CSNbbs

With all the talk about the "pandemic response team" that was supposedly "fired" by Trump, and about the vaunted "playbook" or "roadmap" or "gameplan" or plan that they produced that wasn't followed, I thought I would take a look at the plan and see exactly what it included. I am attaching a link here.

https://brian.carnell.com/wp-content/upl...aybook.pdf

I would like for someone to read it and tell me exactly what "plan" it contained that would have been of use in fighting this virus, and how that would have mattered. I'll give you a hint, the "plan" does not contain the word "test" among other things it omits. Basically it's a document to describe how the federal bureaucracies would iinteract. But none of those agencies, including the "pandemic response team" is responsible for any actual responding.

You felt this deserved its own thread?

Quote:Depending on the pathogen and its primary mode of transmission, there may be a series of early decisions, led by HHS, related to MCM - vaccines, drugs and other therapies to treat and prevent disease. Given that information about the nature and spread of the disease may not be readily available, these decisions may need to be made in an uncertain environment characterized by the absence of concrete and reliable information.

Key questions:

Are there ways (such as diagnostic devices) to detect this pathogen/disease?
What medical materiel are necessary to treat this disease?
What supplies are needed to protect healthcare workers, others who may be in contact with patients?

Looks pretty clear that finding tests and acquiring PPE were top priorities that should have been taken at the earliest and more opaque stages.

This may dip below the tanq line of self-ownership.

(05-06-2020 05:22 PM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]You felt this deserved its own thread?

Quote:Depending on the pathogen and its primary mode of transmission, there may be a series of early decisions, led by HHS, related to MCM - vaccines, drugs and other therapies to treat and prevent disease. Given that information about the nature and spread of the disease may not be readily available, these decisions may need to be made in an uncertain environment characterized by the absence of concrete and reliable information.

Key questions:

Are there ways (such as diagnostic devices) to detect this pathogen/disease?
What medical materiel are necessary to treat this disease?
What supplies are needed to protect healthcare workers, others who may be in contact with patients?

Looks pretty clear that finding tests and acquiring PPE were top priorities that should have been taken at the earliest and more opaque stages.

This may dip below the tanq line of self-ownership.

I mean, that doesn't say the word "test" as Owl# said...

How are people supposed to know that detect is equivalent???

(05-06-2020 05:22 PM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]You felt this deserved its own thread?

Quote:Depending on the pathogen and its primary mode of transmission, there may be a series of early decisions, led by HHS, related to MCM - vaccines, drugs and other therapies to treat and prevent disease. Given that information about the nature and spread of the disease may not be readily available, these decisions may need to be made in an uncertain environment characterized by the absence of concrete and reliable information.
Key questions:

Are there ways (such as diagnostic devices) to detect this pathogen/disease?
What medical materiel are necessary to treat this disease?
What supplies are needed to protect healthcare workers, others who may be in contact with patients?

Looks pretty clear that finding tests and acquiring PPE were top priorities that should have been taken at the earliest and more opaque stages.
This may dip below the tanq line of self-ownership.

But this is not a plan. This has nothing about who is going to do what in terms of actual response. A bunch of high-level questions is not a plan.

This is one problem with doing emergency response. The "plans" you start with are a bunch of platitudinous crap that don't have anything to do with what the boots on the ground actually have to do. It's a giant CYA effort by the bureaucracy. "We had a plan." No you didn't, because it wasn't executable.

An executable plan tells you who is going to do what. This doesn't do that. Who is going to ask those questions? Of whom? Who is going to answer? How?

ALmost by definition, a 'playbook' for something like this is going to describe generic responsibilities and ask generic questions. To expect details requires knowledge of the disease, which of course you generally won't have.

I'm just amazed at all the people who have zero medical experience all convinced that they know better than the overwhelming majority of the world's best medical minds.

Just because something 'sounds' right, doesn't mean it is.

(05-06-2020 07:35 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]ALmost by definition, a 'playbook' for something like this is going to describe generic responsibilities and ask generic questions. To expect details requires knowledge of the disease, which of course you generally won't have.
I'm just amazed at all the people who have zero medical experience all convinced that they know better than the overwhelming majority of the world's best medical minds.
Just because something 'sounds' right, doesn't mean it is.

But my point is that you need some specifics, or it's just a worthless aspirational statement. Saying that certain questions need to be asked, without saying who asks them and who answers them and how, doesn't give any useful information. I think any reasonably intelligent American knew that those questions needed to be asked. What a plan tells you is how and where to find the answers.

We don't have a document for any emergency that lays out who handles what. That's because we don't have anybody specifically tasked to respond. Locals respond, states direct, the federales support. That's our model. But if the locals don't have the proper personnel or kit to handle it, nothing happens until somebody steps up ad hoc to do it. That's why we always start slowly. If you want to write a plan to handle a pandemic, put in some specific steps for boots on the ground, not a bunch of high-level platitudes.

69/70/75 - you don't seem to believe that government can do good in many circumstances. I'm not sure why anyone would voluntarily engage you on something like this because you will never, ever, ever be convinced. Bureaucrats gonna bureaucrat, and all that.

(05-06-2020 08:10 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]69/70/75 - you don't seem to believe that government can do good in many circumstances. I'm not sure why anyone would voluntarily engage you on something like this because you will never, ever, ever be convinced. Bureaucrats gonna bureaucrat, and all that.

Big - I'm sorry but this is a prime example of bureaucrats bureaucratizing. "We wrote a plan. What good boys are we." Never mind that the plan doesn't cover anything that is actually needed in a pandemic. What we need for a plan is something that says who does what with what resources.

Government can do good in many circumstances. It won WWII. It won the Cold War. It built the Interstate Highway System. But it also screws a lot of things up. Ever heard of Vietnam? I lived that one.

I'm perfectly capable of being convinced when they do something right. But this "pandemic plan" is not one of those cases.

Let me throw a question back at you. What guidance in that plan would have been useful in actually responding?

(05-06-2020 08:37 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]

Perhaps you may want to put out a germane post that is relevant to the discussion as opposed to what you seemingly feel the need to pump out inanely in the last 48 hours.

(05-06-2020 07:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]But my point is that you need some specifics, or it's just a worthless aspirational statement. Saying that certain questions need to be asked, without saying who asks them and who answers them and how, doesn't give any useful information. I think any reasonably intelligent American knew that those questions needed to be asked. What a plan tells you is how and where to find the answers.

We don't have a document for any emergency that lays out who handles what. That's because we don't have anybody specifically tasked to respond. Locals respond, states direct, the federales support. That's our model. But if the locals don't have the proper personnel or kit to handle it, nothing happens until somebody steps up ad hoc to do it. That's why we always start slowly. If you want to write a plan to handle a pandemic, put in some specific steps for boots on the ground, not a bunch of high-level platitudes.

different topic, but we had this very conversation today....

The problem is, the term 'pandemic' doesn't speak to lots of specifics. What we'd do and whom we'd ask to respond to a pandemic like Ebola (very deadly, hard to transmit) versus Covid (very easy to transmit, not nearly as deadly), not to mention one that can be impacted by limiting international travel vs one that could perhaps be initiated here, or comes from the food supply versus the air etc etc etc... the document would end up being grossly unwieldy.

If that's what people want, okay... but my experience with those documents is that 'what you get' ends up sliding between two imagined scenarios, so you get a stalemate or conflict.

That doesn't mean you can't write one... but it means that what it would either have to be very high level with lots of discretion, or incredibly detailed, and hope that 'the unimagined' doesn't happen.

It is the President's job, in consultation with the CDC and whomever else he chooses to listen to, to declare a national emergency. When that happens, a number of determinations must be made by 'some people' regarding, but not limited to... containment strategies, mitigation strategies and management strategies based on the known or suspected characteristics of the situation... which may involve Federal, State, Regional and International agencies.... and must be adjusted and adapted as time passes and more information is known.

I just imagine really getting off into the weeds on this. Best I imagine is creating a team like CDC, DHS, FDA, Commerce, Transportation, Treasury, Council of Governors and perhaps the Chief Justice (or solicitor general), but open to augmentation by the President as he deems necessary or as the committee requests?

(05-06-2020 11:01 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-06-2020 07:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]But my point is that you need some specifics, or it's just a worthless aspirational statement. Saying that certain questions need to be asked, without saying who asks them and who answers them and how, doesn't give any useful information. I think any reasonably intelligent American knew that those questions needed to be asked. What a plan tells you is how and where to find the answers.
We don't have a document for any emergency that lays out who handles what. That's because we don't have anybody specifically tasked to respond. Locals respond, states direct, the federales support. That's our model. But if the locals don't have the proper personnel or kit to handle it, nothing happens until somebody steps up ad hoc to do it. That's why we always start slowly. If you want to write a plan to handle a pandemic, put in some specific steps for boots on the ground, not a bunch of high-level platitudes.

different topic, but we had this very conversation today....
The problem is, the term 'pandemic' doesn't speak to lots of specifics. What we'd do and whom we'd ask to respond to a pandemic like Ebola (very deadly, hard to transmit) versus Covid (very easy to transmit, not nearly as deadly), not to mention one that can be impacted by limiting international travel vs one that could perhaps be initiated here, or comes from the food supply versus the air etc etc etc... the document would end up being grossly unwieldy.
If that's what people want, okay... but my experience with those documents is that 'what you get' ends up sliding between two imagined scenarios, so you get a stalemate or conflict.
That doesn't mean you can't write one... but it means that what it would either have to be very high level with lots of discretion, or incredibly detailed, and hope that 'the unimagined' doesn't happen.
It is the President's job, in consultation with the CDC and whomever else he chooses to listen to, to declare a national emergency. When that happens, a number of determinations must be made by 'some people' regarding, but not limited to... containment strategies, mitigation strategies and management strategies based on the known or suspected characteristics of the situation... which may involve Federal, State, Regional and International agencies.... and must be adjusted and adapted as time passes and more information is known.
I just imagine really getting off into the weeds on this. Best I imagine is creating a team like CDC, DHS, FDA, Commerce, Transportation, Treasury, Council of Governors and perhaps the Chief Justice (or solicitor general), but open to augmentation by the President as he deems necessary or as the committee requests?

I'm making a somewhat different point. We need some organization at the top, and to be fair, the "gameplan" actually makes something of a shot at that. But those people could all do their jobs perfectly (they didn't) and we would still have a problem without responders on the ground.

CDC, FDA, FEMA, and the others don't do actual boots on the ground response. They don't have enough people, the right kit, or the training to do that. Nobody does. And until we designate somebody to do it, we're just going to take forever to respond.

Yes, CV-19 is different from Ebola, and both are different from hurricanes and earthquakes, so you can't get too far into the weeds on writing a plan. But what you need are identified and designated people who know that if am emergency happens, you go to location X and prepare to do Y, as directed. And if you've trained realistically, you've learned enough of those "nothing works, nothing is where it is supposed to be, and people are dying" skills to help you see it through.

(05-06-2020 10:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-06-2020 08:37 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]

Perhaps you may want to put out a germane post that is relevant to the discussion as opposed to what you seemingly feel the need to pump out inanely in the last 48 hours.

(05-07-2020 07:53 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-06-2020 10:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-06-2020 08:37 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]

Perhaps you may want to put out a germane post that is relevant to the discussion as opposed to what you seemingly feel the need to pump out inanely in the last 48 hours.

C'mon Fountains, you're really detracting from our very stimulating conversations about :checks notes: the definition of slut.

Fountains apparently cant even discuss that.... let alone talking abut proxies for the Wuhan virus. I guess you missed that lil portion.

(05-07-2020 10:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Fountains apparently cant even discuss that.... let alone talking abut proxies for the Wuhan virus. I guess you missed that lil portion.

What's Founty up to now? I have him on Ignore. He kind of reminds me of harpo marx with his nonverbal communications, but harpo was much clearer.

(05-07-2020 10:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-07-2020 10:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Fountains apparently cant even discuss that.... let alone talking abut proxies for the Wuhan virus. I guess you missed that lil portion.

What's Founty up to now? I have him on Ignore. He kind of reminds me of harpo marx with his nonverbal communications, but harpo was much clearer.

His usual gif-o-matic comic book style of posting. Funny he does that *after* bitching at you for using msn.com too much, apparently. Maybe a meds issue of something. And yeah, I agree, I think Mr gif is going to get 'ignore' here as well. Only 2 on the active list there for me. I dont count Foff since he is on 'administrative leave' apparently.

(05-07-2020 10:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]And funny, while lad ******* about 'talking about the term "slut" ', he conveniently absolutely forgets which side made that dumb*** issue a debating point topic..... I mean, he jumped full force in with big when they whined about the use of the word (among others) as the outset. Now he ******* about talking about it. Laugh a minute with some.

I kind of like Lad. he at least has some flexibility, like his patron saint, Obama. But he does tend to run away when he doesn't like where his own words are leading him.

Watching him debate with ham is an event.

(05-07-2020 10:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-07-2020 10:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]And funny, while lad ******* about 'talking about the term "slut" ', he conveniently absolutely forgets which side made that dumb*** issue a debating point topic..... I mean, he jumped full force in with big when they whined about the use of the word (among others) as the outset. Now he ******* about talking about it. Laugh a minute with some.

I kind of like Lad. he at least has some flexibility, like his patron saint, Obama. But he does tend to run away when he doesn't like where his own words are leading him.

Watching him debate with ham is an event.

I appreciate Tanq deleting that portion of his reponse.

I obviously know I was part of :checks notes: defining the word slut.

I am 100% self-aware of how wasteful this board can be. I try to laugh about it when it becomes to much for my fragile psyche to bare. But for some reason, I keep coming back here - a bit masochistic if you ask me.