[76lsjumb]

I think it is interesting that the two options presented are "do nothing" or "declare a nationwide shutdown".  There was a lot of room between those two, and a lot of soft leadership that the president could have exerted, but chose not to.  Even a guideline for states to follow in terms of how and when to tighten restrictions, much like the guide that the administration generated for loosening them (which I have praised), would have been helpful.

BC

+1. The choices were not merely between the scylla of dictatorship and the charybdis of ineffectual flailing. Unfortunately, the most effectual options (test, trace, isolate) don't make for good headlines or incite protests, so they've generally gotten lost in the clangor.

I’m not sure I understand this point. The actions that I suggest would have been heavily resisted and condemned if ordered by the president are all actions that the scientists and doctors and critics of the president have insisted were necessary and, in fact, have actually been imposed in the past months. Arguing that they somehow could have been avoided if the president had exercised “soft leadership” strikes me as ignoring two rather obvious realities: what happened pretty much everywhere else in the world and the fact that he had just been impeached.  Honestly, I doubt there are very few on this Board who would have given two hoots for any “soft leadership” by the president in February.

[76lsjumb]

I think it is interesting that the two options presented are "do nothing" or "declare a nationwide shutdown".  There was a lot of room between those two, and a lot of soft leadership that the president could have exerted, but chose not to.  Even a guideline for states to follow in terms of how and when to tighten restrictions, much like the guide that the administration generated for loosening them (which I have praised), would have been helpful.

BC

+1. The choices were not merely between the scylla of dictatorship and the charybdis of ineffectual flailing. Unfortunately, the most effectual options (test, trace, isolate) don't make for good headlines or incite protests, so they've generally gotten lost in the clangor.

I’m not sure I understand this point. The actions that I suggest would have been heavily resisted and condemned if ordered by the president are all actions that the scientists and doctors and critics of the president have insisted were necessary and, in fact, have actually been imposed in the past months. Arguing that they somehow could have been avoided if the president had exercised “soft leadership” strikes me as ignoring two rather obvious realities: what happened pretty much everywhere else in the world and the fact that he had just been impeached.  Honestly, I doubt there are very few on this Board who would have given two hoots for any “soft leadership” by the president in February.