[Genuine Realist]

Re-drifting this thread, here's one assessment...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...etectives/

Experts say that like a fishing net with many holes, the surveillance network had numerous gaps, with too little money and manpower to be truly effective. “We’ve been gutting surveillance for too long,” says Michael Buchmeier, a virologist and associate director of the Center for Virus Research at the University of California, Irvine. “And by doing that, we’re creating blind spots in our ability to identify and contain threats of infectious disease in the world.” Indeed, in September 2019, just months before the COVID-19 pandemic began, USAID announced it would end funding for PREDICT. The agency claims it has plans for a successor effort, but it has not provided any additional details, and many worry that critical momentum is being lost.

BC

It's a good article, but there is an elephant in the room. Why is this PREDICT being administered by the USAID? As a type of foreign aid? How exactly does it interact with the CDC and other US agencies and health agencies in other countries? Etc.

---

It turns out that the report yesterday was phony. There is no such intelligence report.

Yeah, Trump administration people are SUPER credible on this issue after spending months lying about the virus and misleading the country at every opportunity.

The denial isn't from Trump people, but the intelligence agency itself. 

As I noted above, Trump was criticized for doing what he did do. If you click on one of the links in Rothman's article, you'll come to a rather smug op-ed in the New York Times, in early February, telling us that all is well and our real danger is in overreaction. One of those who criticized the border closing measures was Joe Biden, in statements I am certain he regrets now.

Trying to make campaign issues out of this stuff by either Party just isn't going to work. Through February, there was too much consensus on an overly optimistic scenario.

[Genuine Realist]

Re-drifting this thread, here's one assessment...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...etectives/

Experts say that like a fishing net with many holes, the surveillance network had numerous gaps, with too little money and manpower to be truly effective. “We’ve been gutting surveillance for too long,” says Michael Buchmeier, a virologist and associate director of the Center for Virus Research at the University of California, Irvine. “And by doing that, we’re creating blind spots in our ability to identify and contain threats of infectious disease in the world.” Indeed, in September 2019, just months before the COVID-19 pandemic began, USAID announced it would end funding for PREDICT. The agency claims it has plans for a successor effort, but it has not provided any additional details, and many worry that critical momentum is being lost.

BC

It's a good article, but there is an elephant in the room. Why is this PREDICT being administered by the USAID? As a type of foreign aid? How exactly does it interact with the CDC and other US agencies and health agencies in other countries? Etc.

---

It turns out that the report yesterday was phony. There is no such intelligence report.

Yeah, Trump administration people are SUPER credible on this issue after spending months lying about the virus and misleading the country at every opportunity.

The denial isn't from Trump people, but the intelligence agency itself. 

As I noted above, Trump was criticized for doing what he did do. If you click on one of the links in Rothman's article, you'll come to a rather smug op-ed in the New York Times, in early February, telling us that all is well and our real danger is in overreaction. One of those who criticized the border closing measures was Joe Biden, in statements I am certain he regrets now.

Trying to make campaign issues out of this stuff by either Party just isn't going to work. Through February, there was too much consensus on an overly optimistic scenario.