OT: Coronavirus (COVID-19) Part IV - II

[Synergy27]

I am seriously suggesting that yes, I do not believe that anyone else would have done any different. Heck, you had Biden saying that Trump was fear mongering. Do you believe he would have acted any different?

Disclaimer: I don’t think my following statement is overtly political because I’m not making a value judgment.

You are over simplifying this and narrowing the spectrum of engagement. What you are hitting on here, likely inadvertently, is the fact that the tangible differences between Bush, Obama, Biden, Trump, etc. are negligible. Yes, they couldn’t be further apart when it comes to rhetoric and messaging, but at a baseline policy level they don’t differ significantly, so sure it’s reasonable to assume that Biden would have reacted the same way.

President Bernie Sanders? President Elizabeth Warren? Hell, President Steve Bannon? There do exist political candidates who value people over growth, who measure success in terms other than GDP. Being locked into the false dichotomy of D vs. R leads to the type of limited thinking that halts progress and suppresses critique of the status quo.

 

[Fireonk]

I see no evidence that any of those countries moved quickly enough. Even those that think that they moved quicker still wound up shutting everything down. Look, loosing one life is too much. But considering the fact that at first, US projections were for 2 million, then it become 1, then it became 500k, then 250 k. Now it is what, 60,000? I would say that something has been working.

That isn't really the discussion we were having. You have claimed that Trump was fine with his public messaging because anything else would have caused national panic. I brought up the most recent closest example we have, H1N1, and you dismissed it because it wasn't a one to one comparison. I then asked for you to provide an example of what you are stating in any of the other countries that have gone through this, with some obviously being more up front, which would be as close of a one to one as you can get. Happy to see an example if you have one.

Again, it is a strawman to say anyone is asking that we handle this perfectly and that we expected 0 loss of life here. It is also a strawman to think any one has said what we haven't been doing things that have worked in keeping numbers down.

The arguments people have made, and you can disagree if this was possible or not, is that doing those things earlier would have been better. There is plenty of evidence that doing that stuff earlier led to less loss of life than in the places that didn't move as quick. I am not saying you are arguing that, but just making sure its clear what is being discussed. At least from my contributions, I wont speak for everyone else.

 

[sbjnyc]

They could have turned on any news channel. It is not like this was a secret.

So you're saying all the intelligence briefings provided to the president are already on the news? If that's the case why even bother with it.

 

[True Blue]

You are over simplifying this and narrowing the spectrum of engagement. What you are hitting on here, likely inadvertently, is the fact that the tangible differences between Bush, Obama, Biden, Trump, etc. are negligible. Yes, they couldn’t be further apart when it comes to rhetoric and messaging, but at a baseline policy level they don’t differ significantly, so sure it’s reasonable to assume that Biden would have reacted the same way.

President Bernie Sanders? President Elizabeth Warren? Hell, President Steve Bannon? There do exist political candidates who value people over growth, who measure success in terms other than GDP. Being locked into the false dichotomy of D vs. R leads to the type of limited thinking that halts progress and suppresses critique of the status quo.

You are close, so will just leave it at that.

 

[True Blue]

So you're saying all the intelligence briefings provided to the president are already on the news? If that's the case why even bother with it.

I am saying that one would need to live under a rock not to be able to see this coming.

 

[True Blue]

The arguments people have made, and you can disagree if this was possible or not, is that doing those things earlier would have been better. There is plenty of evidence that doing that stuff earlier led to less loss of life than in the places that didn't move as quick. I am not saying you are arguing that, but just making sure its clear what is being discussed. At least from my contributions, I wont speak for everyone else.

Of course if you started to do things earlier, you could have made a difference. How material? That is debatable. I think you were always going to come to something like this. What I disagree with is if anyone would have started to implement procedures earlier as you are stating. I do not believe that.

 

[sbjnyc]

I am saying that one would need to live under a rock not to be able to see this coming.

At what point in time, December 31? January 15? January 31?

 

[NYSPORTS]

A good article on following up on what the plans were and how they have been followed through from when this was declared a national emergency. Notes where things haven't met what we were told but also points out some of the positives:

It’s so easy for the media to sway the public they know won’t research much and run to support the narrative.

Both the article and audio demonstrate superficial info without digging for objective facts since the original message

Let’s check the quotes, the response and dig into the facts the source fails to mention

Quote - We’ve been in discussions with pharmacies
Response - we contract retailers (to paraphrase), found few

“At this time, federal, state and local officials continue to lead the planning for additional testing sites," a Target spokesperson said. "We stand committed to offering our parking lot locations and supporting their efforts when they are ready to activate."

REALITY - the General Public voiced concerns they would become infected in closer proximity to those who are possibly infected. This was true not only with retailers but in Towns as home owners in close proximity to test sites were terrified. These retailers and towns stopped testing due to public concern and fear

At least the host in the audio did mention sympathy b/c one month is not a lot of time. Regardless, the the general public was against these testing sites due to the fear from those felt they were not infected. Including those who were in line to be tested or found themselves in close proximity to car which may have included infected people.

Quote (paraphrase) - 1700 engineers from Google to to create a website.

“ Google is helping to develop a website," the president said. "It's going to be very quickly done, unlike websites of the past, to determine whether a test is warranted and to facilitate testing at a nearby convenient location."

Response , google never did it, a sister company (Verily) owned by the parent company.

REALITY - Duh, so Google did it b/c they are the parent company of the sister company named Verily

“A website developed by a subsidiary of Google's parent company has screened 12,000 people for coronavirus since it launched Sunday night, ultimately leading to 130 tests. Another 350 people were scheduled to be tested in the coming days”

“The government hopes the website will ultimately streamline the process for Americans to determine if they should be tested and where they should go for testing. “

and again, the General Public got scared

“Verily, the Google spinout focused on life sciences, on Monday will launch an online screening survey to triage people in the San Francisco Bay Area who are concerned they may be infected with the new coronavirus and, when appropriate, direct them to two mobile testing facilities in Silicon Valley.”

Quote - waived interest rates for students and relax certain regulations
REALITY. - he did it

Quote - waive license requirements so doctors could practice in other states but that’s a state issue

REALITY - Doctors from the same State have helped other hospitals within their state. On the CT border, multiple new yorkers went to CT hospitals so the patient went to the doctor rather than the doctor going to the other state.

Laughably, the audio mentioned leadership and being moral in the same
sentence as “persuasion” as if both the article and audio weren’t doing their best to support their narrative bias.

The White House didn’t respond for obvious reasons yet i’m sure those who follow the media for their education and perception of reality ate this up.

Do your own objective research and stop listening to the media please.

 

[Fireonk]

Of course if you started to do things earlier, you could have made a difference. How material? That is debatable. I think you were always going to come to something like this. What I disagree with is if anyone would have started to implement procedures earlier as you are stating. I do not believe that.

Ok, thats fair. I am certainly not saying Biden would or wouldn't have specifically since you have brought him up a couple times. See no way of knowing either way, and I don't see how what he would have done is applicable to any discussion we have been having.

The place where I disagree is there are obviously some world leaders out there that did act quicker to implement those policies and procedures quicker. So there are people out there that would have done it. We just don't have one of them right now.

 

[Fireonk]

It’s so easy for the media to sway the public they know won’t research much and run to support the narrative.

Both the article and audio demonstrate superficial info without digging for objective facts since the original message

Let’s check the quotes, the response and dig into the facts the source fails to mention

Quote - We’ve been in discussions with pharmacies
Response - we contract retailers (to paraphrase), found few

“At this time, federal, state and local officials continue to lead the planning for additional testing sites," a Target spokesperson said. "We stand committed to offering our parking lot locations and supporting their efforts when they are ready to activate."

REALITY - the General Public voiced concerns they would become infected in closer proximity to those who are possibly infected. This was true not only with retailers but in Towns as home owners in close proximity to test sites were terrified. These retailers and towns stopped testing due to public concern and fear

At least the host in the audio did mention sympathy b/c one month is not a lot of time. Regardless, the the general public was against these testing sites due to the fear from those felt they were not infected. Including those who were in line to be tested or found themselves in close proximity to car which may have included infected people.

Quote (paraphrase) - 1700 engineers from Google to to create a website.

“ Google is helping to develop a website," the president said. "It's going to be very quickly done, unlike websites of the past, to determine whether a test is warranted and to facilitate testing at a nearby convenient location."

Response , google never did it, a sister company (Verily) owned by the parent company.

REALITY - Duh, so Google did it b/c they are the parent company of the sister company named Verily

“A website developed by a subsidiary of Google's parent company has screened 12,000 people for coronavirus since it launched Sunday night, ultimately leading to 130 tests. Another 350 people were scheduled to be tested in the coming days”

“The government hopes the website will ultimately streamline the process for Americans to determine if they should be tested and where they should go for testing. “

and again, the General Public got scared

“Verily, the Google spinout focused on life sciences, on Monday will launch an online screening survey to triage people in the San Francisco Bay Area who are concerned they may be infected with the new coronavirus and, when appropriate, direct them to two mobile testing facilities in Silicon Valley.”

Quote - waived interest rates for students and relax certain regulations
REALITY. - he did it

Quote - waive license requirements so doctors could practice in other states but that’s a state issue

REALITY - Doctors from the same State have helped other hospitals within their state. On the CT border, multiple new yorkers went to CT hospitals so the patient went to the doctor rather than the doctor going to the other state.

Laughably, the audio mentioned leadership and being moral in the same
sentence as “persuasion” as if both the article and audio weren’t doing their best to support their narrative bias.

The White House didn’t respond for obvious reasons yet i’m sure those who follow the media for their education and perception of reality ate this up.

Do your own objective research and stop listening to the media please.

I literally didn't even listen to the audio, thats just how it posted when I linked it here.

 

[NYSPORTS]

I literally didn't even listen to the audio, thats just how it posted when I linked it here.

while multiple quotes are from the article.

both the article and audio are superficial and don’t tell the whole story. It’s the norm.

 

[LORDE]

I am seriously suggesting that yes, I do not believe that anyone else would have done any different. Heck, you had Biden saying that Trump was fear mongering. Do you believe he would have acted any different?

Also, I am not debating that things could have been done sooner, I am stating that anyone in that position that I have seen in the past would have weighed worrying the population and causing a disruption to the markets. Want to discuss with me if that has merit or not? That is a different tale.

I do believe that Biden would've acted differently, yes. I am NO Biden fan. Quite the opposite. He also isn't privy to daily memos and intelligence briefing the president has.

I will say this again, I do NOT blame Trump alone for this. He shares a good portion of the blame for this administration's response, more specifically, their utter DELAY and lack of response. In my other posts I have laid out what other POTUS would've and could've done. I in fact laid out what I, if I were Pres. so I won't go into it and trust me I have zero business being POTUS. My point is that I am smart enough to know I don't know shit. That is lacking in current leadership.

There is room to not start a panic and yet plan and implement actions, preparing for and acquiring the necessary equipment and supplies to have slowed this down.

 

[Fireonk]

while multiple quotes are from the article.

both the article and audio are superficial and don’t tell the whole story. It’s the norm.

Could there be issues with the article? Sure, happy to hear them. But, if you think a national announcement of a testing website from Google with 1700 engineers working on it counts as being accurate because there is a website available that has screened 12,000 people across 5 California counties I don't know what to tell you. It was a failed attempted initiative. How is that wrong in the grand scheme of things?

And I am not blaming Trump other than for providing the misleading information to begin with. He obviously wasn't the one attempting to create a website nor was he directly responsible for rolling it out.

It's crazy to think you are the impartial one when you can't even accept that there might have been ANY missteps by the president. But let me guess, you don't want to discuss politics now?

 

[True Blue]

At what point in time, December 31? January 15? January 31?

Any of those days.

Tell me why they didn't act. Did they not see this coming, had no idea that this was out there or were they listening to the WHO and experts like Fauci?

 

[True Blue]

Ok, thats fair. I am certainly not saying Biden would or wouldn't have specifically since you have brought him up a couple times. See no way of knowing either way, and I don't see how what he would have done is applicable to any discussion we have been having.

The place where I disagree is there are obviously some world leaders out there that did act quicker to implement those policies and procedures quicker. So there are people out there that would have done it. We just don't have one of them right now.

Good take. To be honest, I am not sure that once you you have any President of the United States, that they would have acted differently. No sizable country with a visitation rate like the US was going to escape. Everyone gets whacked.

And I use Biden as an example. I could have also used Pelosi or Coumo. None of them would have acted differently.

 

[NYSPORTS]

Could there be issues with the article? Sure, happy to hear them. But, if you think a national announcement of a testing website from Google with 1700 engineers working on it counts as being accurate because there is a website available that has screened 12,000 people across 5 California counties I don't know what to tell you. It was a failed attempted initiative. How is that wrong in the grand scheme of things?
?

didn’t read my reply did you? All the evidence is right there so save the “happy to hear them”.

No mention of the General Public reaction right lol. Why is it not working? “Verily, the Google spinout focused on life sciences, on Monday will launch an online screening survey to triage people in the San Francisco Bay Area who are concerned they may be infected with the new coronavirus and, when appropriate, direct them to two mobile testing facilities in Silicon Valley.” No different than the issues from pharmacy, towns, etc.

My post discredited that entire article which was nothing more than superficial.

You stick to your bias narrative and i’ll stick with the objective evidence which explains why.

 

[Fireonk]

Good take. To be honest, I am not sure that once you you have any President of the United States, that they would have acted differently. No sizable country with a visitation rate like the US was going to escape. Everyone gets whacked.

And I use Biden as an example. I could have also used Pelosi or Coumo. None of them would have acted differently.

And I think yours is also a reasonably fair take. Place we are going to have to agree to disagree is that I don't agree with the premise that if you transported some of the world leaders who did act quickly and put them as president of the US that they wouldn't have acted in a similar manner overall. Sure, there would have been some specific differences as every country has their own advantages and disadvantages in being able to respond to something like this, but overall I don't think that explains the overall approach some leaders have taken.

 

[True Blue]

I do believe that Biden would've acted differently, yes. I am NO Biden fan. Quite the opposite. He also isn't privy to daily memos and intelligence briefing the president has.

How could Biden have acted any differential when he was against the travel restrictions and accused Trump of fear mongering?

I will say this again, I do NOT blame Trump alone for this. He shares a good portion of the blame for this administration's response, more specifically, their utter DELAY and lack of response. In my other posts I have laid out what other POTUS would've and could've done. I in fact laid out what I, if I were Pres. so I won't go into it and trust me I have zero business being POTUS. My point is that I am smart enough to know I don't know shit. That is lacking in current leadership.

Then you should run. Because NO ONE on the opposing party as much as whispered about early testing, the need for more ventilators or more masks. NO ONE. Fauci himself was saying in February that this was not going to be a big deal. Coumo claimed in March that NY was ahead of the situation. That is not evidence that any of our leaders would have acted any different. And your news channels and publications were no different.

There is room to not start a panic and yet plan and implement actions, preparing for and acquiring the necessary equipment and supplies to have slowed this down.

The second you start to implement early action, that inherently implies worry. Which will panic the public and cause disruption to markets. Want to say it should have been done anyway? Fair. But again, I see absolutely no evidence that anyone would have done any different.

 

[sbjnyc]

Any of those days.

Tell me why they didn't act. Did they not see this coming, had no idea that this was out there or were they listening to the WHO and experts like Fauci?

December 31 is when China reported the virus to WHO. Please explain how we, who did not receive intelligence reports on this, should have known what was coming.

 

[True Blue]

December 31 is when China reported the virus to WHO. Please explain how we, who did not receive intelligence reports on this, should have known what was coming.

1) The pictures out of Wuhan were frightening. Are you really telling me that no one at your job talked about this?

2) If no one saw this coming, then how can you blame Trump for not starting things earlier?

 

[sbjnyc]

1) The pictures out of Wuhan were frightening. Are you really telling me that no one at your job talked about this?

2) If no one saw this coming, then how can you blame Trump for not starting things earlier?

What pictures are you referring to? I don't blame Trump for the virus but he didn't take it seriously until he was forced to and resulted in a delay in his actions. What impact that had no one can really know right now. My company didn't bother to wait for him to declare a national emergency to move to full remote.

The big difference between the POTUS and the governors is that POTUS has vastly more resources at his disposal. Even if the governors knew we were getting hit by a pandemic last year as you obviously did, what could they have done about it? They can't create makeshift hospitals, deploy hospital ships, order companies to produce needed items. We have a hospital ship in NYC and the ACE making makeshift hospitals, which Cuomo was begging for on TV. We could have had them sooner. Trump used the DPA to require companies to make various items (ventillators, masks etc) but why did it take him so long? It's not his response so much as the timing. And why on earth did he put his son-in-law as the head of the Covid-19 response team?

You're the one who says we should have all seen it coming last year. Shouldn't Trump have seen it coming and acted sooner?

 

[True Blue]

What pictures are you referring to? I don't blame Trump for the virus but he didn't take it seriously until he was forced to and resulted in a delay in his actions. What impact that had no one can really know right now. My company didn't bother to wait for him to declare a national emergency to move to full remote.

The big difference between the POTUS and the governors is that POTUS has vastly more resources at his disposal. Even if the governors knew we were getting hit by a pandemic last year as you obviously did, what could they have done about it? They can't create makeshift hospitals, deploy hospital ships, order companies to produce needed items. We have a hospital ship in NYC and the ACE making makeshift hospitals, which Cuomo was begging for on TV. We could have had them sooner. Trump used the DPA to require companies to make various items (ventillators, masks etc) but why did it take him so long? It's not his response so much as the timing. And why on earth did he put his son-in-law as the head of the Covid-19 response team?

You're the one who says we should have all seen it coming last year. Shouldn't Trump have seen it coming and acted sooner?

What does taking it seriously look like? Does it look like urging people into Chinese restaurants to have the delicious food? Or does it look like when your own expert says it is not goin gto be a big deal.

And what pictures am I talking about? There was footage everywhere about what was going on in Wuhan.

Cuomo could have acted years ago on ventilators and masks. In March, Cuomo was also urging people to go out and claiming that everything was under control and NY was ahead of the curve. Did he take it seriously?

NO ONE in this entire country would have acted any sooner. Unless of course we refer to posters on a message board.

 

[Fireonk]

didn’t read my reply did you? All the evidence is right there so save the “happy to hear them”.

No mention of the General Public reaction right lol

My post discredited that entire article which was nothing more than superficial.

You stick to your bias narrative and i’ll stick with the objective evidence which explains why.

The article was about what Trump said during the announcement of the national emergency and if what he said is true a month later. Just to narrow it down to the website portion, are you actually arguing that what he said has come to fruition? Here is what you replied with:

Quote (paraphrase) - 1700 engineers from Google to to create a website.

“ Google is helping to develop a website," the president said. "It's going to be very quickly done, unlike websites of the past, to determine whether a test is warranted and to facilitate testing at a nearby convenient location."

Response , google never did it, a sister company (Verily) owned by the parent company.

REALITY - Duh, so Google did it b/c they are the parent company of the sister company named Verily

“A website developed by a subsidiary of Google's parent company has screened 12,000 people for coronavirus since it launched Sunday night, ultimately leading to 130 tests. Another 350 people were scheduled to be tested in the coming days”

“The government hopes the website will ultimately streamline the process for Americans to determine if they should be tested and where they should go for testing. “

and again, the General Public got scared

“Verily, the Google spinout focused on life sciences, on Monday will launch an online screening survey to triage people in the San Francisco Bay Area who are concerned they may be infected with the new coronavirus and, when appropriate, direct them to two mobile testing facilities in Silicon Valley.”

A month later and only 12k have been screened. Would you say it was quickly done or applicable to the nation as a whole? Because that is the whole point of the article! Here is what was said, here is what actually happened.

Not that I think this is an important point, but it was a lie or incorrect piece of information that Google was working on it. Simple as that. Why is it wrong to point that out? They give the accurate information in the article. Should they not provide the factual information in an article like this? Should the media just ignore incorrect information?

And again, I don't blame Trump for us not having a website for this. He isn't a web designer. But if he tells us something is going to happen is it not fair to circle back a month later and talk about how it didn't?

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

The article was about what Trump said during the announcement of the national emergency and if what he said is true a month later. Just to narrow it down to the website portion, are you actually arguing that what he said has come to fruition? Here is what you replied with:



A month later and only 12k have been screened. Would you say it was quickly done or applicable to the nation as a whole? Because that is the whole point of the article! Here is what was said, here is what actually happened.

Not that I think this is an important point, but it was a lie or incorrect piece of information that Google was working on it. Simple as that. Why is it wrong to point that out? They give the accurate information in the article. Should they not provide the factual information in an article like this? Should the media just ignore incorrect information?

And again, I don't blame Trump for us not having a website for this. He isn't a web designer. But if he tells us something is going to happen is it not fair to circle back a month later and talk about how it didn't?

The website was aspirational.

 

[Tawnos]

One way a different President would've acted differently? He wouldn't have had contradictory action. For example, one of the things that led to increase approval rating for Trump relatively early on in this crisis was his invocation of the Defense Production Act, which I approved of. But after he invoked it, he dithered in actually doing anything with it. The hesitancy seems to have been caused by ideological concerns. I feel pretty confident that any of the 5 previous Presidents, and the current presumptive nominee for office, would not have dithered. Having invoked it specifically to address this crisis, they would have hit it hard. Had Trump not hesitated, then yes... the current death toll would be lower.

I also somehow doubt that the speed and the alacrity of the response would've been the same from an administration, or one run by someone who was part of that administration, that viewed pandemics as such a threat they put experts on the subject on the NSC. Still, maybe the timing of the response would've been the same. It's easy to say it wouldn't without jumping into the multiverse and looking at a timeline where Clinton didn't neglect the mid-west and won the election. Even if it were the case that the timing would've been the same, the response itself would've been very different under anyone else.