As mentioned previously, that comes down largely to culture. In Asia, where people in cities are typically much more densely packed than in the US, and where people are much more sensitive to combating the spread of new viruses, they are much more amenable to masks, tracking apps, and other limits to their freedoms than we are in the US.

To say density does not play a role is to have your head buried in the sand. The higher the density, the more potential people you can spread it to.

EDIT: Also, New York is one of the few metros where public transportation is the preferred means of transit for many people. Or to put it another way, mass transit is used by more New Yorkers than any other city, the only other one that would be close would be Chicago. Even there, Chicago is not as densely populated as New York City.

A pandemic has to have a strong federal response. Products are regulated by the feds, states can't just change the regulations. Federal laws limit what can be done in healthcare and the states can't just rewrite the laws. The virus crosses state borders. States have to have a balanced budget, but the federal government can run a deficit and print money. If you want an effective national response, you're always going to need the federal government to take the lead.

Trump told us directly that his priority was keeping the number of confirmed cases as low as possible. "I like te numbers where they are."

And stop with the partisan argument. Everybody here has said any competent Rep would have handled this better than Trump.

This nuanced discussion of how other presidents would have handled the logistics & timing of pandemic policy kinda seems to ignore Trump calling the virus a hoax during the crucial early days, attacking the Democrat response, promoting a drug that may do more harm than good based purely on his intuition, doling out resources to states based on who's nice to him, putting his son-in-law in charge of the response, publicly supporting protests of his own policies, and openly undermining & contradicting the doctors & experts he's put in charge of assuring the public.

Exactly. This whole you think your side would have done better is a disingenuous argument. Romney nor Rubio nor Jeb nor Cruz is on my side. I just have faith those Republican Presidents would not have decimated pandemic response nor called it a hoax early on. I have faith they would have all would have been better prepared for a pandemic.

These arguments about who would do better (which don't acknowledge all of the stuff Trump did to weaken pandemic response in addition to minimizing this particular pandemic) seem to be made in supremely bad faith.

I have very, very little good to say about the Presidency of GWB, but I'm 100% certain he would have handled this much better than Trump.

We also don't know the extent of the crisis yet, but we can be pretty sure that the protests, the early openings, and Trump's seeming dismissal of worries about a second wave will make things worse than they are now.

Are you reading the criticisms specific to Trump? Did you hear when he literally was inciting people to riot against the governments of 3 blue states? The ability to wave it away with "he just says crazy stuff sometimes" never seems to end with some of you folks. He is actively encouraging unrest and frankly viral spread.


500,000? Are you serious? Most models I saw showed that with strict social distancing it could be kept to down around 100k or even down to 70-80k. That's TOTAL, not just this first wave.

This is most definitely not a red/blue thing. I would consider voting R for basically the first time ever because of the way DeWine has handled this in Ohio. He's listening to the experts. He's trying to protect the populace. He's communicating with people like adults. There is no sugarcoating or massaging the numbers.

This has nothing to do with fucking teams, so get your head out of the sand and quit diminishing the role of the head of state in this. This is a national emergency that requires leadership and what we get instead is just tantrums and random shit.

You've become so used to dismissing any criticism of Trump as leftist hysteria, you can't even admit when he's gone a bridge too far at this point.

I think every President and Vice President (other than Cheney) in my lifetime along with Romney, Rubio, Jeb, and Kasich would have done a much better job than what we've seen.

I refuse to believe that the simple act of putting experts in leadership positions on this wouldn't have saved lives.

I think Trump has done a terrible job of being president during this crisis. He's been petty, small minded and had a complete lack of awareness/perspective. So, I agree just about anyone would do better in that regard.

There are two ways I see that a president can play a part in this (and both are on the margins). The first is assuring the public. Trump gets an F- on this as he has been terrible. The second is actual policies. As I've said above, this isn't the biggest impact (that is local policies) but he can do a bunch of harm if he does the wrong thing. If he prevents states from closing, doesn't restrict international travel, prevents states from getting supplies on their own and doesn't sign any kind of stimulus. For this, I give him a C-. He atleast passed a stimulus, shut down international travel and got out of the way of states to do their own shutdowns. In reality, any politician could have gotten this C- if they had half a brain. Could he have done more to facilitate PPE for states? Of course. Could he have not downplayed it in late Jan/early Feb? Sure, but remember both the WHO and most democrats were not prepared to make massive policy changes at that point.

In reality, there isn't a ton he could have done to directly impact the 40K recorded deaths we have. Most of the deaths aren't related to a lack of hospital beds, nurses and docs aren't dying in droves because of no PPE and we aren't stocking bodies in churches and streets like in Europe or other countries. But, he certainly could have made things a little better by taking it more seriously in mid February. I think that's a reasonable criticism.

But I think it's the F- on assuring the public that really bothers people. It makes sense, he was awful. And in order to justify the venom and hatred people have for that, I think people try to raise the stakes of that behavior in terms of causing large numbers of deaths. I don't think it did, but I also hope it leads to him losing the election in the fall.

No. For me the biggest problem is a combination of firing all the people with pandemic expertise, ignoring the plans created for how to deal with a pandemic, and working to hide the magnitude of the problem that continues even today.

Trump continues to actively incite division and unrest. He is trying to make it an us vs. them thing, when this should be everybody united in trying to defeat one common enemy. Frankly, it should be a slam dunk, as most every other president gets poll numbers through the roof during times of crisis, even ones that are otherwise unpopular. But he can't do that, because he doesn't know how to govern through criticism.

Agreed

IMO the decisions made from the start of the Trump Presidency up until this outbreak have had a larger impact on how we've dealt with this than the decisions made during.

Starting with Clinton we had 3 presidents that at least inched us forward on being a bit more prepared for something like this followed by a guy that wiped out nearly of the ground that had been gained.

Lets not forget that nearly everything Trump promised in the early days of his acceptance of this as a threat was a lie. Trump claimed you'd be able put your symptoms into a google site and then get a recommendation on whether or not you should be tested. You'd then be able to drive to CVS or Walmart and get a drive through test in their parking lot. Any other President would have received an F on their response to this just for telling that big of a lie to the public during a press conference. Trump's presidency is so bad, though, that some feel the need to grade everything he does on a curve.

Its not a partisan argument. If we have no frame of reference of what good and bad is, we can't argue anything.

If my sense of good is anything south of 1,000,000 dead while yours is anything south of 50,000, we're just not going to agree. Regardless of what Trump has done or screwed up.

My point is when this became big news, we were talking about death rates of % of the population. That has not happened, and its not because of anything Trump did or did not do. Its not deadly or virulent enough to do that much damage. The media and medical industry blew it out of proportion.

Is it a serious illness? Yes. Is it something I hope more people get? No. But the big disruption I see coming out of this is what we did to the economy. People's lives have been disrupted and not for the better. Trump's stimulus does not get to the root of the matter and will not go far enough in the way it needs to.

Should we have closed the borders sooner? Yes, but don't forget we had people crying about how it would be racist and xenophobic to close the border selectively. At the time, it made no sense to close all borders with the information we had. Later, when we were aware of this getting outside China and into Europe, we should have closed all borders, and we did not until it was too late. In hindsight, I believe that we would not have stopped this, unless we did it as soon as word was getting out of Wuhan about the virus.

Has Trump made a mess of things? Yes. But we cannot pin any deaths on him (just like he can't claim to have saved any lives). Why aren't we talking about Cuomo's response or Whitmer's response or DeWine's response, or Hogan's response, etc.?

We're ahead of where we though we would be with regards to deaths. But instead of looking at this positively, people are impotently lashing out because they're pissed. They're pissed about being home. They're pissed about the uncertainty. They're pissed about family members potentially being out of a job. They're pissed about not being able to care for sick family members. They're pissed about not being able to properly mourn deaths in the family.

This could have been a hell of a lot worse than it has been. We should be thankful that it has not been worse. The people that have had far more impact than Trump has been the state governors, for better and for worse.

The thing to blame Trump are not shutting down the border sooner (which I do not think anyone else would have done at the time either). All the other surrounding items are the same sorts of items we would be complaining about with anyone else in office. Even putting Kushner in charge of the response is the same argument we would be having with any other president. We'd be complaining about why person X is in charge, what credibility do they have, etc., etc. All these boondoggles are the sames sorts of things we'd have with any one else in office, we just have a different message because its Trump.

Long story short, we should be thankful things aren't worse, people are pissed and lashing out, people that weren't going to vote for Trump are still not voting for Trump, people that were voting for Trump are still going to vote for Trump.

The main reason the US is "doing better" is that the virus had spread (in numbers, not a few stragglers) to fewer places before New York was spiralling out of control and that finally prompted a response and specifically halted a lot of travel. It was dumb luck and geography that mitigated this first wave to a degree.

The Lombardy region is 1/6 of the people in Italy, same with Paris region. That is why those hotspots + a few lesser ones produce a higher per capita number than New York and a few Others for the US where the virus would have to travel much further to spread more equally.
It didn't magically appear everywhere at once.

Should the US not aim a bit higher than being luckier ?

I remember earlier this thread (I think) when it was referenced that GW Bush was obsessed with a pandemic and really beefed up things - btw, I don't like GW Bush at all, but I can easily speak of the things that I think he did that were very positive (to the point where it sometimes pisses off my farther left friends who think I'm being kind of W). Clinton, Bush, Obama built up a good foundation for preparation and Trump tore a lot of it down with barely a thought.

You previously said,

Again, I think it's absurd that you're ignoring every bit of his public response. Even putting Kushner aside entirely, you think everyone/anyone would have called the virus a hoax? You think everyone would publicly support protests opposing their own policies? You think everyone would undermine and contradict the medical experts they put in charge of the public response? Or you think as long as the death tolls stay below the original projections literally nothing the President says matters?

Agree to an extent, but I do think local disaster prep by local areas in California (earthquakes/ildfires), Washington state (wildfires/earthquake) and Texas (hurricanes/flooding) helped prepare them to be ready for this. There were very early cases in Washington and California that could have easily spread if not for a quick response from their local governments.

There were initial cases in California, Washington and other western states. But, the combination of natural social distancing (not much mass transit, lower density in many areas than NY) with those areas have more disaster prep supplies/training helped keep it from spreading. That's not all dumb luck (nor is it anything Trump really did)

Again, if you look outside of the NY/NJ/Mass NE, the US has done a very good job of containing the virus. As a whole, we have a 5.5% fatality rate on tested cases. That ranks better than most of the larger European countries (only Germany is markedly better). Remember, we have 330 million people and had cases traced back to January/early February in California, Washington state, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Illinois and Texas. Yet, we haven't see massive death totals or outbreaks in those areas nearly two months later. I would say that's a pretty big positive.

Can't see any other President doing this.

well reasoned

More from Dr. Bright:

Trump is going to be unhinged

While we continue to wait for a coherent national plan to navigate this pandemic, states like Massachusetts are beginning to adopt their own public health plans to combat this virus––before it's too late. https://t.co/Eb2Hz8H8vU

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) April 22, 2020

No, my point is that it does not matter. When the shelter in place order came down in Ohio, I did not complain, I sat my butt down and outside of walking the dogs (maintaining distance, going at off hours, etc.), and going to the store roughly every other week, have stayed at home.

Trump’s messaging has had very little impact on me. I did not think it was a hoax, I thought things were being blown out of proportion. To be fair, we are worse than I thought we would be, but that is no where close to what the media and medical establishment were telling us.

The same knuckleheads that are complaining about the orders would be doing it anyway. They have been on both sides of the aisle, you just get more coverage with it regarding those on the right, because that generates more clicks.

Further, I have friends in the medical community that have been questioning other parts of the medical establishment. Masks prevent you from transmitting anything you have rather than protecting you from getting anything, the true accuracy of the tests, etc.

With Trump you know what you are getting, bluster, lies, exaggerations, etc. Is this any different than different than Obama, Bush, or Clinton? Take away the bluster, substitute platitudes, and much of it is the same. It’s why I said the messaging is different. At least with Trump I know I can’t trust him, rather than the other guys. Clinton would lie, but he had the county boy thing going for him rather than Trump’s New York asshole demeanor.

The only difference difference I feel is that one of the previous presidents would try to make me feel like they tried and things would have been better if we only pulled together a little more. It’s like the old Cold War saying, “Trust but verify” too often today we’re all about trust and no verification, and then being shocked when we find out we’ve been lied to.

The primary benefit of the government in a crisis like this is to give the states a blank check to get what they need on a local level.

We would have been far more prepared. Tests would be more prevalent and supplies to states would be efficient. Country likely would have went into lockdown much sooner.

You could argue that right-wing media would have pushed back harder and claimed it was all attempt to take away rights. So maybe death toll from that would have been significant. Lot of states likely would have avoided a quarantine and seen massive death tolls.

McConnell announces that he'd prefer to create a mechanism for states to go into bankruptcy (i.e. screw over their pensioners) than provide them with financial assistance.

I'm REALLY upset at the GOP for wanting this and at the Dems for going along with bailout bills that didn't already include funding for states and cities.

"It does not matter who the President is or what they say" is not a particularly compelling argument.


As an aside, there is a massive mountain of evidence that these 'grass roots' local protests are organized by states' Republican parties, the Tea Party organizations and national gun's rights organizations.

The rightwing groups behind wave of protests against Covid-19 restrictions | World news | The Guardian
Who’s Behind the “Reopen” Domain Surge? — Krebs on Security
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/u...sts-trump.html

How many protests put on by leftist organizations have you heard of?

Donald Trump merchandise was for sale at the Harrisburg, PA protest of Donald Trump's coronavirus response:

Thanks for summing up my feelings about that particularly incoherent line of reasoning.

Yes, it is absolutely different. Trump is not the same. He lies about everything. This is his default setting. He's lied over 16,000 times in three years. If you think this is anywhere near the scale of what other presidents do, his messaging isn't going to have any impact on you but it's apparent ours isn't going to either.

(Which makes this post pointless, I suppose.)

It may belong in the COVID thread, but this is political at its foundation. This is an organized protest using kids at the park to get sympathy for their cause. The lady recording mentions the Idaho Freedom Foundation which is pushing anti-stay at home propaganda and news. The lady arrested also happens to be the founder of a Idaho Anti-Vaxxer group.

One of the best comments I've seen on these protests mentioned that one of the things zombie movies got wrong was not having people protesting their right to be eaten by zombies.

Holy crap, Trump calling out Kemp for opening too fast?! That backfired on Kemp.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Graham has been critical of it, with his state bordering Georgia, and I'm sure he got in Trump's ear.

If it goes well, then Trump can point to all the times he said we need to re-open and say, “see, I told you so!“

If it goes poorly, then Trump can point to him criticizing governor Kemp and say, “see, I told you so!”

This is definitely something Bush or Obama would have done.

HHS ousts vaccine expert as Covid-19 threat grows - POLITICO

Trump gave the most mobster answer he could find to that...

Then later on in the only part of the conference I heard he was reminding everyone that he had campaigned heavily for Kemp and that the Obamas were doing the same for Abrams, and Kemp won.

Meanwhile bailouts coming for the oil and gas industry.

Also Dems showing how completely worthless they are yet again.

I'm also constantly in awe of how awful they are at negotiating, which just reminds you that in a lot of ways, the whole game is rigged not just the GOP.

But I'm also amazed that part of the game is that one party gets to be like "hey, we believe in actual governance like including things for hospitals and local municipalities" and the other is like "nope, you're going to have to trade away something for that like, say, give us more tax cuts for the rich and let us put in a loophole for our corrupt President". And people are like "hey, these parties are somewhat comparable"

SI

What exactly do you expect the Dems, who only control one house of Congress to do? Hold up desperately needed assistance? I mean they got $200bil more money in the new spending bill than the GOP initially wanted including money for hospitals. Would you rather they hold that up for a few weeks denying desperately needed funding to hospitals?

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

I don't understand why the Dems haven't used their big advantage. They can pass bills without GOP help, but the GOP can't pass anything without Dem help. Why haven't the Dems been passing the bills they want in the House and then starting negotiations from their bill? I think that gives them a better negotiating hand and allows them to show the American people what they stand for.

And the continuing refusal to conduct oversight is inexplicable to me.

Isn't there something like dozens of bills that the House has passed in the last 2 years that are just sitting in the bottom of McConnell's desk?

And didn't the House pass it's own stimulus bill (we discussed it on these forums for a while - you know the one with bailout money for USPS, the Kennedy Center, putting environmental requirements on airlines that got funds)? How far did that get in the US Senate?

The Dems in the House can pass all the bills they want but they don't mean anything unless the GOP acts on them in the senate and White House.

How many times did the GOP house repeal Obamacare?

The difference being there is finally something that the GOP wants. All of those messaging bills contained nothing that McConnell wanted, but now when the Dems finally do have leverage, they give it away arguing point by point with McConnell in secret.

My recollection is that they wrote a bill, but never acted on it.

Doesn't help that Chuck Schumer is about as milquetoast as it gets for a party leader

I just want to highlight this again for a second:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/23/coro...lief-bill.html



So basically the GOP wanted a $250 billion bill. The Dems said no, blocked it from passing unless it included $60bil for small lenders, $75bil for hospitals, $25bil for coronavirus testing. Yeah, they didn't get funding for states, but only Democrats can look at this and go tHeY cAvEd!1!

What did the GOP give up? All the Dem "wins" are things that the GOP isn't really opposed to. This isn't to say that what's in the bill is bad, but when will Dems use their leverage to demand things the GOP doesn't want to do?

The GOP wants to kill state-level public employee unions.
The GOP wants to privatize the USPS and kill the union.
The GOP wants to privatize as much of the national education infrastructure as they can.
The GOP wants to make it as difficult as possible to vote.

That's what's at stake, and the Dems have limited opportunities to do anything about it. At a minimum, it would be helpful to pass legislation that shows the public what they stand for. I've been saying it for years, but it's still true, nobody knows what the Dems want to do with power.

The GOP literally fought to prevent the hospital and testing funding from being in the bill. That's why the original bill sat around for 10 days and why they were trashing Pelosi the entire time for not caring about the small businesses.

If you're talking about the 8.5 billion bill in March, I think the ground has changed dramatically since the GOP opposed that. Now I thin they are willing to spend a ton of money if they think it might boost their re-election chances. There were supposedly things they hated in the Phase 3 bill, but they had no problem smiling at the signing ceremony and bragging about it on television. Their only objection was with a couple of paltry items like the Kennedy Center funding.

They'll all be bragging about the hospital funding in this bill.

I'm talking about this current bill. Originally proposed 2 weeks ago without any hospital or testing funding - just more PPP money. Pelosi and the Dems in the House blocked it, as people on the left said they should. For 2 weeks before getting double the funding than proposed.