[Genuine Realist]

What I meant was that we evaluate the performance of our leaders based on the reality of the situation they faced, not based on some alternate universe where a non-benign state actor doesn't pursue a policy which adversely affects us.

It would be like trying to evaluate FDR's response to World War II in a universe where Pearl Harbor doesn't happen or Jimmy Carter's response to the Iranian revolution in a universe where the hostages aren't taken.

I mean, let's say that the virus emerged in sub-Saharan Africa, where the country in question simply lacked the capacity to do any basic epidemiology and find out about the virus until it is already widespread and it shows up on our shores.  Functionally it is no different than the situation we face.

Ultimately, I go back to the fact that Chinese leaders are "accountable" (in quotes, because it is not a democracy) to the Chinese population, while American leaders are accountable to Americans.  I already think the CCP is corrupt and repressive and the Chinese people would be better off with a different system, so I'm not disputing any of the criticism.  But the President has to play the cards he was dealt, not the cards he would have preferred to have, and he played them poorly.

BC

Right. That explains why we condemn FDR for not declaring war on Nazi Germany on September 2nd, 1939. Only we don't. I do believe that policy alternatives  for whomever is President are constrained by public awareness and information available. We do not expect (or should not) superhuma awareness.

I'm not going into the Trump debate here. What I am saying is that good policy decisions were made enormously more difficult both in the United States and around the world by deliberate Chinese Communist mis- and dis- information that persisted well into February. It was only after the clinical experience of Western doctors, particularly in Italy, proved vastly different than what was being reported that the public was aroused, and willing to accept a social discipline that it would never have accepted in January.

[Genuine Realist]

What I meant was that we evaluate the performance of our leaders based on the reality of the situation they faced, not based on some alternate universe where a non-benign state actor doesn't pursue a policy which adversely affects us.

It would be like trying to evaluate FDR's response to World War II in a universe where Pearl Harbor doesn't happen or Jimmy Carter's response to the Iranian revolution in a universe where the hostages aren't taken.

I mean, let's say that the virus emerged in sub-Saharan Africa, where the country in question simply lacked the capacity to do any basic epidemiology and find out about the virus until it is already widespread and it shows up on our shores.  Functionally it is no different than the situation we face.

Ultimately, I go back to the fact that Chinese leaders are "accountable" (in quotes, because it is not a democracy) to the Chinese population, while American leaders are accountable to Americans.  I already think the CCP is corrupt and repressive and the Chinese people would be better off with a different system, so I'm not disputing any of the criticism.  But the President has to play the cards he was dealt, not the cards he would have preferred to have, and he played them poorly.

BC

Right. That explains why we condemn FDR for not declaring war on Nazi Germany on September 2nd, 1939. Only we don't. I do believe that policy alternatives  for whomever is President are constrained by public awareness and information available. We do not expect (or should not) superhuma awareness.

I'm not going into the Trump debate here. What I am saying is that good policy decisions were made enormously more difficult both in the United States and around the world by deliberate Chinese Communist mis- and dis- information that persisted well into February. It was only after the clinical experience of Western doctors, particularly in Italy, proved vastly different than what was being reported that the public was aroused, and willing to accept a social discipline that it would never have accepted in January.