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?

 

[The moose]

I can't say this article and the study it references is a suprise. Some of the demands of some of the teachers union's had nothing to do with student or teacher safety like defund the police, universal income, and closing charter schools.

School Reopenings Linked to Union Influence and Politics, Not Safety

School closures have affected over 55 million K–12 students in the U.S. since March as the nation deals with the coronavirus pandemic. Although numerous

reason.com

I like to look up what he posts and from where.

Media bias says about this site.

These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.

So that is the grain of salt you should read this with.

 

[Ayo]

Defunding the police includes getting police officers off school campuses. That is absolutely a student safety issue. Universal income can provide stability for families living on the socioeconomic margins and enable parents to advocate for and practice what they think is best for kids. Also safety. And there are independent schools operating without the same level of oversight and compliance and accountability for students. Also safety.

You seem to be leading with “teacher unions bad!” Instead of considering possibilities based on actual merit.

I have been in a Union. I have opted out of unions. I am critical of unions. I am not currently in a union

So I am not approaching this as union good nor bad as a default position. Students first is always my goal and each of these issue can absolutely be based around what is best/better for the students t.

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

Life comes at you fast

 

[insidejob]

Life comes at you fast

This is like the third time today I've come to make the same exact post you made a few minutes prior. Are you that strange voice in my head?

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

This is like the third time today I've come to make the same exact post you made a few minutes prior. Are you that strange voice in my head?

Hi. I'm from the NSA and I'm here to help.

 

[efil4]

Life comes at you fast

so to summarize...."dont use this to federalize voting...mail it in if UR REPUBLICAN....if there is something learned from this...VOTE REPUBLICAN".

did i miss anything? LOLOL

 

[Ayo]

Life comes at you fast

Strip Club Worker Possibly Exposed Hundreds to COVID-19

 

[MT15]

Strip Club Worker Possibly Exposed Hundreds to COVID-19

We will be anxiously awaiting news of your test result, Ayo.

 

[Ayo]

We will be anxiously awaiting news of your test result, Ayo.

who do you think the employee was, huh?

I don’t get paid during the summers so gotta respect that side hustle

 

[MT15]

Ooh, I love a plot twist!

 

[Optimus Prime]

who do you think the employee was, huh?

I don’t get paid during the summers so gotta respect that side hustle

Joe?

 

[SaintForLife]

IMO this is a good article that provides some context for the current Covid climate. I think it's perfectly reasonable to criticize Trump's intial reaction to Covid as well as his horrible inconsistent messaging. I think it's another thing to try to say Trump is responsible for most or all of the Covid deaths. I said before I would never blame Obama or another Democrat for most or all of the deaths if they were in power during the current pandemic.

Is it reasonable to blame a single politician for the spread of a highly infectious virus, especially in a free country with 50 states and 330 million people? Joe Biden is lucky that wasn’t the standard a decade ago.

...H1N1 began much like corona, with panicked stories in late April 2009 about a novel “hybrid” flu strain in Mexico that was popping up in the U.S. It was even more alarming, in that it especially affected children. Yet the new administration began with a muddled message. Mr. Obama encouraged calm, while Mr. Biden rambled a warning about staying off airplanes and public transport—prompting backlash. “Biden’s flu gaffe a headache for Obama,” read one headline.

...The administration nonetheless took a resigned approach to its spread. Mr. Obama didn’t close the Mexican border, saying that would “be akin to closing the barn doors after the horses are out.” His officials did declare a health emergency (Mr. Obama was golfing that day) and distributed the national stockpile (which they never replenished).

Authorities grew more optimistic as H1N1 turned out to be less deadly than had been feared, but they still faced the risk of an uglier strain in the fall. Team Obama promised 100 million doses of vaccine by mid-October. (A flu vaccine is easier to produce than a coronavirus vaccine). But government setbacks in production, manufacturing and dosing protocols resulted in only 11 million doses, prompting national outrage. By that point, the CDC estimated 22 million Americans had been infected, 36,000 children hospitalized, and 540 kids had died.

Before Covid-19, Democrats were willing to admit they’d dodged a bullet. Former Biden chief of staff Ron Klain said at Texas A&M in 2019: “We did every possible thing wrong. Sixty million Americans got H1N1 in that period of time, and it is just purely a fortuity that this isn’t one of the great mass-casualty events in American history. [It] had nothing to do with us doing anything right; just had to do with luck. If anyone thinks that can’t happen again, they don’t have to go back to 1918. Just go back to 2009, 2010. Imagine a virus with a different lethality, and you can just do the math.”

...The Trump administration response has been flawed—in particular its initial testing delays. But let’s acknowledge (as Democrats once did) that there is only so much government can do to “control” a germ.

Opinion | The Obama-Biden Virus Response

If H1N1 had proved as deadly as Covid-19, it could have killed nearly two million.

www.wsj.com

 

[not2rich]

IMO this is a good article that provides some context for the current Covid climate. I think it's perfectly reasonable to criticize Trump's intial reaction to Covid as well as his horrible inconsistent messaging. I think it's another thing to try to say Trump is responsible for most or all of the Covid deaths. I said before I would never blame Obama or another Democrat for most or all of the deaths if they were in power during the current pandemic.

Is it reasonable to blame a single politician for the spread of a highly infectious virus, especially in a free country with 50 states and 330 million people? Joe Biden is lucky that wasn’t the standard a decade ago.

...H1N1 began much like corona, with panicked stories in late April 2009 about a novel “hybrid” flu strain in Mexico that was popping up in the U.S. It was even more alarming, in that it especially affected children. Yet the new administration began with a muddled message. Mr. Obama encouraged calm, while Mr. Biden rambled a warning about staying off airplanes and public transport—prompting backlash. “Biden’s flu gaffe a headache for Obama,” read one headline.

...The administration nonetheless took a resigned approach to its spread. Mr. Obama didn’t close the Mexican border, saying that would “be akin to closing the barn doors after the horses are out.” His officials did declare a health emergency (Mr. Obama was golfing that day) and distributed the national stockpile (which they never replenished).

Authorities grew more optimistic as H1N1 turned out to be less deadly than had been feared, but they still faced the risk of an uglier strain in the fall. Team Obama promised 100 million doses of vaccine by mid-October. (A flu vaccine is easier to produce than a coronavirus vaccine). But government setbacks in production, manufacturing and dosing protocols resulted in only 11 million doses, prompting national outrage. By that point, the CDC estimated 22 million Americans had been infected, 36,000 children hospitalized, and 540 kids had died.

Before Covid-19, Democrats were willing to admit they’d dodged a bullet. Former Biden chief of staff Ron Klain said at Texas A&M in 2019: “We did every possible thing wrong. Sixty million Americans got H1N1 in that period of time, and it is just purely a fortuity that this isn’t one of the great mass-casualty events in American history. [It] had nothing to do with us doing anything right; just had to do with luck. If anyone thinks that can’t happen again, they don’t have to go back to 1918. Just go back to 2009, 2010. Imagine a virus with a different lethality, and you can just do the math.”

...The Trump administration response has been flawed—in particular its initial testing delays. But let’s acknowledge (as Democrats once did) that there is only so much government can do to “control” a germ.

Opinion | The Obama-Biden Virus Response

If H1N1 had proved as deadly as Covid-19, it could have killed nearly two million.

www.wsj.com

I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that any response to a problem would be better than pretending the problem doesn't exist. Which is pretty much the Trump response until he was forced to recognize reality. Y'all can rationalize this all you want, but it is what it is.

 

[SaintForLife]

I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that any response to a problem would be better than pretending the problem doesn't exist. Which is pretty much the Trump response until he was forced to recognize reality. Y'all can rationalize this all you want, but it is what it is.

Do you think the CDC and any other relevant agencies just sat there and didn't excute their normal protocols while Trump was out there saying stupid shirt?

How much does anyone think that extra testing at the beginning would have stopped Covid? It would have definitely helped, but testing was not going to stop the virus. The CDC telling the public not to wear masks initially only to say 3 months later that they only said that because they were afraid hospitals would run out of masks didn't help earn public trust.

 

[not2rich]

Do you think the CDC and any other relevant agencies just sat there and didn't excute their normal protocols while Trump was out there saying stupid shirt?

How much does anyone think that extra testing at the beginning would have stopped Covid? It would have definitely helped, but testing was not going to stop the virus. The CDC telling the public not to wear masks initially only to say 3 months later that they only said that because they were afraid hospitals would run out of masks didn't help earn public trust.

Leadership starts at the top. A concerted national effort to test widely combined with social distancing efforts would have made a huge difference. But that would have required a different type of "leader" than we have now. Which is no type of "leader."

 

[SaintForLife]

Leadership starts at the top. A concerted national effort to test widely combined with social distancing efforts would have made a huge difference. But that would have required a different type of "leader" than we have now. Which is no type of "leader."

It would have not made a huge difference. It would have definitely helped, but this virus is so contagious that increased testing controlling this virus isn't realistic.

One of the preeminent epidemiologists and an expert on viruses and pandemics

The American Lung Association recently held a virtual Town Hall meeting to debunk widespread misperceptions in the United States about which populations should be prioritized for COVID-19 testing and how to interpret the results.

“Far too many people have misinterpreted testing,” Michael T. Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota, said during the meeting. “While we need to greatly expand our SARS-CoV-2 testing as a critical component of our response to COVID-19, the pandemic messaging to date needs to move beyond the ‘Test, test, test!’ mantras. That is the wrong approach.”

Millions of people in the U.S. are being tested for COVID-19 each week, he added. But given the risk for false-positive or false-negative results, testing strategies require a more targeted approach. Those who are critically ill should be prioritized and tested as soon as possible after the onset of COVID-19-related symptoms, according to Osterholm.

US taking ‘wrong approach’ to COVID-19 testing, expert warns

The American Lung Association recently held a virtual Town Hall meeting to debunk widespread misperceptions in the United States about which populations should be prioritized for COVID-19 testing and how to interpret the results. “Far too many people have misinterpreted testing,” Michael T...

www.healio.com

 

[not2rich]

It would have not made a huge difference. It would have definitely helped, but this virus is so contagious that increased testing controlling this virus isn't realistic.

One of the preeminent epidemiologists and an expert on viruses and pandemics

The American Lung Association recently held a virtual Town Hall meeting to debunk widespread misperceptions in the United States about which populations should be prioritized for COVID-19 testing and how to interpret the results.

“Far too many people have misinterpreted testing,” Michael T. Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota, said during the meeting. “While we need to greatly expand our SARS-CoV-2 testing as a critical component of our response to COVID-19, the pandemic messaging to date needs to move beyond the ‘Test, test, test!’ mantras. That is the wrong approach.”

Millions of people in the U.S. are being tested for COVID-19 each week, he added. But given the risk for false-positive or false-negative results, testing strategies require a more targeted approach. Those who are critically ill should be prioritized and tested as soon as possible after the onset of COVID-19-related symptoms, according to Osterholm.

US taking ‘wrong approach’ to COVID-19 testing, expert warns

The American Lung Association recently held a virtual Town Hall meeting to debunk widespread misperceptions in the United States about which populations should be prioritized for COVID-19 testing and how to interpret the results. “Far too many people have misinterpreted testing,” Michael T...

www.healio.com

The expert you cite doesn't say we need less testing, but need to test in a targeted way. I don't necessarily disagree with that. But whether it's "more" testing or "targeted" testing, either is something WE DON'T HAVE.

How do you explain so many other developed countries doing better than us?

We don't have a coordinated plan and never have. Our "plan" has been to ignore it and pretend it will go away. Trump learned his pandemic response from his experience on "The Apprentice." He thinks he can make reality TV into actual reality.

 

[RobF]

It would have not made a huge difference. It would have definitely helped, but this virus is so contagious that increased testing controlling this virus isn't realistic.

Taking the situation seriously and responding accordingly would have made a huge difference. And this is completely clear. Countries that did so have had lower cases and deaths by orders of magnitude.

I mean, the EU hasn't handled it well, and yet the US has still had around 1.6 times the deaths per capita of the EU, and rising. This isn't even a case of "the response was botched at the start, but it's being handled well now," it's still being botched as I write this. The death rate and case rates right now are multiple times that of the EU.

The UK fared worse than the EU, as Boris Johnson played it down, talking about herd immunity, failed to roll out testing anywhere near fast enough, and tried to avoid the inevitable lockdown, but right now the UK's rate of deaths and cases are an order of magnitude below the USA's.

Johnson is culpable for the UK's failings. But Trump's mishandling is on a whole new level to Johnson's, on both an administrative and personal level. His administration acted slowly and weakly, and he's repeatedly lied about it, undermining public health initiatives on a state and national level. I mean, just a couple of months ago he claimed it was "fading away", right before personally holding a rally in a hotspot. The USA's case rate has more than doubled since then.

That is the forest we're looking at. You're trying to pick out individual trees and suggest that they change the entire nature of the forest. They don't.

And while it is fair to say that handling pandemics is difficult, and it's unreasonable to hold someone to an unrealistically high standard when faced with a difficult situation, it is a very much realistic standard to expect someone to recognise a situation, take it seriously, and respond accordingly. Trump hasn't failed to meet some unrealistic high standard, he's failed, massively and comprehensively, to meet the most basic expectations.

And that is why Trump's mishandling of the pandemic makes him culpable for the deaths of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Americans.