All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (1 Viewer)

[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 think he's done a great job calming the fears of the citizens. Just imagine how you would be acting if he wasn't at the helm.

Answer a question!

Is it really that hard to say what has been done well in your eyes in this whole pandemic?

 

[The moose]

Biden has an interesting take:

Hey find the whole interview!

Post it!

Or are you scared to do it.

Or just post stuff cut of in mid sentence to make your point.


Brilliant man just brilliant.

 

[Beach Friends]

Answer a question!

Is it really that hard to say what has been done well in your eyes in this whole pandemic?

Take a deep breath, look at my response again. I answered the question - he has brought a sense of calm over the country. I know you're not the perfect exemplar of that - but I really think you would be even worse if it wasn't for OG 45.

 

[The moose]

Take a deep breath, look at my response again. I answered the question - he has brought a sense of calm over the country. I know you're not the perfect exemplar of that - but I really think you would be even worse if it wasn't for OG 45.

So by saying that you are saying everything he has done in response to the pandemic is exactly perfect?

So good luck brother hope your family faires well because the total lack of testing from the beginning has us all behind the curve. Without doing real testing we will never get a handle on this. If we don't get the healthy carriers out of the population like Rand Paul it will take many more lives.

I for one don't want to loose people I care about because this is completely over the head of this administration.

 

[brandon]

I realize that for people of a certain mindset, it doesn't matter what the president says, it's the wrong thing.

But I believe the problem in your post is directly related to the people for whom everything the president says is the right thing.

And a man died because of his faith.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Take a deep breath, look at my response again. I answered the question - he has brought a sense of calm over the country. I know you're not the perfect exemplar of that - but I really think you would be even worse if it wasn't for OG 45.

You don't think his constantly changing how bad this was going to be in the beginning did the opposite? It seems to me that a casual observer (ie not someone like us who are pretty involved in following the day to day), would look at the statements of Trump and determine that the government does not have a handle on it given his initial statements and then having to constantly go back and revise it and recommend more strict measures.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

So by saying that you are saying everything he has done in response to the pandemic is exactly perfect?

He didn't say that, he said that was one thing he thought Trump did well.

 

[bdb13]

So by saying that you are saying everything he has done in response to the pandemic is exactly perfect?

So good luck brother hope your family faires well because the total lack of testing from the beginning has us all behind the curve. Without doing real testing we will never get a handle on this. If we don't get the healthy carriers out of the population like Rand Paul it will take many more lives.

I for one don't want to loose people I care about because this is completely over the head of this administration.

I'm pretty sure he's playing around to needle you, maybe I'm wrong but pretty much everything he posts I read as dripping with sarcasm.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

So, my general experience in life is it is better to deliver all the bad news up front along with a detailed plan on how you were going to correct it. That is not my impression on what was done -- it looks to me that the administration was constantly downplaying the threat, even going so far as to say it was already locked down and we would soon see the number of cases go to zero. And then they had to go back and revise that statement, but again saying that maybe it will go away in April. And then go back again.

Same with the measures they are taking. First only banning travel from China, considering that it was already spreading in Europe, and China was already in lockdown itself, seemed gutless. And then banning travel from Europe but not the UK. And then final the UK. And so on with all their responses.

Basically, from my perspective, the best way to have handled this (and to keep things calm), would have been to acknowledge how serious this was in mid-February, and announce a plan to combat it then. He could have done a complete travel ban then, and ordered social distancing then while ramping up test capacity so that we could then do targeted lockdowns while letting the rest of the country get back to work.

Instead it seems to me that the Administration took a cowardly approach and just hoped the problem would go away, and now we're faced with either keeping up long term shutdowns and severe economic consequences, or facing a very high mortality rate which will also have cascading effects.

 

[JimEverett]

So, my general experience in life is it is better to deliver all the bad news up front along with a detailed plan on how you were going to correct it. That is not my impression on what was done -- it looks to me that the administration was constantly downplaying the threat, even going so far as to say it was already locked down and we would soon see the number of cases go to zero. And then they had to go back and revise that statement, but again saying that maybe it will go away in April. And then go back again.

Same with the measures they are taking. First only banning travel from China, considering that it was already spreading in Europe, and China was already in lockdown itself, seemed gutless. And then banning travel from Europe but not the UK. And then final the UK. And so on with all their responses.

Basically, from my perspective, the best way to have handled this (and to keep things calm), would have been to acknowledge how serious this was in mid-February, and announce a plan to combat it then. He could have done a complete travel ban then, and ordered social distancing then while ramping up test capacity so that we could then do targeted lockdowns while letting the rest of the country get back to work.

Instead it seems to me that the Administration took a cowardly approach and just hoped the problem would go away, and now we're faced with either keeping up long term shutdowns and severe economic consequences, or facing a very high mortality rate which will also have cascading effects.

I think it was okay to downplay it, at least in a sense. But if you do that you better be sure you are prepared for the worst. Really, regardless of what you were publicly saying the plan should have been to make sure we had a plan and that it would deal, as best as possible, with the worst-case scenario, and make sure we had as much of the supplies as we possibly could - and to make sure as many people were on board as possible: governors, mayors of big cities, industry leaders, etc.
That didn't happen. And I think the Administration deserves a lot of the criticism it is getting, although some of it overboard. I mean it is a world problem. But I think we are sort making decisions on the seat of our pants without a coherent, long-term strategy.

 

[JimEverett]

just reading what I wrote reinforces how hard of a place leadership is in on this thing.
Because at some point you have to make a choice as to whether you treat it seriously and cause damage to people's livelihood or you let it spread.
To me its hard to be real political on it, although I certainly get the criticisms directed toward Trump. But I understand the hesitation in "shutting it down" and I also did not see Governors and Mayors being in the forefront of having their economies take a huge hit in order to slow this spread.

 

[Dadsdream]

But I believe the problem in your post is directly related to the people for whom everything the president says is the right thing.

And a man died because of his faith.

No, he died because he looked up a bogus home cure on the Internet and took fish parasite treatment.
It had nothing to do with political affiliation or who he voted for.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Basically, from my perspective, the best way to have handled this (and to keep things calm), would have been to acknowledge how serious this was in mid-February, and announce a plan to combat it then. He could have done a complete travel ban then, and ordered social distancing then while ramping up test capacity so that we could then do targeted lockdowns while letting the rest of the country get back to work.

Instead it seems to me that the Administration took a cowardly approach and just hoped the problem would go away, and now we're faced with either keeping up long term shutdowns and severe economic consequences, or facing a very high mortality rate which will also have cascading effects.

You know as posters on a forum, we have the luxury of hindsight to guide our comments. However, when electing leaders, you expect for them to put together a team of people who are capable of foresight to come up with hindsight type ideas to address these type of situations. We expect those leaders to not make bad decisions that are done out of spite. It's easy to sit behind a keyboard and lob criticism. It would be different is this administration took the criticism and learned from it to stop making stupid decisions. However, all we have seen from this administration is lies and hope that this problem goes away. Hope is not a strategy. Hope is the last vestige of a desperate and severely overmatched administration and we are seeing it on full display.

 

[bdb13]

No, he died because he looked up a bogus home cure on the Internet and took fish parasite treatment.
It had nothing to do with political affiliation or who he voted for.

Well, he very well may have done it because he heard Trump say that... but ultimately responsibility falls on the individual and that was an incredibly stupid thing to do and I'm pretty sure Trump didn't say to procure your own.

 

[Dadsdream]

Let's hear it for the "coronavirus related" additions to the spending bill! COFF! COFF!

Post Office bailout
One section of the bill would eliminate $11 billion worth of debt for the U.S. Postal Service -- money that it currently owes to the Treasury Department. It would also require the Treasury to "eliminate the $3 billion annual borrowing limit in current law," according to a summary of the bill released by House Democrats.

Union boosting
In addition to requiring each airline that receives money through the bill to have a union representative on its board, the House Democrats' summary says the bill would nullify a variety of executive orders issued by the Trump administration on collective bargaining.

Environmental provisions
Any airlines that accept assistance from the House Democrats' bill would be forced to "offset their carbon emissions and reduce their overall emissions by 50 percent by 2050." That matches with environmental plans from Democratic presidential candidates Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders to have the U.S. reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.
The House bill would also expand an FAA program that incentivizes airports to purchase environmentally friendly equipment and create a "cash for clunkers" program -- similar to one created by the Obama administration for cars -- but for older airplanes.


Obamaphones
One section of Pelosi's bill allocates $1 billion and calls for federal authorities to immediately expand the "emergency lifeline broadband benefit" for every household that contains at least one "qualifying low-income consumer." That would include any "mass-market retail service by wire or radio that provides the capability to transmit data to and receive data from all or substantially all Internet endpoints, including any capabilities that are incidental to and enable the operation of the communications service."
That benefit would include cell phones.
The National Republican Congressional Committee said the House bill is "full of unrelated liberal goodies, including the return of the Obamaphone," a program that the Government Accountability Office found was "rife with fraud" according to a Washington Times report at the time.

Newspaper retirement plans
House Democrats' plan, according to its summary, expands a recent law that provides "pension funding relief for a number of community newspaper plan sponsors."

$15 minimum wage for companies accepting assistance
Two different sections in the House Democrats' summary of the bill address minimum wage. One provision would "require corporations that receive any federal assistance" to pay all of its workers at least $15 per hour. In addition to the minimum wage, that same provision includes a ban on golden parachutes, restricted bonuses and compensation for executives, a ban on stock buybacks and a ban on companies changing their collective bargaining agreements.

Kennedy Center
The House Democrats' bill provides $35 million to ensure that the D.C.-based John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts is able to remain operational and pay its expenses during the coronavirus-related economic slowdown.


Voter registration
The House Democrats' bill has a variety of election-related mandates, including that states allow at least 15 days of early voting for elections and no-excuse absentee mail-in voting -- two things that could be useful in holding elections during the continuing coronavirus threat.
But is also prohibits states from "imposing additional conditions or requirements on the eligibility of a voter to cast an absentee ballot such as notarization or witness signatures, and prohibits requiring identification to obtain an absentee ballot."
It also forces states to allow same-day voter registration, a practice that is becoming more common throughout the U.S. but is far from universal.

Student loans
Democrats' summary of their bill would eliminate "a minimum of $10,000 of federal and private student loan debt for each indebted borrower." Student loan forgiveness has been a go-to issue for Democrats in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail.

What’s in Democrats’ coronavirus bill? Arts funding, union help and more

The bill includes a number of provisions with questionable relevance to the pandemic which has killed more than 17,000 worldwide and sickened more than 390,000.

www.foxnews.com

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

just reading what I wrote reinforces how hard of a place leadership is in on this thing.
Because at some point you have to make a choice as to whether you treat it seriously and cause damage to people's livelihood or you let it spread.
To me its hard to be real political on it, although I certainly get the criticisms directed toward Trump. But I understand the hesitation in "shutting it down" and I also did not see Governors and Mayors being in the forefront of having their economies take a huge hit in order to slow this spread.

Yes, it is really hard, and I'm trying to not jump too hard on Trump on this because it is really, really hard, and I suspect a lot of politicians would be trying to downplay it.

Also my experience is all in project management, and executive management, so not nearly the same thing. I have also read tons of leadership books. Everything points to the same thing though, people take bad news much better than we give them credit for, as long as they have faith in the leadership, and one of the best ways to develop that faith is to deliver the bad news up front, along with a plan.

Our leadership also has to make a decision on the relative value of human life. It doesn't help that the people most likely to die from this virus are the ones who vote the most reliably.

 

[Beach Friends]

You don't think his constantly changing how bad this was going to be in the beginning did the opposite? It seems to me that a casual observer (ie not someone like us who are pretty involved in following the day to day), would look at the statements of Trump and determine that the government does not have a handle on it given his initial statements and then having to constantly go back and revise it and recommend more strict measures.

I would give him low marks for his communication in the early days. I don't know if it was denial, wishful thinking or what - but it's one of those things that makes little sense.

I like the travel restrictions he invoked - even though some felt that was xenophobic. I like that he assembled a task force early - even though some were most concerned that there was a lack of diversity on the task force.

 

[The moose]

I would give him low marks for his communication in the early days. I don't know if it was denial, wishful thinking or what - but it's one of those things that makes little sense.

I like the travel restrictions he invoked - even though some felt that was xenophobic. I like that he assembled a task force early - even though some were most concerned that there was a lack of diversity on the task force.

I dislike he fired the task force that tracking and planning for an event just like this was their job just because that dude before him set it up.

But then again I am sure you don't see it that way.