[Genuine Realist]

If FDR bungled the World War II, do you not think he should have come under criticism?  Trump is not being criticized for what happened before Coronavirus made it to our shores; he's being criticized for what has happened since then.

BC

I suggested the theory that FDR bungled long before Pearl Harbor. But the theory is nonsense because he did not remotely have the popular consensus to act more aggressively, even though his perception of reality was far more advanced than the largely isolationist public, and historically correct. 

After H1N1 (in 1976) and the light brush with swine flu in 2009, the public's support for drastic measures before March was nonexistent. It was the discovery that C-19 was no swine flu that changed perception. 

And for that belated awakening, we have the CCP to thank.

[Genuine Realist]

If FDR bungled the World War II, do you not think he should have come under criticism?  Trump is not being criticized for what happened before Coronavirus made it to our shores; he's being criticized for what has happened since then.

BC

I suggested the theory that FDR bungled long before Pearl Harbor. But the theory is nonsense because he did not remotely have the popular consensus to act more aggressively, even though his perception of reality was far more advanced than the largely isolationist public, and historically correct. 

After H1N1 (in 1976) and the light brush with swine flu in 2009, the public's support for drastic measures before March was nonexistent. It was the discovery that C-19 was no swine flu that changed perception. 

And for that belated awakening, we have the CCP to thank.

[OutsiderFan]

The USAG threatening to interfere with states trying to protect their citizens against Covid-19 infection is absolutely about Covid-19.

[OutsiderFan]

The USAG threatening to interfere with states trying to protect their citizens against Covid-19 infection is absolutely about Covid-19.

[2006alum]

The USAG threatening to interfere with states trying to protect their citizens against Covid-19 infection is absolutely about Covid-19.

I obviously agree, insofar as I was the one who posted about it. But we can leave to the side what else Barr does in his free time at DOJ and just focus on the COVID-19 part.

[2006alum]

The USAG threatening to interfere with states trying to protect their citizens against Covid-19 infection is absolutely about Covid-19.

I obviously agree, insofar as I was the one who posted about it. But we can leave to the side what else Barr does in his free time at DOJ and just focus on the COVID-19 part.

[fullmetal]

Don't forget Bill Barr's request to suspend habeas corpus rights during the pandemic:
https://reason.com/2020/03/21/justice-de...ronavirus/

[fullmetal]

Don't forget Bill Barr's request to suspend habeas corpus rights during the pandemic:
https://reason.com/2020/03/21/justice-de...ronavirus/

[Goose]

After H1N1 (in 1976) and the light brush with swine flu in 2009, the public's support for drastic measures before March was nonexistent. It was the discovery that C-19 was no swine flu that changed perception.

Totally agree here.

And for that belated awakening, we have the CCP to thank.

I don't agree here at all. The CCP did not disclose all they could have. It is somewhat assumed here that the reasons for that were not benign. That may be, but in my experience incompetence and just plain being wrong is much more common than malice. In any case, I don't think that complete transparency would have mattered all that much.
People in the US still view China, Japan, and Asia as "a far away country, between people of whom we know nothing". Not at all accurate in today's world, but still a major factor in US public opinion. The SARS outbreak that was supposed to be so bad in the US wasn't. What happens in China means little about what will happen in the USA. It was also "an N of 1". Probably won't be bad anywhere else.
Italy was a different case. Although equally far away, it is considered as "like us". If it happens in Italy, it can happen here. Totally different psychology. It was also no longer a outlier. N was now 2. When we saw Italy start to get hit, it suddenly became credible it could happen here.

[Goose]

After H1N1 (in 1976) and the light brush with swine flu in 2009, the public's support for drastic measures before March was nonexistent. It was the discovery that C-19 was no swine flu that changed perception.

Totally agree here.

And for that belated awakening, we have the CCP to thank.

I don't agree here at all. The CCP did not disclose all they could have. It is somewhat assumed here that the reasons for that were not benign. That may be, but in my experience incompetence and just plain being wrong is much more common than malice. In any case, I don't think that complete transparency would have mattered all that much.
People in the US still view China, Japan, and Asia as "a far away country, between people of whom we know nothing". Not at all accurate in today's world, but still a major factor in US public opinion. The SARS outbreak that was supposed to be so bad in the US wasn't. What happens in China means little about what will happen in the USA. It was also "an N of 1". Probably won't be bad anywhere else.
Italy was a different case. Although equally far away, it is considered as "like us". If it happens in Italy, it can happen here. Totally different psychology. It was also no longer a outlier. N was now 2. When we saw Italy start to get hit, it suddenly became credible it could happen here.

[BostonCard]

If FDR bungled the World War II, do you not think he should have come under criticism?  Trump is not being criticized for what happened before Coronavirus made it to our shores; he's being criticized for what has happened since then.



BC

I suggested the theory that FDR bungled long before Pearl Harbor. But the theory is nonsense because he did not remotely have the popular consensus to act more aggressively, even though his perception of reality was far more advanced than the largely isolationist public, and historically correct. 



After H1N1 (in 1976) and the light brush with swine flu in 2009, the public's support for drastic measures before March was nonexistent. It was the discovery that C-19 was no swine flu that changed perception. 



And for that belated awakening, we have the CCP to thank.

Lots of steps that Trump could have taken to either increase public support or take steps that the public would have been behind.
1) Stop making it worse by minimizing the significance of the virus and saying it will go away on its own, even as the cases and deaths were piling up.
2) Start socializing the potential of the virus to be very serious.
3) Put in place executive orders to cut through the red tape at FDA and CDC to roll out testing and enable expanded access to medications.
4) Develop a COVID response team that would determine what needs healthcare teams will have.  Identify PPE and ventilators as your weak link before health systems are overwhelmed and centralize purchase and distribution.
5) Develop guidelines for states to implement escalating social distancing orders.  The administration did a decent job in writing the guidelines for reopening; it could have provided states with guidelines on when to impose various restrictions.  That doesn't mean you impose them immediately, but rather you get the states ready to impose them.  Remember, a one day delay results in a ~40% increase in cases in a wave, so if you can get states to move forward their restrictions by a day or two, that makes a significant difference in the end.
6) Expand local health authorities capability to do case tracking.  The CDC announced 600 additional staff today.  It could have pushed this two months ago!
7) Talk to business leaders to socialize them to the possible need of having employees work from home.  For whatever my complaints about Trump are, he is good at talking to business leaders.  Even just "make contingency plans to have your employees work from home" would have been helpful.
8) Work with states to get them read.
9) Start negotiations with congress to get important pieces of legislation together early.  You don't have to pass them, but if you have the outlines of legislation already negotiated and ready to deploy if the proverbial crap hits the fan.
10) Most importantly, the President is supposed to be a leader; lead for frick's sake.  Tell people things they might not want to hear, but that if they hear could save their lives.  Tell people to be ready for the worst, but remind them that we are all in this together, and that if things start to take a turn worse, we will all work together.

None of these steps required anything from the CCP or WHO.  Worst case scenario, the worst doesn't come to pass, and maybe he gets a few complaints about overreaction, but no worse than what he would have endured for the travel ban, for example.  Which is to say, ultimately the usual suspects would complain; his supporters would hail him as a genius, and the majority of americans wouldn't care.

BC

[BostonCard]

If FDR bungled the World War II, do you not think he should have come under criticism?  Trump is not being criticized for what happened before Coronavirus made it to our shores; he's being criticized for what has happened since then.



BC

I suggested the theory that FDR bungled long before Pearl Harbor. But the theory is nonsense because he did not remotely have the popular consensus to act more aggressively, even though his perception of reality was far more advanced than the largely isolationist public, and historically correct. 



After H1N1 (in 1976) and the light brush with swine flu in 2009, the public's support for drastic measures before March was nonexistent. It was the discovery that C-19 was no swine flu that changed perception. 



And for that belated awakening, we have the CCP to thank.

Lots of steps that Trump could have taken to either increase public support or take steps that the public would have been behind.
1) Stop making it worse by minimizing the significance of the virus and saying it will go away on its own, even as the cases and deaths were piling up.
2) Start socializing the potential of the virus to be very serious.
3) Put in place executive orders to cut through the red tape at FDA and CDC to roll out testing and enable expanded access to medications.
4) Develop a COVID response team that would determine what needs healthcare teams will have.  Identify PPE and ventilators as your weak link before health systems are overwhelmed and centralize purchase and distribution.
5) Develop guidelines for states to implement escalating social distancing orders.  The administration did a decent job in writing the guidelines for reopening; it could have provided states with guidelines on when to impose various restrictions.  That doesn't mean you impose them immediately, but rather you get the states ready to impose them.  Remember, a one day delay results in a ~40% increase in cases in a wave, so if you can get states to move forward their restrictions by a day or two, that makes a significant difference in the end.
6) Expand local health authorities capability to do case tracking.  The CDC announced 600 additional staff today.  It could have pushed this two months ago!
7) Talk to business leaders to socialize them to the possible need of having employees work from home.  For whatever my complaints about Trump are, he is good at talking to business leaders.  Even just "make contingency plans to have your employees work from home" would have been helpful.
8) Work with states to get them read.
9) Start negotiations with congress to get important pieces of legislation together early.  You don't have to pass them, but if you have the outlines of legislation already negotiated and ready to deploy if the proverbial crap hits the fan.
10) Most importantly, the President is supposed to be a leader; lead for frick's sake.  Tell people things they might not want to hear, but that if they hear could save their lives.  Tell people to be ready for the worst, but remind them that we are all in this together, and that if things start to take a turn worse, we will all work together.

None of these steps required anything from the CCP or WHO.  Worst case scenario, the worst doesn't come to pass, and maybe he gets a few complaints about overreaction, but no worse than what he would have endured for the travel ban, for example.  Which is to say, ultimately the usual suspects would complain; his supporters would hail him as a genius, and the majority of americans wouldn't care.

BC

[Genuine Realist]

If FDR bungled the World War II, do you not think he should have come under criticism?  Trump is not being criticized for what happened before Coronavirus made it to our shores; he's being criticized for what has happened since then.



BC

I suggested the theory that FDR bungled long before Pearl Harbor. But the theory is nonsense because he did not remotely have the popular consensus to act more aggressively, even though his perception of reality was far more advanced than the largely isolationist public, and historically correct. 



After H1N1 (in 1976) and the light brush with swine flu in 2009, the public's support for drastic measures before March was nonexistent. It was the discovery that C-19 was no swine flu that changed perception. 



And for that belated awakening, we have the CCP to thank.

Lots of steps that Trump could have taken to either increase public support or take steps that the public would have been behind.
1) Stop making it worse by minimizing the significance of the virus and saying it will go away on its own, even as the cases and deaths were piling up.
2) Start socializing the potential of the virus to be very serious.
3) Put in place executive orders to cut through the red tape at FDA and CDC to roll out testing and enable expanded access to medications.
4) Develop a COVID response team that would determine what needs healthcare teams will have.  Identify PPE and ventilators as your weak link before health systems are overwhelmed and centralize purchase and distribution.
5) Develop guidelines for states to implement escalating social distancing orders.  The administration did a decent job in writing the guidelines for reopening; it could have provided states with guidelines on when to impose various restrictions.  That doesn't mean you impose them immediately, but rather you get the states ready to impose them.  Remember, a one day delay results in a ~40% increase in cases in a wave, so if you can get states to move forward their restrictions by a day or two, that makes a significant difference in the end.
6) Expand local health authorities capability to do case tracking.  The CDC announced 600 additional staff today.  It could have pushed this two months ago!
7) Talk to business leaders to socialize them to the possible need of having employees work from home.  For whatever my complaints about Trump are, he is good at talking to business leaders.  Even just "make contingency plans to have your employees work from home" would have been helpful.
8) Work with states to get them read.
9) Start negotiations with congress to get important pieces of legislation together early.  You don't have to pass them, but if you have the outlines of legislation already negotiated and ready to deploy if the proverbial crap hits the fan.
10) Most importantly, the President is supposed to be a leader; lead for frick's sake.  Tell people things they might not want to hear, but that if they hear could save their lives.  Tell people to be ready for the worst, but remind them that we are all in this together, and that if things start to take a turn worse, we will all work together.

None of these steps required anything from the CCP or WHO.  Worst case scenario, the worst doesn't come to pass, and maybe he gets a few complaints about overreaction, but no worse than what he would have endured for the travel ban, for example.  Which is to say, ultimately the usual suspects would complain; his supporters would hail him as a genius, and the majority of americans wouldn't care.

BC

I'm going to write one reply here, and then you guys can take it away. It's impossible to avoid Trump, I  guess, but there are other actors.

(a) The motivation of an embattled President [impeachment] is to ENLARGE, EXAGGERATE, a crisis - and particularly one like this, which is unrelated to any policy or political choice his Administration made. It's a godsend in an election year - a made-to-order rallying point, for which he cannot be held responsible, and as to which he can exhibit leadership. Trump didn't become President because he lacked political acumen. There is absolutely no upside to minimizing the threat. (To keep a stock market rally going a few weeks longer? When the election's in November? Come on.) 

But Trump didn't seize the opportunity. Reason? He didn't know it was there, because through January the CCP and WHO did not alert the world as to how serious this virus is. 

(b) The motivation of opponents of the Administration, faced with a President who unaccountably refuses to respond to a crisis, is to ENLARGE, EXAGGERATE the crisis, and emphasize the inaction. It's a godsend in an election year - a made-to-order rallying point, by holding the President responsible for lack of leadership. Nancy Pelosi didn't become Speaker because she lacks political acumen. (She was not privy to Administration intelligence? Please. There were briefings, and health information is not like military secrets.

But the Democrats did not seize the opportunity, e.g, Pelosi did not criticize the SOTU for speaking too little about C-19. She tore it up. Wjat comments the Party did make were critical of the measures the Administration did take as xenophobic. Reason? They didn't know the opportunity was there, until Western experience with the virus showed that how dangerous it was. 

© The motivation of the chief bureaucrats at the CDC and elsewhere is to ENLARGE, EXAGGERATE, the crisis, for turf reasons, budgetary reasons, and personal fame. I could continue the parallel, but you get the idea. The government is too big for any one person to manage. That's why departments exists. The CDC chief could storm into the Oval Office, demanding changes to procedures to facilitate immediate procurement of tests, equipment, etc. 

But he or she didn't do that. Whoever it was was apparently content with the normal processes and did not regard the situation as a bureaucratic opportunity.

In short, every player in the scenario, and particularly Trump, would be motivated to overstate, rather than understate, the looming crisis. Not one of them did so. My Ockham's razor explanation is that all of them were gulled by misinformation coming out of China. (I'm not an MD, but I think that the acknowledgment that the virus could be transmitted from one human being to another was particularly important. I don't believe that the CCP acknowledged that until late January, the day before Trump's travel ban. My understanding is that it was the divulging of that fact in social chat that caused the Chinese government to sanction the MD's who disclosed it - a disgraceful act. Correct me if I am wrong.)

So that's my case against the CCP. Public awareness increased exponentially with the unfolding catastrophe in Italy. By March the public had accepted the need for quarantine. That's at least six weeks later than it had to be, thanks to the Chinese government. Fire away.

[Genuine Realist]

If FDR bungled the World War II, do you not think he should have come under criticism?  Trump is not being criticized for what happened before Coronavirus made it to our shores; he's being criticized for what has happened since then.



BC

I suggested the theory that FDR bungled long before Pearl Harbor. But the theory is nonsense because he did not remotely have the popular consensus to act more aggressively, even though his perception of reality was far more advanced than the largely isolationist public, and historically correct. 



After H1N1 (in 1976) and the light brush with swine flu in 2009, the public's support for drastic measures before March was nonexistent. It was the discovery that C-19 was no swine flu that changed perception. 



And for that belated awakening, we have the CCP to thank.

Lots of steps that Trump could have taken to either increase public support or take steps that the public would have been behind.
1) Stop making it worse by minimizing the significance of the virus and saying it will go away on its own, even as the cases and deaths were piling up.
2) Start socializing the potential of the virus to be very serious.
3) Put in place executive orders to cut through the red tape at FDA and CDC to roll out testing and enable expanded access to medications.
4) Develop a COVID response team that would determine what needs healthcare teams will have.  Identify PPE and ventilators as your weak link before health systems are overwhelmed and centralize purchase and distribution.
5) Develop guidelines for states to implement escalating social distancing orders.  The administration did a decent job in writing the guidelines for reopening; it could have provided states with guidelines on when to impose various restrictions.  That doesn't mean you impose them immediately, but rather you get the states ready to impose them.  Remember, a one day delay results in a ~40% increase in cases in a wave, so if you can get states to move forward their restrictions by a day or two, that makes a significant difference in the end.
6) Expand local health authorities capability to do case tracking.  The CDC announced 600 additional staff today.  It could have pushed this two months ago!
7) Talk to business leaders to socialize them to the possible need of having employees work from home.  For whatever my complaints about Trump are, he is good at talking to business leaders.  Even just "make contingency plans to have your employees work from home" would have been helpful.
8) Work with states to get them read.
9) Start negotiations with congress to get important pieces of legislation together early.  You don't have to pass them, but if you have the outlines of legislation already negotiated and ready to deploy if the proverbial crap hits the fan.
10) Most importantly, the President is supposed to be a leader; lead for frick's sake.  Tell people things they might not want to hear, but that if they hear could save their lives.  Tell people to be ready for the worst, but remind them that we are all in this together, and that if things start to take a turn worse, we will all work together.

None of these steps required anything from the CCP or WHO.  Worst case scenario, the worst doesn't come to pass, and maybe he gets a few complaints about overreaction, but no worse than what he would have endured for the travel ban, for example.  Which is to say, ultimately the usual suspects would complain; his supporters would hail him as a genius, and the majority of americans wouldn't care.

BC

I'm going to write one reply here, and then you guys can take it away. It's impossible to avoid Trump, I  guess, but there are other actors.

(a) The motivation of an embattled President [impeachment] is to ENLARGE, EXAGGERATE, a crisis - and particularly one like this, which is unrelated to any policy or political choice his Administration made. It's a godsend in an election year - a made-to-order rallying point, for which he cannot be held responsible, and as to which he can exhibit leadership. Trump didn't become President because he lacked political acumen. There is absolutely no upside to minimizing the threat. (To keep a stock market rally going a few weeks longer? When the election's in November? Come on.) 

But Trump didn't seize the opportunity. Reason? He didn't know it was there, because through January the CCP and WHO did not alert the world as to how serious this virus is. 

(b) The motivation of opponents of the Administration, faced with a President who unaccountably refuses to respond to a crisis, is to ENLARGE, EXAGGERATE the crisis, and emphasize the inaction. It's a godsend in an election year - a made-to-order rallying point, by holding the President responsible for lack of leadership. Nancy Pelosi didn't become Speaker because she lacks political acumen. (She was not privy to Administration intelligence? Please. There were briefings, and health information is not like military secrets.

But the Democrats did not seize the opportunity, e.g, Pelosi did not criticize the SOTU for speaking too little about C-19. She tore it up. Wjat comments the Party did make were critical of the measures the Administration did take as xenophobic. Reason? They didn't know the opportunity was there, until Western experience with the virus showed that how dangerous it was. 

© The motivation of the chief bureaucrats at the CDC and elsewhere is to ENLARGE, EXAGGERATE, the crisis, for turf reasons, budgetary reasons, and personal fame. I could continue the parallel, but you get the idea. The government is too big for any one person to manage. That's why departments exists. The CDC chief could storm into the Oval Office, demanding changes to procedures to facilitate immediate procurement of tests, equipment, etc. 

But he or she didn't do that. Whoever it was was apparently content with the normal processes and did not regard the situation as a bureaucratic opportunity.

In short, every player in the scenario, and particularly Trump, would be motivated to overstate, rather than understate, the looming crisis. Not one of them did so. My Ockham's razor explanation is that all of them were gulled by misinformation coming out of China. (I'm not an MD, but I think that the acknowledgment that the virus could be transmitted from one human being to another was particularly important. I don't believe that the CCP acknowledged that until late January, the day before Trump's travel ban. My understanding is that it was the divulging of that fact in social chat that caused the Chinese government to sanction the MD's who disclosed it - a disgraceful act. Correct me if I am wrong.)

So that's my case against the CCP. Public awareness increased exponentially with the unfolding catastrophe in Italy. By March the public had accepted the need for quarantine. That's at least six weeks later than it had to be, thanks to the Chinese government. Fire away.

[M T]

I'm going to write one reply here, and then you guys can take it away.

I REALLY hope that is a promise that is kept.


Don't blame the speaker if you choose not to listen.
Those that listened, heard.


(P.S. Isn't it ironic that this thread is named "The Blame Game MUST stop!" but the blame is running rampant.)

[M T]

I'm going to write one reply here, and then you guys can take it away.

I REALLY hope that is a promise that is kept.


Don't blame the speaker if you choose not to listen.
Those that listened, heard.


(P.S. Isn't it ironic that this thread is named "The Blame Game MUST stop!" but the blame is running rampant.)

[OutsiderFan]

The inability of people to distinguish between scapegoating and criticism for poor performance is a real problem.

It's natural to voice frustration about things that happen to you that aren't your fault.  But, you still have to deal with the reality you face. Blaming others is not a substitute for actions that will solve current problems. Plus, the more effort put into blaming others, the worse current problems get and the longer it takes to solve them. 

Our basement had an oil spill in it a couple years ago. What did we do? Spend time figuring out who to blame for the fact a furnace component failed and try tracking down the person who might have done something to cause it? Or did we immediately call the heating oil guy to get him out to help address the problem on our hands?  Any responsible person would address the problem, then investigate what happened. The dumbest thing we could do is try tracking down whoever might hav been responsible, as our basement became filled with more oil. You can't put the oil you capture from the leak down the drain, throw it in your yard, or otherwise put it anywhere, after capturing it. Oil contaminates. Everything it touches must be replaced, and you have no time to screw around with anything other than addressing the problem. Luckily, we had a dishpan to capture it after we saw the leak, and our quick action to call the oil guy allowed him to get on scene to shut down the leak before our dishpan was overtopped.

If it turned out there was a party who should be held responsible, then that party could be.  But sometimes "shit happens" and it's far more sensible - if you have any sense - to just deal with your own problems and bitch in private about the fact it isn't your fault.  Because in public, nobody cares. You are going to be held responsible for what happens to the house as long as you are the owner. Don't want the responsibility? Never take ownership.

[OutsiderFan]

The inability of people to distinguish between scapegoating and criticism for poor performance is a real problem.

It's natural to voice frustration about things that happen to you that aren't your fault.  But, you still have to deal with the reality you face. Blaming others is not a substitute for actions that will solve current problems. Plus, the more effort put into blaming others, the worse current problems get and the longer it takes to solve them. 

Our basement had an oil spill in it a couple years ago. What did we do? Spend time figuring out who to blame for the fact a furnace component failed and try tracking down the person who might have done something to cause it? Or did we immediately call the heating oil guy to get him out to help address the problem on our hands?  Any responsible person would address the problem, then investigate what happened. The dumbest thing we could do is try tracking down whoever might hav been responsible, as our basement became filled with more oil. You can't put the oil you capture from the leak down the drain, throw it in your yard, or otherwise put it anywhere, after capturing it. Oil contaminates. Everything it touches must be replaced, and you have no time to screw around with anything other than addressing the problem. Luckily, we had a dishpan to capture it after we saw the leak, and our quick action to call the oil guy allowed him to get on scene to shut down the leak before our dishpan was overtopped.

If it turned out there was a party who should be held responsible, then that party could be.  But sometimes "shit happens" and it's far more sensible - if you have any sense - to just deal with your own problems and bitch in private about the fact it isn't your fault.  Because in public, nobody cares. You are going to be held responsible for what happens to the house as long as you are the owner. Don't want the responsibility? Never take ownership.

[BostonCard]

I don't care about what various motivations were.  I care about what what actually happened.  The bottom line is that this situation called for leadership from the administration, and for whatever reason, we didn't get it.  It called for an aggressive response to the epidemic, and instead we got denial and minimization.  It called for leadership, and instead we got blame-shifting.

BC

[BostonCard]

I don't care about what various motivations were.  I care about what what actually happened.  The bottom line is that this situation called for leadership from the administration, and for whatever reason, we didn't get it.  It called for an aggressive response to the epidemic, and instead we got denial and minimization.  It called for leadership, and instead we got blame-shifting.

BC

[2006alum]

I don't care about what various motivations were.  I care about what what actually happened.  The bottom line is that this situation called for leadership from the administration, and for whatever reason, we didn't get it.  It called for an aggressive response to the epidemic, and instead we got denial and minimization.  It called for leadership, and instead we got blame-shifting.

BC

Well said. And I keep coming back to this: once China quarantined 60 million people on Jan. 22, the cat was out of the bag regardless of what the CCP was or was not saying. At that time, it was unprecedented in size and scope in modern human history. That only happens when it's really bad, and really contagious.

And as I said earlier, what kills me is that many civilians got the message without access to the high-level intelligence that our federal leaders had. Enough New Yorkers recognized the threat to buy out all surgical masks at Walgreens by Jan. 26, and enough Americans got the message to buy out all surgical masks on Amazon by Jan. 27. And on my Feb. 4 flight from NYC to SF, about 1/3 of the plane was wearing masks. Plenty of people had already recognized the threat and started responding to it.

[2006alum]

I don't care about what various motivations were.  I care about what what actually happened.  The bottom line is that this situation called for leadership from the administration, and for whatever reason, we didn't get it.  It called for an aggressive response to the epidemic, and instead we got denial and minimization.  It called for leadership, and instead we got blame-shifting.

BC

Well said. And I keep coming back to this: once China quarantined 60 million people on Jan. 22, the cat was out of the bag regardless of what the CCP was or was not saying. At that time, it was unprecedented in size and scope in modern human history. That only happens when it's really bad, and really contagious.

And as I said earlier, what kills me is that many civilians got the message without access to the high-level intelligence that our federal leaders had. Enough New Yorkers recognized the threat to buy out all surgical masks at Walgreens by Jan. 26, and enough Americans got the message to buy out all surgical masks on Amazon by Jan. 27. And on my Feb. 4 flight from NYC to SF, about 1/3 of the plane was wearing masks. Plenty of people had already recognized the threat and started responding to it.

[oregontim]

I don't care about what various motivations were.  I care about what what actually happened.  The bottom line is that this situation called for leadership from the administration, and for whatever reason, we didn't get it.  It called for an aggressive response to the epidemic, and instead we got denial and minimization.  It called for leadership, and instead we got blame-shifting.

BC

Well said. And I keep coming back to this: once China quarantined 60 million people on Jan. 22, the cat was out of the bag regardless of what the CCP was or was not saying. At that time, it was unprecedented in size and scope in modern human history. That only happens when it's really bad, and really contagious.

And as I said earlier, what kills me is that many civilians got the message without access to the high-level intelligence that our federal leaders had. Enough New Yorkers recognized the threat to buy out all surgical masks at Walgreens by Jan. 26, and enough Americans got the message to buy out all surgical masks on Amazon by Jan. 27. And on my Feb. 4 flight from NYC to SF, about 1/3 of the plane was wearing masks. Plenty of people had already recognized the threat and started responding to it.

Thoroughly agree with both BC and 2006 alum on the above. And also with the M T comment ...

(P.S. Isn't it ironic that this thread is named "The Blame Game MUST stop!" but the blame is running rampant.)

Absolutely true, the irony of the title of this thread. However, in the middle of a severe crisis like we are in, is it appropriate to dismiss analysis and criticism of our own public officials as merely "the blame game?" During this crisis we need to look hard and clearly at what's happened and what ought to happen next. No, we can't do anything about China, but as citizens of the USA, we ought to be able to look well and hard at what has happened here. Redefining criticism as merely "the blame game" is all too often a deflection tactic of those being criticized.

[oregontim]

I don't care about what various motivations were.  I care about what what actually happened.  The bottom line is that this situation called for leadership from the administration, and for whatever reason, we didn't get it.  It called for an aggressive response to the epidemic, and instead we got denial and minimization.  It called for leadership, and instead we got blame-shifting.

BC

Well said. And I keep coming back to this: once China quarantined 60 million people on Jan. 22, the cat was out of the bag regardless of what the CCP was or was not saying. At that time, it was unprecedented in size and scope in modern human history. That only happens when it's really bad, and really contagious.

And as I said earlier, what kills me is that many civilians got the message without access to the high-level intelligence that our federal leaders had. Enough New Yorkers recognized the threat to buy out all surgical masks at Walgreens by Jan. 26, and enough Americans got the message to buy out all surgical masks on Amazon by Jan. 27. And on my Feb. 4 flight from NYC to SF, about 1/3 of the plane was wearing masks. Plenty of people had already recognized the threat and started responding to it.

Thoroughly agree with both BC and 2006 alum on the above. And also with the M T comment ...

(P.S. Isn't it ironic that this thread is named "The Blame Game MUST stop!" but the blame is running rampant.)

Absolutely true, the irony of the title of this thread. However, in the middle of a severe crisis like we are in, is it appropriate to dismiss analysis and criticism of our own public officials as merely "the blame game?" During this crisis we need to look hard and clearly at what's happened and what ought to happen next. No, we can't do anything about China, but as citizens of the USA, we ought to be able to look well and hard at what has happened here. Redefining criticism as merely "the blame game" is all too often a deflection tactic of those being criticized.

[cardcrimson]

I'm going to write one reply here, and then you guys can take it away.

I REALLY hope that is a promise that is kept.

REALLY? What a BS perspective to take. I guess a diversity of opinion isn't important.

[cardcrimson]

I'm going to write one reply here, and then you guys can take it away.

I REALLY hope that is a promise that is kept.

REALLY? What a BS perspective to take. I guess a diversity of opinion isn't important.

[cardcrimson]

I don't care about what various motivations were.  I care about what what actually happened.  The bottom line is that this situation called for leadership from our elected leaders and our government, and for whatever reason, we didn't get it.  It called for an aggressive response to the epidemic, and instead we got denial and minimization.  It called for leadership, and instead we got blame-shifting.

BC

Fixed it for you. 

By law, the leaders in the House and Senate, and their respective intelligence committees, get the same intelligence info as the Executive Branch, and they all minimized and denied the problem.

From wikipedia, here's the law: "Under normal conditions, the President of the United States is required by Title 50 U.S.C. § 3091(a)(1) to "ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity as required by [the] title." However, under "extraordinary circumstances", when the President thinks "it is essential to limit access" to information about a covert action, 50 U.S.C. § 3093©(2) allows the President to limit reporting to the Gang of Eight."

And here's the Gang of Eight:

United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:
Adam Schiff (D-CA-28), Chair
Devin Nunes (R-CA-22), Ranking Member

United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:
Richard Burr (R-NC), Chair
Mark Warner (D-VA), Vice Chair

Leadership in the United States House of Representatives:
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA-12), Speaker of the House
Kevin McCarthy (R-CA-23), Minority Leader

Leadership in the United States Senate:
Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Majority Leader
Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Minority Leader

Not a peep from any of them. Not a peep.

Similarly, on another thread, Rick Bright of BARDA is being praised for going to the press about disagreeing with the direction he was being asked to go with vaccines and treatment. If he were such a hero, why didn't he go to the press in December or January about the looming disaster? How about Robert Redfield? The illustrious CDC Director warns of a second wave coming next winter and it's national news. Where was his dire prediction of the first wave? Nowhere to be found. 

Nobody in our government understood the issue completely and nobody paid attention.

And 2006, glad New Yorkers are so smart. I was at a trade show in Orlando with about 50k other people during the first week of February. 15-20% of the exhibitors were Chinese manufacturers. No one was wearing masks. No one. There was some hand sanitizer around, though. No one on the flight back to SF wore a mask, either. Interestingly, 6 weeks later, DiBlasio was still insisting that schools in NYC would not close. . . .

[cardcrimson]

I don't care about what various motivations were.  I care about what what actually happened.  The bottom line is that this situation called for leadership from our elected leaders and our government, and for whatever reason, we didn't get it.  It called for an aggressive response to the epidemic, and instead we got denial and minimization.  It called for leadership, and instead we got blame-shifting.

BC

Fixed it for you. 

By law, the leaders in the House and Senate, and their respective intelligence committees, get the same intelligence info as the Executive Branch, and they all minimized and denied the problem.

From wikipedia, here's the law: "Under normal conditions, the President of the United States is required by Title 50 U.S.C. § 3091(a)(1) to "ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity as required by [the] title." However, under "extraordinary circumstances", when the President thinks "it is essential to limit access" to information about a covert action, 50 U.S.C. § 3093©(2) allows the President to limit reporting to the Gang of Eight."

And here's the Gang of Eight:

United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:
Adam Schiff (D-CA-28), Chair
Devin Nunes (R-CA-22), Ranking Member

United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:
Richard Burr (R-NC), Chair
Mark Warner (D-VA), Vice Chair

Leadership in the United States House of Representatives:
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA-12), Speaker of the House
Kevin McCarthy (R-CA-23), Minority Leader

Leadership in the United States Senate:
Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Majority Leader
Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Minority Leader

Not a peep from any of them. Not a peep.

Similarly, on another thread, Rick Bright of BARDA is being praised for going to the press about disagreeing with the direction he was being asked to go with vaccines and treatment. If he were such a hero, why didn't he go to the press in December or January about the looming disaster? How about Robert Redfield? The illustrious CDC Director warns of a second wave coming next winter and it's national news. Where was his dire prediction of the first wave? Nowhere to be found. 

Nobody in our government understood the issue completely and nobody paid attention.

And 2006, glad New Yorkers are so smart. I was at a trade show in Orlando with about 50k other people during the first week of February. 15-20% of the exhibitors were Chinese manufacturers. No one was wearing masks. No one. There was some hand sanitizer around, though. No one on the flight back to SF wore a mask, either. Interestingly, 6 weeks later, DiBlasio was still insisting that schools in NYC would not close. . . .

[BostonCard]

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/48...oronavirus

Dateline January 30.

A House panel announced Thursday that it will hold a hearing next week on how the federal government is handling the global coronavirus outbreak.

In the interest of fairness I will note the following

Meanwhile, the White House on Wednesday announced a task force to monitor the coronavirus and lead the government's response to contain its spread.

I will note however, that in a fast moving health crisis like this, the legislature is not the right place to look.  And I have noted the failure in leadership of governors (both Democratic and Republican).  But I don't know what you would expect congress to do beyond h

BC

[BostonCard]

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/48...oronavirus

Dateline January 30.

A House panel announced Thursday that it will hold a hearing next week on how the federal government is handling the global coronavirus outbreak.

In the interest of fairness I will note the following

Meanwhile, the White House on Wednesday announced a task force to monitor the coronavirus and lead the government's response to contain its spread.

I will note however, that in a fast moving health crisis like this, the legislature is not the right place to look.  And I have noted the failure in leadership of governors (both Democratic and Republican).  But I don't know what you would expect congress to do beyond h

BC

[magnus]

And 2006, glad New Yorkers are so smart. I was at a trade show in Orlando with about 50k other people during the first week of February. 15-20% of the exhibitors were Chinese manufacturers. No one was wearing masks. No one. There was some hand sanitizer around, though. No one on the flight back to SF wore a mask, either. Interestingly, 6 weeks later, DiBlasio was still insisting that schools in NYC would not close. . . .

I think he means all New Yorkers except DiBlasio.

I wouldn't be surprised if flights from NYC had more masks than others.  But other areas probably weren't as tuned in.  I was on a flight on President's day to San Diego and there was one person with a mask on (not me).

[magnus]

And 2006, glad New Yorkers are so smart. I was at a trade show in Orlando with about 50k other people during the first week of February. 15-20% of the exhibitors were Chinese manufacturers. No one was wearing masks. No one. There was some hand sanitizer around, though. No one on the flight back to SF wore a mask, either. Interestingly, 6 weeks later, DiBlasio was still insisting that schools in NYC would not close. . . .

I think he means all New Yorkers except DiBlasio.

I wouldn't be surprised if flights from NYC had more masks than others.  But other areas probably weren't as tuned in.  I was on a flight on President's day to San Diego and there was one person with a mask on (not me).

[terry]

William Barr can f*ck all the way off.  If he hasn't trashed his reputation enough by being a partisan hack who can't be trusted to tell the truth by federal judges, mixes religion with government, and all the other things he has done to weaken the integrity of the DOJ, why not add trying to trample on states' rights and being laughed out of the Supreme Court for pulling such nonsense?

Come on, this is just politics. This has nothing to do with Covid-19.

[terry]

William Barr can f*ck all the way off.  If he hasn't trashed his reputation enough by being a partisan hack who can't be trusted to tell the truth by federal judges, mixes religion with government, and all the other things he has done to weaken the integrity of the DOJ, why not add trying to trample on states' rights and being laughed out of the Supreme Court for pulling such nonsense?

Come on, this is just politics. This has nothing to do with Covid-19.

[2006alum]

William Barr can f*ck all the way off.  If he hasn't trashed his reputation enough by being a partisan hack who can't be trusted to tell the truth by federal judges, mixes religion with government, and all the other things he has done to weaken the integrity of the DOJ, why not add trying to trample on states' rights and being laughed out of the Supreme Court for pulling such nonsense?

Come on, this is just politics. This has nothing to do with Covid-19.

We already moved on from this 15 posts ago. Let's not beat a dead horse or I will close this thread.

[2006alum]

William Barr can f*ck all the way off.  If he hasn't trashed his reputation enough by being a partisan hack who can't be trusted to tell the truth by federal judges, mixes religion with government, and all the other things he has done to weaken the integrity of the DOJ, why not add trying to trample on states' rights and being laughed out of the Supreme Court for pulling such nonsense?

Come on, this is just politics. This has nothing to do with Covid-19.

We already moved on from this 15 posts ago. Let's not beat a dead horse or I will close this thread.

[stupac2]

William Barr can f*ck all the way off.  If he hasn't trashed his reputation enough by being a partisan hack who can't be trusted to tell the truth by federal judges, mixes religion with government, and all the other things he has done to weaken the integrity of the DOJ, why not add trying to trample on states' rights and being laughed out of the Supreme Court for pulling such nonsense?

Come on, this is just politics. This has nothing to do with Covid-19.

We already moved on from this 15 posts ago. Let's not beat a dead horse or I will close this thread.

To piggyback off this, we've generally not been deleting posts if it doesn't seem necessary, preferring to verbally warn and close the thread if the warning doesn't take. This is all pretty ad hoc, there's no set policies about when we warn vs delete vs lock. If you think we got it wrong or didn't see the post yet, please report the post instead of replying.

[stupac2]

William Barr can f*ck all the way off.  If he hasn't trashed his reputation enough by being a partisan hack who can't be trusted to tell the truth by federal judges, mixes religion with government, and all the other things he has done to weaken the integrity of the DOJ, why not add trying to trample on states' rights and being laughed out of the Supreme Court for pulling such nonsense?

Come on, this is just politics. This has nothing to do with Covid-19.

We already moved on from this 15 posts ago. Let's not beat a dead horse or I will close this thread.

To piggyback off this, we've generally not been deleting posts if it doesn't seem necessary, preferring to verbally warn and close the thread if the warning doesn't take. This is all pretty ad hoc, there's no set policies about when we warn vs delete vs lock. If you think we got it wrong or didn't see the post yet, please report the post instead of replying.

[magnus]

The AP news has a report on the WHO and China's interaction from the end of December through January. 

https://apnews.com/3c061794970661042b18d5aeaaed9fae

Seems to say that,  Chinese scientists did great,  until the bureaucracy of the Chinese CDC got involved.  And as some have suggested, rather than be in bed with China,  the WHO may have been using flattery to prevent China from throwing a temper tantrum.  

Anyway,  it can add some datapoints to people's timelines.

[magnus]

The AP news has a report on the WHO and China's interaction from the end of December through January. 

https://apnews.com/3c061794970661042b18d5aeaaed9fae

Seems to say that,  Chinese scientists did great,  until the bureaucracy of the Chinese CDC got involved.  And as some have suggested, rather than be in bed with China,  the WHO may have been using flattery to prevent China from throwing a temper tantrum.  

Anyway,  it can add some datapoints to people's timelines.