[lex24]

The Commentary piece succinctly and cogently lays out the issue and argument pertaining to liberty interest. Which, unfortunately, has been weakened, if not destroyed by the silly opposition to masks. Finding a balance between health and liberty in what is going to be, it appears, at the least a year long pandemic is a worthy and important topic to debate. It’s not simply a matter of those on one “side” that “just want to save lives” and those on the other “side” that are “selfish”. On a local level, compare San Mateo’s County’s response to Santa Clara’s. Do you believe San Mateo’s Health Czar cares less about saving lives than Santa Clara’s. Same question re Alameda and Contra Costa. As to the latter, they both are in the “red “ tier. Contra Costa has moved forward with opening indoor restaurants while Alameda county still disallows. I live on the border of the two counties. To differentiate in essentially the same geographic region is simply absurd. All it does is provide a competitive advantage to those businesses in Contra Costa County as opposed to those in Alameda county.

If I owned a restaurant in Alameda county I’d be looking at the possibility of filing for injunctive relief to seek an order allowing me to open up. Although it’s always exceedingly difficult to obtain that form of relief. Still, I fail to how this discrimination amongst neighboring locales based solely on what the health Czar decides passes Constitutional (State) muster - particularly when the State has set the standard.

I also agree completely with the sentiment, expressed in the article that Federal and State legislators have been all too willing to cede authority to the Executive.  At the Federal level it’s led to a rise in Executive Orders as legislation. Congress has become feckless when it comes to legislating. It would rather investigate.

EDIT: so this is not taken out of context - Trumps tweets re Whitmer are disgusting.

[lex24]

The Commentary piece succinctly and cogently lays out the issue and argument pertaining to liberty interest. Which, unfortunately, has been weakened, if not destroyed by the silly opposition to masks. Finding a balance between health and liberty in what is going to be, it appears, at the least a year long pandemic is a worthy and important topic to debate. It’s not simply a matter of those on one “side” that “just want to save lives” and those on the other “side” that are “selfish”. On a local level, compare San Mateo’s County’s response to Santa Clara’s. Do you believe San Mateo’s Health Czar cares less about saving lives than Santa Clara’s. Same question re Alameda and Contra Costa. As to the latter, they both are in the “red “ tier. Contra Costa has moved forward with opening indoor restaurants while Alameda county still disallows. I live on the border of the two counties. To differentiate in essentially the same geographic region is simply absurd. All it does is provide a competitive advantage to those businesses in Contra Costa County as opposed to those in Alameda county.

If I owned a restaurant in Alameda county I’d be looking at the possibility of filing for injunctive relief to seek an order allowing me to open up. Although it’s always exceedingly difficult to obtain that form of relief. Still, I fail to how this discrimination amongst neighboring locales based solely on what the health Czar decides passes Constitutional (State) muster - particularly when the State has set the standard.

I also agree completely with the sentiment, expressed in the article that Federal and State legislators have been all too willing to cede authority to the Executive.  At the Federal level it’s led to a rise in Executive Orders as legislation. Congress has become feckless when it comes to legislating. It would rather investigate.

EDIT: so this is not taken out of context - Trumps tweets re Whitmer are disgusting.

[Mick]

And you didn't exactly use it as an endearment, did you, me boyo?

Boy?  <plonk>
[/quote]

Boyo.  It's an Irish or Welsh term of semi-affection.  Sometimes derogatory, as noted here.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/boyo#:~:t...%20speaker.

---

The notion that a national lockdown would have been seen as a step toward martial law by the same people decrying no national mandates and the fact everything was left to the states with no federal coordination, is fiction.

100% not true.  It wasn't going to happen anyway, because the nation's governors screamed bloody murder that only we (the Governors) could order a lockdown.  Had Trump attempted it, he would have been labeled a Fascist by...well, everyone.

---

Michigan is #39th in cases per capita and has the 10th most population. Whoever is managing Michigan is doing a very good job protecting its citizens.

Michigan is #11 in deaths per million population among the 50 states, and that is with an exceptional medical/hospital system.  United Health Foundation ranks Michigan #43 in terms of health-related behaviors among the states.  So it's not too surprising that they have a high death rate.

And Gretchen Whitmer's an idiot. She campaigned on more funds for schools and roads, then slashed budgets for both. No, she doesn't deserved to be kidnapped or killed, obviously. But she does deserve to be voted out of office. And the fact that the Dems at one time considered her for national office is just jaw-droppingly stupid to me.

[Mick]

And you didn't exactly use it as an endearment, did you, me boyo?

Boy?  <plonk>
[/quote]

Boyo.  It's an Irish or Welsh term of semi-affection.  Sometimes derogatory, as noted here.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/boyo#:~:t...%20speaker.

---

The notion that a national lockdown would have been seen as a step toward martial law by the same people decrying no national mandates and the fact everything was left to the states with no federal coordination, is fiction.

100% not true.  It wasn't going to happen anyway, because the nation's governors screamed bloody murder that only we (the Governors) could order a lockdown.  Had Trump attempted it, he would have been labeled a Fascist by...well, everyone.

---

Michigan is #39th in cases per capita and has the 10th most population. Whoever is managing Michigan is doing a very good job protecting its citizens.

Michigan is #11 in deaths per million population among the 50 states, and that is with an exceptional medical/hospital system.  United Health Foundation ranks Michigan #43 in terms of health-related behaviors among the states.  So it's not too surprising that they have a high death rate.

And Gretchen Whitmer's an idiot. She campaigned on more funds for schools and roads, then slashed budgets for both. No, she doesn't deserved to be kidnapped or killed, obviously. But she does deserve to be voted out of office. And the fact that the Dems at one time considered her for national office is just jaw-droppingly stupid to me.

[Farm93]

Michigan is #11 in deaths per million population among the 50 states, and that is with an exceptional medical/hospital system.  United Health Foundation ranks Michigan #43 in terms of health-related behaviors among the states.  So it's not too surprising that they have a high death rate.

And Gretchen Whitmer's an idiot.  She campaigned on more funds for schools and roads, then slashed budgets for both.  No, she doesn't deserved to be kidnapped or killed, obviously.  But she does deserve to be voted out of office.  And the fact that the Dems at one time considered her for national office is just jaw-droppingly stupid to me.

Here in the USA the citizens of her state will decide.
Those militia types appear to believe one thing, she is not going to lose a fair election by the citizens in the state.

The majority of people in her state appreciate her attempts to fight COVID.   The state has a lot of issues that make that battle tough, but the polls suggest the citizens support her actions to date.

She is now +21 on approval/disapproval, a range common to most governors that took the COVID threat seriously.   

My guess is that over time her approval rating will drift back down to normal levels, but her COVID record will help not hurt

FWIW - This attempt by that group likely will help too, as at least some will be reluctant to vote against her and align with the interest of a group that stormed government buildings with guns and then used that event to recruit others.
In my book if a white supremacist militia group preparing for their civil war is trying to kill you then you probably would get my vote.

[Farm93]

Michigan is #11 in deaths per million population among the 50 states, and that is with an exceptional medical/hospital system.  United Health Foundation ranks Michigan #43 in terms of health-related behaviors among the states.  So it's not too surprising that they have a high death rate.

And Gretchen Whitmer's an idiot.  She campaigned on more funds for schools and roads, then slashed budgets for both.  No, she doesn't deserved to be kidnapped or killed, obviously.  But she does deserve to be voted out of office.  And the fact that the Dems at one time considered her for national office is just jaw-droppingly stupid to me.

Here in the USA the citizens of her state will decide.
Those militia types appear to believe one thing, she is not going to lose a fair election by the citizens in the state.

The majority of people in her state appreciate her attempts to fight COVID.   The state has a lot of issues that make that battle tough, but the polls suggest the citizens support her actions to date.

She is now +21 on approval/disapproval, a range common to most governors that took the COVID threat seriously.   

My guess is that over time her approval rating will drift back down to normal levels, but her COVID record will help not hurt

FWIW - This attempt by that group likely will help too, as at least some will be reluctant to vote against her and align with the interest of a group that stormed government buildings with guns and then used that event to recruit others.
In my book if a white supremacist militia group preparing for their civil war is trying to kill you then you probably would get my vote.

[lex24]

Trump could have and should have done many things differently.   But I am confident that he could not order a nationwide lock down then or now.   And if you question that remember when Trump said that he could order all the states to open up? And the governors  (correctly) said - ah, no, you can’t.  

I believe the only way constitutionally he could’ve done that was to declare martial law. And that would’ve gone over real well

[lex24]

Trump could have and should have done many things differently.   But I am confident that he could not order a nationwide lock down then or now.   And if you question that remember when Trump said that he could order all the states to open up? And the governors  (correctly) said - ah, no, you can’t.  

I believe the only way constitutionally he could’ve done that was to declare martial law. And that would’ve gone over real well

[BostonCard]

Trump could have and should have done many things differently.   But I am confident that he could not order a nationwide lock down then or now.   And if you question that remember when Trump said that he could order all the states to open up? And the governors  (correctly) said - ah, no, you can’t.  

I believe the only way constitutionally he could’ve done that was to declare martial law. And that would’ve gone over real well

This is true, and Trump should not have called for a nationwide shutdown.  In addition to the Constitutional issues with that, I’m not sure it even made epidemiological sense, especially early on.

That, however, doesn’t absolve Trump.  For starters, his conflicting comments and showdowns with governors were counterproductive and made things more confusing.  Moreover, there is more to leadership than sitting on a throne and giving edicts you expect others to follow.  The President has a lot more influence than authority when it comes to local public health. And issuing clear guidelines for states to apply would have done a lot of good, especially if he would have leveraged the CDC, which is (or  at least was) well trusted by state and local authorities.

BC

[BostonCard]

Trump could have and should have done many things differently.   But I am confident that he could not order a nationwide lock down then or now.   And if you question that remember when Trump said that he could order all the states to open up? And the governors  (correctly) said - ah, no, you can’t.  

I believe the only way constitutionally he could’ve done that was to declare martial law. And that would’ve gone over real well

This is true, and Trump should not have called for a nationwide shutdown.  In addition to the Constitutional issues with that, I’m not sure it even made epidemiological sense, especially early on.

That, however, doesn’t absolve Trump.  For starters, his conflicting comments and showdowns with governors were counterproductive and made things more confusing.  Moreover, there is more to leadership than sitting on a throne and giving edicts you expect others to follow.  The President has a lot more influence than authority when it comes to local public health. And issuing clear guidelines for states to apply would have done a lot of good, especially if he would have leveraged the CDC, which is (or  at least was) well trusted by state and local authorities.

BC

[Nan3cy]

Trump could have and should have done many things differently.   But I am confident that he could not order a nationwide lock down then or now.   And if you question that remember when Trump said that he could order all the states to open up? And the governors  (correctly) said - ah, no, you can’t.  

I believe the only way constitutionally he could’ve done that was to declare martial law. And that would’ve gone over real well

This is true, and Trump should not have called for a nationwide shutdown.  In addition to the Constitutional issues with that, I’m not sure it even made epidemiological sense, especially early on.

That, however, doesn’t absolve Trump.  For starters, his conflicting comments and showdowns with governors were counterproductive and made things more confusing.  Moreover, there is more to leadership than sitting on a throne and giving edicts you expect others to follow.  The President has a lot more influence than authority when it comes to local public health. And issuing clear guidelines for states to apply would have done a lot of good, especially if he would have leveraged the CDC, which is (or  at least was) well trusted by state and local authorities.

BC

Issuing clear guidelines and modeling good behavior - consistently - would have helped.

[Nan3cy]

Trump could have and should have done many things differently.   But I am confident that he could not order a nationwide lock down then or now.   And if you question that remember when Trump said that he could order all the states to open up? And the governors  (correctly) said - ah, no, you can’t.  

I believe the only way constitutionally he could’ve done that was to declare martial law. And that would’ve gone over real well

This is true, and Trump should not have called for a nationwide shutdown.  In addition to the Constitutional issues with that, I’m not sure it even made epidemiological sense, especially early on.

That, however, doesn’t absolve Trump.  For starters, his conflicting comments and showdowns with governors were counterproductive and made things more confusing.  Moreover, there is more to leadership than sitting on a throne and giving edicts you expect others to follow.  The President has a lot more influence than authority when it comes to local public health. And issuing clear guidelines for states to apply would have done a lot of good, especially if he would have leveraged the CDC, which is (or  at least was) well trusted by state and local authorities.

BC

Issuing clear guidelines and modeling good behavior - consistently - would have helped.

[Goose]

Trump could have and should have done many things differently.   But I am confident that he could not order a nationwide lock down then or now.   And if you question that remember when Trump said that he could order all the states to open up? And the governors  (correctly) said - ah, no, you can’t.  

I believe the only way constitutionally he could’ve done that was to declare martial law. And that would’ve gone over real well

This is true, and Trump should not have called for a nationwide shutdown.  In addition to the Constitutional issues with that, I’m not sure it even made epidemiological sense, especially early on.

That, however, doesn’t absolve Trump.  For starters, his conflicting comments and showdowns with governors were counterproductive and made things more confusing.  Moreover, there is more to leadership than sitting on a throne and giving edicts you expect others to follow.  The President has a lot more influence than authority when it comes to local public health. And issuing clear guidelines for states to apply would have done a lot of good, especially if he would have leveraged the CDC, which is (or  at least was) well trusted by state and local authorities.

BC

 
Agree with everything you said except the leveraging of the CDC. After the testing fiasco, there was a big credibility hit. FWIW, it also seems that the local health departments had significant reservations about the CDC for a while. It seemed that they were not very responsive to inquiries or requests for information. As you know from the Atlantic, the CDC had re-directed significant local training money to other purposes. Seems a pretty big gap had opened up in the last 10 years or so.

[Goose]

Trump could have and should have done many things differently.   But I am confident that he could not order a nationwide lock down then or now.   And if you question that remember when Trump said that he could order all the states to open up? And the governors  (correctly) said - ah, no, you can’t.  

I believe the only way constitutionally he could’ve done that was to declare martial law. And that would’ve gone over real well

This is true, and Trump should not have called for a nationwide shutdown.  In addition to the Constitutional issues with that, I’m not sure it even made epidemiological sense, especially early on.

That, however, doesn’t absolve Trump.  For starters, his conflicting comments and showdowns with governors were counterproductive and made things more confusing.  Moreover, there is more to leadership than sitting on a throne and giving edicts you expect others to follow.  The President has a lot more influence than authority when it comes to local public health. And issuing clear guidelines for states to apply would have done a lot of good, especially if he would have leveraged the CDC, which is (or  at least was) well trusted by state and local authorities.

BC

 
Agree with everything you said except the leveraging of the CDC. After the testing fiasco, there was a big credibility hit. FWIW, it also seems that the local health departments had significant reservations about the CDC for a while. It seemed that they were not very responsive to inquiries or requests for information. As you know from the Atlantic, the CDC had re-directed significant local training money to other purposes. Seems a pretty big gap had opened up in the last 10 years or so.

[lex24]

Trump could have and should have done many things differently.   But I am confident that he could not order a nationwide lock down then or now.   And if you question that remember when Trump said that he could order all the states to open up? And the governors  (correctly) said - ah, no, you can’t.  

I believe the only way constitutionally he could’ve done that was to declare martial law. And that would’ve gone over real well

This is true, and Trump should not have called for a nationwide shutdown.  In addition to the Constitutional issues with that, I’m not sure it even made epidemiological sense, especially early on.

That, however, doesn’t absolve Trump.  For starters, his conflicting comments and showdowns with governors were counterproductive and made things more confusing.  Moreover, there is more to leadership than sitting on a throne and giving edicts you expect others to follow.  The President has a lot more influence than authority when it comes to local public health. And issuing clear guidelines for states to apply would have done a lot of good, especially if he would have leveraged the CDC, which is (or  at least was) well trusted by state and local authorities.

BC

 
Agree with everything you said except the leveraging of the CDC. After the testing fiasco, there was a big credibility hit. FWIW, it also seems that the local health departments had significant reservations about the CDC for a while. It seemed that they were not very responsive to inquiries or requests for information. As you know from the Atlantic, the CDC had re-directed significant local training money to other purposes. Seems a pretty big gap had opened up in the last 10 years or so.

Wasn’t trying to absolve him.  He’s not “absolvable”. Just wanted to weigh in on the “national lock down” bit.

[lex24]

Trump could have and should have done many things differently.   But I am confident that he could not order a nationwide lock down then or now.   And if you question that remember when Trump said that he could order all the states to open up? And the governors  (correctly) said - ah, no, you can’t.  

I believe the only way constitutionally he could’ve done that was to declare martial law. And that would’ve gone over real well

This is true, and Trump should not have called for a nationwide shutdown.  In addition to the Constitutional issues with that, I’m not sure it even made epidemiological sense, especially early on.

That, however, doesn’t absolve Trump.  For starters, his conflicting comments and showdowns with governors were counterproductive and made things more confusing.  Moreover, there is more to leadership than sitting on a throne and giving edicts you expect others to follow.  The President has a lot more influence than authority when it comes to local public health. And issuing clear guidelines for states to apply would have done a lot of good, especially if he would have leveraged the CDC, which is (or  at least was) well trusted by state and local authorities.

BC

 
Agree with everything you said except the leveraging of the CDC. After the testing fiasco, there was a big credibility hit. FWIW, it also seems that the local health departments had significant reservations about the CDC for a while. It seemed that they were not very responsive to inquiries or requests for information. As you know from the Atlantic, the CDC had re-directed significant local training money to other purposes. Seems a pretty big gap had opened up in the last 10 years or so.

Wasn’t trying to absolve him.  He’s not “absolvable”. Just wanted to weigh in on the “national lock down” bit.

[teejers1]

Trump could have and should have done many things differently.   But I am confident that he could not order a nationwide lock down then or now.   And if you question that remember when Trump said that he could order all the states to open up? And the governors  (correctly) said - ah, no, you can’t.  

I believe the only way constitutionally he could’ve done that was to declare martial law. And that would’ve gone over real well

This is true, and Trump should not have called for a nationwide shutdown.  In addition to the Constitutional issues with that, I’m not sure it even made epidemiological sense, especially early on.

That, however, doesn’t absolve Trump.  For starters, his conflicting comments and showdowns with governors were counterproductive and made things more confusing.  Moreover, there is more to leadership than sitting on a throne and giving edicts you expect others to follow.  The President has a lot more influence than authority when it comes to local public health. And issuing clear guidelines for states to apply would have done a lot of good, especially if he would have leveraged the CDC, which is (or  at least was) well trusted by state and local authorities.

BC

Issuing clear guidelines and modeling good behavior - consistently - would have helped.

Fundamentally, this is where I've been on Trump criticism.  I have my doubts about the legality/advisability of a national lockdown imposed from D.C.  But the messaging on (i) the gravity of virus, (ii) the expectation that Shelter-in-Place orders would be imposed by States as deemed advisable, (iii) the need to be smart/responsible in your daily activities (including on mask-wearing), (iv) the need to be diligent on the front-end [until given areas become comfortable that hospital capacity is not endangered (obviously, my add)], and (iv) the assurance that Feds would help states with $$ to help containment and tracking - and to help with those displaced from work - would have done wonders on national psyche and lowered the numbers.

I have no illusions that the US would have had a fatality rate along lines of China, Taiwan or other countries with a population culturally inculcated in ways alien to the USA; however, I also have no doubt the US's numbers would be better - perhaps significantly - than they are.  The benefit would have been simply to lower the numbers until treatment/vaccine attained.  

Instead, the US will continue to bumble and stumble through this epidemic.
We will come out on the other end, but there will be a lot of damage - some of it unnecessarily incurred - along the way.

[teejers1]

Trump could have and should have done many things differently.   But I am confident that he could not order a nationwide lock down then or now.   And if you question that remember when Trump said that he could order all the states to open up? And the governors  (correctly) said - ah, no, you can’t.  

I believe the only way constitutionally he could’ve done that was to declare martial law. And that would’ve gone over real well

This is true, and Trump should not have called for a nationwide shutdown.  In addition to the Constitutional issues with that, I’m not sure it even made epidemiological sense, especially early on.

That, however, doesn’t absolve Trump.  For starters, his conflicting comments and showdowns with governors were counterproductive and made things more confusing.  Moreover, there is more to leadership than sitting on a throne and giving edicts you expect others to follow.  The President has a lot more influence than authority when it comes to local public health. And issuing clear guidelines for states to apply would have done a lot of good, especially if he would have leveraged the CDC, which is (or  at least was) well trusted by state and local authorities.

BC

Issuing clear guidelines and modeling good behavior - consistently - would have helped.

Fundamentally, this is where I've been on Trump criticism.  I have my doubts about the legality/advisability of a national lockdown imposed from D.C.  But the messaging on (i) the gravity of virus, (ii) the expectation that Shelter-in-Place orders would be imposed by States as deemed advisable, (iii) the need to be smart/responsible in your daily activities (including on mask-wearing), (iv) the need to be diligent on the front-end [until given areas become comfortable that hospital capacity is not endangered (obviously, my add)], and (iv) the assurance that Feds would help states with $$ to help containment and tracking - and to help with those displaced from work - would have done wonders on national psyche and lowered the numbers.

I have no illusions that the US would have had a fatality rate along lines of China, Taiwan or other countries with a population culturally inculcated in ways alien to the USA; however, I also have no doubt the US's numbers would be better - perhaps significantly - than they are.  The benefit would have been simply to lower the numbers until treatment/vaccine attained.  

Instead, the US will continue to bumble and stumble through this epidemic.
We will come out on the other end, but there will be a lot of damage - some of it unnecessarily incurred - along the way.

[Goose]

Fundamentally, this is where I've been on Trump criticism.  I have my doubts about the legality/advisability of a national lockdown imposed from D.C.  But the messaging on (i) the gravity of virus, (ii) the expectation that Shelter-in-Place orders would be imposed by States as deemed advisable, (iii) the need to be smart/responsible in your daily activities (including on mask-wearing), (iv) the need to be diligent on the front-end [until given areas become comfortable that hospital capacity is not endangered (obviously, my add)], and (iv) the assurance that Feds would help states with $$ to help containment and tracking - and to help with those displaced from work - would have done wonders on national psyche and lowered the numbers.

I have no illusions that the US would have had a fatality rate along lines of China, Taiwan or other countries with a population culturally inculcated in ways alien to the USA; however, I also have no doubt the US's numbers would be better - perhaps significantly - than they are.  The benefit would have been simply to lower the numbers until treatment/vaccine attained.  

Instead, the US will continue to bumble and stumble through this epidemic.
We will come out on the other end, but there will be a lot of damage - some of it unnecessarily incurred - along the way.

I agree with this "take" on the situation. I really have no way to quantify how much better our results would have been, and I don't think anybody does. However, I agree it would have been better, possibly much better. Unfortunately, we may actually never "come out the end" of this virus. It seems that we probably will be fighting it forever. It is just a question of how bad that fight will be. Even if it turns out to eventually become "just another kind of flu" it will still be an issue.

[Goose]

Fundamentally, this is where I've been on Trump criticism.  I have my doubts about the legality/advisability of a national lockdown imposed from D.C.  But the messaging on (i) the gravity of virus, (ii) the expectation that Shelter-in-Place orders would be imposed by States as deemed advisable, (iii) the need to be smart/responsible in your daily activities (including on mask-wearing), (iv) the need to be diligent on the front-end [until given areas become comfortable that hospital capacity is not endangered (obviously, my add)], and (iv) the assurance that Feds would help states with $$ to help containment and tracking - and to help with those displaced from work - would have done wonders on national psyche and lowered the numbers.

I have no illusions that the US would have had a fatality rate along lines of China, Taiwan or other countries with a population culturally inculcated in ways alien to the USA; however, I also have no doubt the US's numbers would be better - perhaps significantly - than they are.  The benefit would have been simply to lower the numbers until treatment/vaccine attained.  

Instead, the US will continue to bumble and stumble through this epidemic.
We will come out on the other end, but there will be a lot of damage - some of it unnecessarily incurred - along the way.

I agree with this "take" on the situation. I really have no way to quantify how much better our results would have been, and I don't think anybody does. However, I agree it would have been better, possibly much better. Unfortunately, we may actually never "come out the end" of this virus. It seems that we probably will be fighting it forever. It is just a question of how bad that fight will be. Even if it turns out to eventually become "just another kind of flu" it will still be an issue.

[M T]

I will point out the issue with paths not taken.   If the sitting President is of the X party, then the candidate for the Y party will always be able to say they'd have done things differently (no doubt), and that whatever negatives there exist would be lessened (debatable).

Imagine if a Republican (perhaps Trump) were running against an incumbent Clinton, I'm sure we'd be hearing how it should have been done better.   You may BELIEVE that the COVID numbers would be much better but you cannot KNOW what would have happened on that other path.

Monday morning quarterbacks get to pick which plays they critique.

[M T]

I will point out the issue with paths not taken.   If the sitting President is of the X party, then the candidate for the Y party will always be able to say they'd have done things differently (no doubt), and that whatever negatives there exist would be lessened (debatable).

Imagine if a Republican (perhaps Trump) were running against an incumbent Clinton, I'm sure we'd be hearing how it should have been done better.   You may BELIEVE that the COVID numbers would be much better but you cannot KNOW what would have happened on that other path.

Monday morning quarterbacks get to pick which plays they critique.

[BostonCard]

I will point out the issue with paths not taken.   If the sitting President is of the X party, then the candidate for the Y party will always be able to say they'd have done things differently (no doubt), and that whatever negatives there exist would be lessened (debatable).

Imagine if a Republican (perhaps Trump) were running against an incumbent Clinton, I'm sure we'd be hearing how it should have been done better.   You may BELIEVE that the COVID numbers would be much better but you cannot KNOW what would have happened on that other path.

Monday morning quarterbacks get to pick which plays they critique.

You are correct that we cannot directly observe the counterfactual of COVID-19 under a president Clinton or President Rubio.  However, I think one can still evaluate the administrations response.  You can look at things through the lens of two dimensions: process and results.  For example, the process can be chaotic or ordered, while the results can be mild or severe.  While they are correlated, an ordered process does not guarantee mild results.  For example, in Sweden, you have an ordered process (whatever you think of the policy, it was was well-considered, and it has been applied consistently and well-communicated), but they rank amongst the highest in terms of per capita COVID-19 deaths.  A fair number of countries have had ordered processes and mild results: Canada, Germany, Taiwan, Korea.  On the other hand, a number of countries have had chaotic responses and high death rates (I'm thinking especially of the UK, and, of course, the US).  Had the administration had either an ordered approach or a low death rate, it might have been able to claim it was just unlucky; on the other hand, if it had a chaotic response but low death rate, it might be able to say that its approach was unconventional but had proven effective.  This administration can point to neither process nor results to support its case that it couldn't have been better.

BC

[BostonCard]

I will point out the issue with paths not taken.   If the sitting President is of the X party, then the candidate for the Y party will always be able to say they'd have done things differently (no doubt), and that whatever negatives there exist would be lessened (debatable).

Imagine if a Republican (perhaps Trump) were running against an incumbent Clinton, I'm sure we'd be hearing how it should have been done better.   You may BELIEVE that the COVID numbers would be much better but you cannot KNOW what would have happened on that other path.

Monday morning quarterbacks get to pick which plays they critique.

You are correct that we cannot directly observe the counterfactual of COVID-19 under a president Clinton or President Rubio.  However, I think one can still evaluate the administrations response.  You can look at things through the lens of two dimensions: process and results.  For example, the process can be chaotic or ordered, while the results can be mild or severe.  While they are correlated, an ordered process does not guarantee mild results.  For example, in Sweden, you have an ordered process (whatever you think of the policy, it was was well-considered, and it has been applied consistently and well-communicated), but they rank amongst the highest in terms of per capita COVID-19 deaths.  A fair number of countries have had ordered processes and mild results: Canada, Germany, Taiwan, Korea.  On the other hand, a number of countries have had chaotic responses and high death rates (I'm thinking especially of the UK, and, of course, the US).  Had the administration had either an ordered approach or a low death rate, it might have been able to claim it was just unlucky; on the other hand, if it had a chaotic response but low death rate, it might be able to say that its approach was unconventional but had proven effective.  This administration can point to neither process nor results to support its case that it couldn't have been better.

BC

[lex24]

Fundamentally, this is where I've been on Trump criticism.  I have my doubts about the legality/advisability of a national lockdown imposed from D.C.  But the messaging on (i) the gravity of virus, (ii) the expectation that Shelter-in-Place orders would be imposed by States as deemed advisable, (iii) the need to be smart/responsible in your daily activities (including on mask-wearing), (iv) the need to be diligent on the front-end [until given areas become comfortable that hospital capacity is not endangered (obviously, my add)], and (iv) the assurance that Feds would help states with $$ to help containment and tracking - and to help with those displaced from work - would have done wonders on national psyche and lowered the numbers.

I have no illusions that the US would have had a fatality rate along lines of China, Taiwan or other countries with a population culturally inculcated in ways alien to the USA; however, I also have no doubt the US's numbers would be better - perhaps significantly - than they are.  The benefit would have been simply to lower the numbers until treatment/vaccine attained.  

Instead, the US will continue to bumble and stumble through this epidemic.
We will come out on the other end, but there will be a lot of damage - some of it unnecessarily incurred - along the way.

I agree with this "take" on the situation. I really have no way to quantify how much better our results would have been, and I don't think anybody does. However, I agree it would have been better, possibly much better. Unfortunately, we may actually never "come out the end" of this virus. It seems that we probably will be fighting it forever. It is just a question of how bad that fight will be. Even if it turns out to eventually become "just another kind of flu" it will still be an issue.

Forever.  Seriously?

[lex24]

Fundamentally, this is where I've been on Trump criticism.  I have my doubts about the legality/advisability of a national lockdown imposed from D.C.  But the messaging on (i) the gravity of virus, (ii) the expectation that Shelter-in-Place orders would be imposed by States as deemed advisable, (iii) the need to be smart/responsible in your daily activities (including on mask-wearing), (iv) the need to be diligent on the front-end [until given areas become comfortable that hospital capacity is not endangered (obviously, my add)], and (iv) the assurance that Feds would help states with $$ to help containment and tracking - and to help with those displaced from work - would have done wonders on national psyche and lowered the numbers.

I have no illusions that the US would have had a fatality rate along lines of China, Taiwan or other countries with a population culturally inculcated in ways alien to the USA; however, I also have no doubt the US's numbers would be better - perhaps significantly - than they are.  The benefit would have been simply to lower the numbers until treatment/vaccine attained.  

Instead, the US will continue to bumble and stumble through this epidemic.
We will come out on the other end, but there will be a lot of damage - some of it unnecessarily incurred - along the way.

I agree with this "take" on the situation. I really have no way to quantify how much better our results would have been, and I don't think anybody does. However, I agree it would have been better, possibly much better. Unfortunately, we may actually never "come out the end" of this virus. It seems that we probably will be fighting it forever. It is just a question of how bad that fight will be. Even if it turns out to eventually become "just another kind of flu" it will still be an issue.

Forever.  Seriously?

[Mick]

I will point out the issue with paths not taken.   If the sitting President is of the X party, then the candidate for the Y party will always be able to say they'd have done things differently (no doubt), and that whatever negatives there exist would be lessened (debatable).

You would think.  And the opening question of the VP debate, to Harris, was essentially "What would you have done differently?"  It was the perfect opportunity to eviscerate Trump and Pence on their COVID efforts by explaining what Biden and Harris would have done differently. 

But she didn't.

She spent her two minutes castigating Trump and Pence for sure, and it was well deserved.  But other than initiating contact tracing sooner, she literally didn't offer a single thing that Biden/Harris would have done differently, not even "respond earlier."  Very disappointing.

[Mick]

I will point out the issue with paths not taken.   If the sitting President is of the X party, then the candidate for the Y party will always be able to say they'd have done things differently (no doubt), and that whatever negatives there exist would be lessened (debatable).

You would think.  And the opening question of the VP debate, to Harris, was essentially "What would you have done differently?"  It was the perfect opportunity to eviscerate Trump and Pence on their COVID efforts by explaining what Biden and Harris would have done differently. 

But she didn't.

She spent her two minutes castigating Trump and Pence for sure, and it was well deserved.  But other than initiating contact tracing sooner, she literally didn't offer a single thing that Biden/Harris would have done differently, not even "respond earlier."  Very disappointing.

[oregontim]

I will point out the issue with paths not taken.   If the sitting President is of the X party, then the candidate for the Y party will always be able to say they'd have done things differently (no doubt), and that whatever negatives there exist would be lessened (debatable).

You would think.  And the opening question of the VP debate, to Harris, was essentially "What would you have done differently?"  It was the perfect opportunity to eviscerate Trump and Pence on their COVID efforts by explaining what Biden and Harris would have done differently. 

But she didn't.

She spent her two minutes castigating Trump and Pence for sure, and it was well deserved.  But other than initiating contact tracing sooner, she literally didn't offer a single thing that Biden/Harris would have done differently, not even "respond earlier."  Very disappointing.

What I see clear as day is not a hypothetical and not a comparison of what happened vs. what might have happened. The President of the United States misled the public about a dangerous pandemic intentionally, and repeatedly, and he is still doing it. He also subverted the credibility of the CDC and FDA intentionally, and repeatedly, and he is still doing it. We can debate hypotheticals and what somebody else did or didn't do all we want.  These are things he did, for which we can hold him responsible. These we can discuss as facts, on public record, most of which we all watched on live TV as it happened.

[oregontim]

I will point out the issue with paths not taken.   If the sitting President is of the X party, then the candidate for the Y party will always be able to say they'd have done things differently (no doubt), and that whatever negatives there exist would be lessened (debatable).

You would think.  And the opening question of the VP debate, to Harris, was essentially "What would you have done differently?"  It was the perfect opportunity to eviscerate Trump and Pence on their COVID efforts by explaining what Biden and Harris would have done differently. 

But she didn't.

She spent her two minutes castigating Trump and Pence for sure, and it was well deserved.  But other than initiating contact tracing sooner, she literally didn't offer a single thing that Biden/Harris would have done differently, not even "respond earlier."  Very disappointing.

What I see clear as day is not a hypothetical and not a comparison of what happened vs. what might have happened. The President of the United States misled the public about a dangerous pandemic intentionally, and repeatedly, and he is still doing it. He also subverted the credibility of the CDC and FDA intentionally, and repeatedly, and he is still doing it. We can debate hypotheticals and what somebody else did or didn't do all we want.  These are things he did, for which we can hold him responsible. These we can discuss as facts, on public record, most of which we all watched on live TV as it happened.

[old spanish trail]

[quote="M T" pid='293288' dateline='1602619311']
I will point out the issue with paths not taken.   If the sitting President is of the X party, then the candidate for the Y party will always be able to say they'd have done things differently (no doubt), and that whatever negatives there exist would be lessened (debatable).

You would think.  And the opening question of the VP debate, to Harris, was essentially "What would you have done differently?"  It was the perfect opportunity to eviscerate Trump and Pence on their COVID efforts by explaining what Biden and Harris would have done differently. 

But she didn't.

She spent her two minutes castigating Trump and Pence for sure, and it was well deserved.  But other than initiating contact tracing sooner, she literally didn't offer a single thing that Biden/Harris would have done differently, not even "respond earlier."  Very disappointing.

What I see clear as day is not a hypothetical and not a comparison of what happened vs. what might have happened. The President of the United States misled the public about a dangerous pandemic intentionally, and repeatedly, and he is still doing it. He also subverted the credibility of the CDC and FDA intentionally, and repeatedly, and he is still doing it. We can debate hypotheticals and what somebody else did or didn't do all we want.  These are things he did, for which we can hold him responsible. These we can discuss as facts, on public record, most of which we all watched on live TV as it happened.


Yep, I don't think anyone can deny that Trump is a lying scumbag and a little nuts as well. It will cost him re-election.

[old spanish trail]

[quote="M T" pid='293288' dateline='1602619311']
I will point out the issue with paths not taken.   If the sitting President is of the X party, then the candidate for the Y party will always be able to say they'd have done things differently (no doubt), and that whatever negatives there exist would be lessened (debatable).

You would think.  And the opening question of the VP debate, to Harris, was essentially "What would you have done differently?"  It was the perfect opportunity to eviscerate Trump and Pence on their COVID efforts by explaining what Biden and Harris would have done differently. 

But she didn't.

She spent her two minutes castigating Trump and Pence for sure, and it was well deserved.  But other than initiating contact tracing sooner, she literally didn't offer a single thing that Biden/Harris would have done differently, not even "respond earlier."  Very disappointing.

What I see clear as day is not a hypothetical and not a comparison of what happened vs. what might have happened. The President of the United States misled the public about a dangerous pandemic intentionally, and repeatedly, and he is still doing it. He also subverted the credibility of the CDC and FDA intentionally, and repeatedly, and he is still doing it. We can debate hypotheticals and what somebody else did or didn't do all we want.  These are things he did, for which we can hold him responsible. These we can discuss as facts, on public record, most of which we all watched on live TV as it happened.


Yep, I don't think anyone can deny that Trump is a lying scumbag and a little nuts as well. It will cost him re-election.

[Goose]

Yep, I don't think anyone can deny that Trump is a lying scumbag and a little nuts as well. It will cost him re-election.

I agree with your premise, although I would probably say a lot nuts. I hope your conclusion is correct too.

However, I have to pose the following question to those that condemn Trump for lying to the public. Fauci has stated that he too lied to the public when early on he said masks for the general public were not useful. Frankly, I don't believe he lied. I think at the time he believed that was probably true. However he himself has stated that he lied. Is he therefore a scumbag, and if not, why not?

[Goose]

Yep, I don't think anyone can deny that Trump is a lying scumbag and a little nuts as well. It will cost him re-election.

I agree with your premise, although I would probably say a lot nuts. I hope your conclusion is correct too.

However, I have to pose the following question to those that condemn Trump for lying to the public. Fauci has stated that he too lied to the public when early on he said masks for the general public were not useful. Frankly, I don't believe he lied. I think at the time he believed that was probably true. However he himself has stated that he lied. Is he therefore a scumbag, and if not, why not?

[oregontim]

Yep, I don't think anyone can deny that Trump is a lying scumbag and a little nuts as well. It will cost him re-election.

I agree with your premise, although I would probably say a lot nuts. I hope your conclusion is correct too.

However, I have to pose the following question to those that condemn Trump for lying to the public. Fauci has stated that he too lied to the public when early on he said masks for the general public were not useful. Frankly, I don't believe he lied. I think at the time he believed that was probably true. However he himself has stated that he lied. Is he therefore a scumbag, and if not, why not?

I'll bite on that one. I think Fauci at all times gave his best guess at what was in the best interests of the public. At one point early on, he told us that while masks are in such high demand and in high priority for front line health care providers, the public buying masks was not in the general interest. I'm not going to go back and research actual texts, but that's what I remember. The scarcity was a big issue at the time, and he said so. Later, when the scarcity was no longer the big issue, he provided updates.

I have nothing against public officials whose stance changes because what's known changes. Sticking to what they said last month is not a virtue when there is new information this month. If Fauci literally used the word "lie," he was exaggerating for effect, and probably reflecting some of the massive frustration he must have after being a punching bag for all the wrong reasons.

All of that is orders of magnitude different from Trump's lying.

[oregontim]

Yep, I don't think anyone can deny that Trump is a lying scumbag and a little nuts as well. It will cost him re-election.

I agree with your premise, although I would probably say a lot nuts. I hope your conclusion is correct too.

However, I have to pose the following question to those that condemn Trump for lying to the public. Fauci has stated that he too lied to the public when early on he said masks for the general public were not useful. Frankly, I don't believe he lied. I think at the time he believed that was probably true. However he himself has stated that he lied. Is he therefore a scumbag, and if not, why not?

I'll bite on that one. I think Fauci at all times gave his best guess at what was in the best interests of the public. At one point early on, he told us that while masks are in such high demand and in high priority for front line health care providers, the public buying masks was not in the general interest. I'm not going to go back and research actual texts, but that's what I remember. The scarcity was a big issue at the time, and he said so. Later, when the scarcity was no longer the big issue, he provided updates.

I have nothing against public officials whose stance changes because what's known changes. Sticking to what they said last month is not a virtue when there is new information this month. If Fauci literally used the word "lie," he was exaggerating for effect, and probably reflecting some of the massive frustration he must have after being a punching bag for all the wrong reasons.

All of that is orders of magnitude different from Trump's lying.

[BostonCard]

Whether it was a lie or not, it had adverse public health consequences; I suspect he wants that one back.  When Fauci’s legacy is evaluated, his early stance on masks will be a part of it.

However, judged on the totality of  his contributions in fighting this pandemic, I suspect his legacy will be positive overall.

BC

[BostonCard]

Whether it was a lie or not, it had adverse public health consequences; I suspect he wants that one back.  When Fauci’s legacy is evaluated, his early stance on masks will be a part of it.

However, judged on the totality of  his contributions in fighting this pandemic, I suspect his legacy will be positive overall.

BC

[fullmetal]

It may yet turn out that he was pressured by his boss to say such things given early data, and that he would later grow a spine once the full extent of the pandemic's effects could be extrapolated with more data.  Such has it been with entire federal cabinet agencies who serve "at the pleasure" of the president.

[fullmetal]

It may yet turn out that he was pressured by his boss to say such things given early data, and that he would later grow a spine once the full extent of the pandemic's effects could be extrapolated with more data.  Such has it been with entire federal cabinet agencies who serve "at the pleasure" of the president.