[fullmetal]

Why would anyone depend on Pelosi/Congress to sound the alarm on a disease?  They're merely politicians (but convenient scapegoats though inappropriate).  We should have listened to the CDC expert(s) stationed in China who had early warning from their counterparts about the emerging virus.  

Oh wait.  The federal govt defunded them in the summer of '19.

“It was heartbreaking to watch,” said Bao-Ping Zhu, a Chinese American who served in that role, which was funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, between 2007 and 2011. “If someone had been there, public health officials and governments across the world could have moved much faster.”

https://www.physiciansweekly.com/exclusi...-axed-cdc/

[fullmetal]

Why would anyone depend on Pelosi/Congress to sound the alarm on a disease?  They're merely politicians (but convenient scapegoats though inappropriate).  We should have listened to the CDC expert(s) stationed in China who had early warning from their counterparts about the emerging virus.  

Oh wait.  The federal govt defunded them in the summer of '19.

“It was heartbreaking to watch,” said Bao-Ping Zhu, a Chinese American who served in that role, which was funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, between 2007 and 2011. “If someone had been there, public health officials and governments across the world could have moved much faster.”

https://www.physiciansweekly.com/exclusi...-axed-cdc/

[ChicagoCard]

One word of caution.  There is a possibility that a vaccine actually makes COVID-19 worse.  It is something known as "antibody dependent enhancement" (or ADE).  The antibody binds to the virus, but rather than triggering removal of the virus from circulation, it actually helps the virus get into cells.  It's a phenomenon that is most well-described with dengue (someone who has had dengue before is at increased risk of complications if they get it again).

The reason to sound the alarm is that ADE has been described for the original SARS virus (in animals) and other coronaviruses.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6178114/
https://jvi.asm.org/content/94/5/e02015-19

BC

Isn't that something researchers thoroughly test for? I believe Fauci has commented on this. A reason it's important not to rush?

[ChicagoCard]

One word of caution.  There is a possibility that a vaccine actually makes COVID-19 worse.  It is something known as "antibody dependent enhancement" (or ADE).  The antibody binds to the virus, but rather than triggering removal of the virus from circulation, it actually helps the virus get into cells.  It's a phenomenon that is most well-described with dengue (someone who has had dengue before is at increased risk of complications if they get it again).

The reason to sound the alarm is that ADE has been described for the original SARS virus (in animals) and other coronaviruses.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6178114/
https://jvi.asm.org/content/94/5/e02015-19

BC

Isn't that something researchers thoroughly test for? I believe Fauci has commented on this. A reason it's important not to rush?

[Goose]

I am probably much less sanguine about the positive effects of the government's involvement in this effort. The epidemic is not similar to the Manhattan project or even the moon race. In the first case the program was totally secret, so there were no annoying questions about fairness or strategy and the project was fortunate enough to be very well led. The moon race wasn't secret, but there were few questions asked (until the Apollo fire). There was one path ahead and the design was fixed at an early date. There were several important leaders involved in the program who had a vision of how it should be done, and they got their way. They weren't always right, but having a "way ahead" is real important. Often in government programs that isn't the case.

History is replete with government programs to solve health and social issues that spend money and accomplish nothing. These types of problems are less susceptible to a "big push" because the way ahead is not clear and a multiple pronged approach is best. Lots of money and effort are often spent on the wrong things. Scaling up a manufacturing process that hasn't been fully defined yet can lead to facilities that must be significantly modified before they can be used, and those modifications may actually take longer than building a new plant. This is not to say there is no place for such a program, but it needs to be carefully managed by a competent group of people in order to actually be useful. Where are those people coming from and who are they? It makes a big difference.

I believe the government should be more involved in a "worst case" scenario. What if we don't have a vaccine in 12 months, or even longer? While many experts believe we can do it in that time frame, none of them are saying it is a "for sure" or a slam dunk. Even if we have a vaccine, we won't really know how protective it is and for how long. There will have been no time to determine those things. It is also possible that developing this vaccine will be much more difficult than we expect. Not probable, but it could happen. What then? This is an area where I think we need  government involvement, because the private sector isn't going to dedicate big resources to a problem that the odds are won't exist. However, six months ago COVID-10 wasn't known to exist. We need a "plan b" in place in case the vaccine plan is slower than anticipated or falls on it's face.

[Goose]

I am probably much less sanguine about the positive effects of the government's involvement in this effort. The epidemic is not similar to the Manhattan project or even the moon race. In the first case the program was totally secret, so there were no annoying questions about fairness or strategy and the project was fortunate enough to be very well led. The moon race wasn't secret, but there were few questions asked (until the Apollo fire). There was one path ahead and the design was fixed at an early date. There were several important leaders involved in the program who had a vision of how it should be done, and they got their way. They weren't always right, but having a "way ahead" is real important. Often in government programs that isn't the case.

History is replete with government programs to solve health and social issues that spend money and accomplish nothing. These types of problems are less susceptible to a "big push" because the way ahead is not clear and a multiple pronged approach is best. Lots of money and effort are often spent on the wrong things. Scaling up a manufacturing process that hasn't been fully defined yet can lead to facilities that must be significantly modified before they can be used, and those modifications may actually take longer than building a new plant. This is not to say there is no place for such a program, but it needs to be carefully managed by a competent group of people in order to actually be useful. Where are those people coming from and who are they? It makes a big difference.

I believe the government should be more involved in a "worst case" scenario. What if we don't have a vaccine in 12 months, or even longer? While many experts believe we can do it in that time frame, none of them are saying it is a "for sure" or a slam dunk. Even if we have a vaccine, we won't really know how protective it is and for how long. There will have been no time to determine those things. It is also possible that developing this vaccine will be much more difficult than we expect. Not probable, but it could happen. What then? This is an area where I think we need  government involvement, because the private sector isn't going to dedicate big resources to a problem that the odds are won't exist. However, six months ago COVID-10 wasn't known to exist. We need a "plan b" in place in case the vaccine plan is slower than anticipated or falls on it's face.

[pefloresjr]

In that case, shouldn't there be a "manhattan project for making glass vials"?  This sort of thing speaks to the ongoing screwups by Trump et al.  They should have identified all of the bottlenecks involved in making a vaccine in January or February, gone to Congress for money to fix those things within a few weeks, and be breaking ground on new facilities or whatever by now.

Instead we got..."hoax", denial, hydroxycholorquine, nothing of use.

January? January? Let's see, I think Congress was tied up in January doing something.  What was it?  Oh yeah, I remember now: They were impeaching Trump.  But, hey, nevermind, I'm sure Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff would have been perfectly happy to call all that off so they could help Trump finance a massive program to make glass vials to treat something that even Dr. Fauci, the CDC, and WHO were saying at the time might not turn out to be all that serious.

Remember, Pelosi et al. were telling us over and over that Trump represented an existential threat to the United States; I don't recall her ever saying back then that COVID was an existential threat.

Get real...

Great.  I don't disagree on the likely difficulties of getting both sides of the aisle in congress to spend money in January.  What about NOW?!  It's not too late now, so knocking down a statement pushing the dates when action could have been taken has nothing to do with the situation all Americans and humans are in now.  What is your answer to that relevant question?  I see no determined federal leadership to take on issues like this now.  



Cheers,
Pete F. 

[pefloresjr]

In that case, shouldn't there be a "manhattan project for making glass vials"?  This sort of thing speaks to the ongoing screwups by Trump et al.  They should have identified all of the bottlenecks involved in making a vaccine in January or February, gone to Congress for money to fix those things within a few weeks, and be breaking ground on new facilities or whatever by now.

Instead we got..."hoax", denial, hydroxycholorquine, nothing of use.

January? January? Let's see, I think Congress was tied up in January doing something.  What was it?  Oh yeah, I remember now: They were impeaching Trump.  But, hey, nevermind, I'm sure Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff would have been perfectly happy to call all that off so they could help Trump finance a massive program to make glass vials to treat something that even Dr. Fauci, the CDC, and WHO were saying at the time might not turn out to be all that serious.

Remember, Pelosi et al. were telling us over and over that Trump represented an existential threat to the United States; I don't recall her ever saying back then that COVID was an existential threat.

Get real...

Great.  I don't disagree on the likely difficulties of getting both sides of the aisle in congress to spend money in January.  What about NOW?!  It's not too late now, so knocking down a statement pushing the dates when action could have been taken has nothing to do with the situation all Americans and humans are in now.  What is your answer to that relevant question?  I see no determined federal leadership to take on issues like this now.  



Cheers,
Pete F. 

[76lsjumb]

In that case, shouldn't there be a "manhattan project for making glass vials"?  This sort of thing speaks to the ongoing screwups by Trump et al.  They should have identified all of the bottlenecks involved in making a vaccine in January or February, gone to Congress for money to fix those things within a few weeks, and be breaking ground on new facilities or whatever by now.

Instead we got..."hoax", denial, hydroxycholorquine, nothing of use.

January? January? Let's see, I think Congress was tied up in January doing something.  What was it?  Oh yeah, I remember now: They were impeaching Trump.  But, hey, nevermind, I'm sure Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff would have been perfectly happy to call all that off so they could help Trump finance a massive program to make glass vials to treat something that even Dr. Fauci, the CDC, and WHO were saying at the time might not turn out to be all that serious.

Remember, Pelosi et al. were telling us over and over that Trump represented an existential threat to the United States; I don't recall her ever saying back then that COVID was an existential threat.

Get real...

Great.  I don't disagree on the likely difficulties of getting both sides of the aisle in congress to spend money in January.  What about NOW?!  It's not too late now, so knocking down a statement pushing the dates when action could have been taken has nothing to do with the situation all Americans and humans are in now.  What is your answer to that relevant question?  I see no determined federal leadership to take on issues like this now.  



Cheers,
Pete F. 

What about NOW?

Well, I suppose the first thing would be for Congress to go back into session so they could actually do something.  Apparently that’s not on Pelosi’s agenda, though.

[76lsjumb]

In that case, shouldn't there be a "manhattan project for making glass vials"?  This sort of thing speaks to the ongoing screwups by Trump et al.  They should have identified all of the bottlenecks involved in making a vaccine in January or February, gone to Congress for money to fix those things within a few weeks, and be breaking ground on new facilities or whatever by now.

Instead we got..."hoax", denial, hydroxycholorquine, nothing of use.

January? January? Let's see, I think Congress was tied up in January doing something.  What was it?  Oh yeah, I remember now: They were impeaching Trump.  But, hey, nevermind, I'm sure Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff would have been perfectly happy to call all that off so they could help Trump finance a massive program to make glass vials to treat something that even Dr. Fauci, the CDC, and WHO were saying at the time might not turn out to be all that serious.

Remember, Pelosi et al. were telling us over and over that Trump represented an existential threat to the United States; I don't recall her ever saying back then that COVID was an existential threat.

Get real...

Great.  I don't disagree on the likely difficulties of getting both sides of the aisle in congress to spend money in January.  What about NOW?!  It's not too late now, so knocking down a statement pushing the dates when action could have been taken has nothing to do with the situation all Americans and humans are in now.  What is your answer to that relevant question?  I see no determined federal leadership to take on issues like this now.  



Cheers,
Pete F. 

What about NOW?

Well, I suppose the first thing would be for Congress to go back into session so they could actually do something.  Apparently that’s not on Pelosi’s agenda, though.

[BostonCard]

Congress managed to ratify the new version of NAFTA during the impeachment, so the idea that Congress could not walk and chew gum at the same time is silly.  I think if the President had introduced it as a priority before February 24, when the administration asked Congress for $2.5 billion in emergency funding to combat the pandemic, Congress could have passed the supplemental appropriations bill sooner than March 6.  By Congress' standards, turning a bill around in 11 days is pretty fast.

It's not too hard to imagine a different president going to congress on January 21st, when the first case of coronavirus was detected in the US or January 30, when the first person-to-person spread in the US was confirmed or January 31st, when HHS issued it's public health emergency.  I have no idea if it would have made a difference, but having more money for testing and medical supplies on February 11th rather than March 6 would not have hurt.

BC

[BostonCard]

Congress managed to ratify the new version of NAFTA during the impeachment, so the idea that Congress could not walk and chew gum at the same time is silly.  I think if the President had introduced it as a priority before February 24, when the administration asked Congress for $2.5 billion in emergency funding to combat the pandemic, Congress could have passed the supplemental appropriations bill sooner than March 6.  By Congress' standards, turning a bill around in 11 days is pretty fast.

It's not too hard to imagine a different president going to congress on January 21st, when the first case of coronavirus was detected in the US or January 30, when the first person-to-person spread in the US was confirmed or January 31st, when HHS issued it's public health emergency.  I have no idea if it would have made a difference, but having more money for testing and medical supplies on February 11th rather than March 6 would not have hurt.

BC

[Farm93]

What about NOW?

Well, I suppose the first thing would be for Congress to go back into session so they could actually do something.  Apparently that’s not on Pelosi’s agenda, though.

Pelosi had already set up the House so that voting by proxy is permitted.  Government sausage making at work.  Pelosi is aligned with the super popular governors on her wish list to get states more funds for police, fire and other front line workers. We are getting dangerously close to short-term game theory now that we are less than 6 months from an election, but probably best to be with police, fire, and healthcare workers in that battle.

FWIW - The vaccine approval and time to market has little to do with Pelosi or McConnell.   Establishing safety and efficacy of any vaccine is what will take time.   Without studies you might literally be injecting people with something that could even kill more people. 

Testing will take months or even years. 
The good news?
Thankfully the USA has loads of carriers moving around in communities right now, so it should be possible to determine real world efficacy of potential vaccines rather quickly in the USA.  It would certainly take longer to establish the efficacy of a vaccine in Korea or Japan. 

And better news?
The rapid move in some states to open back up without COVID19 testing or a tracing plan should make it even easier to quickly establish the efficacy of potential vaccines.

[Farm93]

What about NOW?

Well, I suppose the first thing would be for Congress to go back into session so they could actually do something.  Apparently that’s not on Pelosi’s agenda, though.

Pelosi had already set up the House so that voting by proxy is permitted.  Government sausage making at work.  Pelosi is aligned with the super popular governors on her wish list to get states more funds for police, fire and other front line workers. We are getting dangerously close to short-term game theory now that we are less than 6 months from an election, but probably best to be with police, fire, and healthcare workers in that battle.

FWIW - The vaccine approval and time to market has little to do with Pelosi or McConnell.   Establishing safety and efficacy of any vaccine is what will take time.   Without studies you might literally be injecting people with something that could even kill more people. 

Testing will take months or even years. 
The good news?
Thankfully the USA has loads of carriers moving around in communities right now, so it should be possible to determine real world efficacy of potential vaccines rather quickly in the USA.  It would certainly take longer to establish the efficacy of a vaccine in Korea or Japan. 

And better news?
The rapid move in some states to open back up without COVID19 testing or a tracing plan should make it even easier to quickly establish the efficacy of potential vaccines.

[fullmetal]

Also, given that so much of the pandemic response has been executed by federal agencies, it seems that Congress does not at all shoulder the responsibility to direct federal agencies into action to combat the pandemic.  Congress does not have executive oversight over the CDC or HHS, so the focus on Congress as an actor is inappropriate and inaccurate.

[fullmetal]

Also, given that so much of the pandemic response has been executed by federal agencies, it seems that Congress does not at all shoulder the responsibility to direct federal agencies into action to combat the pandemic.  Congress does not have executive oversight over the CDC or HHS, so the focus on Congress as an actor is inappropriate and inaccurate.

[BostonCard]

What about NOW?


Well, I suppose the first thing would be for Congress to go back into session so they could actually do something.  Apparently that’s not on Pelosi’s agenda, though.

Apparently, it's not on the administration's agenda either.

https://www.newsday.com/news/health/coro...1.44354247

WASHINGTON — White House chief economic adviser Larry Kudlow on Sunday said the Trump Administration was taking a “pause” on pushing Congress for additional coronavirus relief packages as President Donald Trump’s senior advisers await the economic impact of nearly $3 trillion in stimulus dollars that have been approved by Congress so far.

BC

[BostonCard]

What about NOW?


Well, I suppose the first thing would be for Congress to go back into session so they could actually do something.  Apparently that’s not on Pelosi’s agenda, though.

Apparently, it's not on the administration's agenda either.

https://www.newsday.com/news/health/coro...1.44354247

WASHINGTON — White House chief economic adviser Larry Kudlow on Sunday said the Trump Administration was taking a “pause” on pushing Congress for additional coronavirus relief packages as President Donald Trump’s senior advisers await the economic impact of nearly $3 trillion in stimulus dollars that have been approved by Congress so far.

BC

[burger]

Also, given that so much of the pandemic response has been executed by federal agencies, it seems that Congress does not at all shoulder the responsibility to direct federal agencies into action to combat the pandemic.  Congress does not have executive oversight over the CDC or HHS, so the focus on Congress as an actor is inappropriate and inaccurate.

I agree.  Plus, Trump was not afraid to move money around to build the border wall, and they even declared a fake "emergency" to provide a rationale.  Now we have a real emergency by any measure, and I haven't seen any indication that they want to spend money on the virus besides what Congress already allocated.

Congress is not the problem here.

[burger]

Also, given that so much of the pandemic response has been executed by federal agencies, it seems that Congress does not at all shoulder the responsibility to direct federal agencies into action to combat the pandemic.  Congress does not have executive oversight over the CDC or HHS, so the focus on Congress as an actor is inappropriate and inaccurate.

I agree.  Plus, Trump was not afraid to move money around to build the border wall, and they even declared a fake "emergency" to provide a rationale.  Now we have a real emergency by any measure, and I haven't seen any indication that they want to spend money on the virus besides what Congress already allocated.

Congress is not the problem here.

[Goose]

It's not too hard to imagine a different president going to congress on January 21st, when the first case of coronavirus was detected in the US or January 30, when the first person-to-person spread in the US was confirmed or January 31st, when HHS issued it's public health emergency.  I have no idea if it would have made a difference, but having more money for testing and medical supplies on February 11th rather than March 6 would not have hurt.

BC

Actually BC, I find it hard to imagine any president doing that for several reasons. The main one is that we have not experienced this kind of epidemic in a very long time, like 100 years. The President would have had to believe things were going to get real bad real fast. At that point, virtually nobody believed that. Maybe they should have, but they didn't. Trying to convince congress in February to appropriate a bunch of money would have been difficult no matter who the President was. With this President and his poison relationship with the House, no chance. The main reason it would have been difficult is that any President would have had to answer the question "To do what?". At that point, we didn't know. Ventilators? PPE? Nasal Swabs? At that point, these thing weren't even on the radar. Everybody was FDH. Congress didn't have any idea what was coming. The president would have to have a fairly detailed program to lay out, which wasn't easily available. For these reasons, I think that no President was going to move that early, and if he did, it wouldn't pass.

[Goose]

It's not too hard to imagine a different president going to congress on January 21st, when the first case of coronavirus was detected in the US or January 30, when the first person-to-person spread in the US was confirmed or January 31st, when HHS issued it's public health emergency.  I have no idea if it would have made a difference, but having more money for testing and medical supplies on February 11th rather than March 6 would not have hurt.

BC

Actually BC, I find it hard to imagine any president doing that for several reasons. The main one is that we have not experienced this kind of epidemic in a very long time, like 100 years. The President would have had to believe things were going to get real bad real fast. At that point, virtually nobody believed that. Maybe they should have, but they didn't. Trying to convince congress in February to appropriate a bunch of money would have been difficult no matter who the President was. With this President and his poison relationship with the House, no chance. The main reason it would have been difficult is that any President would have had to answer the question "To do what?". At that point, we didn't know. Ventilators? PPE? Nasal Swabs? At that point, these thing weren't even on the radar. Everybody was FDH. Congress didn't have any idea what was coming. The president would have to have a fairly detailed program to lay out, which wasn't easily available. For these reasons, I think that no President was going to move that early, and if he did, it wouldn't pass.

[fullmetal]

https://www.newsday.com/news/health/coro...1.44354247

WASHINGTON — White House chief economic adviser Larry Kudlow on Sunday said the Trump Administration was taking a “pause” on pushing Congress for additional coronavirus relief packages as President Donald Trump’s senior advisers await the economic impact of nearly $3 trillion in stimulus dollars that have been approved by Congress so far.

"...as President Donald Trump’s senior advisers await the economic impact on poll numbers of nearly $3 trillion in stimulus dollars that have been approved by Congress so far."

Fixed it.

[fullmetal]

https://www.newsday.com/news/health/coro...1.44354247

WASHINGTON — White House chief economic adviser Larry Kudlow on Sunday said the Trump Administration was taking a “pause” on pushing Congress for additional coronavirus relief packages as President Donald Trump’s senior advisers await the economic impact of nearly $3 trillion in stimulus dollars that have been approved by Congress so far.

"...as President Donald Trump’s senior advisers await the economic impact on poll numbers of nearly $3 trillion in stimulus dollars that have been approved by Congress so far."

Fixed it.

[BostonCard]

It's not too hard to imagine a different president going to congress on January 21st, when the first case of coronavirus was detected in the US or January 30, when the first person-to-person spread in the US was confirmed or January 31st, when HHS issued it's public health emergency.  I have no idea if it would have made a difference, but having more money for testing and medical supplies on February 11th rather than March 6 would not have hurt.



BC

Actually BC, I find it hard to imagine any president doing that for several reasons. The main one is that we have not experienced this kind of epidemic in a very long time, like 100 years. The President would have had to believe things were going to get real bad real fast. At that point, virtually nobody believed that. Maybe they should have, but they didn't. Trying to convince congress in February to appropriate a bunch of money would have been difficult no matter who the President was. With this President and his poison relationship with the House, no chance. The main reason it would have been difficult is that any President would have had to answer the question "To do what?". At that point, we didn't know. Ventilators? PPE? Nasal Swabs? At that point, these thing weren't even on the radar. Everybody was FDH. Congress didn't have any idea what was coming. The president would have to have a fairly detailed program to lay out, which wasn't easily available. For these reasons, I think that no President was going to move that early, and if he did, it wouldn't pass.

The data available on January 31st was enough for HHS to declare a public health emergency and for the president to issue travel restrictions to Asia, but not, in your telling to ask for a supplemental appropriation to fight the threat that had already made it onshore.  This makes no sense.  He easily could have asked for money to fund the development of testing and research, and to fill up the strategic reserve of ventilators and PPE.  In the best case scenario, where COVID-19 winds up being a "nothingburger", that money is still useful; it seems pretty clear that humans are susceptible to coronaviridae (SARS, MERS, and now COVID-19), so that money would not have been wasted.

Maybe if Trump had asked and congress failed to appropriate the money, we would be sitting here complaining about congressional inaction instead of presidential responsibility.  But Trump never asked so we won't get to see the counterfactual.  He issued the travel restrictions and proclaimed we had won.  Now, maybe that's a call that 9 out of the last 10 presidents would have made as well, but leadership is making the call that most others will fail to make.  And Trump failed to make it.

BC

[BostonCard]

It's not too hard to imagine a different president going to congress on January 21st, when the first case of coronavirus was detected in the US or January 30, when the first person-to-person spread in the US was confirmed or January 31st, when HHS issued it's public health emergency.  I have no idea if it would have made a difference, but having more money for testing and medical supplies on February 11th rather than March 6 would not have hurt.



BC

Actually BC, I find it hard to imagine any president doing that for several reasons. The main one is that we have not experienced this kind of epidemic in a very long time, like 100 years. The President would have had to believe things were going to get real bad real fast. At that point, virtually nobody believed that. Maybe they should have, but they didn't. Trying to convince congress in February to appropriate a bunch of money would have been difficult no matter who the President was. With this President and his poison relationship with the House, no chance. The main reason it would have been difficult is that any President would have had to answer the question "To do what?". At that point, we didn't know. Ventilators? PPE? Nasal Swabs? At that point, these thing weren't even on the radar. Everybody was FDH. Congress didn't have any idea what was coming. The president would have to have a fairly detailed program to lay out, which wasn't easily available. For these reasons, I think that no President was going to move that early, and if he did, it wouldn't pass.

The data available on January 31st was enough for HHS to declare a public health emergency and for the president to issue travel restrictions to Asia, but not, in your telling to ask for a supplemental appropriation to fight the threat that had already made it onshore.  This makes no sense.  He easily could have asked for money to fund the development of testing and research, and to fill up the strategic reserve of ventilators and PPE.  In the best case scenario, where COVID-19 winds up being a "nothingburger", that money is still useful; it seems pretty clear that humans are susceptible to coronaviridae (SARS, MERS, and now COVID-19), so that money would not have been wasted.

Maybe if Trump had asked and congress failed to appropriate the money, we would be sitting here complaining about congressional inaction instead of presidential responsibility.  But Trump never asked so we won't get to see the counterfactual.  He issued the travel restrictions and proclaimed we had won.  Now, maybe that's a call that 9 out of the last 10 presidents would have made as well, but leadership is making the call that most others will fail to make.  And Trump failed to make it.

BC

[76lsjumb]

Also, given that so much of the pandemic response has been executed by federal agencies, it seems that Congress does not at all shoulder the responsibility to direct federal agencies into action to combat the pandemic.  Congress does not have executive oversight over the CDC or HHS, so the focus on Congress as an actor is inappropriate and inaccurate.

Wow... 47 years after I took PoliSci 10, I find out Professor Horn was WRONG!  Here I always thought, to quote Wikipedia: "The Constitution also grants Congress exclusively the power to appropriate funds. This power of the purse is one of Congress' primary checks on the executive branch."

Of course, everyone knows that you can't believe everything you read on Wikipedia.  But, still, I always thought -- 'cause I learned it at Stanford -- that anything the federal government did that needed money -- particularly vast amounts of money at levels, and for purposes, never before appropriated -- required at least some action by Congress.  Apparently not, though, since Congress shoulders no responsibility.

---

It's not too hard to imagine a different president going to congress on January 21st, when the first case of coronavirus was detected in the US or January 30, when the first person-to-person spread in the US was confirmed or January 31st, when HHS issued it's public health emergency.  I have no idea if it would have made a difference, but having more money for testing and medical supplies on February 11th rather than March 6 would not have hurt.



BC

Actually BC, I find it hard to imagine any president doing that for several reasons. The main one is that we have not experienced this kind of epidemic in a very long time, like 100 years. The President would have had to believe things were going to get real bad real fast. At that point, virtually nobody believed that. Maybe they should have, but they didn't. Trying to convince congress in February to appropriate a bunch of money would have been difficult no matter who the President was. With this President and his poison relationship with the House, no chance. The main reason it would have been difficult is that any President would have had to answer the question "To do what?". At that point, we didn't know. Ventilators? PPE? Nasal Swabs? At that point, these thing weren't even on the radar. Everybody was FDH. Congress didn't have any idea what was coming. The president would have to have a fairly detailed program to lay out, which wasn't easily available. For these reasons, I think that no President was going to move that early, and if he did, it wouldn't pass.

The data available on January 31st was enough for HHS to declare a public health emergency and for the president to issue travel restrictions to Asia, but not, in your telling to ask for a supplemental appropriation to fight the threat that had already made it onshore.  This makes no sense.  He easily could have asked for money to fund the development of testing and research, and to fill up the strategic reserve of ventilators and PPE.  In the best case scenario, where COVID-19 winds up being a "nothingburger", that money is still useful; it seems pretty clear that humans are susceptible to coronaviridae (SARS, MERS, and now COVID-19), so that money would not have been wasted.

Maybe if Trump had asked and congress failed to appropriate the money, we would be sitting here complaining about congressional inaction instead of presidential responsibility.  But Trump never asked so we won't get to see the counterfactual.  He issued the travel restrictions and proclaimed we had won.  Now, maybe that's a call that 9 out of the last 10 presidents would have made as well, but leadership is making the call that most others will fail to make.  And Trump failed to make it.

BC

Talk about "bizarre counterfactuals" [as someone previously mentioned]!  He was being impeached on January 31.  All that anyone was talking about, morning, noon, and night, was impeachment.  The notion of people -- particularly Nancy Pelosi and her gang -- paying attention to Trump asking for something like this in that time frame is simply not credible.  Maybe he should have done it. fine. I'll grant you that he screwed up bigly in not doing so.  But you will never convince me that, had he done so, Congress would have jumped into action and done any of that stuff.  To claim that would have happened, is, at least in my opinion, the most bizarre counterfactual of all.

---

https://www.newsday.com/news/health/coro...1.44354247

WASHINGTON — White House chief economic adviser Larry Kudlow on Sunday said the Trump Administration was taking a “pause” on pushing Congress for additional coronavirus relief packages as President Donald Trump’s senior advisers await the economic impact of nearly $3 trillion in stimulus dollars that have been approved by Congress so far.

"...as President Donald Trump’s senior advisers await the economic impact on poll numbers of nearly $3 trillion in stimulus dollars that have been approved by Congress so far."

Fixed it.

Paging Mr. PeteFloresJr to call someone on the carpet for speculating as to what someone else is thinking...  :-)

[76lsjumb]

Also, given that so much of the pandemic response has been executed by federal agencies, it seems that Congress does not at all shoulder the responsibility to direct federal agencies into action to combat the pandemic.  Congress does not have executive oversight over the CDC or HHS, so the focus on Congress as an actor is inappropriate and inaccurate.

Wow... 47 years after I took PoliSci 10, I find out Professor Horn was WRONG!  Here I always thought, to quote Wikipedia: "The Constitution also grants Congress exclusively the power to appropriate funds. This power of the purse is one of Congress' primary checks on the executive branch."

Of course, everyone knows that you can't believe everything you read on Wikipedia.  But, still, I always thought -- 'cause I learned it at Stanford -- that anything the federal government did that needed money -- particularly vast amounts of money at levels, and for purposes, never before appropriated -- required at least some action by Congress.  Apparently not, though, since Congress shoulders no responsibility.

---

It's not too hard to imagine a different president going to congress on January 21st, when the first case of coronavirus was detected in the US or January 30, when the first person-to-person spread in the US was confirmed or January 31st, when HHS issued it's public health emergency.  I have no idea if it would have made a difference, but having more money for testing and medical supplies on February 11th rather than March 6 would not have hurt.



BC

Actually BC, I find it hard to imagine any president doing that for several reasons. The main one is that we have not experienced this kind of epidemic in a very long time, like 100 years. The President would have had to believe things were going to get real bad real fast. At that point, virtually nobody believed that. Maybe they should have, but they didn't. Trying to convince congress in February to appropriate a bunch of money would have been difficult no matter who the President was. With this President and his poison relationship with the House, no chance. The main reason it would have been difficult is that any President would have had to answer the question "To do what?". At that point, we didn't know. Ventilators? PPE? Nasal Swabs? At that point, these thing weren't even on the radar. Everybody was FDH. Congress didn't have any idea what was coming. The president would have to have a fairly detailed program to lay out, which wasn't easily available. For these reasons, I think that no President was going to move that early, and if he did, it wouldn't pass.

The data available on January 31st was enough for HHS to declare a public health emergency and for the president to issue travel restrictions to Asia, but not, in your telling to ask for a supplemental appropriation to fight the threat that had already made it onshore.  This makes no sense.  He easily could have asked for money to fund the development of testing and research, and to fill up the strategic reserve of ventilators and PPE.  In the best case scenario, where COVID-19 winds up being a "nothingburger", that money is still useful; it seems pretty clear that humans are susceptible to coronaviridae (SARS, MERS, and now COVID-19), so that money would not have been wasted.

Maybe if Trump had asked and congress failed to appropriate the money, we would be sitting here complaining about congressional inaction instead of presidential responsibility.  But Trump never asked so we won't get to see the counterfactual.  He issued the travel restrictions and proclaimed we had won.  Now, maybe that's a call that 9 out of the last 10 presidents would have made as well, but leadership is making the call that most others will fail to make.  And Trump failed to make it.

BC

Talk about "bizarre counterfactuals" [as someone previously mentioned]!  He was being impeached on January 31.  All that anyone was talking about, morning, noon, and night, was impeachment.  The notion of people -- particularly Nancy Pelosi and her gang -- paying attention to Trump asking for something like this in that time frame is simply not credible.  Maybe he should have done it. fine. I'll grant you that he screwed up bigly in not doing so.  But you will never convince me that, had he done so, Congress would have jumped into action and done any of that stuff.  To claim that would have happened, is, at least in my opinion, the most bizarre counterfactual of all.

---

https://www.newsday.com/news/health/coro...1.44354247

WASHINGTON — White House chief economic adviser Larry Kudlow on Sunday said the Trump Administration was taking a “pause” on pushing Congress for additional coronavirus relief packages as President Donald Trump’s senior advisers await the economic impact of nearly $3 trillion in stimulus dollars that have been approved by Congress so far.

"...as President Donald Trump’s senior advisers await the economic impact on poll numbers of nearly $3 trillion in stimulus dollars that have been approved by Congress so far."

Fixed it.

Paging Mr. PeteFloresJr to call someone on the carpet for speculating as to what someone else is thinking...  :-)

[Farm93]

Wow... 47 years after I took PoliSci 10, I find out Professor Horn was WRONG!  Here I always thought, to quote Wikipedia: "The Constitution also grants Congress exclusively the power to appropriate funds. This power of the purse is one of Congress' primary checks on the executive branch."

Of course, everyone knows that you can't believe everything you read on Wikipedia.  But, still, I always thought -- 'cause I learned it at Stanford -- that anything the federal government did that needed money -- particularly vast amounts of money at levels, and for purposes, never before appropriated -- required at least some action by Congress.  Apparently not, though, since Congress shoulders no responsibility.

47 years ago was a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

In this millennium the executive branch can declare any number of reasons for executive action to then not spend the funds or even use the funds for pet projects.

For example, a POTUS can decide groups of moms and kids walking up to the border seeking asylum are such a big threat to national security that he can take funds allocated to improving military readiness or enhancing border surveillance and divert those resources to building a wall.  Or a POTUS can decide to not use funds for any number of reasons banking on the idea that the courts will be slow to take up the issue.  

POTUS45 is not the first to expand executive branch power, but most of the executive branch power creep has happened in the last ~47 years.

My guess is 47 years ago a Poli Sci instructor would note that Presidents should (and do) work relentlessly to bring the nation together, especially at times of hardship or war.   Fast forward to 2020 and I bet a Poli Sci instructor would be hard pressed to understand the politics of this time.

It would be interesting to create a Bill & Ted's adventure type SNL skit and have prior presidents visit our POTUS at this moment.

[Farm93]

Wow... 47 years after I took PoliSci 10, I find out Professor Horn was WRONG!  Here I always thought, to quote Wikipedia: "The Constitution also grants Congress exclusively the power to appropriate funds. This power of the purse is one of Congress' primary checks on the executive branch."

Of course, everyone knows that you can't believe everything you read on Wikipedia.  But, still, I always thought -- 'cause I learned it at Stanford -- that anything the federal government did that needed money -- particularly vast amounts of money at levels, and for purposes, never before appropriated -- required at least some action by Congress.  Apparently not, though, since Congress shoulders no responsibility.

47 years ago was a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

In this millennium the executive branch can declare any number of reasons for executive action to then not spend the funds or even use the funds for pet projects.

For example, a POTUS can decide groups of moms and kids walking up to the border seeking asylum are such a big threat to national security that he can take funds allocated to improving military readiness or enhancing border surveillance and divert those resources to building a wall.  Or a POTUS can decide to not use funds for any number of reasons banking on the idea that the courts will be slow to take up the issue.  

POTUS45 is not the first to expand executive branch power, but most of the executive branch power creep has happened in the last ~47 years.

My guess is 47 years ago a Poli Sci instructor would note that Presidents should (and do) work relentlessly to bring the nation together, especially at times of hardship or war.   Fast forward to 2020 and I bet a Poli Sci instructor would be hard pressed to understand the politics of this time.

It would be interesting to create a Bill & Ted's adventure type SNL skit and have prior presidents visit our POTUS at this moment.

[2006alum]

In that case, shouldn't there be a "manhattan project for making glass vials"?  This sort of thing speaks to the ongoing screwups by Trump et al.  They should have identified all of the bottlenecks involved in making a vaccine in January or February, gone to Congress for money to fix those things within a few weeks, and be breaking ground on new facilities or whatever by now.

Instead we got..."hoax", denial, hydroxycholorquine, nothing of use.

January? January? Let's see, I think Congress was tied up in January doing something.  What was it?  Oh yeah, I remember now: They were impeaching Trump.  But, hey, nevermind, I'm sure Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff would have been perfectly happy to call all that off so they could help Trump finance a massive program to make glass vials to treat something that even Dr. Fauci, the CDC, and WHO were saying at the time might not turn out to be all that serious.

Remember, Pelosi et al. were telling us over and over that Trump represented an existential threat to the United States; I don't recall her ever saying back then that COVID was an existential threat.

Get real...

Of course, there's also a theory that if Our Elected Leader hadn't tried to extort a foreign leader in order to gin up opposition research against his likely general election opponent, there would have been no reason to impeach him in the first place.

By the way, that travel ban from China? It was imposed on January 31, right at the end of impeachment. Seems Trump was very able to focus on the aspects of COVID-19 he thought were politically useful to him to act on.

[2006alum]

In that case, shouldn't there be a "manhattan project for making glass vials"?  This sort of thing speaks to the ongoing screwups by Trump et al.  They should have identified all of the bottlenecks involved in making a vaccine in January or February, gone to Congress for money to fix those things within a few weeks, and be breaking ground on new facilities or whatever by now.

Instead we got..."hoax", denial, hydroxycholorquine, nothing of use.

January? January? Let's see, I think Congress was tied up in January doing something.  What was it?  Oh yeah, I remember now: They were impeaching Trump.  But, hey, nevermind, I'm sure Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff would have been perfectly happy to call all that off so they could help Trump finance a massive program to make glass vials to treat something that even Dr. Fauci, the CDC, and WHO were saying at the time might not turn out to be all that serious.

Remember, Pelosi et al. were telling us over and over that Trump represented an existential threat to the United States; I don't recall her ever saying back then that COVID was an existential threat.

Get real...

Of course, there's also a theory that if Our Elected Leader hadn't tried to extort a foreign leader in order to gin up opposition research against his likely general election opponent, there would have been no reason to impeach him in the first place.

By the way, that travel ban from China? It was imposed on January 31, right at the end of impeachment. Seems Trump was very able to focus on the aspects of COVID-19 he thought were politically useful to him to act on.

[Goose]

The data available on January 31st was enough for HHS to declare a public health emergency and for the president to issue travel restrictions to Asia, but not, in your telling to ask for a supplemental appropriation to fight the threat that had already made it onshore.  This makes no sense.  He easily could have asked for money to fund the development of testing and research, and to fill up the strategic reserve of ventilators and PPE.  In the best case scenario, where COVID-19 winds up being a "nothingburger", that money is still useful; it seems pretty clear that humans are susceptible to coronaviridae (SARS, MERS, and now COVID-19), so that money would not have been wasted.

Yes, he could have. But he (and essentially everybody else) though that probably the USA would avoid the problem (as we had in the past) and that if we didn't we were well enough prepared to get by. Yes, IF he thought we needed it, he could have asked for money to prepare. I suspect he was told by the people that advise him that we were OK, because that is probably what they believed.

Maybe if Trump had asked and congress failed to appropriate the money, we would be sitting here complaining about congressional inaction instead of presidential responsibility.  But Trump never asked so we won't get to see the counterfactual.  He issued the travel restrictions and proclaimed we had won.  Now, maybe that's a call that 9 out of the last 10 presidents would have made as well, but leadership is making the call that most others will fail to make.  And Trump failed to make it.



BC

Yes, and Bush II did make the call that others failed to make. Didn't turn out too well IMHO. Every decision, good or bad, is obvious in retrospect. Making the call others failed to make is great if you are right, not so much if you are not. I do agree that a diligent President would have taken the opportunity to strengthen our ability to respond to a health emergency because that President would have known how unprepared we actually were. However, the list of potential problems a President must deal with is very long. Ideally, he will always prioritize correctly. Often he doesn't and nothing bad happens. This wasn't one of those times.

[Goose]

The data available on January 31st was enough for HHS to declare a public health emergency and for the president to issue travel restrictions to Asia, but not, in your telling to ask for a supplemental appropriation to fight the threat that had already made it onshore.  This makes no sense.  He easily could have asked for money to fund the development of testing and research, and to fill up the strategic reserve of ventilators and PPE.  In the best case scenario, where COVID-19 winds up being a "nothingburger", that money is still useful; it seems pretty clear that humans are susceptible to coronaviridae (SARS, MERS, and now COVID-19), so that money would not have been wasted.

Yes, he could have. But he (and essentially everybody else) though that probably the USA would avoid the problem (as we had in the past) and that if we didn't we were well enough prepared to get by. Yes, IF he thought we needed it, he could have asked for money to prepare. I suspect he was told by the people that advise him that we were OK, because that is probably what they believed.

Maybe if Trump had asked and congress failed to appropriate the money, we would be sitting here complaining about congressional inaction instead of presidential responsibility.  But Trump never asked so we won't get to see the counterfactual.  He issued the travel restrictions and proclaimed we had won.  Now, maybe that's a call that 9 out of the last 10 presidents would have made as well, but leadership is making the call that most others will fail to make.  And Trump failed to make it.



BC

Yes, and Bush II did make the call that others failed to make. Didn't turn out too well IMHO. Every decision, good or bad, is obvious in retrospect. Making the call others failed to make is great if you are right, not so much if you are not. I do agree that a diligent President would have taken the opportunity to strengthen our ability to respond to a health emergency because that President would have known how unprepared we actually were. However, the list of potential problems a President must deal with is very long. Ideally, he will always prioritize correctly. Often he doesn't and nothing bad happens. This wasn't one of those times.

[BostonCard]

Wow... 47 years after I took PoliSci 10, I find out Professor Horn was WRONG!  Here I always thought, to quote Wikipedia: "The Constitution also grants Congress exclusively the power to appropriate funds. This power of the purse is one of Congress' primary checks on the executive branch."

This seems neither here nor there.  This was not a case where Trump tried to take funds from elsewhere to fight COVID-19 and was sued by Congress to stop it.  It's a case where he never even requested the appropriation.  Let's review how funding for disasters works in the real world.

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL33226.html

This report provides summary information on emergency supplemental appropriations enacted after major disasters since 1989. During the 20-year span from FY1989 through the present, Congress appropriated almost $271 billion in constant 2008 dollars. Most of the appropriations were preceded by a presidential request for supplemental funding.

(emphasis mine)

While there was nothing stopping congress from making an emergency appropriation the President didn't ask for (and I suppose you can fault congress for not doing so), in practice the executive branch is best positioned to know what it is going on and which agencies need what.

BC

[BostonCard]

Wow... 47 years after I took PoliSci 10, I find out Professor Horn was WRONG!  Here I always thought, to quote Wikipedia: "The Constitution also grants Congress exclusively the power to appropriate funds. This power of the purse is one of Congress' primary checks on the executive branch."

This seems neither here nor there.  This was not a case where Trump tried to take funds from elsewhere to fight COVID-19 and was sued by Congress to stop it.  It's a case where he never even requested the appropriation.  Let's review how funding for disasters works in the real world.

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL33226.html

This report provides summary information on emergency supplemental appropriations enacted after major disasters since 1989. During the 20-year span from FY1989 through the present, Congress appropriated almost $271 billion in constant 2008 dollars. Most of the appropriations were preceded by a presidential request for supplemental funding.

(emphasis mine)

While there was nothing stopping congress from making an emergency appropriation the President didn't ask for (and I suppose you can fault congress for not doing so), in practice the executive branch is best positioned to know what it is going on and which agencies need what.

BC

[76lsjumb]

Wow... 47 years after I took PoliSci 10, I find out Professor Horn was WRONG!  Here I always thought, to quote Wikipedia: "The Constitution also grants Congress exclusively the power to appropriate funds. This power of the purse is one of Congress' primary checks on the executive branch."

Of course, everyone knows that you can't believe everything you read on Wikipedia.  But, still, I always thought -- 'cause I learned it at Stanford -- that anything the federal government did that needed money -- particularly vast amounts of money at levels, and for purposes, never before appropriated -- required at least some action by Congress.  Apparently not, though, since Congress shoulders no responsibility.

47 years ago was a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

In this millennium the executive branch can declare any number of reasons for executive action to then not spend the funds or even use the funds for pet projects.

For example, a POTUS can decide groups of moms and kids walking up to the border seeking asylum are such a big threat to national security that he can take funds allocated to improving military readiness or enhancing border surveillance and divert those resources to building a wall.  Or a POTUS can decide to not use funds for any number of reasons banking on the idea that the courts will be slow to take up the issue.  

POTUS45 is not the first to expand executive branch power, but most of the executive branch power creep has happened in the last ~47 years.

My guess is 47 years ago a Poli Sci instructor would note that Presidents should (and do) work relentlessly to bring the nation together, especially at times of hardship or war.   Fast forward to 2020 and I bet a Poli Sci instructor would be hard pressed to understand the politics of this time.

It would be interesting to create a Bill & Ted's adventure type SNL skit and have prior presidents visit our POTUS at this moment.

Ummm, 47 years ago the President was...  Richard M. Nixon.  

You're right, that was a long, long time ago.  But I don't exactly remember it as a time when the nation was particularly "together."  In fact, blasting Nixon as "the Imperial President" was pretty much the song of the times.  Things don't actually change that much...

As for today's POTUS doing pretty much anything that he wants with money from Congress, well, maybe you missed it, but I believe he's been the recipient [and on the losing end] of more nationwide injunctions than any president before.  and, after all, this wouldn't have been a case of him NOT using funds, it would have required him to use massive amounts of funds for wholly different reasons than appropriated and STILL being way shy of what would have been required.  I'm apparently not as convinced as you are that the Democrats in Congress would have sat back and applauded...

[76lsjumb]

Wow... 47 years after I took PoliSci 10, I find out Professor Horn was WRONG!  Here I always thought, to quote Wikipedia: "The Constitution also grants Congress exclusively the power to appropriate funds. This power of the purse is one of Congress' primary checks on the executive branch."

Of course, everyone knows that you can't believe everything you read on Wikipedia.  But, still, I always thought -- 'cause I learned it at Stanford -- that anything the federal government did that needed money -- particularly vast amounts of money at levels, and for purposes, never before appropriated -- required at least some action by Congress.  Apparently not, though, since Congress shoulders no responsibility.

47 years ago was a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

In this millennium the executive branch can declare any number of reasons for executive action to then not spend the funds or even use the funds for pet projects.

For example, a POTUS can decide groups of moms and kids walking up to the border seeking asylum are such a big threat to national security that he can take funds allocated to improving military readiness or enhancing border surveillance and divert those resources to building a wall.  Or a POTUS can decide to not use funds for any number of reasons banking on the idea that the courts will be slow to take up the issue.  

POTUS45 is not the first to expand executive branch power, but most of the executive branch power creep has happened in the last ~47 years.

My guess is 47 years ago a Poli Sci instructor would note that Presidents should (and do) work relentlessly to bring the nation together, especially at times of hardship or war.   Fast forward to 2020 and I bet a Poli Sci instructor would be hard pressed to understand the politics of this time.

It would be interesting to create a Bill & Ted's adventure type SNL skit and have prior presidents visit our POTUS at this moment.

Ummm, 47 years ago the President was...  Richard M. Nixon.  

You're right, that was a long, long time ago.  But I don't exactly remember it as a time when the nation was particularly "together."  In fact, blasting Nixon as "the Imperial President" was pretty much the song of the times.  Things don't actually change that much...

As for today's POTUS doing pretty much anything that he wants with money from Congress, well, maybe you missed it, but I believe he's been the recipient [and on the losing end] of more nationwide injunctions than any president before.  and, after all, this wouldn't have been a case of him NOT using funds, it would have required him to use massive amounts of funds for wholly different reasons than appropriated and STILL being way shy of what would have been required.  I'm apparently not as convinced as you are that the Democrats in Congress would have sat back and applauded...

[oldalum]

I suspect he was told by the people that advise him that we were OK, because that is probably what they believed.

This WaPo article has a different take on it: people in the administration were alarmed but couldn't get him to listen.
Wapo article Some excerpts:

"Azar couldn’t get through to Trump to speak with him about the virus until Jan. 18, according to two senior administration officials. When he reached Trump by phone, the president interjected to ask about vaping and when flavored vaping products would be back on the market, the senior administration officials said."

"Inside the White House, Trump’s advisers struggled to get him to take the virus seriously, according to multiple officials with knowledge of meetings among those advisers and with the president."

"On Jan. 27, White House aides huddled with then-acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney in his office, trying to get senior officials to pay more attention to the virus . . . Mulvaney then began convening more regular meetings. In early briefings, however, officials said Trump was dismissive because he did not believe that the virus had spread widely throughout the United States."

[oldalum]

I suspect he was told by the people that advise him that we were OK, because that is probably what they believed.

This WaPo article has a different take on it: people in the administration were alarmed but couldn't get him to listen.
Wapo article Some excerpts:

"Azar couldn’t get through to Trump to speak with him about the virus until Jan. 18, according to two senior administration officials. When he reached Trump by phone, the president interjected to ask about vaping and when flavored vaping products would be back on the market, the senior administration officials said."

"Inside the White House, Trump’s advisers struggled to get him to take the virus seriously, according to multiple officials with knowledge of meetings among those advisers and with the president."

"On Jan. 27, White House aides huddled with then-acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney in his office, trying to get senior officials to pay more attention to the virus . . . Mulvaney then began convening more regular meetings. In early briefings, however, officials said Trump was dismissive because he did not believe that the virus had spread widely throughout the United States."