49 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/in-the-early-days-of-the-pandemic-the-us-government-turned-down-an-offer-to-manufacture-millions-of-n95-masks-in-america/2020/05/09/f76a821e-908a-11ea-a9c0-73b93422d691_story.html

 

You can't really say that. While I agree that a novel virus is going to challenge any playbook, it's also not as though we've never experienced a novel virus in the past. There are things to learn from in what to do and what not to do, and playbooks - like the one that Obama's team left and Trump ignored - help to inform competent leadership as they navigate some of the unknowns.

The closest novel threat was SARS which was overblown.  Swine flu, avian flu, all more of a threat to livestock.

 

This virus is different.   And before you beat your chest about Obama and ebola, ebola was well known and characterized.   Tom Clancy wrote a book about it being weaponized.

5 minutes ago, BBE said:

The closest novel threat was SARS which was overblown.  Swine flu, avian flu, all more of a threat to livestock.

 

This virus is different.   And before you beat your chest about Obama and ebola, ebola was well known and characterized.   Tom Clancy wrote a book about it being weaponized.

 

1 minute ago, VanHammersly said:

 

A tweet for every occasion.   But, as usual, does not address the point I made.

The failure on testing is on many levels, most of which point right back to the Trump administration's gross incompetence. Yes, we have an issue with production being overseas, but there is production capacity in the US that could have been mobilized MUCH earlier. Simply put, the Trump administration failed to take the threat seriously in January and prioritize test production in conjunction with the private sector -- instead, the CDC decided to try and make its own test, moved slowly and then screwed it up (it is a government operation). How did they screw it up...

- they rejected the WHO guidelines and offers and insisted on making their own tests

- they screwed up making the kits and contaminated them, causing a month's delay

- when they finally started shipping tests, they shipped them nationwide as opposed to focusing on the hot spots (NY, WA, etc.)

Had the CDC acted sooner and been competent, we could have been closer to South Korea. And yes, the CDC is part of the Trump Administration, so Trump, Azar, et. al get the blame. 

OK, after we botched early testing, we lost the chance to contain the virus like South Korea did. But then we STILL lag in testing -- mainly because the President doesn't want the case numbers to be higher. More testing = more cases = Donnie mad. The guy has flat out publicly admitted this. So instead he pushed miracle cures that are frauds, said it would magically disappear and refused to confront it.

The sad part? Trump is so dumb he doesn't realize that massive testing would HELP re-start the economy and therefore his reelection. Yes, we would find more cases, but THAT IS A GOOD THING BECAUSE IT WOULD LOWER THE MORTALITY RATE. Right now we are reporting over 95k deaths on roughly 1.6mm cases, implying a mortality rate of ~6%. If we tested widely and could prove what we all know -- that many more people have gotten and recovered from COVID -- that number would plummet. CNN runs those stats all day and all night, and it freaks people out and makes them hesitant to re-enter the economy. Showing that the true mortality rate is sub 1% would help massively with reopening the country.

Testing would also allow us to respond to any future flare-ups by moving quickly to quarantine and trace. It's all about testing so we can have good inputs and data with which to make decisions. But President Man-Baby doesn't want higher case numbers, so we have this insanity where we have no real handle on the data...

11 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

That isn't the point.  When he wanted to increase the production of ventilators he didn't just rely on his government agencies.  He reached out to (and even requested/demanded) private companies push towards production of ventilators.  If he truly wanted to push testing early he would not have relied solely on a CDC test while telling the country "all is well".  He didn't, and that is absolutely a failure on his part. There are several examples of countries who were able to institute early aggressive testing protocols yet somehow it's just bad luck that the world leader in medical R&D couldn't figure it out? Get real.

Rebuttal for what?  You yourself noted that testing as a means of initial response (again, the timeframe that you decided to focus on here) to limit spread and prevent lockdown loses effectiveness after the virus has taken hold.  So no that means very little given how delayed that response was. Neither in the context of this argument nor in the context of catching up after a miserable first response. Keep on moving those goalposts though.

Politicizing an issue is commonplace.  Politicizing a national health crisis to this extent is abso-Fing-lutely not.  Calling concern over the virus a political hoax, complaining about and shaming health officials/reporters publicly , pushing ineffective and potentially dangerous medications, prodding anti-lockdown "liberation" movements (but only ones in democrat controlled states!) are absolutely significant actions that are divisive and disruptive in a truly unprecedented way.

Not that wish-casting what I believe would have installed better policies means anything, but sure I'll play along: I believe almost anyone who has had presidential aspiration recently would have had a better initial response to this than he did, on either side of the aisle, outside of maybe the ideologic extremes like Paul or Sanders. Seriously I'd take Bush or Pence, and I think very little of both.

A better initial response would have then been complete border shutdown and Martial Law (as stated hold policy enactment otherwise). I don't see Bush or Pence enacting.

Comparing countries is not as easy as comparing population and you know it. Society mindset, government rule, etc are significant factors.

If we remove NYC, as an outlier, the US has not fared terribly compared to other countries.

Initial response was for CDC to produce tests. They failed, Trump stepped in created a council and now the problem is more than corrected.

Testing and tracing is a great idea in theory. But unless you are specifically taking people and moving them to quarantine when infected seems unrealistic.

As far as politicization, every politician currently has a pandemic agenda list. Look at the junk in the latest bills that are for "helping" those who need it most.

 

6 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

I wouldn't say it's in the CDC's wheelhouse to be able to mass produce tests for an entire nation during a nationwide pandemic.  Do you know why South Korea was able to get their testing program up and running so quickly? Because they leaned on the private sector to do it.  We took the opposite approach.  We blocked the private sector from getting involved.  This was a bad decision.  What makes it worse is that we had South Korea's example to follow.  We saw them utilize the resources of the private sector to create significant testing capability in 2 weeks, and we went, "Nah, let's do the opposite. Let's rely solely on the government resources for this one" .  Heck it took the FDA weeks just to allow for the import of South Korean testing technology into the US.

So in Monday Morning QB we were wrong. At that time, we thought it was the right call.

Government setup failures that need to be amended, but not likely avoided by any other administration based on red tape.

4 minutes ago, DMMVP said:

So in Monday Morning QB we were wrong. At that time, we thought it was the right call.

Government setup failures that need to be amended, but not likely avoided by any other administration based on red tape.

Who is "we".  I certainly didn't think it was the right call for the government to block out the private sector from producing tests and to rely solely on the CDC to do it.  I certainly didn't think it was the right call for the FDA to take weeks to approve the already proven South Korean testing technology.   

3 hours ago, dawkins4prez said:

Trump administration has failed at several major things.

 

1.  Testing, they didn't get up to speed until early May This was a direct result of having no plan.  Without testing there is no tracing and without tracing you are slow to react.

 

2.  Getting the masks, respirators etc.  Again, they were almost 2 months late with this, causing a clusterF throughout March and parts of April as hospitals did not have what they needed.  Also a direct result of reacting late.  They should have had a game plan in action by mid March.

 

3. Failing to get ahead of the lockdowns.  Trump did not issue guidelines for lockdowns until after the cities and private corporations had already done so.  There was zero federal leadership at this crucial point on how to go about it.  That led directly to more f ups from the states who do not have the pandemic expert teams the White House has.

 

4.  Communicating information.  Trump's misinformation matters.  It is probably the most important thing your government does in this situation, provide official information.  He has downplayed the virus, sold miracle cures, downplayed the importance of mitigation behavior.  These things matter, a lot and while the first 3 screwed us for the 1st waves this one will screw us hard during the 2nd.

 

These are tangible things Trump Fed up on.  The dates of the F up are well documented.  You are trying to say "nothing happened here" because they are up to date on testing now and they are up to date on equipment now.  Being aTrump fan requires the memory of a goldfish apparently.  And you also want to take this argument as quickly as possible, before the irresponsible talk leads to surges in red states, which is absolutely on the verge of happening.

Didn't vote for Trump, chump. I just like pointing out both sides as have agreed olwith points against Trump.

The constant Trump crying gets old. Sometime he deserves it, others not. Blame goes all around.

1. Plan was in place but failed.

2. PPE stockpile an issue over 2 administrations. Our reliance on China, which Trump spoke against for years, caused it. They withheld PPE knowing a crisis was coming.

3. Fauci end of February didn't call for lockdowns. States, with information, called for lockdowns in March. States resisted anything Trump said. Cuomo at the end of March said Trump has no authority to impose quarantine. That it would be illegal.

4. Trump's misinformation is unsettling. Media does twist some things he says but his promises can't always be trusted. He should hold himself to a higher degree but its not policy.

19 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

The failure on testing is on many levels, most of which point right back to the Trump administration's gross incompetence. Yes, we have an issue with production being overseas, but there is production capacity in the US that could have been mobilized MUCH earlier. Simply put, the Trump administration failed to take the threat seriously in January and prioritize test production in conjunction with the private sector -- instead, the CDC decided to try and make its own test, moved slowly and then screwed it up (it is a government operation). How did they screw it up...

- they rejected the WHO guidelines and offers and insisted on making their own tests

- they screwed up making the kits and contaminated them, causing a month's delay

- when they finally started shipping tests, they shipped them nationwide as opposed to focusing on the hot spots (NY, WA, etc.)

Had the CDC acted sooner and been competent, we could have been closer to South Korea. And yes, the CDC is part of the Trump Administration, so Trump, Azar, et. al get the blame. 

Actually, the CDC did what the CDC always does.  Same for FDA.  This is a systemic issue that is independent of who occupies the Oval Office.  This virus exposed the faults in the system.

19 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

OK, after we botched early testing, we lost the chance to contain the virus like South Korea did. But then we STILL lag in testing -- mainly because the President doesn't want the case numbers to be higher. More testing = more cases = Donnie mad. The guy has flat out publicly admitted this. So instead he pushed miracle cures that are frauds, said it would magically disappear and refused to confront it.

The sad part? Trump is so dumb he doesn't realize that massive testing would HELP re-start the economy and therefore his reelection. Yes, we would find more cases, but THAT IS A GOOD THING BECAUSE IT WOULD LOWER THE MORTALITY RATE. Right now we are reporting over 95k deaths on roughly 1.6mm cases, implying a mortality rate of ~6%. If we tested widely and could prove what we all know -- that many more people have gotten and recovered from COVID -- that number would plummet. CNN runs those stats all day and all night, and it freaks people out and makes them hesitant to re-enter the economy. Showing that the true mortality rate is sub 1% would help massively with reopening the country.

Testing would also allow us to respond to any future flare-ups by moving quickly to quarantine and trace. It's all about testing so we can have good inputs and data with which to make decisions. But President Man-Baby doesn't want higher case numbers, so we have this insanity where we have no real handle on the data...

Trump mishandled the rest as you stated.  And like everyone is focused on raw numbers which are scarier, but analytically deficient.

5 minutes ago, BBE said:

Actually, the CDC did what the CDC always does.  Same for FDA.  This is a systemic issue that is independent of who occupies the Oval Office.  This virus exposed the faults in the system.

Trump mishandled the rest as you stated.  And like everyone is focused on raw numbers which are scarier, but analytically deficient.

Yes, the CDC did what it usually does in creating its own test. Screwing that up, contaminating it and then not focusing on hot spots? That's not in the user's manual.

My point is the heads of the CDC and the FDA are Trump appointees, and both are part of the Executive Branch. So the screwups are the administration's, and in my mind, the buck stops at the Resolute Desk. I have no interest in trying to shield him from responsibility, just as Obama was responsible for Holder's actions in Fast & Furious -- you own the actions of your subordinates and appointees.

3 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Who is "we".  I certainly didn't think it was the right call for the government to block out the private sector from producing tests and to rely solely on the CDC to do it.  I certainly didn't think it was the right call for the FDA to take weeks to approve the already proven South Korean testing technology.   

Assuming you live in the US, "we" refers to us in the country. 

Similar to hearing "we won the superbowl" by fans. It's not as if those fans signed players or actively participated but have an association.

3 minutes ago, DMMVP said:

Assuming you live in the US, "we" refers to us in the country. 

Similar to hearing "we won the superbowl" by fans. It's not as if those fans signed players or actively participated but have an association.

So the whole country approved of blocking the private sector from producing tests?  When?  Who speaks for everyone in the country?

Just now, VanHammersly said:

So the whole country approved of blocking the private sector from producing tests?  When?  Who speaks for everyone in the country?

Whe we win a superbowl, is it because we hired or voted on free agents?

"We" as a collective, whether involved in a decision are part of the benefit/detriment.

This discussion is corny and useless.

5 minutes ago, DMMVP said:

Whe we win a superbowl, is it because we hired or voted on free agents?

"We" as a collective, whether involved in a decision are part of the benefit/detriment.

This discussion is corny and useless.

But you said

Quote

At that time, we thought it was the right call.

So you think "we", the collective country, thought blocking private companies from producing tests was the right call?  Or the administration thought it was the right call, since, you know, they're the one's that did it?

15 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

But you said

So you think "we", the collective country, thought blocking private companies from producing tests was the right call?  Or the administration thought it was the right call, since, you know, they're the one's that did it?

If you'd like I'll continue with this.

"We" as a country entrusted them. Policymakers "we" elected in our political system.

33 minutes ago, DMMVP said:

If you'd like I'll continue with this.

"We" as a country entrusted them. Policymakers "we" elected in our political system.

Lolol I certainly didn’t trust our elected leaders to make good decisions during this pandemic.  Have you seen our elected leaders?  

58 minutes ago, DMMVP said:

Whe we win a superbowl, is it because we hired or voted on free agents?

"We" as a collective, whether involved in a decision are part of the benefit/detriment.

This discussion is corny and useless.

So when a team makes a bad signing, even if a majority of the fans thought it was a bad idea, it still makes sense to say "hey we all thought it was the right call!”

I mean, basically what you’re saying is that we aren’t ever allowed to be critical of the decisions of our elected leaders, since they were elected.  That means any decision they make, we must have all been in agreement with.

12 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

So when a team makes a bad signing, even if a majority of the fans thought it was a bad idea, it still makes sense to say "hey we all thought it was the right call!”

I mean, basically what you’re saying is that we aren’t ever allowed to be critical of the decisions of our elected leaders, since they were elected.  That means any decision they make, we must have all been in agreement with.

Point out exactly where I said we can't be critical.

We as fans of a team trust those in charge to make the right calls. We, as fans, are effected even though we didn't have a say.

We absolutely can and should criticize but "we" are effected nonetheless.

 

Good god man...

 

18 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Lolol I certainly didn’t trust our elected leaders to make good decisions during this pandemic.  Have you seen our elected leaders?  

So you knew the CDC would fail right  off the bat?

 

22 minutes ago, DMMVP said:

So you knew the CDC would fail right  off the bat?

 

I thought it was a bad idea to pin the development, distribution, and operation of a nationwide testing program a singular government agency and to lock the private sector out of the equation.  Especially given the success we saw in South Korea. 

4 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

There are other countries that have done a great job at mitigating the impact from this virus, namely South Korea and Japan.  So yes, better leadership would have absolutely yielded better outcomes.

Its not just the federal government.  Leadership has failed us state and local levels as well absolutely.

I see those countries as examples a lot in here. I really don't think American citizens would have cooperated like SK and Japan citizens. Do you guys really think Americans would have early on? There were a ton of people that didn't think it was a big deal in the beginning.

23 minutes ago, Smokesdawg said:

Good god man...

 

I don't mind as long as they are still using distancing 🤷‍♂️

15 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

I see those countries as examples a lot in here. I really don't think American citizens would have cooperated like SK and Japan citizens. Do you guys really think Americans would have early on? There were a ton of people that didn't think it was a big deal in the beginning.

I don't mind as long as they are still using distancing 🤷‍♂️

Not.  a.  fing.  chance.

19 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

I see those countries as examples a lot in here. I really don't think American citizens would have cooperated like SK and Japan citizens. Do you guys really think Americans would have early on? There were a ton of people that didn't think it was a big deal in the beginning.

I don't mind as long as they are still using distancing 🤷‍♂️

For the most part, those people belonged to the same political persuasion.  And at the same time, the President who they voted for was telling them it wasn't a big deal and it would disappear overnight.  There's a pretty clear causation there.

I think the compliance dynamic, at the beginning at least, would have been radically different under any other administration.  People are willing to briefly sacrifice in this country.  Long term, things become dicier, but asking the country to wear masks/quarantine if necessary/take tests for a month or so could've happened if the will were there in the beginning from the government.  Instead, we waited a month later to start it, which people generally complied by for a month or so and then it started to fall apart.  Take that month of compliance and move it back a month, add in rigorous early testing and we could've had a much better grasp on things.

17 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

I see those countries as examples a lot in here. I really don't think American citizens would have cooperated like SK and Japan citizens. Do you guys really think Americans would have early on? There were a ton of people that didn't think it was a big deal in the beginning.

Compliance would have been an issue.  Cultures are certainly different.  I don’t think you have the same mantra of "no ones gonna tell me to wear a mask!!” attitude in Japan and South Korea.

But ineffective leadership also plays a part.  Makes it a lot easier for people to distrust the government when the government says, "don’t wear masks in public.“ and then a months later,    "Oh wait, just kidding, wear them now”.  I see far more people wearing masks than I did 2 months ago.  Had leadership recommended this from the start, and led by example by doing it themselves, I bet we would have seen far earlier compliance with it.

The testing fiasco was just a mess in its own right.  As was state leaders waiting too long to take action.   Too many state and local leaders waited until it was well apparent that we had significant community spread before deciding to do anything.