[2006alum]

What this thread - but particularly GR's "Timelines" thread - makes abundantly clear is one thing:  do not even try to tread on this board's absolute right to $hit on the Trump Administration for its feckless handling of the Covid- virus, whether by "relativizing" it or what have you.  The troops were out in force in Timelines, that's for sure!

An amazing study in board psychology . . . if anyone really cares.

And speaking of that, who really cares about how other countries handled the pandemic, good or bad or "about the same," or whatever?  And that's putting aside the historic, geographic, and cultural differences which may help or hinder a unified response in one country versus here.  It's all irrelevant noise, imo.  But whatever.

1. This special COVID-19 section was created precisely because of a feeling many of us had that the initial response wasn't sufficient, both in the media and by our government. So you surely can't be surprised there are more skeptics than adherents of the Administration's approach.

2. What was bizarre to me about GR's approach is that he got to pick and choose which countries to compare us to. In social science, we call that selecting on the dependent variable. When many of us noted a number of success stories, GR handwaved them all away as unsuitable comparisons according to him. Maybe the case can be made for why the actual actions taken in Taiwan, South Korea, and New Zealand aren't achievable here, but GR didn't make it. He just said those countries are so different that no comparisons can be made. That, to me, is begging the question. I'm not entirely surprised that this approach didn't persuade anyone who didn't come in sharing GR's view.

3. If you're dissatisfied with the viewpoint of many folks in this forum, no one is forcing you to keep posting. I have to say I'm genuinely baffled by the complaint that in a marketplace of ideas, some ideas will be ones that few want to buy. Nothing unfair about that - if someone's not persuaded, they're not persuaded. I doubt I've said much of anything to persuade you; ultimately, I view that as my issue, not yours.

[2006alum]

What this thread - but particularly GR's "Timelines" thread - makes abundantly clear is one thing:  do not even try to tread on this board's absolute right to $hit on the Trump Administration for its feckless handling of the Covid- virus, whether by "relativizing" it or what have you.  The troops were out in force in Timelines, that's for sure!

An amazing study in board psychology . . . if anyone really cares.

And speaking of that, who really cares about how other countries handled the pandemic, good or bad or "about the same," or whatever?  And that's putting aside the historic, geographic, and cultural differences which may help or hinder a unified response in one country versus here.  It's all irrelevant noise, imo.  But whatever.

1. This special COVID-19 section was created precisely because of a feeling many of us had that the initial response wasn't sufficient, both in the media and by our government. So you surely can't be surprised there are more skeptics than adherents of the Administration's approach.

2. What was bizarre to me about GR's approach is that he got to pick and choose which countries to compare us to. In social science, we call that selecting on the dependent variable. When many of us noted a number of success stories, GR handwaved them all away as unsuitable comparisons according to him. Maybe the case can be made for why the actual actions taken in Taiwan, South Korea, and New Zealand aren't achievable here, but GR didn't make it. He just said those countries are so different that no comparisons can be made. That, to me, is begging the question. I'm not entirely surprised that this approach didn't persuade anyone who didn't come in sharing GR's view.

3. If you're dissatisfied with the viewpoint of many folks in this forum, no one is forcing you to keep posting. I have to say I'm genuinely baffled by the complaint that in a marketplace of ideas, some ideas will be ones that few want to buy. Nothing unfair about that - if someone's not persuaded, they're not persuaded. I doubt I've said much of anything to persuade you; ultimately, I view that as my issue, not yours.