's quite possible that there will be far more Republican victims by the time the pandemic finally fades.

The simple bottom line response that people like them (and their acolytes) will sneer at is, it's not a hoax if people say things you don't want to hear.  You'll never get King Donald to respect that, but maybe when the dying ramps up some others will come around.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 21, 2020, 01:45:24 PM
a) telling you not to be an idiot is not an ad hominem fallacy, and
b) kudos on posting yet still continuing to avoid the point/topic

So what is your point, that intelligence agencies warned of a pandemic and Trump did nothing? That he hid the severity of it from the public?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: ScottF on March 21, 2020, 01:48:51 PM
I don't weigh the lies from FOX and their acolytes any more or less than the other networks. We've created a model that encourages the worst behaviour for all of them.

I don't watch either of them but from the snippets I've seen, Hannity and Maddow may as well been separated a birth but ideologically breastfed from opposite teats.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 21, 2020, 01:49:49 PM
Sorry, obvious typo correction:

 
Quote
The key indicator for their dishonesty about the coronavirus is that in the last month, as the number of reported cases and deaths has steadily declined increased, only about 40% of their FOX viewers and Limbaugh listeners now see the pandemic as a serious crisis.

Quote
So what is your point, that intelligence agencies warned of a pandemic and Trump did nothing? That he hid the severity of it from the public?

Thanks for helping make my point.  Rather than graciously concede the truth in what I wrote, you turn it into a challenge that I need to back up things I didn't say.  OTOH, your assertions are absolutely correct.  You still going to restaurants and Orange-Man-God parties?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 21, 2020, 01:51:05 PM
I was not responding to you. The key was in noticing the source of the quote I addressed. 8)
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 21, 2020, 01:52:21 PM
I don't weigh the lies from FOX and their acolytes any more or less than the other networks. We've created a model that encourages the worst behaviour for all of them.

I don't watch either of them but from the snippets I've seen, Hannity and Maddow may as well been separated a birth but ideologically breastfed from opposite teats.

Out of idle curiosity, where to CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, Reuters fit into your pantheon of news sources?  If none of them, where do you get news you can trust?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 21, 2020, 01:57:39 PM
I was not responding to you. The key was in noticing the source of the quote I addressed. 8)

You made it anyway :).
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: ScottF on March 21, 2020, 02:00:16 PM
I actually don't have a goto source, maybe I should. I tend to follow a lot of "independent" (no such thing) thinkers on twitter, as well as the outlets you've mentioned, but again on twitter. I then pick and choose and nurture my bias by drilling into whichever source seems useful or interesting.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDeamon on March 21, 2020, 05:01:41 PM
Going to throw this link out there for people to look at, many of you should find it very useful:

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: wmLambert on March 21, 2020, 05:18:09 PM
Going to throw this link out there for people to look at, many of you should find it very useful:

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56

Within that link it said:
"Do you notice something weird about this list of countries? Outside of China and Iran, which have suffered massive, undeniable outbreaks, and Brazil and Malaysia, every single country in this list is among the wealthiest in the world.

Do you think this virus targets rich countries? Or is it more likely that rich countries are better able to identify the virus?"

More likely, wealthier nations have more travel-related contact with carriers.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDeamon on March 21, 2020, 05:44:02 PM
Going to throw this link out there for people to look at, many of you should find it very useful:

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56

Within that link it said:
"Do you notice something weird about this list of countries? Outside of China and Iran, which have suffered massive, undeniable outbreaks, and Brazil and Malaysia, every single country in this list is among the wealthiest in the world.

Do you think this virus targets rich countries? Or is it more likely that rich countries are better able to identify the virus?"

More likely, wealthier nations have more travel-related contact with carriers.

That's my takeaway, more wealth = more travel; More travel = more exposure; More exposure = More infections. It's part of my take-away regarding the Covid-19 outbreak happening in Blaine County, Idaho at present(Sun Valley Ski Resort), they've been an "A List" celebrity ski destination since Union Pacific started promoting it back in the 1930's. Ernest Hemmingway is buried out there, Arnold Schwarzenegger has a vacation home there, so on and so forth. So a lot of the Jet-Set crowd travels in and out of there regularly.

Which is how Blaine County, with only about 1.5% of the State's population, has 19 of the 32 known cases in the state as of last night. Compared to the (greater) Boise Valley area, which comprises more than half of the state's population, only has 5 cases. Idaho has an additional 3 cases in other counties where I know winter tourism is a significant part of the local economy there or in an immediately adjacent area(Jackson Hole, Wyoming; which now has its own Covid-19 cases going on, and also is home to plenty of vacation homes belonging to multi-millionaires; to the point where many who work in Jackson Hole live in Idaho as they cannot afford to live in Jackson... But Sun Valley so far seems to have been hit a LOT harder).
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: wmLambert on March 21, 2020, 08:04:42 PM
There have been several posts in this thread alluding to Democrats using the Coronavirus crisis to make political hay. There have also been several apologist replies addressing that, by condemning those who support the assertion and calling it conspiracy theory and basically bad manners.

Pelosi trying to insert abortion language into a pandemic relief bill only exacerbates this thinking. I was thinking about earlier thoughts on why there are Progressive attitudes that may welcome the crisis. If one truly believes the ends justify the means, then there are basic tenets underlying this that shouldn't be ignored. The Left has grown uo believing some pretty heinous things, and has every right to try to bring their ideals to fruition, if they really believe.

What are these roots?

D. H. Lawrence, Aldous Huxley, H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, and Virginia Woolf, were bright lights amongst the Left, unarguably successful talents and admired thinkers. What they were taught as children is what caused their beliefs they have published. But since they were bright lights in an earlier era, they spoke plainly and honestly. Their words are more blunt than present day celebrity pols, but more clearly define what the present day Left-wing/atheistic movement is all about.

These spotlighted intellectuals were ultra-elite Progressives who made no bones about their innate superiority over the intellectually turgid who can't handle knowledge even when it is spoon-fed them in government schools. Lawrence proposed, "all schools should be closed at once. The great mass of humanity should never learn to read and write." The hatred and disgust for the intellectually vapid underclass was spelled out by Huxley and Wells. Huxley said "about 95.5 percent of the entire population of the planet are stupid and philistine." Woolf described others as social inferiors. Her diary mentioned self-taught working class men. "We know how distressing they are." Other women using public lavatory were "common little tarts." Middle-class working women in a restaurant eating cakes were "scented, shoddy, parasitic. Where does the money come [from] to feed these fat white slugs?" Wells fought for an atheist world government, because he said all wars are caused by popular patriotism and religious belief. His burning anti-Semistism was so pronounced that Eleanor Roosevelt asked Wells to leave the country. Shaw joins Wells in the idea that global domination must be brought about by genocide. In a time before Hitler, they wanted the mentally and physically unfit to be exterminated. According to Wells, "the swarms of black, brown, dirty-white, and yellow people in Africa and Asia will have to go." In Europe the "vicious, helpless and pauper masses, the weak and silly and pointless, and the lumpy, unteacheable, unimaginative people must be annihilated in a mercifle obliteration through disease, starvation, and execution." Shaw said, the "extermination must be put on a scientific basis if it is ever to be carried out humanely and apologetically as well as thoroughly. ...If we desire a certain type of civilization and culture, we must exterminate the sort of people who do not fit into it."

I was recently reminded to include Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood in our list of Leftist icons. She supported Nazi-style Eugenics to weed out the undeserving:
Quote from: The Pivot of Civilization (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1689)
Modern studies indicate that insanity, epilepsy, criminality, prostitution, pauperism, and mental defect, are all organically bound up together and that the least intelligent and the thoroughly degenerate classes in every community are the most prolific. Feeble-mindedness in one generation becomes pauperism or insanity in the next. There is every indication that feeble-mindedness in its protean forms is on the increase, that it has leaped the barriers, and that there is truly, as some of the scientific eugenists have pointed out, a feeble-minded peril to future generations - unless the feeble-minded are prevented from reproducing their kind. To meet this emergency is the immediate and peremptory duty of every State and of all communities.

I wonder if cleansing the world of the infirm and elderly would help this mindset.

Pelosi may just think it was an opportunity to push her abortion ideals and may have nothing to do with genocide and social cleansing, but the targeted victims of this virus may resonate with what Huxley and Wells wished for.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 22, 2020, 07:58:27 AM
Recent polling shows that evangelicals and Republicans don't take the coronavirus nearly as seriously as others do.  One evangelical said,

Quote
“Well, I don’t want to be judgmental, but I guess that’s fine if you want to live in fear rather than trusting in the Lord.”

One Republican Congressman said,

Quote
“They call it the coronavirus. I call it the beer virus. How do you like that?”

It must be hard when reality doesn't conform to your religious or political beliefs.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 22, 2020, 08:49:09 AM
You oughta know.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 22, 2020, 09:19:13 AM
What's very interesting is that in almost no other country but the USA, have politics so dominated the discourse on public health and the response to the pandemic.  Yes, the UK was originally choosing a mitigation strategy as well, but it wasn't framed as a progressive vs conservative strategy.

Only in the USA has the pandemic response taken a back seat to the politics of acknowledging the facts and risks associated to it.

wmLambert's last post is a case in point: the administration's reactions had been exclusively political in nature up until this past week. And yes, Democrats had also been making political hay from Trump's inept and frankly dangerous lack of coherency on the topic. But I guarantee you that people like wmLambert are completely oblivious to that dynamic. 

Your body politic is basically broken beyond repair.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 22, 2020, 09:32:56 AM
You oughta know.

Projection is a powerful rhetorical device when you have no defense.  "Oh, yeah?!?  Well, look who's talking!"

What's very interesting is that in almost no other country but the USA, have politics so dominated the discourse on public health and the response to the pandemic.  Yes, the UK was originally choosing a mitigation strategy as well, but it wasn't framed as a progressive vs conservative strategy.

Only in the USA has the pandemic response taken a back seat to the politics of acknowledging the facts and risks associated to it.

wmLambert's last post is a case in point: the administration's reactions had been exclusively political in nature up until this past week. And yes, Democrats had also been making political hay from Trump's inept and frankly dangerous lack of coherency on the topic. But I guarantee you that people like wmLambert are completely oblivious to that dynamic. 

Your body politic is basically broken beyond repair.

This is exactly right.  Our politics have moved steadily away from the so-called democratic principles it was based on for the simple reason that it only works by agreement among all parties and interests involved.  It's as if banks didn't lock their money up and nobody would steal it because it didn't belong to them.  Then somebody got the bright idea that nobody would stop them and taught others that no one would stop them, either.  In the case of politics, democracy has been stolen and we're close to bankrupt.

The hope is that once the pandemic has claimed its victims and abated that enough of those who remain will not just realize that there has to be a better way, but will make it happen.  Others will double-down and try to steal what little remains.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDeamon on March 22, 2020, 11:53:41 AM
My thing is the Democrats were seemingly seeking to blow up the economy as early as January when the first Covid-19 cases hit the United States. We've had freaking Ebola believed to escape containment in the US during the Obama Admin. The Trump Admins response to Covid-19 shared a LOT in common with the Ebola incident right up until the last few weeks.

Yes, we had Ebola(or Covid-19) in the country. No, the public need not be freaking out about the situation as it was believed to be "under control" by public health authorities. Right up to the moment they realized it was not under control with respect to Covid-19.

Were there Republicans and Conservatives helping fan the flames of fear during the Ebola situation? Yes. The press gave it a lot of attention too, but they also spent a lot of time trying to calm people down. Not so with Covid-19 and a Republican in the White House.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: LetterRip on March 22, 2020, 12:29:26 PM
My thing is the Democrats were seemingly seeking to blow up the economy as early as January when the first Covid-19 cases hit the United States.

No it would have saved the economy.  It was clear by late January that extreme containment measures would need to be taken to have any chance of minimizing spread, and the sooner action was taken the better the odds.

Quote
We've had freaking Ebola believed to escape containment in the US during the Obama Admin.

Ebola while deadly isn't contagious until symptomatic and the symptoms are obvious (ie can't be confused with flu or a cold).  So it is fairly easy to contain.

Quote
The Trump Admins response to Covid-19 shared a LOT in common with the Ebola incident right up until the last few weeks. Yes, we had Ebola(or Covid-19) in the country. No, the public need not be freaking out about the situation as it was believed to be "under control" by public health authorities. Right up to the moment they realized it was not under control with respect to Covid-19.

The public absolutely didn't need to freak over Ebola.  The reason it was such an issue in Africa is because their funeral rites resulted in a high risk of spread.

Quote
In addition, researchers [1–4] concur that the widespread embracing of certain traditional and religious practices among West African communities had tremendous negative effects on the spreading of the disease. In concurrence, the World Health Organization (WHO) [5] contents that nearly 60% of all Ebola cases reported in Guinea can be linked to traditional burial practices.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4709130/

It's RO in a modern country is less than 1 (given that 60% of spread was funeral rites - that implies an RO of .7-.9 without spread due to those rites), even though in Africa it was 1.5-2.  Also it wasn't contagious until the invididual is symptomatic - so 'stay away from sick people' was adequate to contain it - the only real risk was to medical personnel treating the individual and people in intimate contact after the individual was symptomatic (which was mostly family).

For COVID-19 we have known for quite awhile that it can be spread by asymptomatic individuals.  By January 20th it was clear that it wasn't going to be contained by both public health officials, intelligence agencies, and the military.

Quote
Were there Republicans and Conservatives helping fan the flames of fear during the Ebola situation? Yes. The press gave it a lot of attention too, but they also spent a lot of time trying to calm people down. Not so with Covid-19 and a Republican in the White House.

The Republicans and Conservatives were being completely irresponsible.  The risk of Ebola was tiny with proper response and it was clear to anyone who had a basic understanding of the issues.  It is quite the opposite with COVID-19.  While it is less deadly on an individual basis - it can't be contained without extreme measures.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 22, 2020, 12:32:41 PM
My thing is the Democrats were seemingly seeking to blow up the economy as early as January when the first Covid-19 cases hit the United States. We've had freaking Ebola believed to escape containment in the US during the Obama Admin. The Trump Admins response to Covid-19 shared a LOT in common with the Ebola incident right up until the last few weeks.

Yes, we had Ebola(or Covid-19) in the country. No, the public need not be freaking out about the situation as it was believed to be "under control" by public health authorities. Right up to the moment they realized it was not under control with respect to Covid-19.

Were there Republicans and Conservatives helping fan the flames of fear during the Ebola situation? Yes. The press gave it a lot of attention too, but they also spent a lot of time trying to calm people down. Not so with Covid-19 and a Republican in the White House.

Like a bleached blonde showing her roots, you're betraying your conservative anti-Democratic bias.  Why would Democrats and the press *want* to blow up the economy?  Why would Democrats *want* to let millions of people get sick and perhaps die just because there's a Repubican in the White House?

Speaking as one of the "liberals" several people on this forum despise with an unquenchable lack of empathy, I'll tell you what I think.  First, Trump is both stupid and mentally ill, as witnessed by hundreds of his own utterances and actions.  Second, it didn't take even a stable genius to recognize that the coronavirus was going to go big, bad and deadly when it was first learned about.  South Korea and the US learned of it on the same day, and South Korea took strong action immediately; we didn't.  Our Intelligence Agencies warned Trump well before this became a public emergency that it was likely to happen, but Trump not only did nothing, but pretended that it was a minor problem and would go away "quickly" and disappear as if by a "miracle".

You can disagree with some or even all of my analysis, but it's deeply offensive that you would imagine that I, or anybody not on some far fringe, would *want* the economy to tank or people to die just because there is a Republican in the White House.

Likewise, give up trying to pin anything that is happening today on Obama.  He's been out of office for over 3 years.  At what point does Trump start taking responsibility for any bad news that happens on his watch?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDeamon on March 22, 2020, 01:18:12 PM
Likewise, give up trying to pin anything that is happening today on Obama.  He's been out of office for over 3 years.  At what point does Trump start taking responsibility for any bad news that happens on his watch?

How is contrasting things against the Obama Administrations handling of an outbreak "attempting to blame Obama" for what is happening now?

It was demonstrating how a few seemingly isolated cases making it into the United States isn't necessarily the end of the world. It didn't end then.

You're also ignoring the broken (analog) clock scenario. Of course people were warning "it could get worse" as they have contingency planers for almost everything and some people are naturally inclined towards doom and gloom. They predict doom enough times, they'll eventually be right.

You're ignoring that there were likewise probably plenty of experts who were saying "the measures we're taking right now(January/early February) should be sufficient to ensure containment of the virus within our borders."

There also is the whole matter of hindsight being 20/20 and the President needing to strike a balance between what's probable, vs possible, vs cost of action now vs cost of action later.

If the President locked down the country every time "team doom" predicted it's eminent arrival, we'd never leave a state of lockdown.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 22, 2020, 02:22:32 PM
Quote
You're ignoring that there were likewise probably plenty of experts who were saying "the measures we're taking right now(January/early February) should be sufficient to ensure containment of the virus within our borders."

What were those measures?  Remember, Trump said repeatedly that it was going to just disappear on its own.  Eventually, of course, that will be true.

Quote
There also is the whole matter of hindsight being 20/20 and the President needing to strike a balance between what's probable, vs possible, vs cost of action now vs cost of action later.

Then why are so many conservative outlets and commentators, as well as Trump himself, laying blame on Obama?  You can't seriously suggest that's not happening and that Trump isn't doing it.

Quote
If the President locked down the country every time "team doom" predicted it's eminent arrival, we'd never leave a state of lockdown.

I consider this a particularly weaselly defense.  Just because other "team doom" predictions may not have panned out, nobody is to blame for not taking this one seriously.  An "abundance of caution" was eschewed in favor of turning a blind eye to the potential dangers and insisting nothing bad was going to happen.  Don't take my word for it, go back and listen to Trump's pronouncements.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: wmLambert on March 22, 2020, 02:56:02 PM
Likewise, give up trying to pin anything that is happening today on Obama.  He's been out of office for over 3 years.  At what point does Trump start taking responsibility for any bad news that happens on his watch?

How is contrasting things against the Obama Administrations handling of an outbreak "attempting to blame Obama" for what is happening now?

It was demonstrating how a few seemingly isolated cases making it into the United States isn't necessarily the end of the world. It didn't end then.

You're also ignoring the broken (analog) clock scenario. Of course people were warning "it could get worse" as they have contingency planers for almost everything and some people are naturally inclined towards doom and gloom. They predict doom enough times, they'll eventually be right.

You're ignoring that there were likewise probably plenty of experts who were saying "the measures we're taking right now(January/early February) should be sufficient to ensure containment of the virus within our borders."

There also is the whole matter of hindsight being 20/20 and the President needing to strike a balance between what's probable, vs possible, vs cost of action now vs cost of action later.

If the President locked down the country every time "team doom" predicted it's eminent arrival, we'd never leave a state of lockdown.

Very good response.

There has always been two strings to the Trump response to the news from Wuhan. It was the day after the news broke that he put restrictions on travel. He was condemned for that. The second string of his bow was the bully pulpit, trying to ameliorate the economic impact of the restrictions. He was condemned for that also.

All through this time period, the Left has said "the administration's reactions had been exclusively political in nature up until this past week. And yes, Democrats had also been making political hay from Trump's inept and frankly dangerous lack of coherency on the topic."

That is itself political and incoherent. How can Trump closing the border so quickly be "inept?" How can his assembling the greatest minds so quickly, and actually listening to them be considered wrong? How can trying to spread hope and soften the affect of doom and gloom on the economy be unbalanced or dangerous?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 22, 2020, 03:36:06 PM
Quote
That is itself political and incoherent. How can Trump closing the border so quickly be "inept?" How can his assembling the greatest minds so quickly, and actually listening to them be considered wrong? How can trying to spread hope and soften the affect of doom and gloom on the economy be unbalanced or dangerous?

Take it from Yogi, "You can see a lot just by observing," but observing doesn't mean you can see what that is.  It's really a wasted effort to argue with you, but I would imagine that most people can see what you're saying by observing.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 22, 2020, 04:11:56 PM
Quote
My thing is the Democrats were seemingly seeking to blow up the economy as early as January
This is just stupid, and is a concrete example of the very failure of US politics that I mentioned earlier.

That you clearly don't realize that your position is transparently ridiculous is more evidence of the same.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDeamon on March 22, 2020, 04:23:41 PM
Quote
My thing is the Democrats were seemingly seeking to blow up the economy as early as January
This is just stupid, and is a concrete example of the very failure of US politics that I mentioned earlier.

That you clearly don't realize that your position is transparently ridiculous is more evidence of the same.

The Democrats spent a LOT of 2004 talking about how the economy was bad under Bush, and the Media supported them--because they know the incumbent has a hard time winning during a sour economy--See Bush v Clinton in 1992, Reagan v Carter in 1980, Kennedy v Nixon in 1960.

They also weren't particularly rosy on the economy well in advance of the collapse that happened in 2008, but hey that helped bring Obama into office.

So it is hardly a stretch to believe that political operatives and staunch (Democratic) partisans, would be almost gleeful at the prospect of something that could throw the economy into a skid or even protracted downturn, as it would make it much easier to campaign against Donald Trump. They have a history of doing it, and history has a record which gives them a compelling reason to want to try it.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 22, 2020, 04:59:03 PM
Quote
So it is hardly a stretch to believe that political operatives and staunch (Democratic) partisans, would be almost gleeful at the prospect of something that could throw the economy into a skid or even protracted downturn, as it would make it much easier to campaign against Donald Trump. They have a history of doing it, and history has a record which gives them a compelling reason to want to try it.

Sorry, dude, but that thinking is infected with a deadly political virus.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: yossarian22c on March 22, 2020, 05:35:28 PM
Trump gets a good mark stopping travel from China. It probably delayed the outbreak here by 2 weeks. However he wasted those two weeks. We didn't stock up on medical supplies, ventilators, PPE, and get a robust testing network set up. We didn't start all those actions until the **** started hitting the fan. So now we're playing catch up and more people will die than necessary, the economy will be shut down for longer than it would have otherwise been, and I hope to got he doesn't screw up the stimulus too. Because 1 trillion isn't going to cut it. We need 2 trillion minimum for the economy to rebound the way everyone wants it too.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDeamon on March 22, 2020, 05:42:33 PM
Quote
So it is hardly a stretch to believe that political operatives and staunch (Democratic) partisans, would be almost gleeful at the prospect of something that could throw the economy into a skid or even protracted downturn, as it would make it much easier to campaign against Donald Trump. They have a history of doing it, and history has a record which gives them a compelling reason to want to try it.

Sorry, dude, but that thinking is infected with a deadly political virus.

Anecdotally:

http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/4232.html#000013
July 27, 2004
Quote from: Pete
Why are we even talking about fiscal conservatism during a war AND a recession?

That's like talking about long-term water conservation while your city is burning down.

http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/4233.html#000032
July 27, 2004
Quote from: OhPuhLeez
Daruma says
Quote
We are in the third straight quarter of job growth and a booming economy.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=568&e=4&u=/nm/20040727/bs_nm/economy_budget_dc

Or not.

A booming economy?
Are you kidding me?
Who are YOU hanging around with???

http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/4233.html#000036
July 27, 2004
Quote from: Everard
The economy isn't terrible... its simply worse then it would be if Gore had won the presidency, and not as good as it was when Bush took office, and a lower percentage of americans have jobs, a lower percentage have good jobs, and a lower percentage have equivalenent benefits, compared to 1999.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_2000s#United_States
Quote
The Labor Department estimates that a net 1.735 million jobs were shed in 2001, with an additional net 508,000 lost during 2002. 2003 saw a small gain of a mere 105,000 jobs. Unemployment rose from 4.2% in February 2001 to 5.5% in November 2001, but did not peak until June 2003 at 6.3%, after which it declined to 5% by mid-2005.

"Ah but it peaked in June of 2004, and you're quoting them in July of the same year, they didn't have the data yet!"
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDeamon on March 22, 2020, 05:45:20 PM
Trump gets a good mark stopping travel from China. It probably delayed the outbreak here by 2 weeks. However he wasted those two weeks. We didn't stock up on medical supplies, ventilators, PPE, and get a robust testing network set up. We didn't start all those actions until the **** started hitting the fan. So now we're playing catch up and more people will die than necessary, the economy will be shut down for longer than it would have otherwise been, and I hope to got he doesn't screw up the stimulus too. Because 1 trillion isn't going to cut it. We need 2 trillion minimum for the economy to rebound the way everyone wants it too.

I like how this is being portrayed as singularly "Trump's fault" while it completely ignores that practically every other ""1st world nation" also screwed the pooch on this one.

Trump did what was prudent at the time. The "problem" was that other countries (notably Italy) did not, and kept travel to China open a bit longer, and that in turn resulted in a much larger spread through vectors other than directly from China. The only way he have stopped that was to also impose travel restriction on any country that also didn't activate a travel restriction against China, and then run it recursively from there where you subsequently enact restrictions on the countries that don't restrict those countries, and so on.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 22, 2020, 06:01:43 PM
Quote
I like how this is being portrayed as singularly "Trump's fault" while it completely ignores that practically every other ""1st world nation" also screwed the pooch on this one.

I continue to be amazed at the extents you will go to give Trump a pass for screwing up.  Aren't we the most well-developed nation in the world with the most well-developed economy and a great health care system and social welfare system?  You want to compare us to a bunch of loser countries as if to say we aren't doing worse than them, and make that our excuse?  Really?!?!?!
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: fizz on March 22, 2020, 06:35:47 PM
Quote
I like how this is being portrayed as singularly "Trump's fault" while it completely ignores that practically every other ""1st world nation" also screwed the pooch on this one.

Trump did what was prudent at the time. The "problem" was that other countries (notably Italy) did not, and kept travel to China open a bit longer, and that in turn resulted in a much larger spread through vectors other than directly from China. The only way he have stopped that was to also impose travel restriction on any country that also didn't activate a travel restriction against China, and then run it recursively from there where you subsequently enact restrictions on the countries that don't restrict those countries, and so on.


First of all, Italy did close borders to China even earlier than the US did, just after a couple of Chinese tourist fell ill while in Italy on the 23th of January, and were promptly isolated.
Quote
From a BBC news article of the 1st of February:
The US and Australia said they would deny entry to all foreign visitors who had recently been in China, where the virus first emerged in December.
Earlier, countries including Russia, Japan, Pakistan and Italy announced similar travel restrictions.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51338899

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/analysis/analysis-italy-coronavirus-trauma/1770016

By then, Coronavirus had already entered, more silently, by way of a German businessman that had just met on 21st of January an asymptomatic Chinese businesswoman.
That German businessman company had some sites in the first Italian hot spot town, Codogno, and from employee to employee it did spread by way of asymptomatic patients.

Genetic drift analysis, according to the article, track the same variant strain to spots in Mexico, Finland and Scotland, that happened in a similar time frame.
https://tg24.sky.it/mondo/2020/03/07/coronavirus-paziente-zero-tedesco-contagio-europa.html

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2001468

The point is, closing borders when you've already cases inside your border is, well, not useless, because at least it moderate the spread, but largely insufficient, if you leave movement free inside the border: the virus was stopped where instant tracking and isolation where put in force.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/20/eradicated-coronavirus-mass-testing-covid-19-italy-vo

Even more than China, whose methods while efficient are a bit extreme for western democracies, I think South Korea is the model we should look at: they had an huge flare up due to that cult, but after that they managed to really rein in the spreading.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: wmLambert on March 22, 2020, 06:59:47 PM
Quote
So it is hardly a stretch to believe that political operatives and staunch (Democratic) partisans, would be almost gleeful at the prospect of something that could throw the economy into a skid or even protracted downturn, as it would make it much easier to campaign against Donald Trump. They have a history of doing it, and history has a record which gives them a compelling reason to want to try it.

Sorry, dude, but that thinking is infected with a deadly political virus.

The response to the quote is the definitive debate fallacy of "Laughter by Intimidation:" ((See Appeals to Prejudice) Representing the advocate as being out of step with "right-thinking people" to the point where everyone laughs at your ridiculous viewpoint. No rebuttal is offered - just ridicule the messenger.}

Since every big election in living memory has been targeted by "November Surprises" and the lead-up to Presidential elections have had to endure purposeful sabotage to sour the economy, it is clearly not just wishful thinking to point out that "political operatives and staunch (Democratic) partisans, would be almost gleeful at the prospect of something that could throw the economy into a skid or even protracted downturn." Why do apologists for the Democrats never remember the off-season, wherein the Democrat scoundrels admit to what they had done? Of course they do so by saying "both sides do it," but neglect to mention the court cases that prove they did it, but the other side didn't.

Does anyone recall the successful first term of Bush 43, when he brought bipartisanship to a new high, only to have the Democrats unilaterally remove themselves from his many working groups, because they believed he was "stealing their issues?" It was after Ted Kennedy led his school reforms and brought about NCLB that they read the writing on the wall. After that, it was "Anything Bush fights for, we will oppose." It is hard to forget Obama campaigning against the energy sector and leading the fight against off-shore drilling, fracking, oil pipelines, and Anwar. Fuel prices soared and tourism tanked. Schumer attacked IndyMac, causing investors to bail, which started the real estate bubble collapse. Am I the only one who lived through these times?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: yossarian22c on March 22, 2020, 07:27:10 PM
Trump gets a good mark stopping travel from China. It probably delayed the outbreak here by 2 weeks. However he wasted those two weeks. We didn't stock up on medical supplies, ventilators, PPE, and get a robust testing network set up. We didn't start all those actions until the **** started hitting the fan. So now we're playing catch up and more people will die than necessary, the economy will be shut down for longer than it would have otherwise been, and I hope to got he doesn't screw up the stimulus too. Because 1 trillion isn't going to cut it. We need 2 trillion minimum for the economy to rebound the way everyone wants it too.

I like how this is being portrayed as singularly "Trump's fault" while it completely ignores that practically every other ""1st world nation" also screwed the pooch on this one.

Richard Burr called it. Guess Trump should have talked with him. He figured it out in Feb that he needed to sell all of his stocks. Would have been nice if the Senator had acted to help the country instead of protecting his investments. But to say this was completely unpredictable or that Trump only messed up as much as other world leaders is just crazy. We got at least a couple weeks longer than some other countries to prepare and we just didn't.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 22, 2020, 08:25:21 PM
Quote
My thing is the Democrats were seemingly seeking to blow up the economy as early as January
This is just stupid, and is a concrete example of the very failure of US politics that I mentioned earlier.

That you clearly don't realize that your position is transparently ridiculous is more evidence of the same.

The Democrats spent a LOT of 2004 talking about how the economy was bad under Bush, and the Media supported them--because they know the incumbent has a hard time winning during a sour economy--See Bush v Clinton in 1992, Reagan v Carter in 1980, Kennedy v Nixon in 1960.

They also weren't particularly rosy on the economy well in advance of the collapse that happened in 2008, but hey that helped bring Obama into office.

So it is hardly a stretch to believe that political operatives and staunch (Democratic) partisans, would be almost gleeful at the prospect of something that could throw the economy into a skid or even protracted downturn, as it would make it much easier to campaign against Donald Trump. They have a history of doing it, and history has a record which gives them a compelling reason to want to try it.
I won't debate whether the Democrats in 2004 "were talking about how the economy was bad under Bush" or whether, acting as the opposition, they were making the case of how their policies would have provided a better response to the recession - although I will point out that the latter is basically the responsibility of the opposition party - to present an alternative option.

Regardless of that debate, it is unquestionable that your silly statement was different in kind, not just degree, from your attempted defense: you very clearly stated that you believed the Democrats were "seeking to blow up the economy" - not just to benefit from a bad economy, or even to gleefully watch the economy burn (again, debatable) but to sabotage the economy.  That was the stupid bit.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 22, 2020, 08:55:05 PM
Twitter: Rand Paul at the Senate gym this morning (https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1241799144559251456)

I don't know what's crazier - that the senate gym is still open, or that a federal senator, after having symptoms significant enough to have been tested, was still going to the gym, never mind self-isolating.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 23, 2020, 06:41:45 AM
Quote
Am I the only one who lived through these times?

You dance through a maze of facts like a 400lb ballerina.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 23, 2020, 07:57:51 AM
Twitter: Rand Paul at the Senate gym this morning (https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1241799144559251456)

I don't know what's crazier - that the senate gym is still open, or that a federal senator, after having symptoms significant enough to have been tested, was still going to the gym, never mind self-isolating.

The rules only apply to you, not our elite leaders. Surely you knew this already.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDrake on March 23, 2020, 11:41:08 AM
Twitter: Rand Paul at the Senate gym this morning (https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1241799144559251456)

I don't know what's crazier - that the senate gym is still open, or that a federal senator, after having symptoms significant enough to have been tested, was still going to the gym, never mind self-isolating.

Paul's account later tweeted that he visited the gym before he found out he had tested positive.

The first question still applies.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 23, 2020, 12:02:12 PM
Quote
Paul's account later tweeted that he visited the gym before he found out he had tested positive.

Not picking on Paul, but he may have been infected (shedding) and asymptomatic for up to 5 days before he got a positive test result.  It's possible (though a little extreme) that he could end up reducing the Senate attendance by self-quarantines or illness to below the 51 needed for quorum.  If there are fewer than that number of members on the floor no votes can be held. As for remote voting, it's not clear that that is even Constitutional.

What I don't know is if there is any provision in the Constitution for the President to suspend Congress and assume its responsibilities in times of war.  It's not clear to me that he can declare that we are in a war in the current circumstances, either.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 23, 2020, 12:08:49 PM
Before he found out, but after he had been tested.  Of course I wasn't suggesting that he tested positive then went to the gym - at this point, I would consider that to be morally criminal.

But think about that - he felt it important enough for his own health purposes to get himself tested, but he seemingly wasn't at all concerned about transmitting it to others, including the risk of creating other vectors for the virus.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Fenring on March 23, 2020, 12:09:21 PM
If there are fewer than that number of members on the floor no votes can be held. As for remote voting, it's not clear that that is even Constitutional.

I'm pretty sure there would be no constitutional problem with remote senate proceedings during times of crisis like viral outbreak or nuclear winter.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Fenring on March 23, 2020, 12:10:24 PM
But think about that - he felt it important enough for his own health purposes to get himself tested, but he seemingly wasn't at all concerned about transmitting it to others, including the risk of creating other vectors for the virus.

Is it possible that he was tested purely as a matter of course, but thought he was otherwise fine? Maybe all Congress-people have been tested just on principle?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 23, 2020, 12:12:42 PM
No, Rand Paul made the decision himself to get tested, and had to make a request.

According to his chief of staff:
Quote
[He] decided to get tested after attending an event where two individuals subsequently tested positive for COVID-19, even though he wasn't aware of any direct contact with either one of them

So he went to an event where two of the people so far had been diagnosed with COVID-19, so got himself tested, but decided not to self-isolate, instead going to one of the best possible places to transmit viruses...
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDrake on March 23, 2020, 12:15:21 PM
Failing to meet a quorum seems highly unlikely.

Brings up another question, if the quarantined skew GOP, can that flip the balance in the Senate temporarily?

Quote
All questions are to be decided on the Senate floor by simple majority vote unless a constitutional
provision or Senate rule or precedent provides otherwise. A simple majority vote is defined as at
least 50% plus one of the Senators voting, provided that a quorum is present.

So if 90 senators are voting, and the 10 missing are all GOP...?

In this case, could it give rise to Senators resigning so that new ones could be appointed to flip back?

As long as we're considering wild scenarios. I presume that resign-appoint would be a mechanism that could keep a quorum up. The appointee could then resign and the original Senator be re-appointed?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 23, 2020, 12:17:32 PM
Of course, it is the state's governor who gets to do the appointing, right? So when the governor and the senator hail from different parties...
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDrake on March 23, 2020, 12:20:02 PM
Apparently constitutional.

Quote
Sens. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, and Rob Portman, an Ohio Republican, introduced a bipartisan resolution on Thursday to amend the rules to allow senators to vote remotely during a national crisis, giving the Senate's Republican and Democratic leaders the joint authority to allow it for up to 30 days. The Senate would then vote to renew remote voting every 30 days.

"We live in an age where national emergencies, public health crises and terrorism can threaten the ordinary course of Senate business," said Durbin. "We need to bring voting in the Senate into the 21st century so that our important work can continue even under extraordinary circumstances. Bob Dylan was right: 'The times they are a-changin'.' "

But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, has made clear both publicly and privately that he's against any such proposal, even though the Trump administration has advised limiting gatherings to 10 people. On Tuesday, McConnell said the chamber would "deal with the social distancing issue without fundamentally changing the Senate rules." He said the Senate could lengthen the time for a roll call vote to limit the number of people on the Senate floor at any one time.

Republican Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the Senate Rules chairman, dismissed the growing calls on Thursday to change the rules, noting the objections of McConnell and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "It's not going to happen," Blunt told CNN. "We are going to continue to vote in person."
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDrake on March 23, 2020, 12:20:18 PM
Of course, it is the state's governor who gets to do the appointing, right? So when the governor and the senator hail from different parties...

Very true.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 23, 2020, 12:25:52 PM
Or maybe not constitutional...
Quote
Article I, section 5 of the Constitution requires that a quorum (51 senators) be present for the Senate to conduct business. Often, fewer than 51 senators are present on the floor, but the Senate presumes a quorum unless a roll call vote or quorum call suggests otherwise.

Define present: 1.in a particular place.

Define Originalism: In the context of United States law, originalism is a concept regarding the interpretation of the Constitution that asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding of the authors or the people at the time it was ratified.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDrake on March 23, 2020, 12:29:01 PM
Or maybe not constitutional...
Quote
Article I, section 5 of the Constitution requires that a quorum (51 senators) be present for the Senate to conduct business. Often, fewer than 51 senators are present on the floor, but the Senate presumes a quorum unless a roll call vote or quorum call suggests otherwise.

Define present: 1.in a particular place.

Define Originalism: In the context of United States law, originalism is a concept regarding the interpretation of the Constitution that asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding of the authors or the people at the time it was ratified.

Right, some Senators proposed something unconstitutional, and Mitch overlooked the Constitutional argument against it.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 23, 2020, 12:32:19 PM
It's instructive that, because the president is who he is, nobody here has yet even thought it worth mentioning that Trump mocked Mitt Romney being infected with the coronavirus.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 23, 2020, 12:34:57 PM
Hmmm... To the question about constitutionality - I think what they were proposing was voting remotely - which may have nothing to do with acquiring quorum (so, if there is a quorum, they may allow remote voting for those not present.)  Does the constitution explicitly address that?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 23, 2020, 12:38:32 PM
Hmmm... To the question about constitutionality - I think what they were proposing was voting remotely - which may have nothing to do with acquiring quorum (so, if there is a quorum, they may allow remote voting for those not present.)  Does the constitution explicitly address that?

The point is that they can't vote remotely.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDrake on March 23, 2020, 12:44:19 PM
Hmmm... To the question about constitutionality - I think what they were proposing was voting remotely - which may have nothing to do with acquiring quorum (so, if there is a quorum, they may allow remote voting for those not present.)  Does the constitution explicitly address that?

That's a good point. The quorum may be locked to present on the floor, while voting remote might just require a rule change. The quorum need not be maintained throughout business, however. Although there are certain times when a quorum must be taken. And if enough members ask for it, they can force a quorum call. I wouldn't put it past our Senators to weaponize a quorum call.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 23, 2020, 12:45:12 PM
Sunday:
Quote
SCHUMER: Well, we could get there. We may not get that high but it's going to be and certainly amply more than $1 trillion, a $ trillion and fourth.

BLITZER: And you think it'll be wrapped up by Monday?

SCHUMER: Well, I hope it is. We're having good bipartisan agreements. The initial bill leader McConnell put in didn't have any democratic input and we were worried that we just try to put it on the floor and not consult Speaker Pelosi because the House still has to pass this.

But actually, to my delight and surprise, there has been a great deal of bipartisan cooperation thus far.

A great deal of bipartisan cooperation!

Monday, Schumer now calling Senate bill a "Republican-only bill."

They're playing politics with people's lives.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 23, 2020, 01:35:27 PM
Quote
The initial bill leader McConnell put in didn't have any democratic input and we were worried that we just try to put it on the floor and not consult Speaker Pelosi because the House still has to pass this.
That looks to be consistent with "Republican-only bill" and trying to make sure something agreeable to both parties passes.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDeamon on March 23, 2020, 01:36:50 PM
If there are fewer than that number of members on the floor no votes can be held. As for remote voting, it's not clear that that is even Constitutional.

I'm pretty sure there would be no constitutional problem with remote senate proceedings during times of crisis like viral outbreak or nuclear winter.

I'm pretty sure there is no Constitutional requirement for the meetings to be held in person, just that sufficient measures are taken to ensure it is the Senator/US Representative voting and not somebody else. At least, I don't remember any such requirement in the Constitution, can someone cite the relevant Article and paragraph that says differently?

The thing that limits them on this front are internal rules with the House and Senate, which can be changed by the House and Senate.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 23, 2020, 01:42:49 PM
Or maybe not constitutional...
Quote
Article I, section 5 of the Constitution requires that a quorum (51 senators) be present for the Senate to conduct business. Often, fewer than 51 senators are present on the floor, but the Senate presumes a quorum unless a roll call vote or quorum call suggests otherwise.

Define present: 1.in a particular place.

Define Originalism: In the context of United States law, originalism is a concept regarding the interpretation of the Constitution that asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding of the authors or the people at the time it was ratified.
That's the constitutional requirement.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDeamon on March 23, 2020, 01:44:59 PM
Or maybe not constitutional...
Quote
Article I, section 5 of the Constitution requires that a quorum (51 senators) be present for the Senate to conduct business. Often, fewer than 51 senators are present on the floor, but the Senate presumes a quorum unless a roll call vote or quorum call suggests otherwise.

Define present: 1.in a particular place.

Define Originalism: In the context of United States law, originalism is a concept regarding the interpretation of the Constitution that asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding of the authors or the people at the time it was ratified.

I don't see a restriction against "virtual presence." :)

Rationally, that specific verbiage was in place to make sure nobody got the idea of "voting by proxy" and playing games as to who held the Senator's proxy.

You'd have to be one heck of a impersonator to pull it off in person, even if they barely know you.

However, the capability to be "present" by virtual means (teleconferencing, videoconferencing, Virtual Reality) throws things into a wild mix.

What happens if the Senate passes a rule where all meetings are to occur in Virtual Reality going forward? There still is a "presence" requirement that can be met, just not necessarily a physical one.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 23, 2020, 01:50:03 PM
Which is why I put in the originalist definition - there are many, many people (and judges) who do not believe that the word "present" in the constitution means anything other than physically present in the same place.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 23, 2020, 01:54:33 PM
To put 2 and 2 together, there are many legislators that will have a difficult time agreeing to this if it means losing their fig leaf on the topic of sexual privacy, and all that that entails...
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDeamon on March 23, 2020, 02:01:42 PM
However, the capability to be "present" by virtual means (teleconferencing, videoconferencing, Virtual Reality) throws things into a wild mix.

What happens if the Senate passes a rule where all meetings are to occur in Virtual Reality going forward? There still is a "presence" requirement that can be met, just not necessarily a physical one.

To throw another wrench in the "virtual presence" side of things. The courts, and even Congress, have accepted forms of that already. Recorded depositions, prisoner hearings or even entire court cases where the prisoner isn't even physically present in the court room, but instead "attending" via camera and remote video link. So the rational restriction on the "presence" requirement is putting in place measures to ensure the person present is in fact the person they claim to be.

Which is why I put in the originalist definition - there are many, many people (and judges) who do not believe that the word "present" in the constitution means anything other than physically present in the same place.

I don't see an "originalist" problem with interpreting "present" to allow for virtual presence. I can see a "traiditonalist" problem with it, but not an originalist one.

Someone not physically present in 1790 would be unable to interact or respond to things in real time, they also wouldn't be able "see/hear for themselves" what was presented on the floor. So the requirement for a quorum to be "present" makes sense. But if you're more than capable of meeting the criteria for real time interaction with the designated venue, can be demonstrated as aware of what is happening at the venue, and have a mechanism available to prove you are who you say you are, I don't see the issue.

We live in an era where you don't need to be there in person to see/hear what is happening somewhere else, and likewise we're more than capable of (near) real-time interaction over immense distances before the speed of light starts to hamper things. (Only really an issue if you're bouncing things around/across geosynchronous satellites, so long as you remain on Earth.) So I think the originalist interpretation could stand just fine without the "in person" requirement being met, particularly since they only state "presence" and don't get any more explicit in their wording.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDeamon on March 23, 2020, 02:07:01 PM
To put 2 and 2 together, there are many legislators that will have a difficult time agreeing to this if it means losing their fig leaf on the topic of sexual privacy, and all that that entails...

I think you mean you makes it harder for backroom deals to happen if you make it possible for a legislator to participate from 1,000 miles away. Any such shenanigans in a virtual meeting context would result in a record of one kind or another being generated, be it a phone call, text message, e-mail, chat message, etc. They don't want a record of the sausage making process.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 23, 2020, 02:14:33 PM
No, I mean it will be difficult to argue one is an originalist, and that originalism is the reason you oppose, say, Roe v Wade, same sex marriage, laws against homosexual activity, etc.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: wmLambert on March 23, 2020, 02:15:08 PM
The only real problem with virtual presence is the newness of the technology involved. We don't want hackers to run our government.

Schumer is claiming his partisan roadblock is because of GOP giving "big corporations" favored or special treatment. McConnell is saying the Dems want to stick in "Green New Deal" proposals. Kudlow answered that the deals will be fair.

The Dems want a majority any way they can get it, and will hold up the vote until they see a way to power.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDeamon on March 23, 2020, 02:29:52 PM
The only real problem with virtual presence is the newness of the technology involved. We don't want hackers to run our government.

There are other considerations as well, and in this case, I am game for a constitutional amendment to both provision for "virtual presence" to both be expressly allowed, and to also have limitations placed on how and where it is used with regards to Congress.

Because the other problem is if you don't restrict where it can be done from, so that Representative Umpty from Backwater, Washington can tele-presence in from the backcountry of Washington State via laptop and Satellite Link is you lose a degree of certainty as to just how "free" that congress person actually is. At that point, we have a hard time reliably knowing anything about the status of that person, which isn't to mention the cyber-security aspect.

Better to require they "present themselves" to a (electronically) "hardened" (aka firewalled) government run facility where professionals are in control over all aspects of the link, and where Federal(/State level) Officials can ensure no physical coercion is going on with respect to the Congress person directly.

Sure that may restrict them to only being able to do so from a Federal Building, Military Facility, or maybe even County Courthouses, but it reduces the ability of hackers to insert themselves into the process. And it also keeps Representative Umpty from being locked in a basement by Hamas and attending meetings remotely in the interim with nobody the wiser.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 23, 2020, 04:08:50 PM
This isn't Trump's response - not yet, anyway
Quote
Discussions are already underway with advisers over what to do at the end of the 15 days. Trump very much wants to get people back to work, but his medical advisers continue to tell him the country has a way to go before emerging from the worst of the outbreak, a source familiar with the matter said.
<snip>
Outside the doctors and public health experts, nearly all of the President's senior advisers are eager to relax the nationwide guidelines to begin reopening the economy.
"I don't know anybody in the building who is arguing that we should keep going the way we're going," one senior White House official said. "Everybody here is pulling in the same direction."
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 23, 2020, 04:20:10 PM
Quote
I don't see an "originalist" problem with interpreting "present" to allow for virtual presence. I can see a "traiditonalist" problem with it, but not an originalist one.

You are making the case that there is no meaning to the words "originalis[mt]", if even one's physical presence can be reinterpreted based on a transmitted image. If you want to argue about the meaning of that word, there are dozens of others that would also be open to reinterpretation.  I suppose "habeas corpus" could be reinterpreted as showing a video of just the face of a person being held in solitary confinement in an undisclosed location.  Who knows when it was filmed, anyway?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: wmLambert on March 23, 2020, 04:55:07 PM
I see Drudge is re-posting an "The Hour" report on Fauci fighting against Trump. When you access the actual link (https://www.thehour.com/opinion/article/I-know-but-what-do-you-want-me-to-do-Fauci-s-15150393.php) you see that the editor's headline was misleading. Fauci never argued with Trump, he just said Trump is getting multiple advisers giving facts. The main contention he mentioned was if calling the outbreak "The Chinese Virus" was warranted. No big deal there, unless the naming of outbreaks after the location of Patient Zero will no longer occur.

Fauci is looking at the medical side and not getting involved in the bully pulpit idea of trying to lessen the economic disturbance. Fauci may be mostly non-partisan, but he was a Hillary supporter who spoke glowingly of her. I doubt he is able to completely divorce his political bias from his medical opinions. If he was truly independent, he would have no problem with calling this the Wuhan Virus, would he?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDeamon on March 23, 2020, 05:35:33 PM
Quote
I don't see an "originalist" problem with interpreting "present" to allow for virtual presence. I can see a "traiditonalist" problem with it, but not an originalist one.

You are making the case that there is no meaning to the words "originalis[mt]", if even one's physical presence can be reinterpreted based on a transmitted image. If you want to argue about the meaning of that word, there are dozens of others that would also be open to reinterpretation.  I suppose "habeas corpus" could be reinterpreted as showing a video of just the face of a person being held in solitary confinement in an undisclosed location.  Who knows when it was filmed, anyway?

The stipulation of requirement for ability to interact in realtime tends to put a damper on that one. If the prisoner/legal counsel consistently responds inappropriately to what is being asked of them, that's a pretty strong red flag for being pre-recorded or other tampering. And did you miss the part where courts already allow for prisoners to stand trial by tele-presence?

The more immediate concern with remote presence is the "deep fake" capabilities that are evolving where the possibility that the person on the other end of the feed may not actually even be a person is coming soon enough.

So there is an obvious need for some codification as to placing strong requirements for oversight and verification that the (virtual/tele)presence involved is in fact who they claim to be.

I'm also game for the "immediate" answer to appease the traiditonalist interpretation would be that the quorum requirement still require a majority to be present in person, but that provisions be made for everyone else to be able to use a tele-presence capability as conditions warrant. House and Senate rules can be drafted to address who gets to not be there in person, and by what means they're able to do so.

I'm also game for a constitutional amendment to more strongly codify certain aspects of it to remove any future ambiguity regarding Article 1, Section 5 and the new interpretation.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 23, 2020, 06:35:04 PM
Quote
I'm also game for a constitutional amendment to more strongly codify certain aspects of it to remove any future ambiguity regarding Article 1, Section 5 and the new interpretation.

Good luck with that.  I'm in favor of finding a way to allow virtual voting for the sole reason that if Congress can't produce a quorum I fear that Trump will find a way to dissolve Congress and assume its role and responsibilities.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: wmLambert on March 23, 2020, 06:46:32 PM
...I'm also game for a constitutional amendment to more strongly codify certain aspects of it to remove any future ambiguity regarding Article 1, Section 5 and the new interpretation.

No problem. Just take a page from the Bill Clinton Handbook to define what the meaning of "is" is. Congress does not need an amendment to legally define a new meaning of the definition of "being present in order to vote."

This is not seeing the Constitution as a living document that changes with society, but the terms of words that do change over time. There was no virtual presence at the time of the Founders, so deciding how to be sure each Senator or Representative can vote from a distance fairly is warranted. Again, it is that "fairly" part that is the hang-up. We hold up newspapers for "proof of life" with kidnappers, don't we? We need absolute assurance that the person with the authority to vote is voting honestly, without duress, coercion, or chicanery.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDrake on March 23, 2020, 06:57:08 PM
...I'm also game for a constitutional amendment to more strongly codify certain aspects of it to remove any future ambiguity regarding Article 1, Section 5 and the new interpretation.

No problem. Just take a page from the Bill Clinton Handbook to define what the meaning of "is" is. Congress does not need an amendment to legally define a new meaning of the definition of "being present in order to vote."

This is not seeing the Constitution as a living document that changes with society, but the terms of words that do change over time. There was no virtual presence at the time of the Founders, so deciding how to be sure each Senator or Representative can vote from a distance fairly is warranted. Again, it is that "fairly" part that is the hang-up. We hold up newspapers for "proof of life" with kidnappers, don't we? We need absolute assurance that the person with the authority to vote is voting honestly, without duress, coercion, or chicanery.

Is physical kidnapping really a significant threat, compared to blackmail and other forms of coercion?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: wmLambert on March 23, 2020, 08:16:17 PM
...I'm also game for a constitutional amendment to more strongly codify certain aspects of it to remove any future ambiguity regarding Article 1, Section 5 and the new interpretation.

No problem. Just take a page from the Bill Clinton Handbook to define what the meaning of "is" is. Congress does not need an amendment to legally define a new meaning of the definition of "being present in order to vote."

This is not seeing the Constitution as a living document that changes with society, but the terms of words that do change over time. There was no virtual presence at the time of the Founders, so deciding how to be sure each Senator or Representative can vote from a distance fairly is warranted. Again, it is that "fairly" part that is the hang-up. We hold up newspapers for "proof of life" with kidnappers, don't we? We need absolute assurance that the person with the authority to vote is voting honestly, without duress, coercion, or chicanery.

Is physical kidnapping really a significant threat, compared to blackmail and other forms of coercion?

I'll assume you aren't really being a troll, and answer.

No, kidnapping is not a point to the Coronaviirus story, except in the Brad Taylor novel, "The Widow's Strike" in which a researcher's son is kidnapped to force him to give a sample of a virus to terrorists.

What is at issue here is how easy it has been for vote scammers to influence elections. Whether it's hackers or chad-counters, there is plenty of evidence of votes coming from cemeteries and IT insiders. Peter Wright, the long-time chief scientist of both MI-5 and MI-6, (the real "Q" from the James Bond movies) wrote in his autobiography, "Spycatcher," how the KGB hacked one election in Great Britain and got their man into Downing Street. It can happen, and has happened - so making sure this is done right is very important.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 24, 2020, 06:52:51 AM
Yup, looks like Trump is seriously considering the sacrifice of tens or even hundreds of thousands of people at the altar of his re-election: BBC: Coronavirus: Trump wants US open for business amid pandemic (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52009108)
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 24, 2020, 07:21:07 AM
Yup, looks like Trump is seriously considering the sacrifice of tens or even hundreds of thousands of people at the altar of his re-election: BBC: Coronavirus: Trump wants US open for business amid pandemic (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52009108)

You’ve lost it. Get some rest. Seriously.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 24, 2020, 07:28:56 AM
Yup, looks like Trump is seriously considering the sacrifice of tens or even hundreds of thousands of people at the altar of his re-election: BBC: Coronavirus: Trump wants US open for business amid pandemic (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52009108)

You’ve lost it. Get some rest. Seriously.

What do you think will happen if Trump lifts the shutdown order next week?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 24, 2020, 07:36:57 AM
Obviously, everyone would follow Trump’s directions to drink pool cleaner, just as Putin wants!  Come on, I know the Russians gotta be in this fantasy somewhere.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 24, 2020, 07:38:54 AM
Obviously, everyone would follow Trump’s directions to drink pool cleaner, just as Putin wants!

You want everyone to think that you know stuff.  Answer the question.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 24, 2020, 07:43:27 AM
Every single Texan would die with 45 minutes. Except Carl, that dude’s like part cockroach or something.  Nothing kills him.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 24, 2020, 07:46:10 AM
Every single Texan would die with 45 minutes. Except Carl, that dude’s like part cockroach or something.  Nothing kills him.

The very definition of a troll.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 24, 2020, 07:49:23 AM
I’m taking you exactly as seriously as you deserve. What you’re posting is beyond crazy. You get what you sow from now on. Maybe begin acting like a rational adult and I’ll treat you like one. However, your track record is not promising.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 24, 2020, 09:30:31 AM
It's obvious to me and I think to several others that you're here mainly for self-entertainment.  We're all entitled to have pointed opinions, but you revel in adolescent taunts when anybody stands even an arm's length away from your hard-nosed position.  I've asked you plenty of serious questions openly and honestly, and you almost always refuse to even acknowledge the questions are valid.  If you are so rigid and fragile that you can't tolerate give-and-take discussions, why don't you go to a forum where everybody agrees with you?  Looking at the answers you've been giving, I doubt you'll be missed here.  Some samples:

Quote
Every single Texan would die with 45 minutes. Except Carl, that dude’s like part cockroach or something.  Nothing kills him.

Quote
Obviously, everyone would follow Trump’s directions to drink pool cleaner, just as Putin wants!  Come on, I know the Russians gotta be in this fantasy somewhere.

Quote
This is a whole new level of TDS. Some of you have truly cracked.

Quote
Playing stupid is not the defense you think it is.

Quote
Shocking to hear that orange man bad.

etc.......
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 24, 2020, 09:34:24 AM
You're not engaging in an honest discussion. When presented with the laughable, I tend to laugh.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDeamon on March 24, 2020, 09:34:58 AM
Yup, looks like Trump is seriously considering the sacrifice of tens or even hundreds of thousands of people at the altar of his re-election: BBC: Coronavirus: Trump wants US open for business amid pandemic (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52009108)

You’ve lost it. Get some rest. Seriously.

What do you think will happen if Trump lifts the shutdown order next week?

Only soundbite I've heard is Trump saying he doesn't expect the shutdown to continue at this level for 4 months, and that was followed soon after by discussing promising treatments.

So I'm thinking he's talking about doing exactly what I've outlined previously.

1. They identify treatments which greatly reduce the fatality rate.
2. They confirm they have treatments which can keep people out of the ICUs, which it the biggest thing of concern.
3. They identify a treatment which can potentially reduce the number of hospital beds that will be needed by any one of numerous means(quicker recovery, reduction in severity of symptoms to the point where hospital bed care isn't needed)

If they achieve #1 and #2 the restrictions in place get significantly reduced. If they achieve #3, we're likely to move back to a nearly business-as-usual approach in a matter of weeks after the pharmaceutical supply is up to snuff.

Edit: It should be noted that even in the more strident and in depth-analysis of the situation, such as "The and Hammer and the Dance" write-up which has been linked to this forum by two of us, doesn't suggest that "The Hammer" phase, which basically the phase we should be in right now, was going to last for 4 months. If everybody plays by the rules(which isn't happening), it would only need to go on for about a month. Then we get to "dance" from there on.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 24, 2020, 09:45:31 AM
Meanwhile, is the real world where the reasonable adults are talking, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko has been running his own trial on "Trump's cure".

Quote
My out-patient treatment regimen is as follows:
 
1.  Hydroxychloroquine 200mg twice a day for 5 days
2.  Azithromycin 500mg once a day for 5 days
3.  Zinc sulfate 220mg once a day for 5 days
 
The rationale for my treatment plan is as follows. I combined the data available from China and South Korea with the recent study published from France (sites available on request). We know that hydroxychloroquine helps Zinc enter the cell. We know that Zinc slows viral replication within the cell. Regarding the use of azithromycin, I postulate it prevents secondary bacterial infections. These three drugs are well known and usually well tolerated, hence the risk to the patient is low.

Of particular note, like Trump, he is not talking about using fish tank cleaner but the actual pharmaceutical that's been in use for over 70 years. Also to note, he is talking about 200 mg per day, not a single 2000 mg dose some of you champion. In other words, he's being a normal doctor and a reasonable person.

His results:
Quote
Since last Thursday, my team has treated approximately 350 patients in Kiryas Joel and another 150 patients in other areas of New York with the above regimen.
 
Of this group and the information provided to me by affiliated medical teams, we have had ZERO deaths, ZERO hospitalizations, and ZERO intubations. In addition, I have not heard of any negative side effects other than approximately 10% of patients with temporary nausea and diarrhea.

The negative side effects noted are the most likely side effects experienced and have been part of this drug's profile for the last 70 years so no surprises there and it was not life-threatening in any way (zinc in particular is well known to cause these side effects).

Those with breathing difficulties had full breathing ability restored within 3-4 hours. That's pretty amazing.

Dr Zelenko says:

Quote
In sum, my urgent recommendation is to initiate treatment in the outpatient setting as soon as possible in accordance with the above. Based on my direct experience, it prevents acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), prevents the need for hospitalization and saves lives.

Please note, he's talking about the actual pharmaceuticals, not pool cleaner. It seems weird to have to state that over and over but some of you insist he means pool cleaner for some reason (I know why you do).

This treatment has very little to no risk, and it has game-changing upsides. I agree with Trump and the Dr, we should go forward with it.

Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 24, 2020, 10:05:25 AM
Quote
Only soundbite I've heard is Trump saying he doesn't expect the shutdown to continue at this level for 4 months, and that was followed soon after by discussing promising treatments.

That is a non-statement, in other words.  It's obvious that the shutdown will end eventually, but can't end while the infection rate is still climbing while it continues.  If you think of what he said as just that rather than a quick attempt to return to "business as usual," what he said means nothing.  But lots of Republicans and other conservatives are cheering for a quick solution like that, not to mention trying unproven treatments rather than wait for scientists who create them to conclude that their benefits outweigh their risks.

I'm as anxious as everyone else to have things start to move in the direction of a return to normal.  But I won't do something stupid in the meantime because the President has hunches.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 24, 2020, 10:15:33 AM
As for the Zelenko story, bear in mind that there is some pushback from local health officials about some of what he claims:

Quote
KIRYAS JOEL - A social media video purporting that Kiryas Joel would incur a massive outbreak of coronavirus cases was forcibly debunked by the Orange County health commissioner, who called it "unsubstantiated and irresponsible."

Orange County had 68 confirmed case of COVID-19 as of Thursday morning. County officials have not disclosed the communities in which patients who have tested positive live. Kiryas Joel Administrator Gedalye Szegedin said he was told of about 14 confirmed cases in the Hasidic village during a conference call with health officials Thursday afternoon.

At this point, the Zelenko story is anecdotal.  Real studies and testing are still needed before making sweeping claims about the treatment he says he is using, not to mention his patients need to be examined by outside medical evaluation.  I read about the French study and am hopeful this kind of treatment pans out, but am not ready to say it is ready for primetime.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 24, 2020, 10:32:05 AM
A doctor treating 400 patients with fantastic success - ANECDOTAL.

One guy shotgunning some fish tank cleaner - UNQUALIFIED FAILURE.

Right.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 24, 2020, 10:35:42 AM
I'm as anxious as everyone else to have things start to move in the direction of a return to normal.

Literally laughed out loud.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 24, 2020, 10:36:49 AM
The whole world is crazy except you, apparently.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 24, 2020, 10:38:50 AM
A doctor treating 400 patients with fantastic success - ANECDOTAL.

One guy shotgunning some fish tank cleaner - UNQUALIFIED FAILURE.

Right.

I read that he claimed his village had 9 positive tests out of a total of 14.  Where are you getting 400 people treated?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 24, 2020, 10:48:11 AM
OK, you didn't read my post. Par for the course I suppose. Right in the middle:

Quote
Since last Thursday, my team has treated approximately 350 patients in Kiryas Joel and another 150 patients in other areas of New York with the above regimen.

All in the little village of New York.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 24, 2020, 10:49:42 AM
The whole world is crazy except you, apparently.

No, just a couple of you.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 24, 2020, 11:39:49 AM
OK, you didn't read my post. Par for the course I suppose. Right in the middle:

Quote
Since last Thursday, my team has treated approximately 350 patients in Kiryas Joel and another 150 patients in other areas of New York with the above regimen.

All in the little village of New York.

350 + 150 = 400, apparently.  His team?  He's treated 9.  Who are the others and where are they?  Why isn't anyone talking about them?  I'm not willing to accept this without confirmation.  It's interesting that you insist that it's reliable without any, simply because it fits your narrative.  Cherry picking is your style when you're not insulting people for disagreeing with you. You've managed to do both in this discussion.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 24, 2020, 11:47:35 AM

350 + 150 = 400, apparently. 

Wait, sorry 500. Thanks. Makes my point even more!  Appreciate the assist.

I'm not willing to accept this without confirmation.  It's interesting that you insist that it's reliable without any, simply because it fits your narrative.

 It's interesting that you insist that it's not reliable, simply because it fits your narrative.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: rightleft22 on March 24, 2020, 11:58:42 AM
Quote
It's interesting that you insist that it's not reliable, simply because it fits your narrative.

So if I understand the rhetoric. You can assume something is reliable if it fits your narrative but not if it doesn't fit your narrative... You just confirmed you bias and didn't make a argument.  You used to be so much better at articulating your arguments now its just the old switcheroo - accuse the other of doing the very thing your doing.
I suspect your spending to much time in some echo chambers.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: yossarian22c on March 24, 2020, 12:02:19 PM
I'm not willing to accept this without confirmation.  It's interesting that you insist that it's reliable without any, simply because it fits your narrative.

It's interesting that you insist that it's not reliable, simply because it fits your narrative.

Dr. Zelenko, I'm guessing treats outpatient? So general practice, meaning that people are coming to him are feeling crappy but not needing hospitalization right away. Since about 80+% of patients won't need to be hospitalized receiving no care this isn't a "valid" scientific study (we didn't use a random subset of infected people). Those studies are being run and these drugs are being given to those most critically ill right now. However, we shouldn't make public health decisions based on claims by 1 doctor using an unproven testing regime. We should be hopeful this works and continue to test it. However given how incredibly contagious the disease is I don't think it would go well if we went back to business as usual, let 40-50% of the population get sick, and try to treat them all at the same time. People who already take the drug for other conditions are having trouble finding enough for them. It takes weeks if not months to shift drug manufacturing.

A viable treatment regiment will push the death rate below 1% and keep hospitals from being overwhelmed. It doesn't remove the need for us to take other drastic steps to prevent the virus from spreading widely.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 24, 2020, 12:38:04 PM
The reason why politicians should stick to general statements without getting into the specifics of treatment details (like calling out a particular drug as being approved by the FDA) and leave the medical communication to the experts, is that any number of people will blindly take those words out of context, and there will be unintended consequences - well, I say unintended, but it was blindingly obvious when we called out Trump for misrepresenting chloroquine as an approved drug that many people would actually go out and use it immediately without supervision - which has nothing to do with its efficacy for the purpose, mind you - it is a function of it coming as a communication from the president.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 24, 2020, 01:22:49 PM
Especially when he says things like this:
Quote
"The nice part is, it's been around for a long time, so we know that if things don't go as planned, it's not going to kill anybody."
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: ScottF on March 24, 2020, 01:57:39 PM
Sorry, we have enough legitimate areas of concern that I'm going to give Trump a pass on providing some potential optimism around a safe and known drug, even if that message results in 0.00000000001% of people OD'ing on fish tank cleaner.

Unless you have proof that people are actually dying by taking unprescribed hydroxychloroquine? Then I'm on board and will demand he retracts what he said about it.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: yossarian22c on March 24, 2020, 02:01:24 PM
Unless you have proof that people are actually dying by taking unprescribed hydroxychloroquine? Then I'm on board and will demand he retracts what he said about it.

What if more people die because they don't take precautions because they think there is a cure? That's the real danger of Trump being overly optimistic about a treatment. It would be fine for him to be cautiously optimistic, but going full bore, "I think its going to be great and a game changer" isn't responsible public communication.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 24, 2020, 02:11:03 PM
Trump said today (is that an announcement?) that he wants to end shutdown restrictions by Easter (April 12).  Since he doesn't actually control those things, it's not clear which states outside of those that adore him will listen.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: NobleHunter on March 24, 2020, 02:23:39 PM
Sorry, we have enough legitimate areas of concern that I'm going to give Trump a pass on providing some potential optimism around a safe and known drug, even if that message results in 0.00000000001% of people OD'ing on fish tank cleaner.

Unless you have proof that people are actually dying by taking unprescribed hydroxychloroquine? Then I'm on board and will demand he retracts what he said about it.

We also have people who need the drug but can't access it because of a run on pharmacies.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 24, 2020, 02:33:04 PM
Optimism: There are a number of drugs being investigated worldwide, and hopefully, a number of them will be shown to provide significant relief.  As soon as any are shown to be useful and safe, they will be included in our battle against the pandemic.

Irresponsibility: Chloroquine has been approved by the FDA for treating COVID19. It's proven medicine that won't kill anybody.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 24, 2020, 02:57:54 PM
Looks like it's becoming more and more likely:
 Trump, during Fox News coronavirus townhall, calls for re-opening economy by Easter: ‘We have to get back to work’ (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-during-fox-news-coronavirus-townhall-signals-desire-to-ease-guidelines-we-have-to-get-back-to-work)
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: rightleft22 on March 24, 2020, 03:11:19 PM
Instead of saying it's a flat out bad idea, is their away to make it work?
If the administration is determined to make it happen how should it be done?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: yossarian22c on March 24, 2020, 03:18:03 PM
Instead of saying it's a flat out bad idea, is their away to make it work?
If the administration is determined to make it happen how should it be done?

I don't think it works. Mass transit, schools, air travel, churches, and restaurants aren't good candidates to be open. Can other things start to slowly go back to normal, maybe. But with that much of society maintaining a shut down status is the reduced efficacy of the shut down worth the slightly improved economic outlook?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 24, 2020, 05:05:59 PM
I'm reading all of the objections, but nothing about solutions.  What's better than what I proposed?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDeamon on March 24, 2020, 06:11:01 PM
Especially when he says things like this:
Quote
"The nice part is, it's been around for a long time, so we know that if things don't go as planned, it's not going to kill anybody."

I think you missed the part about "if things go as planned" where people self-medicating using non-medical supplies, without medical supervision is NOT part of that plan.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 24, 2020, 10:08:21 PM
Yes, and that's precisely why a president shouldn't prescribe drugs - because he talks in optimistic sound bites, and people will only hear half of even that.  We know this about people: most people are NOT medically savvy, nor even politically savvy, and many people take Trump's word as gospel.  Expecting them to parse the president's unparseable language and focus on "as planned" and gather from those words that he meant all the disclaimers and cautions that a prescribing doctor would give a patient... one has to be completely ignorant of how people act in the real world.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDrake on March 24, 2020, 10:24:06 PM
Especially when he says things like this:
Quote
"The nice part is, it's been around for a long time, so we know that if things don't go as planned, it's not going to kill anybody."

I think you missed the part about "if things go as planned" where people self-medicating using non-medical supplies, without medical supervision is NOT part of that plan.

What? The statement was if things don't go as planned. What he clearly meant, however, is that if it isn't effective at least we know it is safe. That's true as far as it is for any other drug.

The real damage is giving an unrealistic hope of a quick cure, encouraging people to take things less seriously and violate distancing orders. Like the people in Chicago having house parties that police have to break up.

People Need to be hammered with the worst case scenarios, in the hope that this will penetrate their thick skulls.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDeamon on March 25, 2020, 02:54:28 AM
Trump has multiple conflicting priorities in play at this time.

He's also managing nearly all of re:Corona poorly. That said, most of what he does, and is doing, doesn't really matter. Despite what many want to wish were true. Hospitals using protective equipment in excess of 10 times their normal levels is well outside the scope of an "easy" ramp up in production. Sure, existing factories may be able to double or even triple output by adding more shifts... But increasing it by a multiple of 10? That's an entirely different ballgame. (And honestly, in the era of streamlined everything, I wouldn't be surprised if most plants could even double production, as they're likely setup to run 24/7 as it is, since starting/stopping a line introduces potential for breakdowns, and other inefficiencies into the system--so that means adding new lines, not just getting more from ones already in use)

Complaints about the national stockpile are also somewhat misplaced. Even in the Obama Admin, the National plan for dealing with a pandemic scenario was to keep it outside the country so that it wouldn't establish a foothold here. Also part of the issue with the national stockpile is I wouldn't be surprised if some of it was sent to China and Italy to aid in containment efforts there. (Again, the strategy was, and has been, to keep it outside our borders)

At the reported rates of use (10x normal), that means for the National Stockpile to have been able to even have a chance of keeping hospitals in supply for this pandemic, they'd arguably need to have created a stockpile equivalent to at least 7 months of normal consumption.. And that is for just a 1 month supply. That also is for the situation as it stands at present, which is nowhere near the expected peak. So really, you're talking about a national stockpile of protective equipment closer to an entire year worth of normal use.

I'd love to see someone try to justify that to Congress, controlled by either party, prior to this past month. Then of course, once that stockpile exists, you then have to rotate that stock so that it is being used before its (currently unknown to me; but some poking around the 3M site suggests to me it is somewhere in the range of 2 to 5 years) shelf-life expires. That it has one appears to be true, as the province of Ontario can attest to (http://"https://nationalpost.com/news/world/ontario-stockpiled-millions-of-masks-after-sars-they-all-expired-as-covid-19-nears-pandemic-status"), some $39 million later. ($3 million/year for storage from 2007 to 2020, plus the cost of the 55 million masks themselves)

Then of course we have the idea that the ventilator stockpile should have been much larger. So let's wave a magic wand, and say that in the aftermath of the 2002 Sars outbreak, the United States decided to create a strategic stockpile of 100,000 ventilator units. Over a decade later, we're now bringing them out of storage to meet current needs. Only to discover that many parts need to be replaced because they've deteriorated with age, and oh by the way, getting replacement parts is troublesome because that model of unit was discontinued years ago and is considered functionally obsolete. Even worse, very few hospitals have staff trained and certified to operate these "old and outdated" machines.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 25, 2020, 05:08:08 AM
Another small study of Chloroquine (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-25/hydroxychloroquine-no-better-than-regular-covid-19-care-in-study) (from China) involving 30 patients. This time the results indicate that the drug wasn't effective.  Like the French study that found the opposite, this is too small a test.  The report is mostly in Chinese, so good luck with that.

Quote
Hydroxychloroquine, a medicine for malaria that President Donald Trump has touted as a treatment for coronavirus, was no more effective than conventional care, a small study found.

The report published by the Journal of Zhejiang University in China showed that patients who got the medicine didn’t fight off the new coronavirus more often than those who did not get the medicine.

The study involved just 30 patients. Of the 15 patients given the malaria drug, 13 tested negative for the coronavirus after a week of treatment. Of the 15 patients who didn’t get hydroxychloroquine, 14 tested negative for the virus.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 25, 2020, 08:21:25 AM
Quote
was no more effective than conventional care, a small study found.
I guess that wording is technically accurate, but it may not be completely... meaningful?  Honest?

Hydrochloroquine and chloroquine could have a number of effects, from reducing viral load (addressed in this study, although the sample is way small) but they also have anti-inflammatory properties that might be beneficial in reducing the symptoms of the disease, and possibly reducing mortality.

Plus, since most people will recover from the virus on their own, it is questionable what effect there would be, a week later, on those patients who would otherwise have recovered anyway... to get any meaningful results as to mortality, you would need to have a population large enough to include a statistically significant number of people who would otherwise have died...
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: NobleHunter on March 25, 2020, 08:23:36 AM
Quote
He's also managing nearly all of re:Corona poorly. That said, most of what he does, and is doing, doesn't really matter. Despite what many want to wish were true. Hospitals using protective equipment in excess of 10 times their normal levels is well outside the scope of an "easy" ramp up in production. Sure, existing factories may be able to double or even triple output by adding more shifts... But increasing it by a multiple of 10? That's an entirely different ballgame. (And honestly, in the era of streamlined everything, I wouldn't be surprised if most plants could even double production, as they're likely setup to run 24/7 as it is, since starting/stopping a line introduces potential for breakdowns, and other inefficiencies into the system--so that means adding new lines, not just getting more from ones already in use)

Some factories use third shift for maintenance which means any increase in utilization has price to pay in reliability above simply adding hours.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 25, 2020, 08:39:01 AM
Further to the president's timeline for "Reopening the US by Easter"... it looks like Fauci is walking that back, and adding a little bit of reality to the proceedings.

That being said, since there are vast swathes of the USA that have not yet even seriously begun the process of suppression - Florida was as of Saturday still restricting gatherings to 'less than 250 people'  :o, there are still church services of hundreds if not thousands of people, we'll all seen pictures of beaches and parks jam-packed with... irresponsible people - it is an open question whether suppression will have even been realistically in place for longer than a full cycle of the virus by Easter.

Of course, the USA is a big place, and restrictions might be relaxed in very localized areas before others, but the messaging of "Reopening the US by Easter" irresponsibly sets expectations in the broader public that life will continue as before by Easter; stuffing that genie back in the bottle is not something that health agencies should have to do, fighting a messaging war with the president.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 25, 2020, 08:55:31 AM
I saw the study from China. That's disappointing but ... from China.

Trump pills (what they're calling it on social media and it's easier to spell) may not be the solution. Early results are extremely encouraging but they are still early so I'm cautiously optimistic.

Hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and zinc have been in use for many, many years. They are safe and well understood and, at this point, it's completely reasonable for doctors to give it a try with their patients. I have personally taken all three of those (zinc is over the counter, z-packs are commonly prescribed, got Hydroxychloroquine for a north African deployment). There's no reason to not take these since they may help and it's almost certain to not hurt.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: NobleHunter on March 25, 2020, 09:03:19 AM
Except some of those drugs are used to treat other conditions and if people who aren't sick start taking them there may not be drugs available for the people with a proven need for them.

Which has already happened, FYI.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 25, 2020, 09:46:12 AM
Quote
Plus, since most people will recover from the virus on their own, it is questionable what effect there would be, a week later, on those patients who would otherwise have recovered anyway... to get any meaningful results as to mortality, you would need to have a population large enough to include a statistically significant number of people who would otherwise have died...

Not dying is the metric used in the French Study.  I can't find any references to Zelenko's experience, so I don't know what metric he applied and how he measured.

Quote
I saw the study from China. That's disappointing but ... from China.

Yes, but Zelenko's results came from a Jew and the French result came from France.

Quote
Early results are extremely encouraging but they are still early so I'm cautiously optimistic.

There's reason to be both hopeful and cautious, but I'm not yet ready for optimistic.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 25, 2020, 09:58:28 AM
Except some of those drugs are used to treat other conditions and if people who aren't sick start taking them there may not be drugs available for the people with a proven need for them.

Which has already happened, FYI.

In that light, India has announced they won't export those drugs or any medical supplies used in the course of treating the disease.  Which makes sense since they've locked down 1.3 billion people in anticipation of a national scourge.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 25, 2020, 10:21:08 AM
Quote
I saw the study from China. That's disappointing but ... from China.

Yes, but Zelenko's results came from a Jew and the French result came from France.

China has established a pattern of lying and coverups around this virus. The others have not. Consequently, I trust these guys and their results far more than the Chinese government.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: yossarian22c on March 25, 2020, 10:24:14 AM
Quote
I saw the study from China. That's disappointing but ... from China.

Yes, but Zelenko's results came from a Jew and the French result came from France.

China has established a pattern of lying and coverups around this virus. The others have not. Consequently, I trust these guys and their results far more than the Chinese government.

Well I distrust authoritarian regimes by default as well. Zelenko's results fall under the anecdotal category. I haven't read about the French study, but I'm guessing I'll be convinced by the data around the same time Fauci is.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 25, 2020, 10:30:41 AM
Quote
I saw the study from China. That's disappointing but ... from China.

Yes, but Zelenko's results came from a Jew and the French result came from France.

China has established a pattern of lying and coverups around this virus. The others have not. Consequently, I trust these guys and their results far more than the Chinese government.

Perhaps you should read the study report :).
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDrake on March 25, 2020, 11:01:42 AM
Well, let's see. Was the bill bipartisan when introduced? The sponsors are

McConnell (R)
Alexander (R)
Crapo (R)
Grassley (R)
Rubio (R)
Shelby (R)
Wicker (R)

But yeah, that's a bipartisan bill all right.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: ScottF on March 25, 2020, 11:16:11 AM
Further to the president's timeline for "Reopening the US by Easter"... it looks like Fauci is walking that back, and adding a little bit of reality to the proceedings.

That being said, since there are vast swathes of the USA that have not yet even seriously begun the process of suppression - Florida was as of Saturday still restricting gatherings to 'less than 250 people'  :o, there are still church services of hundreds if not thousands of people, we'll all seen pictures of beaches and parks jam-packed with... irresponsible people - it is an open question whether suppression will have even been realistically in place for longer than a full cycle of the virus by Easter.

Of course, the USA is a big place, and restrictions might be relaxed in very localized areas before others, but the messaging of "Reopening the US by Easter" irresponsibly sets expectations in the broader public that life will continue as before by Easter; stuffing that genie back in the bottle is not something that health agencies should have to do, fighting a messaging war with the president.

I suspect part of the play here involves communicating a timeframe for psychological purposes. Markets absolutely hate total uncertainty and people are very nervous when there's no line of sight to an end.

As long as it doesn't affect how people are operating in the moment (i.e still adhering to isolation policies) I see nothing wrong with putting out some kind of optimistic time horizon. It can always be reassessed and adjusted as events unfold but at least it gives folks a sense that there *is* an end to this stuff.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 25, 2020, 12:06:10 PM
Quote
I see nothing wrong with putting out some kind of optimistic time horizon. It can always be reassessed and adjusted as events unfold but at least it gives folks a sense that there *is* an end to this stuff.
What this ignores is that his overly optimistic statements set people's expectations about current severity as well as primes people for future actions.  It isn't at all unreasonable to think that extensive personal isolation is not that important if it will be lifted 3 days from now.  Giving people a sense that the end is only 2 weeks away, then later pulling that rug out from under their feet and telling them they will need to continue isolation and suppression for many weeks longer could very lead to distrust in what the government tells them generally, and distrusting the government when it says you must isolate is a recipe for mass civil disobedience.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: yossarian22c on March 25, 2020, 12:36:57 PM
And, well, if there is a shortage of stock and manufacturing needs to ramp up, 50 competing bids will absolutely work better than a single order... not

Well, the manufacturer may be able to get a better price with 50 desperate customers bidding against each other. So there’s that.

Cuomo has already reported this is happening. Paying 5+ times the previous price per mask in NY. Seems like a single bid from the feds and distribution to where they are currently needed would be more efficient than every state trying to go out and stock up at the same time.

And not only do you have the 50 other states but also foreign governments, hospitals, etc, bidding as well. Seems like we could at least prevent the states from bidding up prices against each other.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 25, 2020, 01:19:35 PM
Quote
Markets absolutely hate total uncertainty and people are very nervous when there's no line of sight to an end.
Even more than that, markets also absolutely hate inaccurate and untruthful information - so promising and failing to deliver on that 2-week promise will also result in a net zero effect on the markets once the restrictions are not lifted as Trump insinuated would be the case, but the markets will be left with one more example of Trump's optimistic analyses being shown to be not just inaccurate but false, leading them to further discounting what the president might say in the future.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: yossarian22c on March 25, 2020, 01:36:13 PM
Quote
Markets absolutely hate total uncertainty and people are very nervous when there's no line of sight to an end.
Even more than that, markets also absolutely hate inaccurate and untruthful information - so promising and failing to deliver on that 2-week promise will also result in a net zero effect on the markets once the restrictions are not lifted as Trump insinuated would be the case, but the markets will be left with one more example of Trump's optimistic analyses being shown to be not just inaccurate but false, leading them to further discounting what the president might say in the future.

The markets are centered in NY. I think they've already discounted the fact that things can open back up by Easter.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 26, 2020, 07:51:58 AM
This is the most in-depth article I've been able to find about Zelenko (https://forward.com/news/national/442285/coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine-trump-doctor/).  No regular media news outlets have picked up his story, and it appears that Pence vastly overstated what Zelenko has done on FOX.  That sort of thing does cause harm, so he was betraying his ignorance and indifference when he did it.

This is indicative of the tone and substance of the article:

Quote
Zelenko said that he has been using a cocktail of drugs on his patients: hydroxychloroquine, in combination with azithromycin — an antibiotic to treat secondary infections — and zinc sulfate, which studies have suggested slows down virus replication in the body. He said he had been administering the cocktail to patients with shortness of breath of any age, and those over 60 years old or who are immunocompromised and exhibiting milder symptoms. He said he is not treating asymptomatic people under 60 who are healthy or low risk.

In other words, he's not treating COVID-19 patients, since few of those he's treated have been tested for the disease.  If the national statistics apply to the 500 people he has given the drugs to so far, 400-495 would have recovered with no treatment at all.

In other words, there's no news here, which is likely why nobody but FOX will touch it, and they don't care if it's true or not since they are acting as Trump's PR outlet.  Pence, on the other hand, should be censured and sanctioned for talking about it anywhere, let alone on FOX.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 26, 2020, 08:24:32 AM
Wow, you really don’t want this to work.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: yossarian22c on March 26, 2020, 08:52:03 AM
Wow, you really don’t want this to work.

Why does not accepting every claim of a cure indication of not wanting something to work? No one has said that. In fact everyone has said the opposite they want it to work. However, that doesn't mean you buy every claim of a cure? Are you buying up silver solution too? How about other rumors, potential cures? Accepting claims of a treatment without evidence is irresponsible.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 26, 2020, 09:20:19 AM
Wow, you really don’t want this to work.

I can't tell you how sad it makes me feel that anyone has the attitude that you have.  Let's try a simple thought experiment.  If Zelenko treated 500 people for coronavirus with his drug cocktail, how many would have recovered if he had done nothing?  Or did he save 500 lives?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 26, 2020, 09:54:42 AM
I would be really surprised if a cocktail including antibiotics and anti-inflammatories did NOT help to some extent, as compared to getting no treatment...

It's just that everybody in ICU being treated for COVID-19 is going to be treated with antibiotics and anti-inflammatories, while also in many cases getting breathing assistance.  This is a given. 
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 26, 2020, 10:06:21 AM
I would be really surprised if a cocktail including antibiotics and anti-inflammatories did NOT help to some extent, as compared to getting no treatment...

It's just that everybody in ICU being treated for COVID-19 is going to be treated with antibiotics and anti-inflammatories, while also in many cases getting breathing assistance.  This is a given.

There are lots of open questions about how many people are admitted to hospitals with the disease, and how many who die actually die of other "underlying" conditions.  Clearly, anyone with a serious enough case to be hospitalized should receive appropriate aggressive treatment, but there are a lot of variables that we don't have enough information about yet to argue for broad solutions that are merely promising but not yet proven.

As for the overall statistics, the death rate from the disease should be measured against non-fatal outcomes.  Now, many in the media (and here) are comparing the number of people who have died against present known number of cases of infection.  If 3.5% is the nominal death rate, then we should apply it to the known cases as well as the known death totals.

In other words, the death rate appears to be dropping partly because more people are testing positive but haven't yet recovered.  We won't know until the testing is ubiquitous and those other statistics are more available.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: wmLambert on March 26, 2020, 11:38:04 AM
Wow, you really don’t want this to work.

I can't tell you how sad it makes me feel that anyone has the attitude that you have.  Let's try a simple thought experiment.  If Zelenko treated 500 people for coronavirus with his drug cocktail, how many would have recovered if he had done nothing?  Or did he save 500 lives?

Please, don't be sad. Zelenko treated sick patients who got better. All of those patients were never going to die, even if infected with the Wuhan Flu. However; the treatments that Trump called attention to, certainly seems to be effective.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: NobleHunter on March 26, 2020, 11:48:47 AM
Please, don't be sad. Zelenko treated sick patients who got better. All of those patients were never going to die, even if infected with the Wuhan Flu. However; the treatments that Trump called attention to, certainly seems to be effective.

If you read what people have been saying, there is no certainty that they are effective. Zelenko can't even demonstrate the people he treated had COVID 19, let alone showed any improvement from his regimen. As a result of Trump's recklessness, people who do need the drugs are having trouble getting them.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDrake on March 26, 2020, 11:49:14 AM
Yeah, and apricot seeds cure cancer, according to some people. How exactly do we know Zelenko's patients weren't going to have the same outcome regardless?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 26, 2020, 11:55:41 AM
I had a hard time getting garlic for about a week.  Is it just a coincidence that garlic is now available at the same time that chloroquine is being talked about as a miracle cure?

Quote
Please, don't be sad. Zelenko treated sick patients who got better. All of those patients were never going to die, even if infected with the Wuhan Flu.

This is where you leap over the rational edge into the fringe.  You don't need to wait for the drug to be tested, which I and most non-Trumpies do.  Take if from me, garlic also works, as everybody I know uses it and none of them have died from this disease.  That's more than 500 people.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: yossarian22c on March 26, 2020, 01:56:49 PM
China just closed their boarders to foreign nationals. Its their attempt to keep from re-importing the virus.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 26, 2020, 02:17:27 PM
Quote
China just closed their boarders to foreign nationals.
So foreign nationals will lose their rooms and need to find hotels that will take them? (sorry, couldn't resist...)
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDrake on March 26, 2020, 03:43:38 PM
China just closed their boarders to foreign nationals. Its their attempt to keep from re-importing the virus.

Or their attempt to keep out anybody who can expose their subterfuge on the number of new cases.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDeamon on March 26, 2020, 04:49:24 PM
China just closed their boarders to foreign nationals. Its their attempt to keep from re-importing the virus.

Or their attempt to keep out anybody who can expose their subterfuge on the number of new cases.

That's the other option, given I recall earlier reports about a number of "western" news organizations being effectively expelled from the country, and China wanting details on who worked for them while they were there. So an information lockdown is very possible.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: wmLambert on March 26, 2020, 07:39:44 PM
Quote
Please, don't be sad. Zelenko treated sick patients who got better. All of those patients were never going to die, even if infected with the Wuhan Flu.

This is where you leap over the rational edge into the fringe.  You don't need to wait for the drug to be tested, which I and most non-Trumpies do.  Take if from me, garlic also works, as everybody I know uses it and none of them have died from this disease.  That's more than 500 people.

This is where you need better reading comprehension and understanding of logic. Zelenko treated a whole bunch of untested patients. Even if some had been positive, they would probably have not gotten too sick. The mortality rate is very low.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 27, 2020, 05:51:59 AM
Quote
Please, don't be sad. Zelenko treated sick patients who got better. All of those patients were never going to die, even if infected with the Wuhan Flu.

This is where you leap over the rational edge into the fringe.  You don't need to wait for the drug to be tested, which I and most non-Trumpies do.  Take if from me, garlic also works, as everybody I know uses it and none of them have died from this disease.  That's more than 500 people.

This is where you need better reading comprehension and understanding of logic. Zelenko treated a whole bunch of untested patients. Even if some had been positive, they would probably have not gotten too sick. The mortality rate is very low.

This is where you need a better sense for when sarcasm is being used.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: wmLambert on March 27, 2020, 01:55:42 PM
...This is where you need a better sense for when sarcasm is being used.

Don't use sarcasm as a panacea to rationalize your lack of reading comprehension and understanding of logic. You are easily tipped into lashing out and then trying to explain it away. Accept that no one is always 100% correct. I look forward to being proved incorrect, because that is how one learns. I do get angry when I think someone is purposefully spreading disinformation which they know to be wrong. I easily forgive those who truly believe what they are saying, but not those who know better, but believes the ends justify the means.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 27, 2020, 02:35:17 PM
Quote
Accept that no one is always 100% correct.

Whoa!  Hang on there!  You have repeatedly said that Trump is always correct.  Always.  Best President ever.  Always tells the truth.  Are you now saying that Trump is not the perfect vehicle for your most deeply held beliefs?  I'm not sure what to think now....!
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 27, 2020, 04:32:16 PM
You have repeatedly said that Trump is always correct.  Always. 

Can you quote a post where he actually said that? ::)
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 27, 2020, 06:24:08 PM
Yes, but why?  Would it change your opinion of him or me?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: wmLambert on March 27, 2020, 09:34:46 PM
Yes, but why?  Would it change your opinion of him or me?

Yes. It would prove you to be a liar, because I never ever said that, nor inferred that. I did say that the metrics do prove him to be the most successful President of all time. That is not the same thing.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: ScottF on March 28, 2020, 01:05:51 AM
“The premature travel ban to and from China by the current administration is just an excuse to further his ongoing war against immigrants. There must be a check and balance on these restrictions”
- Chuck Schumer, Feb 5th, 2020

“Luckily Trump is so racist that he inadvertently did the right thing.”
- probably Chuck Schumer today
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 28, 2020, 04:38:13 AM
Yes, but why?  Would it change your opinion of him or me?

Yes. It would prove you to be a liar, because I never ever said that, nor inferred that. I did say that the metrics do prove him to be the most successful President of all time. That is not the same thing.

I took a spin through your posts back as far as March 10 and can't find a case where you explicitly said that Trump is always "right".  However, I confess that the fog of fawning praise you shower on him never includes any suggestion that he might be wrong when he is, including in those 5 factually incorrect statements I gave you. 

He never makes a mistake in your view, but contradicts experts and "plays experts off against one another", sometimes while praising himself for knowing as much or more about their specialties than they do, uses sometimes insulting "vernacular" to work his way around to statements that can be interpreted coherently by his admirers, and personally attacks people who disagree with him, not to be mean or pejorative, but only because they deserve it.  In other words, you consistently praise him for saying and doing the right thing, even if he has to change his mind afterward or his staff has to "clarify" his remarks immediately after he speaks.

So, I agree with you that Trump is not always right, but I shouldn't hold his incoherence, provably wrong statements and frequent changes in direction in the face of incontrovertible facts against him.  I'll try really hard not to do that in the future. But as the wise man would say, let's take it one day at a time, as I might learn something today that will force me to change my view on that statement.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 28, 2020, 07:41:52 AM
So, you said something that’s not true, it’s his fault, and you were right anyway because orange man bad.

You know, this really doesn’t surprise me.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 28, 2020, 07:43:19 AM
Meanwhile, even Cuomo is realizing a few things

Quote
Sweeping statewide quarantine orders may not have been the most effective strategy to combat the coronavirus, Gov. Andrew Cuomo conceded on Thursday, as he weighed plans to restart the economy.

“We closed everything down. That was our public health strategy,” said Cuomo during an Albany press briefing. “If you re-thought that or had time to analyze that public health strategy, I don’t know that you would say ‘Quarantine everyone.’”

It’s the third day in a row that Cuomo has publicly mused about quarantines and how best to eventually restart the Empire State’s shattered economy. …

“I don’t even know that that was the best public health policy. Young people then quarantined with older people, [it] was probably not the best public health strategy,” he said. “The younger people could have been exposing the older people to an infection.”

Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 28, 2020, 08:01:39 AM
soo... people in power analyzing earlier decisions, and re-thinking strategies is a bad thing..?

This explains a lot.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 28, 2020, 08:18:55 AM
Now do it for Trump. We’ll see how you selectively apply your mischaracterizations.  ;)
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: DonaldD on March 28, 2020, 09:07:21 AM
Trump reanalyzing past decisions and actions and looking for ways to improve would also be a good thing... or do you disagree?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 28, 2020, 09:26:39 AM
JFC.  :o
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 28, 2020, 10:00:31 AM
I (guiltily) admit it's somewhat satisfying when Crunch rushes in to confirm what he refuses to accept about how he thinks.  I wish he could apply that to do a bit of self-reflection, but like a virus there is no effective treatment that anyone can offer him.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: ScottF on March 28, 2020, 12:14:34 PM
Seems NY has shut down 16 hospitals since 2003, putting more pressure on all the other hospitals. In 2016 Cuomo vetoed a bill that would have increased the reimbursements to hospitals that provide a disproportionate share of care to Medicaid patients as well as uninsured patients.

Which makes you wonder the degree to which NY's potential crisis of beds might be self-inflicted, and simply being exposed by this virus.

https://citylimits.org/2017/01/04/hospital-closures-and-medicaid-shifts-took-toll-on-nycs-health/
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 28, 2020, 12:21:34 PM
To those who point out that the $2T coronavirus relief bill was bipartisan and which passed unanimously in the the Senate and in the House after Pelosi made sure a quorum was present, how come no Democrats were invited to the White House for the signing?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: wmLambert on March 28, 2020, 09:49:11 PM
To those who point out that the $2T coronavirus relief bill was bipartisan and which passed unanimously in the the Senate and in the House after Pelosi made sure a quorum was present, how come no Democrats were invited to the White House for the signing?

Good question. Officers are told never to give orders that their soldiers will not follow - I wonder if the same thing happened here, or if the Dems were invited but just behaved like they did at State of the union Address?

I also apologize for my earlier dismissal of Massie for causing all the Congressmen to travel home for a quorum vote. At the time, it seemed like an open and shut thing. They were going to support it without question, so why cause unneeded dangerous travel? They passed it unanimously without recorded votes. What he explained made a lot of sense. This third bill of two trillion dollars was huge, the largest bill in history, yet no one was requesting a quorum. The new news to me, was that Pelosi was going to pass it without a quorum, and she had another fourth bill waiting in the wings. Pass one, then pass the other without a Constitutional process? Massie let the House know he was going to call for a quorum two days before, so there was no postponement at all, and everyone was aware of why they should stay for the vote, rather than fly home.

Mr. No is definitetly Mr. Constitution.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 29, 2020, 05:03:24 AM
Quote
A White House official confirmed to The Hill that no Democrats were invited to the bill-signing event.
...
No Democrats attended the signing ceremony. Among the lawmakers in the room were Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), as well as the GOP leaders of three key House committees: Texas Rep. Kevin Brady of Ways and Means, Oregon Rep. Greg Walden of Energy and Commerce, and Ohio Rep. Steve Chabot of Small Business.

"It's a proud moment for all of us,” McConnell said at the ceremony.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 29, 2020, 05:08:54 AM
Is Trump always right?  This from the NY Post (https://nypost.com/2020/03/29/trump-must-stop-winging-it-after-panicking-tri-state-area-over-coronavirus-lockdown/), which is about as deep in Trumpism as any newspaper in the country:

Quote
[Lede] Trump must stop winging it after panicking tri-state area over coronavirus lockdown

Apparently believing that New Yorkers didn’t have enough to worry about, President Trump tweeted early Saturday afternoon, “I am giving consideration to a QUARANTINE of developing “hot spots”, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. A decision will be made, one way or another, shortly.”

I am giving consideration to a QUARANTINE of developing “hot spots”, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. A decision will be made, one way or another, shortly.

Residents went into panic mode. What does that mean? Will it restrict our movements further? Will we not be allowed to travel anywhere outside the state, even by car? For how long?

He decided later that quarantining the region wasn't necessary.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDrake on March 29, 2020, 07:45:10 AM
To those who point out that the $2T coronavirus relief bill was bipartisan and which passed unanimously in the the Senate and in the House after Pelosi made sure a quorum was present, how come no Democrats were invited to the White House for the signing?

Good question. Officers are told never to give orders that their soldiers will not follow - I wonder if the same thing happened here, or if the Dems were invited but just behaved like they did at State of the union Address?

I also apologize for my earlier dismissal of Massie for causing all the Congressmen to travel home for a quorum vote. At the time, it seemed like an open and shut thing. They were going to support it without question, so why cause unneeded dangerous travel? They passed it unanimously without recorded votes. What he explained made a lot of sense. This third bill of two trillion dollars was huge, the largest bill in history, yet no one was requesting a quorum. The new news to me, was that Pelosi was going to pass it without a quorum, and she had another fourth bill waiting in the wings. Pass one, then pass the other without a Constitutional process? Massie let the House know he was going to call for a quorum two days before, so there was no postponement at all, and everyone was aware of why they should stay for the vote, rather than fly home.

Mr. No is definitetly Mr. Constitution.
.

So I guess that means trump was wrong to criticize Massie and call for him to be kicked out of the republican party.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 29, 2020, 04:03:54 PM
Here's Trump's humble appreciation for his own handling of the coronavirus:

Quote
Because the “Ratings” of my News Conferences etc. are so high, “Bachelor finale, Monday Night Football type numbers” according to the @nytimes, the Lamestream Media is going CRAZY. “Trump is reaching too many people, we must stop him.” said one lunatic.

Besides being remarkably humble for someone people look up to for his, you know, humbleness, he made three factual errors in that brief tweet.  wmLambert, can you spot them? (Hint: They're all in the first sentence).  That doesn't mean they are lies, he's just letting people know the best information available to him based on the limited Intelligence he has.

As for the "lunatic" quote (which I can't find anywhere), another lunatic said "You know, I think Trump is truly humble."  I guess there are crazy people everywhere.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 29, 2020, 06:24:24 PM
It’s pretty clear you don’t understand what he was saying. That doesn’t mean they're lies. 
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 29, 2020, 06:30:20 PM
It’s pretty clear you don’t understand what he was saying. That doesn’t mean they're lies.

Lying requires willfulness to deceive.  I don't think he is capable of that kind of self-awareness.  He says whatever feels good at the moment and assumes it will automatically feel good to everyone, which it apparently does to you.  However, in fact what he said was provably factually incorrect.  Not that you can grasp that notion.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: wmLambert on March 29, 2020, 08:16:04 PM
It’s pretty clear you don’t understand what he was saying. That doesn’t mean they're lies.

Lying requires willfulness to deceive.  I don't think he is capable of that kind of self-awareness.  He says whatever feels good at the moment and assumes it will automatically feel good to everyone, which it apparently does to you.  However, in fact what he said was provably factually incorrect.  Not that you can grasp that notion.

No. Lying requires that you understand what you are talking about, then disinform purposefully. Trump was discussing why the networks that do everything they can to hinder his Presidency still show up for his briefings, and then only ask pejorative questions that may cause him to respond with something they can spin. Today, when he was saying what was posted above, he also excoriated CNN for snarky questions. The point you should have responded to, was the point he was making about why CNN constantly wastes everyone's time and never asks legitimate newsworthy questions. I think Trump shows forbearance taking their questions at all. He made the point that they do it because that is the only way they can get ratings.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 30, 2020, 05:51:01 AM
It’s pretty clear you don’t understand what he was saying. That doesn’t mean they're lies.

Lying requires willfulness to deceive.  I don't think he is capable of that kind of self-awareness.  He says whatever feels good at the moment and assumes it will automatically feel good to everyone, which it apparently does to you.  However, in fact what he said was provably factually incorrect.  Not that you can grasp that notion.

No. Lying requires that you understand what you are talking about, then disinform purposefully. Trump was discussing why the networks that do everything they can to hinder his Presidency still show up for his briefings, and then only ask pejorative questions that may cause him to respond with something they can spin. Today, when he was saying what was posted above, he also excoriated CNN for snarky questions. The point you should have responded to, was the point he was making about why CNN constantly wastes everyone's time and never asks legitimate newsworthy questions. I think Trump shows forbearance taking their questions at all. He made the point that they do it because that is the only way they can get ratings.

if you are saying that Trump doesn't understand what he's talking about, then we finally agree about something.  Everything you said after that is idol worship.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 30, 2020, 07:58:02 AM
It’s pretty clear you don’t understand what he was saying. That doesn’t mean they're lies.

Lying requires willfulness to deceive.  I don't think he is capable of that kind of self-awareness.  He says whatever feels good at the moment and assumes it will automatically feel good to everyone, which it apparently does to you.  However, in fact what he said was provably factually incorrect.  Not that you can grasp that notion.

This is TDS.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 30, 2020, 08:16:52 AM
Quote
President Trump issued a singing statement last night to the massive stimulus bill and Chuck and Nancy are furious.

Those two were publicly bragging about how they were able to put strict oversight provisions into the stimulus bill to any cable network who would have them.

Turns out they spoke too soon as in his signing statement Trump flatly rejects their oversight authority.

Signing statements are not law but inform how the executive branch will interpret the law and it looks like Trump will claim executive power and simply ignore Chuck and Nancy.

Quote
But a requirement to consult with the Congress regarding executive decision-making, including with respect to the President’s Article II authority to oversee executive branch operations, violates the separation of powers by intruding upon the President’s power and duty to supervise the staffing of the executive branch under Article II, section 1 (vesting the President with the “executive Power”) and Article II, section 3 (instructing the President to “take Care” that the laws are faithfully executed).  Accordingly, my Administration will treat this provision as hortatory but not mandatory.

So basically Trump will manage this as he sees fit. He’ll notify Congress of what’s happening and listen to their feedback but, ultimately, it’s Trump’s call on how he manages a $2 trillion spend and nobody can stop him.

What could possibly go wrong?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 30, 2020, 08:39:21 AM
Quote
This is TDS.

What's the opposite of TDS?  I'll go with TWS, Trump Worship Syndrome.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDeamon on March 30, 2020, 05:30:57 PM
Quote
This is TDS.

What's the opposite of TDS?  I'll go with TWS, Trump Worship Syndrome.

Nah, it is TDS as well. just on the other end of the spectrum.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Fenring on March 31, 2020, 11:17:59 AM
It’s pretty clear you don’t understand what he was saying. That doesn’t mean they're lies.

Lying requires willfulness to deceive.  I don't think he is capable of that kind of self-awareness.  He says whatever feels good at the moment and assumes it will automatically feel good to everyone, which it apparently does to you.  However, in fact what he said was provably factually incorrect.  Not that you can grasp that notion.

No. Lying requires that you understand what you are talking about, then disinform purposefully.

I think a case could be made that "lying" ought to include statements where the speaker doesn't know whether what he's saying is right or wrong, and says it as if it's a fact. In other words, that the person in question isn't so much lying about the detail, but lying about knowing what he's talking about. That's probably as far as we can lower the bar, since if we included "not being sure you're right" as being a lie then probably everyone lies most of the time. So "not caring whether you're right or wrong" and yet speaking definitively is probably the furthest we should go in our definition, but I do think we should go that far.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 31, 2020, 11:24:15 AM
Here's an example of the legitimate fear that Trump is now completely unfettered (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/31/us/coronavirus-border-wall-arizona.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_NN_p_20200331&instance_id=17204&nl=morning-briefing&regi_id=869778&section=topNews&segment_id=23382&te=1&user_id=9e9f04c8f6e837007d83b32749ed41fd) and will do whatever he wants.

Quote
Around the country, some states have cut back on construction activity to curb the spread of the coronavirus, and hotels and restaurants in many cities have closed. But here in Arizona, the federal government is embarking on a frenetic new phase of construction of the border wall.

The Trump administration contends that the wall will help prevent the spread of the virus into the United States from Mexico, though epidemiologists and the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say such a barrier would not mitigate the outbreaks already occurring in every state.

The intensification of construction during the pandemic is raising fears among residents of Ajo, Ariz., and other nearby border communities that the growing influx of workers increases their risk of exposure. Some disease specialists in Arizona are warning that workers clustered in tight quarters along the border could spread the virus around the country when they return to their families.

Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: yossarian22c on March 31, 2020, 04:02:07 PM
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/03/31/824569404/new-york-still-in-search-of-the-apex-sees-another-spike-in-coronavirus-cases?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=nprblogscoronavirusliveupdates (https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/03/31/824569404/new-york-still-in-search-of-the-apex-sees-another-spike-in-coronavirus-cases?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=nprblogscoronavirusliveupdates)

Quote
"Look at the bizarre situation we wind up in: Every state does its own purchasing, so New York is purchasing, California's purchasing, Illinois is purchasing — we're all trying to buy literally the same exact item," he explained. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is involved in bidding — and Cuomo said it is driving up the price, as well.

He compared it to eBay, in which New York is forced to compete with other states and the federal government for the medical equipment its residents need.

"What sense does this make? The federal government should have been the purchasing agent — buy everything and then allocate it by need to the states," he said. "Why would you create a situation where the 50 states are competing with each other and then the federal government, FEMA, comes in and competes with the rest of it?"

Price war. Federal purchasing of everything they can get and distributing it to where its needed is the most efficient way to handle this. Many states don't need the supplies yet but they need to purchase them because they may need them in 2-4 weeks. NY needs them today. This is clearly a failure of organization at the federal level.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: wmLambert on March 31, 2020, 04:48:22 PM
..Price war. Federal purchasing of everything they can get and distributing it to where its needed is the most efficient way to handle this. Many states don't need the supplies yet but they need to purchase them because they may need them in 2-4 weeks. NY needs them today. This is clearly a failure of organization at the federal level.

No, not Price War. The Free Market allows the increase in demand to directly affect supply with normal price increases as demand increases. Without any Fascist intrusions the supplies will get addressed fastest with the normal working of Free Enterprise. The Fed helps best in such emergency by cutting excessive regulations that hinder solutions.

The Constitutional shortcuts already put in place have dire potential for ruining our nation. Do you remember that the federal withholding of taxes began as a "short-term" necessity for WWII? Funny that - it never went away.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDrake on March 31, 2020, 04:55:36 PM
So you must be pretty upset at Trump for interfering with the free market by ordering GM to make ventilators.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 31, 2020, 05:51:54 PM
Here's an example of the legitimate fear that Trump is now completely unfettered (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/31/us/coronavirus-border-wall-arizona.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_NN_p_20200331&instance_id=17204&nl=morning-briefing&regi_id=869778&section=topNews&segment_id=23382&te=1&user_id=9e9f04c8f6e837007d83b32749ed41fd) and will do whatever he wants.

Quote
Around the country, some states have cut back on construction activity to curb the spread of the coronavirus, and hotels and restaurants in many cities have closed. But here in Arizona, the federal government is embarking on a frenetic new phase of construction of the border wall.

The Trump administration contends that the wall will help prevent the spread of the virus into the United States from Mexico, though epidemiologists and the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say such a barrier would not mitigate the outbreaks already occurring in every state.

The intensification of construction during the pandemic is raising fears among residents of Ajo, Ariz., and other nearby border communities that the growing influx of workers increases their risk of exposure. Some disease specialists in Arizona are warning that workers clustered in tight quarters along the border could spread the virus around the country when they return to their families.

This may be the dumbest thing the NYT ever wrote.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Crunch on March 31, 2020, 05:53:37 PM
So you must be pretty upset at Trump for interfering with the free market by ordering GM to make ventilators.

I'm not happy about it. I understand the pressures driving it and the use of DPA but other avenues existed for getting GM into the effort. Should have tried those first.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Kasandra on March 31, 2020, 05:54:09 PM
Quote
This may be the dumbest thing the NYT ever wrote.

Why is that?  Seems like straightforward fact reporting with context.  Isn't that what good journalism does?
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: wmLambert on March 31, 2020, 07:17:34 PM
So you must be pretty upset at Trump for interfering with the free market by ordering GM to make ventilators.

No, I was pleased at how GM stepped up voluntarily and pledged their effort. Trump said he did not need to invoke it to get their involvement. One thing that act can do is ameliorate the worst and most limiting regulations to let the good actors do the best they can.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: wmLambert on March 31, 2020, 07:20:45 PM
One of the worst aspects came from the huge emergency bill, and how it demanded equity in some of the companies to "earn" the help they need.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDeamon on March 31, 2020, 07:50:34 PM
So you must be pretty upset at Trump for interfering with the free market by ordering GM to make ventilators.

No, I was pleased at how GM stepped up voluntarily and pledged their effort. Trump said he did not need to invoke it to get their involvement. One thing that act can do is ameliorate the worst and most limiting regulations to let the good actors do the best they can.

Biggest thing that act does is it allows anti-trust and laws regarding corporations collaborating with each other to be set aside for a larger goal. Rather than hitting them with regulations geared towards trying to stop corporations from conspiring together to drive others out of business.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDrake on March 31, 2020, 08:55:35 PM
So you must be pretty upset at Trump for interfering with the free market by ordering GM to make ventilators.

No, I was pleased at how GM stepped up voluntarily and pledged their effort. Trump said he did not need to invoke it to get their involvement. One thing that act can do is ameliorate the worst and most limiting regulations to let the good actors do the best they can.

But he invoked it Friday.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: ScottF on April 01, 2020, 02:44:18 PM
Thank goodness Schiff is focusing on what matters most. He's clearly a man of action and vision.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/490591-schiff-drafting-legislation-to-set-up-9-11-style-commission-to-review

Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: rightleft22 on April 01, 2020, 04:29:50 PM
I view any investigation and study on what happened, preparedness etc if it helps us set up process and such so we might do things better in the future.
If it's about assigning blame I'm not interested.

Such a investigation should be nonpartisan and if the can come up with recommendations on how we can keep people safe without overly impacting the economy or medical system that would be great. Maybe even ask the hard questions.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: yossarian22c on April 01, 2020, 04:35:23 PM
I view any investigation and study on what happened, preparedness etc if it helps us set up process and such so we might do things better in the future.
If it's about assigning blame I'm not interested.

Such a investigation should be nonpartisan and if the can come up with recommendations on how we can keep people safe without overly impacting the economy or medical system that would be great. Maybe even ask the hard questions.

Nonpartisan will only happen after the election. Which is unfortunate because we're going to be dealing with this for the next year+ (until vaccines are ready and the vaccination rate hits the 90% range). A nonpartisan commission that could work fast on next steps could be beneficial. I just have low expectations of either side of the house being able to pull that off. Maybe if they just panel a commission of epidemiologists and public health experts and keep the politicians away it could provide some benefit.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: wmLambert on April 01, 2020, 08:45:01 PM
...Nonpartisan will only happen after the election. Which is unfortunate because we're going to be dealing with this for the next year+ (until vaccines are ready and the vaccination rate hits the 90% range). A nonpartisan commission that could work fast on next steps could be beneficial. I just have low expectations of either side of the house being able to pull that off. Maybe if they just panel a commission of epidemiologists and public health experts and keep the politicians away it could provide some benefit.

Two ways to look at your statement. There cannot be bipartisanship as long as the Democrats hold the House, or you think Trump must be broomed before bipartisanship would be allowed. The first, yes. The second, no.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: yossarian22c on April 01, 2020, 09:16:30 PM
...Nonpartisan will only happen after the election. Which is unfortunate because we're going to be dealing with this for the next year+ (until vaccines are ready and the vaccination rate hits the 90% range). A nonpartisan commission that could work fast on next steps could be beneficial. I just have low expectations of either side of the house being able to pull that off. Maybe if they just panel a commission of epidemiologists and public health experts and keep the politicians away it could provide some benefit.

Two ways to look at your statement. There cannot be bipartisanship as long as the Democrats hold the House, or you think Trump must be broomed before bipartisanship would be allowed. The first, yes. The second, no.

I don’t think bipartisanship would happen in the house if republicans were in charge.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: wmLambert on April 01, 2020, 09:32:26 PM
...I don’t think bipartisanship would happen in the house if republicans were in charge.

On the contrary, history shows that bipartisanship is almost a GOP foible. Bush 43 was so bipartisan that the Democrats thought he was "stealing" their party planks that they fought for for decades. They unilaterally withdrew all their members from Bush's bipartisan working groups. I can't see that paradigm shifting.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: yossarian22c on April 02, 2020, 09:03:52 AM
...I don’t think bipartisanship would happen in the house if republicans were in charge.

On the contrary, history shows that bipartisanship is almost a GOP foible. Bush 43 was so bipartisan that the Democrats thought he was "stealing" their party planks that they fought for for decades. They unilaterally withdrew all their members from Bush's bipartisan working groups. I can't see that paradigm shifting.

The decrease in modern bipartisanship started with Gingrich and both sides have continued to play tit for tat and escalate animosities since then. Viewing bipartisanship as a purely republican trait ignores reality.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: Seriati on April 02, 2020, 03:06:59 PM
The decrease in modern bipartisanship started with Gingrich and both sides have continued to play tit for tat and escalate animosities since then. Viewing bipartisanship as a purely republican trait ignores reality.

That's a bizarre misinterpretation of reality.

With limited exceptions the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress from 1933 through 1995, often with fillabuster proof majorities in the Senate.  "Bipartisanship" during that period, meant nothing more than the Republicans being the swing vote between two oppossed factions of Democrats.

Gingrich came to be the Speaker of the House in 1995, and the Republicans got their first majorities in both houses that lasted for more than 2 years.  That's not the end of bipartisanship, its the beginning of the opportunity for it to exist. 

The fact that you see that as where it got worse speaks poorly of how the Democrats were no longer able to function when they were out of power.  The Republicans have not had a single fillabuster proof majority in that period.  Effectively, it shows that "bipartisan" before that point almost always meant the Republicans as the minority joining with a portion of the majority to effect a goal.

Edited to add:  After that point, it almost always meant a Republican Congress compromising with a Democratic administration to achieve a goal.  The Dems are far more interested in joining with a faction of the Republicans to prevent goals being achieved rather than to achieve them.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDeamon on April 02, 2020, 08:43:30 PM
...I don’t think bipartisanship would happen in the house if republicans were in charge.

On the contrary, history shows that bipartisanship is almost a GOP foible. Bush 43 was so bipartisan that the Democrats thought he was "stealing" their party planks that they fought for for decades. They unilaterally withdrew all their members from Bush's bipartisan working groups. I can't see that paradigm shifting.

The decrease in modern bipartisanship started with Gingrich and both sides have continued to play tit for tat and escalate animosities since then. Viewing bipartisanship as a purely republican trait ignores reality.

That's a bizarre misinterpretation of reality.

It is partially correct however, add in a number of campaign finance reforms and few other things after 1994, and you see an enormous transfer of political fundraising power shift from the Candidates local area into the national organizations.

When your funding source is local, you're more responsive to local issues. When your funding source is national, such as your respective political party organizations, you end up toeing the party line rather than breaking ranks to better represent the people who voted you in(or didn't). The Democrats have that in spades when you look at the ones who broke ranks on Trump, among others. With one exception(Tulsi), the rest of them were representing very solidly Republican biased districts, so there was no way to dispute that doing anything other than what they did would likely cost them dearly in the General election.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: TheDrake on April 03, 2020, 05:54:27 PM
Quote
A day after suggesting that it would soon change guidelines telling non-health workers not to wear face masks, the White House announced the new policy. “The CDC is recommending Americans wear a basic cloth or fabric mask,” Trump said in Friday’s coronavirus press briefing.

“This is voluntary. I don’t think I am going to be doing it,” he added, inexplicably discouraging the country from following the new health guidance meant to protect them from the deadly virus.

The cloth mask suggestion is a good one, keeping people from trying to get hold of surgical masks. It'll be interesting how many public officials lead by example. This is not at all an exclusive Trump question, add Schumer, Pelosi, and Schiff to the list if you like. I'll probably do it, assuming I can find or make something with what I've got on hand.
Title: Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
Post by: wmLambert on April 03, 2020, 07:09:00 PM
...It is partially correct however, add in a number of campaign finance reforms and few other things after 1994, and you see an enormous transfer of political fundraising power shift from the Candidates local area into the national organizations.

When Gingrich became majority leader, it was based on the Contract with America, in which the GOP pledged to bring issues to the floor for debate, which the Democrats never allowed to be raised. It was not to just pass bills, but to bring things in a bipartisanship manner to open debate, for the first time in decades. This is the definition of bipartisanship, not some kind of plot to put money in a federal trough rather than the grassroots.