Author Topic: Trump Response to Covid-19  (Read 12682 times)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #50 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?

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #51 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.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #52 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.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #53 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/.  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.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #54 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.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #55 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.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #56 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?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #57 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.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #58 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?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #59 on: March 16, 2020, 06:32:56 PM »
The media is lying, as published by... The media?

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.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #60 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.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #61 on: March 16, 2020, 07:29:34 PM »
The media is lying, as published by... The media?

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.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #62 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.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #63 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.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #64 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.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #65 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.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #66 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?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #67 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.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #68 on: March 17, 2020, 01:21:06 PM »
Unless every manufacturer has 50 RFQs to process instead of one.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #69 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

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #70 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.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #71 on: March 17, 2020, 01:55:51 PM »
And Idaho can get a jump on New York and corner the market.  :P

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #72 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...

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #73 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.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #74 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.”

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #75 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.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #76 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.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #77 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.”

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #78 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. 

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #79 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.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #80 on: March 17, 2020, 06:00:51 PM »
Everyone seems to have a limit on how much damage they’re willing to accept.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #81 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.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #82 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.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #83 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.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #84 on: March 18, 2020, 08:56:40 AM »
Quote
2,200,000 dead Americans

Anyone truly believe this will happen?

fizz

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #85 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/ continue to be relevant...

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #86 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.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #87 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?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #88 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.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #89 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.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #90 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.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #91 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.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #92 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.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #93 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.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #94 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.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #95 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.

fizz

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #96 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.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #97 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?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #98 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.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« Reply #99 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.