All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (4 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?

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Here's a live view of the ISS... looks round to me...

It is so easy to verify.

Just say'n.

 

[JRad]

Just say'n.

Great, are you a flat Death Star-er?

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Great, are you a flat Death Star-er?

Nah, just pointing out the Stupids obvious response of it being a fake picture of the Earth fed to us by the baby eating liberals

 

[SoggyBottomBoy]

These people

She was only mostly dead.

 

[wardorican]

Biden commits to $1,400 checks, but open to eligibility limits

President Biden said during a call with House Democrats on Wednesday that he is committed to boosting stimulus checks to $2,000 by giving most Americans another $1,400 in direct payments in a new round of coronaviru

thehill.com

Biden isn't wavering on the 1400 extra. He's willing to lower income requirements.

 

[DaveXA]

Biden commits to $1,400 checks, but open to eligibility limits

President Biden said during a call with House Democrats on Wednesday that he is committed to boosting stimulus checks to $2,000 by giving most Americans another $1,400 in direct payments in a new round of coronaviru

thehill.com

Biden isn't wavering on the 1400 extra. He's willing to lower income requirements.

I must have missed it, but I didn't see what he was suggesting lowering the amount to.

 

[wardorican]

I must have missed it, but I didn't see what he was suggesting lowering the amount to.

He's not suggesting an amount to lower the income threshold. Just that he's willing to listen to arguments about targeting it. He's giving the Reps and Senators directions on where he's willing to ease up and where he's not.

“We can’t walk away from an additional $1,400 in direct checks that we proposed because the people need them,” Biden told Democrats, according to a source on the call.


“We can better target them,” he said, “but I’m not going to start my administration by breaking a promise to the American people.”

 

[J-DONK]

He's not suggesting an amount to lower the income threshold. Just that he's willing to listen to arguments about targeting it. He's giving the Reps and Senators directions on where he's willing to ease up and where he's not.

They really need to get on the ball. The unemployment benefits run out in a little less then 6 weeks.

I'll say this, I'm very hopeful Biden won't mess this up. I found sending Kamala to WV to put pressure on Manchin a very aggressive power play.

 

[wardorican]

They really need to get on the ball. The unemployment benefits run out in a little less then 6 weeks.

I'll say this, I'm very hopeful Biden won't mess this up. I found sending Kamala to WV to put pressure on Manchin a very aggressive power play.

Maybe, but good.

Vice President Kamala Harris speaks exclusively with WSAZ about challenges facing our region

The vice president discussed the American Rescue Plan to help people struggling economically from the pandemic and other regional challenges.

www.wsaz.com

 

[wardorican]

Poll Results | Quinnipiac University Poll

Quinnipiac University Poll’s list of recent and past poll results for political races, state and national elections, and issues of public concern.

poll.qu.edu

I'd say polling also shows very strong support for Biden's plan.

BIDEN ON THE ISSUES

Nearly 7 in 10 Americans support the Biden administration's proposed $1.9 trillion stimulus relief bill in response to the coronavirus pandemic, as 68 percent say they support it and 24 percent oppose it.

Democrats support it 97 - 3 percent, independents support it 68 - 25 percent and Republicans are opposed 47 - 37 percent, with 16 percent not offering an opinion.

Nearly 8 in 10 Americans are in favor of $1,400 stimulus payments to Americans with 78 percent supporting and 18 percent opposing.

A majority also say 61 - 36 percent that they support raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.

"Struggling to pay the bills, American households need an infusion of cash and need it now. So give it to them, is the resounding judgement of the public," added Malloy.

Paris Agreement: Americans say 63 - 33 percent they support the Biden administration re-joining the Paris Agreement, a pact reached among countries around the globe to limit climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Mexico Border: Americans say 54 - 42 percent that they approve of President Biden's action to halt the construction of a wall along the border with Mexico.

Immigration: On Biden's proposal to create a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, Americans overwhelming support 83 - 12 percent allowing undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children to remain in the United States and eventually apply for citizenship.

Overall, sixty-five percent of Americans say undocumented immigrants who are currently living in the United States should be allowed to stay in the United States and eventually apply for U.S. citizenship. Nine percent say they should stay in the U.S. but not be allowed to apply for U.S. citizenship. Twenty percent say they should be required to leave the United States.

Travel Ban/Muslim Countries: Americans say they approve 57 - 36 percent of Biden's action to reverse a travel ban on predominately Muslim countries that was put into effect in 2017.

1,075 U.S. adults nationwide were surveyed from January 28th - February 1st with a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points.

 

[Eeyore]

Just say'n.

The Death Star of David! I hear that they're using it to start wildfires in California.

 

[Eeyore]

120 Democrats Demand Repeal of 'Obscene' Tax Cut for Millionaires That GOP Buried in Previous Covid Relief Bill | Common Dreams

"This would save over $250 billion, which should be repurposed to help Americans who have lost income due to the pandemic and its economic fallout."

www.commondreams.org

 

[RobF]

Cross-posting from the Post-Election Results Analysis since this is becoming more about political responses to coronavirus in general than it is the US election.

I'm on the side of I don't know if the numbers change dramatically no matter who is at helm. My reasoning?

Europe.

Everyone likes to dunk on America, but per capita some European countries have been the leaders, and consistently in the top 10 when you break it down per capita.

I'll add, I do think there would have been less deaths with a different president. I'm not convinced it's that many though. The chances basic safety protocols are politized no matter the president is extremely high.

I think there's potentially a huge difference with a different leader who acts more rapidly, more decisively, and presents clearly communicated principles. And I think Europe illustrates that.

Take Germany for example. On a Federal level they acted relatively quickly and decisively, and while they had issues with clashes between their federal and state governments, overall their deaths per 1M population (as per https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/) stands at 719.

The UK acted slowly, to varying extents weakly, and indecisively, and has a deaths per 1M population figure of more than twice that, 1,606. Spain and France also responded more poorly than Germany, and have deaths per 1M population figures of 1,291 and 1,187 respectively. Those are some big differences.

Or consider Sweden, and neighbouring Norway and Finland. Sweden, 1,178 deaths per 1M, Norway, 107, Finland, 124.

And I think it is fair to say the leadership is a large factor in that. While to some extent leaders will inherently be reflective of their nation, there is a very broad range in that. All of those countries could have plausibly taken substantially different approaches with different leadership.

So while I do think it's highly unlikely the UK or the USA would have had an initial response in line with, say, NZ or even Australia, with different leadership, I think it's plausible they could have responded more in line with Germany. And the difference between Germany's death toll and that in the UK and the USA amounts to some 60,000 lives in the case of the UK and 230,000 in the case of the USA to date.

My particular problem with over-emphasising geographical or social cultural differences to the exclusion of political differences and courses of action is that it blinds nations still making mistakes to the lessons they could be learning. I'm seeing the example of how extremely rapid and decisive action in NZ and Australia had highly positive outcomes, for example, being routinely ignored in the UK on the grounds of NZ and Australia being islands (yes, I know, I know), population density - as if neither of those has cities of millions - and the notion that the UK has such a wildly independent and rebellious population that public health measures just can't be taken like they can there - as if the Aussies are renowned for their compliant and obedient nature.

While I agree with you that historically, challenges that call for leadership can generally favor a talented leader who steps up and appears to lead, even if mistakes are made, I do think there is some merit to the idea that the pandemic was going to likely be negative for any American leader. While Acern's leadership has been impressive, I don't think the challenges for New Zealand - an island nation with a structure that is favorable to the kinds of social mitigation measures needed to stem a pandemic - are all that comparable to the US.

I cited Acern as someone who had an election in late 2020 but as I mentioned in the other thread in reply to @porculator, I think the main challenges of a pandemic and the key responses necessary are fundamentally shared and comparable, not unique to geography or social structure. I think it's a case of people tending to back their nations and their leadership in a crisis, unless their leaders truly screw it up and are seen to be indecisive or not in control of the situation, rather than only favouring the talented.

There's general support for that; for example, in the first few months, most leaders saw boosts in approval (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200925113625.htm).

There's also an interesting column here - https://voxeu.org/article/political-consequences-covid-pandemic - based on the authors' research. Their particular findings:

We find that governments are ‘punished’ in terms of political approval when infection numbers accelerate. This finding, however, only holds for governments that fail to impose stringent counter-measures. Moreover, we do not find that approval rates react to high-frequency measures of economic activity in this pandemic. Overall, this evidence suggests that loose pandemic policies are politically costly. Governments that placed more weight on health rather than short-term economic outcomes get rewarded in their approval.​

Additionally, if you have a look at the polling of countries' approval ratings of coronavirus responses (e.g. Pew's summer polling, or YouGov's tracker) you can see that generally they're remarkably high considering the huge impact of the pandemic, with the fewer nations that are polling badly tending to fall into that category of lax responses.

Generally, there seems to be a lot of support for the premise that rapid and decisive action prioritising health brings better outcomes both nationally and politically, not dependent on geography and social culture.

 

[superchuck500]

Cross-posting from the Post-Election Results Analysis since this is becoming more about political responses to coronavirus in general than it is the US election.


I think there's potentially a huge difference with a different leader who acts more rapidly, more decisively, and presents clearly communicated principles. And I think Europe illustrates that.

Take Germany for example. On a Federal level they acted relatively quickly and decisively, and while they had issues with clashes between their federal and state governments, overall their deaths per 1M population (as per https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/) stands at 719.

The UK acted slowly, to varying extents weakly, and indecisively, and has a deaths per 1M population figure of more than twice that, 1,606. Spain and France also responded more poorly than Germany, and have deaths per 1M population figures of 1,291 and 1,187 respectively. Those are some big differences.

Or consider Sweden, and neighbouring Norway and Finland. Sweden, 1,178 deaths per 1M, Norway, 107, Finland, 124.

And I think it is fair to say the leadership is a large factor in that. While to some extent leaders will inherently be reflective of their nation, there is a very broad range in that. All of those countries could have plausibly taken substantially different approaches with different leadership.

So while I do think it's highly unlikely the UK or the USA would have had an initial response in line with, say, NZ or even Australia, with different leadership, I think it's plausible they could have responded more in line with Germany. And the difference between Germany's death toll and that in the UK and the USA amounts to some 60,000 lives in the case of the UK and 230,000 in the case of the USA to date.

My particular problem with over-emphasising geographical or social cultural differences to the exclusion of political differences and courses of action is that it blinds nations still making mistakes to the lessons they could be learning. I'm seeing the example of how extremely rapid and decisive action in NZ and Australia had highly positive outcomes, for example, being routinely ignored in the UK on the grounds of NZ and Australia being islands (yes, I know, I know), population density - as if neither of those has cities of millions - and the notion that the UK has such a wildly independent and rebellious population that public health measures just can't be taken like they can there - as if the Aussies are renowned for their compliant and obedient nature.


I cited Acern as someone who had an election in late 2020 but as I mentioned in the other thread in reply to @porculator, I think the main challenges of a pandemic and the key responses necessary are fundamentally shared and comparable, not unique to geography or social structure. I think it's a case of people tending to back their nations and their leadership in a crisis, unless their leaders truly screw it up and are seen to be indecisive or not in control of the situation, rather than only favouring the talented.

There's general support for that; for example, in the first few months, most leaders saw boosts in approval (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200925113625.htm).

There's also an interesting column here - https://voxeu.org/article/political-consequences-covid-pandemic - based on the authors' research. Their particular findings:

We find that governments are ‘punished’ in terms of political approval when infection numbers accelerate. This finding, however, only holds for governments that fail to impose stringent counter-measures. Moreover, we do not find that approval rates react to high-frequency measures of economic activity in this pandemic. Overall, this evidence suggests that loose pandemic policies are politically costly. Governments that placed more weight on health rather than short-term economic outcomes get rewarded in their approval.​

Additionally, if you have a look at the polling of countries' approval ratings of coronavirus responses (e.g. Pew's summer polling, or YouGov's tracker) you can see that generally they're remarkably high considering the huge impact of the pandemic, with the fewer nations that are polling badly tending to fall into that category of lax responses.

Generally, there seems to be a lot of support for the premise that rapid and decisive action prioritising health brings better outcomes both nationally and politically, not dependent on geography and social culture.

 

[superchuck500]

So this happened.

 

[MT15]

I saw that. Can’t fix stupid.

 

[superchuck500]

Right Said Fred is too sexy for this mask.

 

[MT15]

Ugh, his Twitter feed is a cesspool. Filled with false statements about the death total being inflated.

I live in a very red, Republican controlled state. The state health department just upped our death total by 1700 or so after health officials did a review of cases. If anything we are undercounting COVID deaths.