[Genuine Realist]

I'm not sure a Dem (or alternate GOP) president would have reacted much faster. - Magnus

Maybe, but this particular President has a history of doubting scientists and not trusting subject matter experts.  I'd like to think 42, 43, or 44 had less of this type of hubris, would have been more heedful of the many warnings, and quicker to trust the science once the risk was known.  I could be wrong here.

This article lays out that the Obama administration's response to H1N1 flu in 2009 was quick and effective: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/trumps...emic-spin/

If you compare the timelines of response from the first US H1N1 infection vs the first US coronavirus infection, the Obama administration was weeks or even >1 month quicker to declare an emergency, ask for funding, etc.  So, no comparison here.

In hindsight,  sole blame can't be laid on the administration.  It's the system we have in place now.  I'm not sure a Dem (or alternate GOP) president would have reacted much faster. Unless the horror hit our doorstep...or at least our closest allies' doorstep,  it's hard to motivate.  Especially when,  as Genuine said,  US doctors weren't taking this seriously.  I asked 2 ID docs before my trip what to do and they both said I should go.  Not to mention the WHO's reaction.

This is highly specious reasoning.  Frankly, some doctors are idiots.  Just because you can get a medical degree does not mean you are immune to political persuasion, etc.  The fact that doctors were dismissing the virus simply means that the federal government did not do its job properly in warning people about the dangers of the virus.  Remember, idiot Trump spent a month telling people that it was a hoax, was nothing, etc.  Lots of people listen to Trump, even though he has a long record of lying.  In an ideal world where a president was on top of the coronavirus response from day one, no doctor would have been able to ignore it.

The article on swine flu is typical of the vagueness with which achievements of the Obama Administration are praised. There's no mention of the time frame within which responses were launched, which is the whole point. To my understanding, he was miles slower than the Trump Administration has been  here. The fact that a vaccine was developed within six months had a lot more to do with the nature of the virus than any political action. A similar observation can be made about genetic mapping, etc. The bottom line is that swine flu was a lot less dangerous than this thing. Obama was a lot slower, as I understand it, but - OTOH - maybe because the extremity was not so great.

I"m trying to avoid the venom that infects the other board, but I see no point in politicizing this crisis. I do believe the societal response has been relatively quick in terms of available information. A lockdown of the scale we are enduring now was out of the question politically and socially before medical opinion was loud and unanimous, and that did not happen until the second week of March. I don't think either party acquitted itself all that well - Democratic leaders are going to have to live with rather embarrassing criticisms they made of what measures the Administration DID take. (Nancy Pelosi is on video in mid February urging San Franciscans to go out and celebrate Chinese New Year in presumably large crowds - the same advice as Di Blasio. disastrous in both cases.)

The bottom line to me is that a peace time society was caught flatfooted by a war time emergency. The much under appreciated Bush did initiate a pandemic plan, after acquainting himself with the 1918 experience. In 2006, I doubt it was even covered by the MSM, preoccupied as it was with the war. Two successive Administrations ignored or weakened the plan. I don't see any point in debating which one did worse. Both Obama and Trump proposed budget reductions for the CDC, which were not enacted. Maybe they should have been, paradoxically, in the interest of efficiency and effectiveness. Overfunded, bloated agencies, staffed with civil servant time killers, are not what the doctor ordered. (A little joke there.)  Maybe the Congress should have looked hard at the actual capabilities of the agency, instead of conducting endless investigations of the Obama and Trump Presidencies, respectively.

In any case, the CDC remained as it was. The major issue is that it turns out to be completely unprepared for a pandemic on this scale. And the bottom line. . . 

What difference does any of this make now? I"m glad to see Bush regain a little of the historical credibility he deserves, but - in larger terms- so what?

We had better get on with this task, without looking back, in the same way as the nation did after Pearl Harbor.

[Genuine Realist]

I'm not sure a Dem (or alternate GOP) president would have reacted much faster. - Magnus

Maybe, but this particular President has a history of doubting scientists and not trusting subject matter experts.  I'd like to think 42, 43, or 44 had less of this type of hubris, would have been more heedful of the many warnings, and quicker to trust the science once the risk was known.  I could be wrong here.

This article lays out that the Obama administration's response to H1N1 flu in 2009 was quick and effective: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/trumps...emic-spin/

If you compare the timelines of response from the first US H1N1 infection vs the first US coronavirus infection, the Obama administration was weeks or even >1 month quicker to declare an emergency, ask for funding, etc.  So, no comparison here.

In hindsight,  sole blame can't be laid on the administration.  It's the system we have in place now.  I'm not sure a Dem (or alternate GOP) president would have reacted much faster. Unless the horror hit our doorstep...or at least our closest allies' doorstep,  it's hard to motivate.  Especially when,  as Genuine said,  US doctors weren't taking this seriously.  I asked 2 ID docs before my trip what to do and they both said I should go.  Not to mention the WHO's reaction.

This is highly specious reasoning.  Frankly, some doctors are idiots.  Just because you can get a medical degree does not mean you are immune to political persuasion, etc.  The fact that doctors were dismissing the virus simply means that the federal government did not do its job properly in warning people about the dangers of the virus.  Remember, idiot Trump spent a month telling people that it was a hoax, was nothing, etc.  Lots of people listen to Trump, even though he has a long record of lying.  In an ideal world where a president was on top of the coronavirus response from day one, no doctor would have been able to ignore it.

The article on swine flu is typical of the vagueness with which achievements of the Obama Administration are praised. There's no mention of the time frame within which responses were launched, which is the whole point. To my understanding, he was miles slower than the Trump Administration has been  here. The fact that a vaccine was developed within six months had a lot more to do with the nature of the virus than any political action. A similar observation can be made about genetic mapping, etc. The bottom line is that swine flu was a lot less dangerous than this thing. Obama was a lot slower, as I understand it, but - OTOH - maybe because the extremity was not so great.

I"m trying to avoid the venom that infects the other board, but I see no point in politicizing this crisis. I do believe the societal response has been relatively quick in terms of available information. A lockdown of the scale we are enduring now was out of the question politically and socially before medical opinion was loud and unanimous, and that did not happen until the second week of March. I don't think either party acquitted itself all that well - Democratic leaders are going to have to live with rather embarrassing criticisms they made of what measures the Administration DID take. (Nancy Pelosi is on video in mid February urging San Franciscans to go out and celebrate Chinese New Year in presumably large crowds - the same advice as Di Blasio. disastrous in both cases.)

The bottom line to me is that a peace time society was caught flatfooted by a war time emergency. The much under appreciated Bush did initiate a pandemic plan, after acquainting himself with the 1918 experience. In 2006, I doubt it was even covered by the MSM, preoccupied as it was with the war. Two successive Administrations ignored or weakened the plan. I don't see any point in debating which one did worse. Both Obama and Trump proposed budget reductions for the CDC, which were not enacted. Maybe they should have been, paradoxically, in the interest of efficiency and effectiveness. Overfunded, bloated agencies, staffed with civil servant time killers, are not what the doctor ordered. (A little joke there.)  Maybe the Congress should have looked hard at the actual capabilities of the agency, instead of conducting endless investigations of the Obama and Trump Presidencies, respectively.

In any case, the CDC remained as it was. The major issue is that it turns out to be completely unprepared for a pandemic on this scale. And the bottom line. . . 

What difference does any of this make now? I"m glad to see Bush regain a little of the historical credibility he deserves, but - in larger terms- so what?

We had better get on with this task, without looking back, in the same way as the nation did after Pearl Harbor.