All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (2 Viewers)

[Maxp]

I fear we are really going to be in a bad place due to the obvious cuts to the federal agencies that deal with infectious disease, but also the negative effect the Affordable Care act has had on non urban hospitals. Our front line defenses are ineffectual and our ability to treat the populous is probably at an all time low. Factor in the cost of healthcare and I can see our system crashing. What do you think about the politics of this virus?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

After what we have seen of models over the last few weeks, which ones do you trust?

I am looking at the fact that 16,000,000 are unemployed and that number is rising.

I think in the final analysis this virus is going to have a mortality rate about like the seasonal flu.

The plan was never to stay under house arrest until the Chinese virus was eradicated. I don't think we need to take a Justin Trudeau type approach to this. We can't wait until there is a vaccine before returning to normal.

If we don't get this economy rolling we are going to ruin and lose a lot more lives to poverty than we stand to lose to the virus.

We can of course look at other ways to mitigate the spread and effects of the virus, but just bankrupting the nation doesn't seem like a choice that is backed up by science as the most rational choice.

20,000 Americans have died in the past 3 weeks from this. And the number of deaths per day is still climbing. With the lockdown going on. The number of deaths per day is starting to curve and will start going down b/c of the lockdown.

What are you basing your statement that you think the mortality rate will be about like the seasonal flu? Is it a gut feeling or based on evidence?

How well do you think the American economy would do if 50,000 Americans are dying a month? And a 100,000 a month are hospitalized... oh wait, our hospitals can't handle that many. You think the economy is going to chug along just fine?

 

[samiam5211]

Mississippi's governor says that his stay at home and chill order will expire in schedule a week from today.

Hopefully other states will remove their restrictions.

Why, do you like it when people die?

 

[N.O.Bronco]

It isn't really an assertion, but I have to ask, since you state social distancing should be more intense than it currently is. What qualifies as "more intense" than what we have now?

And that's all part of the cluster****. This is the U.S. of A. We should be able to crank N95s and Purell and ventilators and such all day and all night. We should all know how coronaviruses transmit, we all should know basic hygiene prevents viruses and bacteria from spreading...

... but we are too stupid and too unwilling...

I think I get your angle now, you are basing on what should have been happening all along?

To answer your question. No loopholes that you could drive a truck through. Like “essential business” clauses so utterly vague that in my current city every construction crew thinks their included. Where nail salons, landscapers, car washes, mattress companies, and any retailer that wants to thinks they can designate themselves essential. Where conservative judges hault attempts to mitigate spread in prisons by forcing to keep first time non violent offenders in jail. Where certain conservative governors were up until recently exempting and encouraging church gatherings.

A federal lockdown so these mid and small size red cities, often feeding into the larger cities, trying their damndest to repeat the failures of February by turning their nose up at precautionary measures, don’t help start a second wave.

And perhaps in another time we should be able to crank that ppe out, but that isn’t the only issue. In the timeline we are in, where we failed in the critical early months, the only space where setting aside large scale social distancing works as I understand is if you manage to incorporate widespread testing far beyond anything we have now, which includes massive widespread immunity testing, to go with a large scale contract tracing system that we don’t even have the preliminary bones built right now. Anything less than that before the virus is quashed and you are just relying on dumb luck to prevent a major resurgence by dropping off social distancing measures.

 

[Optimus Prime]

As governors across the country fell into line in recent weeks, South Dakota’s top elected leader stood firm: There would be no statewide order to stay home.

Such edicts to combat the spread of the novel coronavirus, Gov. Kristi L. Noem said disparagingly, reflected a “herd mentality.” It was up to individuals — not government — to decide whether “to exercise their right to work, to worship and to play. Or to even stay at home.”

And besides, the first-term Republican told reporters at a briefing this month, “South Dakota is not New York City.”

But now South Dakota is home to one of the largest single coronavirus clusters anywhere in the United States, with more than 300 workers at a giant pork-processing plant falling ill.

With the case numbers continuing to spike, the company was forced to announce the indefinite closure of the facility Sunday, threatening the U.S. food supply.......

Noem is one of five governors representing relatively rural states — North Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska and Arkansas are the others — still resisting such calls. All are Republicans, and all have used similar justifications for going against the national grain.

In Arkansas, Gov. Asa Hutchinson has boasted of his state’s “very targeted response” and argued that other states have so many exemptions to their stay-at-home orders that they “override the rule.”

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds has said that keeping people at home takes a toll on their mental health and that “suicides and domestic abuse” would rise.

Noem has perhaps gone even further than others, however, citing the principle of individual liberty and the limitations of government to dictate people’s behavior — even when public health may depend on it........

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/south-dakotas-governor-resisted-ordering-people-to-stay-home-now-it-has-one-of-the-nations-largest-coronavirus-hot-spots/2020/04/13/5cff90fe-7daf-11ea-a3ee-13e1ae0a3571_story.html

 

[JimEverett]

As governors across the country fell into line in recent weeks, South Dakota’s top elected leader stood firm: There would be no statewide order to stay home.

Such edicts to combat the spread of the novel coronavirus, Gov. Kristi L. Noem said disparagingly, reflected a “herd mentality.” It was up to individuals — not government — to decide whether “to exercise their right to work, to worship and to play. Or to even stay at home.”

And besides, the first-term Republican told reporters at a briefing this month, “South Dakota is not New York City.”

But now South Dakota is home to one of the largest single coronavirus clusters anywhere in the United States, with more than 300 workers at a giant pork-processing plant falling ill.

With the case numbers continuing to spike, the company was forced to announce the indefinite closure of the facility Sunday, threatening the U.S. food supply.......

Noem is one of five governors representing relatively rural states — North Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska and Arkansas are the others — still resisting such calls. All are Republicans, and all have used similar justifications for going against the national grain.

In Arkansas, Gov. Asa Hutchinson has boasted of his state’s “very targeted response” and argued that other states have so many exemptions to their stay-at-home orders that they “override the rule.”

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds has said that keeping people at home takes a toll on their mental health and that “suicides and domestic abuse” would rise.

Noem has perhaps gone even further than others, however, citing the principle of individual liberty and the limitations of government to dictate people’s behavior — even when public health may depend on it........

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/south-dakotas-governor-resisted-ordering-people-to-stay-home-now-it-has-one-of-the-nations-largest-coronavirus-hot-spots/2020/04/13/5cff90fe-7daf-11ea-a3ee-13e1ae0a3571_story.html

LOL. This I the sort of reporting that makes people not believe the corporate media. Act as if Republican governors are being irresponsible while 9 of the 10 states with the most cases per capita have Democratic governors and 9 of the 10 states with the most deaths per capita have Democratic governors.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

As governors across the country fell into line in recent weeks, South Dakota’s top elected leader stood firm: There would be no statewide order to stay home.

Such edicts to combat the spread of the novel coronavirus, Gov. Kristi L. Noem said disparagingly, reflected a “herd mentality.” It was up to individuals — not government — to decide whether “to exercise their right to work, to worship and to play. Or to even stay at home.”

And besides, the first-term Republican told reporters at a briefing this month, “South Dakota is not New York City.”

But now South Dakota is home to one of the largest single coronavirus clusters anywhere in the United States, with more than 300 workers at a giant pork-processing plant falling ill.

With the case numbers continuing to spike, the company was forced to announce the indefinite closure of the facility Sunday, threatening the U.S. food supply.......

Noem is one of five governors representing relatively rural states — North Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska and Arkansas are the others — still resisting such calls. All are Republicans, and all have used similar justifications for going against the national grain.

In Arkansas, Gov. Asa Hutchinson has boasted of his state’s “very targeted response” and argued that other states have so many exemptions to their stay-at-home orders that they “override the rule.”

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds has said that keeping people at home takes a toll on their mental health and that “suicides and domestic abuse” would rise.

Noem has perhaps gone even further than others, however, citing the principle of individual liberty and the limitations of government to dictate people’s behavior — even when public health may depend on it........

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/south-dakotas-governor-resisted-ordering-people-to-stay-home-now-it-has-one-of-the-nations-largest-coronavirus-hot-spots/2020/04/13/5cff90fe-7daf-11ea-a3ee-13e1ae0a3571_story.html

This is a perfect example of why not having strong federal leadership is so harmful. And why this notion that we can just open the economy up without a robust testing and tracking system in place to basically test everyone is completely contradictory to the reality of how a pandemic affects an economy.

From what I understand that shutdown could end up having a downstream effect across the pork industry leading to shortages. And the failure of South Dakota to be proactive now means there ability to sustain economic output is reduced more than what it would have and will last longer than it could have. And due to regulation and natural self-interest, just ignoring the virus will not happen and incite panic.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

LOL. This I the sort of reporting that makes people not believe the corporate media. Act as if Republican governors are being irresponsible while 9 of the 10 states with the most cases per capita have Democratic governors and 9 of the 10 states with the most deaths per capita have Democratic governors.

Can you be more precise in your criticism? For instance, what is it specifically you think Republican governors/mayors are doing in practice that makes their approach on the whole better than Democratic governors/mayors? For instance, what is South Dakota’s governor doing specifically that you would consider superior to California’s governor? What is Gregg Abbott and DeSantis doing that is superior to Coumo or Kate Brown?

Or is this criticism based entirely around raw numbers that don’t account or contextualize the entry points, the dispersion rate, comparative population density, or the start or awareness period of potential infection in a given geographic region?

 

[Richard]

LOL. This I the sort of reporting that makes people not believe the corporate media. Act as if Republican governors are being irresponsible while 9 of the 10 states with the most cases per capita have Democratic governors and 9 of the 10 states with the most deaths per capita have Democratic governors.

Each governor is responsible to his/her own conscience and will be held accountable for their actions by the electorate in their individual states. Personally, I would rather err on the side of protecting my citizens and be considered overcautious than to do too little and be seen as incompetent, unprepared and partially responsible for suffering in my state.

I haven't checked all of the data, but as of yesterday, Maryland, Vermont, Indiana and Georgia are among the top 10 states of deaths per 1000 people and each has a Republican governor. It really doesn't matter, since the virus doesn't care. The state I live in has a Republican governor and I believe he has done a pretty good job handling the crisis so far. I believe history will show that governors of both parties did well, while some did poorly. The dead and their loved ones won't care so much about that though.

 

[coldseat]

LOL. This I the sort of reporting that makes people not believe the corporate media. Act as if Republican governors are being irresponsible while 9 of the 10 states with the most cases per capita have Democratic governors and 9 of the 10 states with the most deaths per capita have Democratic governors.

I no for a fact that Texas has the lowest testing per capita of any state, but our governor is eager to open up. Doesn't really instill any confidence that they've actually done anything or can prevent the spread when they don't even know the full impact and have no measures or capability to mitigate further spread through contact tracing.

But I'm sure he's doing a great job because he's a republican governor .......

 

[JimEverett]

Each governor is responsible to his/her own conscience and will be held accountable for their actions by the electorate in their individual states. Personally, I would rather err on the side of protecting my citizens and be considered overcautious than to do too little and be seen as incompetent, unprepared and partially responsible for suffering in my state.

I haven't checked all of the data, but as of yesterday, Maryland, Vermont, Indiana and Georgia are among the top 10 states of deaths per 1000 people and each has a Republican governor. It really doesn't matter, since the virus doesn't care. The state I live in has a Republican governor and I believe he has done a pretty good job handling the crisis so far. I believe history will show that governors of both parties did well, while some did poorly. The dead and their loved ones won't care so much about that though.

I am using worldmeters - the top 10 in deaths per capita are: NY, NJ, Louisiana, Connecticut, Michigan, Massachusetts, [D.C.], Washington, R.I., Illinois, Indiana. 9 of the top 10 jurisdictions have Democrats as chief executive. 8 of the top 10 states have Democrats as Governors, yet the focus of the corporate media seems to be on "irresponsible" Republicans.

I agree that the virus doesn't "care", which is why I am framing my criticism against the backdrop of those making partisan criticisms. I mean has Optimus Prime posted a corporate media article critical of Governor Cuomo waiting until March 22 to put in a shelter at home order - or is the concern to make Republicans look bad so he posts something about an "outbreak" in South Dakota because it has a Republican Governor? For some reasons, I think it is endemic to the WaPost itself though.

 

[Farb]

Why, do you like it when people die?

Do you want to elaborate or is this your actual attempt to encourage thoughtful debate? I think you can do better.

 

[Beach Friends]

20,000 Americans have died in the past 3 weeks from this. And the number of deaths per day is still climbing. With the lockdown going on. The number of deaths per day is starting to curve and will start going down b/c of the lockdown.

What are you basing your statement that you think the mortality rate will be about like the seasonal flu? Is it a gut feeling or based on evidence?

How well do you think the American economy would do if 50,000 Americans are dying a month? And a 100,000 a month are hospitalized... oh wait, our hospitals can't handle that many. You think the economy is going to chug along just fine?

There was a study done late last week that indicated that the virus is more widespread than assumed and the mortality rate is much lower.

The decision as to when and how to reopen does not come down to lives vs the economy. Devastation of the economy has health implications as well.

The shutdown was never presented as a strategy of waiting until the virus has been eradicated. If we take that approach, we will not have anything to leave our homes for when we finally decide all is clear.

I think all politicians realize that they will be blamed by some for any deaths that occur after any decision to loosen restrictions. They are going to have to show some courage in making the best decisions they can, weighing all the factors.

What we don't need are politicians like the Michigan governor, signing orders that restrict the rights of citizens without any basis in reason. There is no justification for telling citizens that they cannot leave their homes in the city to to go to property they own in more rural areas of the state. Those kinds of authoritarian orders are counterproductive. People will be less likely to comply with legitimate orders when they see their government is overreaching.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[Farb]

The fact that if someone is to ask: what is the next step is or what is the plan and what data is being used to formulate the plan, are painted as only caring about money, economy and willing to sacrifice grandmother and other innocent lives on the evil altar of capitalism and freedom is pretty disgusting.
Those that do it, generally know better but do it anyway and those that don't, well, we all know who those people are.

 

[surada]

Why, do you like it when people die?

Next week is too soon.. I hope he rethinks this or at least reads the plan for pandemic laid out in 2005.

Listen to what he says.. We have NOT seen this sort of good sense and calm resolve from Trump and Kushner.


George W. Bush in 2005: 'If we wait for a pandemic to appear, it will be too late to prepare'
A book about the 1918 flu pandemic spurred the government to action.

George W. Bush in 2005: 'If we wait for a pandemic to appear, it will be too late to prepare'

In the summer of 2005, President George W. Bush was on vacation when he began flipping through an advanced copy of a new book about the 1918 flu pandemic.

abcnews.go.com

 

[samiam5211]

Do you want to elaborate or is this your actual attempt to encourage thoughtful debate? I think you can do better.

It’s pretty simple.

Reopening the country anytime soon will cause people to die.

 

[surada]

There was a study done late last week that indicated that the virus is more widespread than assumed and the mortality rate is much lower.

The decision as to when and how to reopen does not come down to lives vs the economy. Devastation of the economy has health implications as well.

The shutdown was never presented as a strategy of waiting until the virus has been eradicated. If we take that approach, we will not have anything to leave our homes for when we finally decide all is clear.

I think all politicians realize that they will be blamed by some for any deaths that occur after any decision to loosen restrictions. They are going to have to show some courage in making the best decisions they can, weighing all the factors.

What we don't need are politicians like the Michigan governor, signing orders that restrict the rights of citizens without any basis in reason. There is no justification for telling citizens that they cannot leave their homes in the city to to go to property they own in more rural areas of the state. Those kinds of authoritarian orders are counterproductive. People will be less likely to comply with legitimate orders when they see their government is overreaching.

Listen to what Bush said about pandemic in 2005.. He was light years ahead of Trump and Kushner.

George W. Bush in 2005: 'If we wait for a pandemic to appear, it will be too late to prepare'
A book about the 1918 flu pandemic spurred the government to action.

George W. Bush in 2005: 'If we wait for a pandemic to appear, it will be too late to prepare'

In the summer of 2005, President George W. Bush was on vacation when he began flipping through an advanced copy of a new book about the 1918 flu pandemic.

abcnews.go.com

 

[JimEverett]

It’s pretty simple.

Reopening the country anytime soon will cause people to die.

Not a good way to frame it. We don't close roads due to the fact that people die while using them. There is a calculus involved.