(04-01-2020 01:16 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Evening graphs. Not really anything good to say for the USA. I'm still waiting for someone to explain why Trump gets a passing grade when the USA had a 1-month head start to respond based on China's response and yet we somehow end up as the worst in the world for total cases and trending in very horrifying directions on total deaths. I guess it was cultural differences and had nothing to do with Trump.

Big - honestly these graphs are a waste of time. I've completely stopped paying attention to the number of cases as a legitimate reporting tool in the U.S.

2 anecdotal reasons -- first a few days back Sylvester Turner admitted that the city of Houston was only testing 250 people a day not due to a lack of testing kits (finally) but because the city didn't have enough protective equipment to safely administer the tests. Houston (and Dallas and really the entire state of Texas) have laughable totals at this point. So do a lot of red states.

But the bigger state whose numbers are completely off are a blue state and our nation's most populous state, California. I've been arguing with my brother in the Bay Area that the numbers there make no sense and he completely tries to defend his state, saying that they're not hiding any numbers but that the back load is just out of control (10 days - now working on almost 2 weeks for some results, which is absurb).

And then lo and behold, my sister's stepson in Southern California had to get tested due to some bad symptoms. He got his results back relatively quickly but was told he was only 87 percent positive. And it turns out that California is now grading results in a range. We believe under 85 percent or so, you're negative. There is a range from roughly 85 to 97 or 98 percent where you show symptoms and might have a mild case but it's not enough to be considered positive - just stay at home and self-quarantine and if the symptoms don't get worse, you'll be okay. But you don't get grouped into the positive case totals. Only the ones at 98, 99 and 100 percent are considered positive.

Later today, Michigan may pass California in positive cases.

To be honest, I just pay attention to the death totals now. It's pretty hard to manipulate those numbers. Sorry but it's easy to be cynical at 4:30 in the morning when you can't sleep.

(04-01-2020 01:40 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-31-2020 03:55 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-31-2020 01:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Hospitals should be reserved for people most likely to need the broadest range of medical services... and places that are in some way 'less' than a hospital should be reserved for people who need fewer services.

THIS. Your statement here is one reason I get so pissed with people running to hospitals for every little thing instead of doing a bit of self-triage and learning and understanding what they can treat on their own at home, and saving the hospitals (and Doctor's office visits and expensive medicines) for those whose cases actually demand them. Example: Too many doctors have given out too many antibiotics because their patients demand them when they get the sniffles, leading to antibiotic resistant bugs. I have nothing against a proper response for the sick people who need it. Problem is, too many assume they need every blessed little thing because no one raised them to take care of themselves in the first place (broken families, bad public schooling, ignorant media, et cetera, et cetera (no "x" in there)) People screaming on the news and on the boards about tests when most of them don't need them, making shortages for the people who actually do is another.

My wife was on call last weekend (she covers 2 hospitals). I don't think she had to venture to the ER (just labor & delivery and surgery). But from the people she spoke to, apparently this is actually happening as they were getting many fewer ER visits from people who didn't really need them (but a lot of Covid-19 visits).

A good friend works at Ben Taub and has said the same. She commented on how she hadn’t experienced such an “empty” ER when it came to more traditional ER issues.

(04-01-2020 02:19 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(04-01-2020 01:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Big, I get the impression you are one of these guys who gives all the credit or all the blame to the QB.

Although perhaps Trump better fits the role of Coach or Athletic Director, or in the pros, General Manager. Any way you look at it, you want to blame one guy for the team performance. I am not even sure the performance was bad. Continuing the football analogy, you seem to want to say Rice did poorly because Furman did better.

I think this is a fair assessment of how I assess POTUS, governors, and mayors. They are the QB, the head coach, the general manager, and the owner all wrapped into one spot. Of course, there are certain areas where they are constrained by Congress. But generally, if something falls through the cracks in the executive branch, I think POTUS is the one who needs to answer. After all, he/she is the only one who is elected. It was either POTUS's responsibility to see the problem and fix it or to hire the kind of people who would ferret out the problem and fix it. I guess that is the slings and arrows of being the most powerful person on the planet.

I can’t count how many posts we have had over the last few years where conservatives have argued that Trump, as the executive, basically has the right to hire/fire anyone to positions within the various federal agencies. This was generally centered around Trump firing those who were deemed not to be loyal to him.

If that is the position, then naturally it makes sense that he should shoulder the blame for the failings of those agencies - he picked the leadership and the direction of the agency.

(04-01-2020 02:19 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(04-01-2020 01:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Big, I get the impression you are one of these guys who gives all the credit or all the blame to the QB.
Although perhaps Trump better fits the role of Coach or Athletic Director, or in the pros, General Manager. Any way you look at it, you want to blame one guy for the team performance. I am not even sure the performance was bad. Continuing the football analogy, you seem to want to say Rice did poorly because Furman did better.

I think this is a fair assessment of how I assess POTUS, governors, and mayors. They are the QB, the head coach, the general manager, and the owner all wrapped into one spot. Of course, there are certain areas where they are constrained by Congress. But generally, if something falls through the cracks in the executive branch, I think POTUS is the one who needs to answer. After all, he/she is the only one who is elected. It was either POTUS's responsibility to see the problem and fix it or to hire the kind of people who would ferret out the problem and fix it. I guess that is the slings and arrows of being the most powerful person on the planet.

I think of the president more as coach or AD or GM. He doesn't do the job, but he hires and fires the people who do. And when they are unable to handle it, he makes changes,

Here, CDC and FDA were clearly unable to handle the testing effort. That's not meant as an attack on them. In our system, they're not designed to handle crises or emergencies. Neither, by the way, was the vaunted (in some quarters) pandemic response team. So Trump has basically told them, don't acrew up a cure, and has gone a different route. He's getting state, local, and private entities involved in a much bigger way.

Using the coaching analogy, do you get better players or do you get the players you have to play better? He decided to plug in better players, which is probably the only quick fix. But in the long run we need to find ways to get the players to play better. We need to adjust our systems so that we can better utilize the players we have, instead of trying to push square pegs (CDC, FDA, pandemic response team) into round holes (actually responding to crises). Neither CDC nor FDA nor that pandemic response team can really make a huge difference in responding, because they don't have enough numbers to make a difference. They can make whatever plans they want, but response is still up to players who actually DO the response. And we don't have those identified and equipped and trained to do it. So, we always start out slow when responding to crises, but eventually come around and get it right, or nearly so.

(04-01-2020 06:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I can’t count how many posts we have had over the last few years where conservatives have argued that Trump, as the executive, basically has the right to hire/fire anyone to positions within the various federal agencies. This was generally centered around Trump firing those who were deemed not to be loyal to him.
If that is the position, then naturally it makes sense that he should shoulder the blame for the failings of those agencies - he picked the leadership and the direction of the agency.

He absolutely has the right to hire and fire. That is the only control he can exercise in many cases.

But he doesn't have the right to restructure the inherent nature and purpose of the organization. That typically requires congressional agreement, at the budget level at minimum. And right now we have a structure that is inherently unable to respond to crises, So we have to adjust it ad hoc every time there is a crisis. Nobody in DC can respond to a crisis. There simply aren't enough of them matter. So they can write all the plans in the world, but have no real control over the execution of those plans. And no matter how well those plans are conceived, there's always going to be a Governor Blanco who is going to say shelter in place.

FEMA can't respond to an emergency. Neither can CDC or FDA, nor could the pandemic response team. They can play with org charts snd write reports, but they can't make anything actually happen. We need a designated RESPONDER who can actually DO things, and they need to be staffed and equipped and trained to do those things. And that training needs to e realistic enough to identify the holes in the plan.

(04-01-2020 06:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-01-2020 02:19 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(04-01-2020 01:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Big, I get the impression you are one of these guys who gives all the credit or all the blame to the QB.
Although perhaps Trump better fits the role of Coach or Athletic Director, or in the pros, General Manager. Any way you look at it, you want to blame one guy for the team performance. I am not even sure the performance was bad. Continuing the football analogy, you seem to want to say Rice did poorly because Furman did better.

I think this is a fair assessment of how I assess POTUS, governors, and mayors. They are the QB, the head coach, the general manager, and the owner all wrapped into one spot. Of course, there are certain areas where they are constrained by Congress. But generally, if something falls through the cracks in the executive branch, I think POTUS is the one who needs to answer. After all, he/she is the only one who is elected. It was either POTUS's responsibility to see the problem and fix it or to hire the kind of people who would ferret out the problem and fix it. I guess that is the slings and arrows of being the most powerful person on the planet.

I think of the president more as coach or AD or GM. He doesn't do the job, but he hires and fires the people who do. And when they are unable to handle it, he makes changes,

Here, CDC and FDA were clearly unable to handle the testing effort. That's not meant as an attack on them. In our system, they're not designed to handle crises or emergencies. Neither, by the way, was the vaunted (in some quarters) pandemic response team. So Trump has basically told them, don't acrew up a cure, and has gone a different route. He's getting state, local, and private entities involved in a much bigger way.

Using the coaching analogy, do you get better players or do you get the players you have to play better? He decided to plug in better players, which is probably the only quick fix. But in the long run we need to find ways to get the players to play better. We need to adjust our systems so that we can better utilize the players we have, instead of trying to push square pegs (CDC, FDA, pandemic response team) into round holes (actually responding to crises). Neither CDC nor FDA nor that pandemic response team can really make a huge difference in responding, because they don't have enough numbers to make a difference. They can make whatever plans they want, but response is still up to players who actually DO the response. And we don't have those identified and equipped and trained to do it. So, we always start out slow when responding to crises, but eventually come around and get it right, or nearly so.

But did he actually plug in better players?

(04-01-2020 06:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-01-2020 06:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-01-2020 02:19 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(04-01-2020 01:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Big, I get the impression you are one of these guys who gives all the credit or all the blame to the QB.
Although perhaps Trump better fits the role of Coach or Athletic Director, or in the pros, General Manager. Any way you look at it, you want to blame one guy for the team performance. I am not even sure the performance was bad. Continuing the football analogy, you seem to want to say Rice did poorly because Furman did better.

I think this is a fair assessment of how I assess POTUS, governors, and mayors. They are the QB, the head coach, the general manager, and the owner all wrapped into one spot. Of course, there are certain areas where they are constrained by Congress. But generally, if something falls through the cracks in the executive branch, I think POTUS is the one who needs to answer. After all, he/she is the only one who is elected. It was either POTUS's responsibility to see the problem and fix it or to hire the kind of people who would ferret out the problem and fix it. I guess that is the slings and arrows of being the most powerful person on the planet.

I think of the president more as coach or AD or GM. He doesn't do the job, but he hires and fires the people who do. And when they are unable to handle it, he makes changes,
Here, CDC and FDA were clearly unable to handle the testing effort. That's not meant as an attack on them. In our system, they're not designed to handle crises or emergencies. Neither, by the way, was the vaunted (in some quarters) pandemic response team. So Trump has basically told them, don't acrew up a cure, and has gone a different route. He's getting state, local, and private entities involved in a much bigger way.
Using the coaching analogy, do you get better players or do you get the players you have to play better? He decided to plug in better players, which is probably the only quick fix. But in the long run we need to find ways to get the players to play better. We need to adjust our systems so that we can better utilize the players we have, instead of trying to push square pegs (CDC, FDA, pandemic response team) into round holes (actually responding to crises). Neither CDC nor FDA nor that pandemic response team can really make a huge difference in responding, because they don't have enough numbers to make a difference. They can make whatever plans they want, but response is still up to players who actually DO the response. And we don't have those identified and equipped and trained to do it. So, we always start out slow when responding to crises, but eventually come around and get it right, or nearly so.

But did he actually plug in better players?

They're getting better results. We finally have the testing moving along, and we may soon have a cure. We lost time because we had nobody ready to go when the balloon went up, but we are catching up.

(04-01-2020 07:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-01-2020 06:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-01-2020 06:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-01-2020 02:19 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(04-01-2020 01:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Big, I get the impression you are one of these guys who gives all the credit or all the blame to the QB.
Although perhaps Trump better fits the role of Coach or Athletic Director, or in the pros, General Manager. Any way you look at it, you want to blame one guy for the team performance. I am not even sure the performance was bad. Continuing the football analogy, you seem to want to say Rice did poorly because Furman did better.

I think this is a fair assessment of how I assess POTUS, governors, and mayors. They are the QB, the head coach, the general manager, and the owner all wrapped into one spot. Of course, there are certain areas where they are constrained by Congress. But generally, if something falls through the cracks in the executive branch, I think POTUS is the one who needs to answer. After all, he/she is the only one who is elected. It was either POTUS's responsibility to see the problem and fix it or to hire the kind of people who would ferret out the problem and fix it. I guess that is the slings and arrows of being the most powerful person on the planet.

I think of the president more as coach or AD or GM. He doesn't do the job, but he hires and fires the people who do. And when they are unable to handle it, he makes changes,
Here, CDC and FDA were clearly unable to handle the testing effort. That's not meant as an attack on them. In our system, they're not designed to handle crises or emergencies. Neither, by the way, was the vaunted (in some quarters) pandemic response team. So Trump has basically told them, don't acrew up a cure, and has gone a different route. He's getting state, local, and private entities involved in a much bigger way.
Using the coaching analogy, do you get better players or do you get the players you have to play better? He decided to plug in better players, which is probably the only quick fix. But in the long run we need to find ways to get the players to play better. We need to adjust our systems so that we can better utilize the players we have, instead of trying to push square pegs (CDC, FDA, pandemic response team) into round holes (actually responding to crises). Neither CDC nor FDA nor that pandemic response team can really make a huge difference in responding, because they don't have enough numbers to make a difference. They can make whatever plans they want, but response is still up to players who actually DO the response. And we don't have those identified and equipped and trained to do it. So, we always start out slow when responding to crises, but eventually come around and get it right, or nearly so.

But did he actually plug in better players?

They're getting better results. We finally have the testing moving along, and we may soon have a cure. We lost time because we had nobody ready to go when the balloon went up, but we are catching up.

I hadn't heard of any shakeups in leadership right before the end of February when the FDA changed its protocol.

The Coronavirus task force was pulled together at the end of January.

It would be interesting to know what players changed, and how they affected change so we can better understand their background and why they were more effective. Do you know who a few of them are?

(04-01-2020 01:01 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-31-2020 10:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  3 days ago he leveled the DPA hammer on GM for ventilators. Seems that the left leaning people on this board arent really up on the current status of the use of the DPA.

And, there are no 'step 1, step 2' under the DPA. In the first instance, he invoked it but didnt use it; it was meant as a 'talking point' to the industrials and pharma. Something to show that in 'negotiations', there is *clearly* a party who has leverage.

4 days ago he invoked it again -- but this time with hammer directly on a company.

My advice is that if you lefties are going to argue about the shortcomings of the usage (or not) of it, that you actually get both the usage dates, the mechanics of using it, and the results of any invocation straight before arguing how bad it is.

Just saying.

Forgive me, I am busy trying to keep 3 kids in line with online schooling while doing extra chores and "teleworking". Some of the minutia fall through the cracks.

I still don't understand why he didn't "invoke" it to either use it as a "talking point" or as a "hammer" 20-30 days earlier. People who didn't need to catch Covid-19 have caught it due to inadequate PPE supplies. His decision to not use this tool earlier is, along with a lot of other factors, responsible for some people catching Covid-19. Same with his decision not to invoke the DPA earlier to increase respirator production.

The tidal wave has been coming and plenty of experts were pointing to it and telling him that he had the power to get the country to high ground. He took us up to the porch. Better than standing on the beach, but not as good as the 2nd floor.

Why not ask why he didnt invoke it as a 'talking point' on Jan 20th or so. Your 'line of best use' seems to be when Patient Zero was identified if you think getting to the 2nd floor is the passing grade. But to be blunt, any assertion on timeliness (or not), or even the use of the DPA. or for that matter the 'threaten action' or empty invocation, that doesnt have access to a metric ton of other facts and insights is simply a crass display of arrogance.

My suggestion, as before, is: dont vote for him. I think the fact that even if he and you were the last two people in the nation that you would *still* not vote for him colors pretty much everything you say about him and his actions.

If you take that tact, then gee golly willkiers, you really should take the tack of Trump using the DPA to take over the TP industry to make more TP, the trucking industry to move the TP, and the supermarket industry to ensure that said TP is stocked sufficiently.

Now on to a more substantive look at the DPA and its use:

He hasnt exercised the DPA in PPE because of at least one issue that is seemingly blithely ignored from your quarter: the PPE industry has responded like banshees and put an amazing effort into ramping that. Even if he exercised the DPA in that realm, it wouldnt make a difference in the timeline -- the marginal benefit in such an exercise is probably near zero *and* you have an amazingly cooperative PPE industry that is responding.

I guess if your mark of success in using the DPA is just to use it, you are correct in your indictment. If instead the mark of success in using it is to improve the marginal benefit to the output effort, then your suggestion on using it for PPE is simply vacuous.

The same analysis should be used for respirators. The problem is that one has to have a priori perfect knowledge to be the mark of passing for you in this instance. 30 days ago it seemed as though the marginal benefit of using the DPA in manufacturing respirators was going in a manner where the marginal reward in using it was not much. When the GM refab/co-venture took on severe leaks, the marginal benefit of its use jumped dramatically.

Finally, perhaps you want to also take a look at the use of the DPA; it is amongst the *most* intrusive and *most* interventionist laws on the books. The invocation of it should be sparing and judicious. Not willy nilly and at the pure whim of an executive. I guess in your view, the use of it should be generous and at the earliest ever indication of anything?

I mean, seriously, the underlying fundamental stricture of our society is that the government does not nationalize, and does not direct the functions of private business on a day to day basis. The more statist one is, the more one will disagree with that. I mean, the level that you are implying that the DPA *should* have invoked, even when it appeared that private industry was operating in line with the government, kind of starts to merge with the ideals of the operation of the German economy and government in the late 30's to the mid 40's.

So, if you want the invocation of the DPA at the drop of a hat -- more power to you. I prefer not to go down that path. If it appears that private enterprise can do and do efficiently the government's goals and bidding in times of crisis, the default action should be to *not* invoke it -- that is in contradistinction of the course that you seemingly imply that should have been taken above. And when the marginal use is very great, one uses the hammer aspect.

So, as to Trump's use (or non-use) of the DPA, that pretty much devolves to the calculus of the marginal benefit *at any juncture in time*. I am not omniscient, nor do I have perfect 20/20 hindsight into that calculus that the Administration has/had access to. I would be absolutely arrogant to say that the DPA was or was not invoked in a timely manner.

To be blunt, any positive assertion of the timeliness (or untimeliness) of the use (or even solely *of* the use) of the DPA means one of four distinct things: a) specific knowledge of that calculus; b) a wild ass assertion of that calculus with zero basis; or c) a deep ingrained subjective belief of the propriety of its usage at any time, that subjective belief being wholly based on the influence of other personal preference issues; or d) a deep-based political belief in the unrestrained use of a deep and powerful government power at any time.

But your blanket indictment of a failure to use the DPA hammer on, in particular, PPE is fundamentally disingenuous for at least on rock solid reason and one more ethereal reason. In terms in PPE, the shortage of PPE was baked into the cake from day Obama administration --- there is zero temporal reason to use PPE on that given the ramp up times in question. Second, from even this viewpoint at this time, US manufacturing are acting with the speed of lizards on crack to meet what is needed; there is zero marginal utility to using the DPA there. That is *unless* you want to make the invocation into a dick swinging effort.

Your characterization of a 'failure to use DPA' as 'resulting in gobsmacking more infections' is just amazingly ill-thought out when one looks at the deeper issues. It is a great catcall scream, and kudos for its use there as such. But, the blaming of a failure to use the hammer of the DPA in the specific area that you do (i.e. PPE) is fairly shallow in its approach. Emotionally laden? Very much so. But emotionally laden does not equate to practical usage or analysis.

The funny date that leftists seem to overlook entirely in the 'too late too late too late too late' calls that they make is January 15, 2020. Two things happened on that date -- one glaring in nature and one sublime. Another related date is February 5, 2020.

(04-01-2020 01:38 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-31-2020 03:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  edit: Turns out it was Big in post #1676 who would have hoarded our supplies and not shared with a country having a crisis.

Not really what I was saying. My point was at the time the PPE supplies were being given to China, many experts seemed to believe that we had a large active outbreak and just didn't know it yet because of the lack of testing. So I was saying that we should keep the supplies to treat our own outbreak rather than sending supplies elsewhere to treat someone else's outbreak. If we weren't having an outbreak, by all means, donate the supplies to help out. I'm a lefty after all!

I think you may have over-reacted to the word "Hoard". But we are describing the exact same thing. Effectively, if your neighbor comes over for a cup of sugar, you would be the guy who says "I cannot spare even a single cube. I need it all for myself."

You said, flatly, you would not have sent the 17 tons. It was part of your list Trump-mistakes.

(04-01-2020 08:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-01-2020 01:38 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-31-2020 03:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  edit: Turns out it was Big in post #1676 who would have hoarded our supplies and not shared with a country having a crisis.

Not really what I was saying. My point was at the time the PPE supplies were being given to China, many experts seemed to believe that we had a large active outbreak and just didn't know it yet because of the lack of testing. So I was saying that we should keep the supplies to treat our own outbreak rather than sending supplies elsewhere to treat someone else's outbreak. If we weren't having an outbreak, by all means, donate the supplies to help out. I'm a lefty after all!

I think you may have over-reacted to the word "Hoard". But we are describing the exact same thing. Effectively, if your neighbor comes over for a cup of sugar, you would be the guy who says "I cannot spare even a single cube. I need it all for myself."

You said, flatly, you would not have sent the 17 tons. It was part of your list Trump-mistakes.

At the time the '17 tons' sounded a lot juicier than a short tractor-trailer load, mind you. An inherent danger with repeating talking points is thus exposed.

(04-01-2020 04:42 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(04-01-2020 01:16 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Evening graphs. Not really anything good to say for the USA. I'm still waiting for someone to explain why Trump gets a passing grade when the USA had a 1-month head start to respond based on China's response and yet we somehow end up as the worst in the world for total cases and trending in very horrifying directions on total deaths. I guess it was cultural differences and had nothing to do with Trump.

Big - honestly these graphs are a waste of time. I've completely stopped paying attention to the number of cases as a legitimate reporting tool in the U.S.

2 anecdotal reasons -- first a few days back Sylvester Turner admitted that the city of Houston was only testing 250 people a day not due to a lack of testing kits (finally) but because the city didn't have enough protective equipment to safely administer the tests. Houston (and Dallas and really the entire state of Texas) have laughable totals at this point. So do a lot of red states.

But the bigger state whose numbers are completely off are a blue state and our nation's most populous state, California. I've been arguing with my brother in the Bay Area that the numbers there make no sense and he completely tries to defend his state, saying that they're not hiding any numbers but that the back load is just out of control (10 days - now working on almost 2 weeks for some results, which is absurb).

And then lo and behold, my sister's stepson in Southern California had to get tested due to some bad symptoms. He got his results back relatively quickly but was told he was only 87 percent positive. And it turns out that California is now grading results in a range. We believe under 85 percent or so, you're negative. There is a range from roughly 85 to 97 or 98 percent where you show symptoms and might have a mild case but it's not enough to be considered positive - just stay at home and self-quarantine and if the symptoms don't get worse, you'll be okay. But you don't get grouped into the positive case totals. Only the ones at 98, 99 and 100 percent are considered positive.

Later today, Michigan may pass California in positive cases.

To be honest, I just pay attention to the death totals now. It's pretty hard to manipulate those numbers. Sorry but it's easy to be cynical at 4:30 in the morning when you can't sleep.

Since you bring up red/blue, I would just like to point out the places with the worst numbers have Democratic mayors/governors.

You guys really need to stop with the deflections regarding the comparisons to Obama. I'm clearly not comparing the diseases... I'm clearly comparing the executive response to a casually transmitted pandemic. You're right that Obama had it easier than Trump in terms of the issue... which only makes your refusal to even discuss the executive responsibility and decisions all the more transparent. There IS evidence of what Obama would have done in 'a worse pandemic', you look at how he performed in a 'lesser' one. The problem is, you can't point to one thing he did during Swine and say 'this is what gives me faith in his ability to respond to a different pandemic'. You simply have that belief.

Since Big brought the QB analogy, Obama did absolutely nothing remotely 'special' in his win over UTSA.... and yet for some reason, you think he would be great against Alabama. Hillary has never played a sport, much less coached it, but Lad thinks she'd be great at it as well. Trump gets Alabama... we're still early in the game and we've had ups and downs in it but we're absolutely 'in the game', and you're giving him an 'F'. We'd need to throw something in there about the fact that neither Obama nor Trump were elected for their football coaching expertise... and yet at the last minute, were called on to coach the game. And yes, you certainly CAN project how a 3a HS QB would do in FBS football. You either show them absolutely dominating lesser competition or you show them executing flawlessly against lesser competition. Obama struggled against lesser competition and Hillary's organization lost a rigged coin toss.

Big, I understand your 'that's how I view a President' opinion and I used to feel that way in the 80's. Not anymore. First, Do you honestly believe that Biden, Bernie, Hillary and Trump are among the best executives/problem solvers in this country? Second, do people elect a President based on things that might never happen during their tenure, or do they elect them based on what happens 95+% of the time?

(04-01-2020 06:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-01-2020 01:40 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-31-2020 03:55 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-31-2020 01:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Hospitals should be reserved for people most likely to need the broadest range of medical services... and places that are in some way 'less' than a hospital should be reserved for people who need fewer services.

THIS. Your statement here is one reason I get so pissed with people running to hospitals for every little thing instead of doing a bit of self-triage and learning and understanding what they can treat on their own at home, and saving the hospitals (and Doctor's office visits and expensive medicines) for those whose cases actually demand them. Example: Too many doctors have given out too many antibiotics because their patients demand them when they get the sniffles, leading to antibiotic resistant bugs. I have nothing against a proper response for the sick people who need it. Problem is, too many assume they need every blessed little thing because no one raised them to take care of themselves in the first place (broken families, bad public schooling, ignorant media, et cetera, et cetera (no "x" in there)) People screaming on the news and on the boards about tests when most of them don't need them, making shortages for the people who actually do is another.

My wife was on call last weekend (she covers 2 hospitals). I don't think she had to venture to the ER (just labor & delivery and surgery). But from the people she spoke to, apparently this is actually happening as they were getting many fewer ER visits from people who didn't really need them (but a lot of Covid-19 visits).

A good friend works at Ben Taub and has said the same. She commented on how she hadn’t experienced such an “empty” ER when it came to more traditional ER issues.

The urgent care centers I used to manage are down about 70% according to those I used to supervise....

which speaks to the issue of demand/supply we've been talking about. Clearly lots of people seeking care don't NEED healthcare... they simply WANT it... When you see first-hand the people who present to an ED with a 3% admission rate (meaning 97% of them don't need hospitalization) as I have, and then you go to Urgent Care where those 97% of people should be seen rather than an ER, and you realize that 50% of THOSE people don't need to be seen there either... the issues of healthcare in this country become transparent.




With respect to your other comments, Lad... laughable. There is plenty of 'meat' to my comments and I clearly have the professional background to back-it-up. It is ridiculous to imply that I'm just here to argue with every detail you post. Most of the things I've spoken about in this thread can be traced back long before this thread... though obviously with less specificity because this wasn't 'the' issue'. I've been part of professional discussions for disaster preparedness within hospitals. I've personally written disaster preparedness plans for Urgent Care centers associated with large Hospital groups in large coastal metropolitan areas AND 'flyover country'. I've specifically written plans for isolation of patients. I was part of an Ebola task force in 2014 both preparation for and evaluation after 'the event'. "What I do best' is think outside the box.... to imagine the unimaginable... to come up with ideas that most people don't come up with. This is especially valuable when dealing with 'something new' or when 'what we've been doing isn't working'.

There are some people here who believe giant agencies turn on a dime with the installation of a new chief. Or a new anybody. I have seen no evidence that this is so. My experience with much smaller businesses would indicate this is not so. But apparently they are more expert in these things than I am.

So you fire the coach, and he installs a new strength coach and a new receivers coach. Wow, presto chang-o, the team starts winning. I wonder why we cannot do this at Rice. If it is so easy with national agencies like the CDC, it should be a snap in a little ole football program of less than 200 people all in one place.

It is frustrating trying to talk common sense to people who have no experience and no desire to learn, but are single minded in a goal that has nothing to do with the facts. I certainly understand ham's frustrations.

The goal here for the lefties is to replace Trump. They don't care if the replacement is a step up or a step or three down. But to bring down the stag, first they need to bleed him a little. So they pick at everything he does or doesn't do, everything he does or doesn't say, and how he says or doesn't say it. They do it with lies (he's Putin's puppet) and innuendo (lots of smoke there - we need to see what's up) So when they do it yet again, it has little force. Just more of the same. The guy who bitched in November 2016 is bitching now. BFD.

Elections always come down to the lesser evil. Nothing BigLad or any of the others can say can make me think Biden is the lesser evil. A person who says "it's OK to not pay your rent" is a damn fool. What's next, "It's OK to walk into a grocery store and take what you need without paying"? How about it is OK to walk into a bank and take what you need"?

I did not vote in the presidential race in 2016. Like Hillary and many others, I thought it just an exercise in futility, and we would be stuck with somebody whose entire agenda would be accomplished when she stepped off the inaugural platform, and I did not think Trump, even if elected, would be much more than a different kind of vanity President.

Boy was I wrong. Based on what he has done, I will vote for him in 2020, my first ever vote for him, despite the fevered desire of the lefties here to convince he is a (fool, idiot, evil genius, trust fund baby, corrupt, racist, xenophobic, ugly, ill mannered, puppet, yada yada yada) and therefore I should vote for (anybody else), including a doddering old fool who will be controlled by who knows who.

Sorry, BigLad, I do not see a better alternative to Trump, at least not one who is running.

It fits your agenda to criticize everything about him. All you have to do is show me somebody better. So far, you have an F- in that. Beta, Sanders, Deblassio, Biden, Harris - not worth a cup of warm spit. Collectively. All any of them can say is they are NotTrump. Or that they will pursue policies I think wrong, ill-advised, and unworkable.

I have somebody in mind that I think would be better than all of them. But he is not running this year. I hope he runs in 2024, regardless of how 2020 turns out.

(04-01-2020 09:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  There are some people here who believe giant agencies turn on a dime with the installation of a new chief. Or a new anybody. I have seen no evidence that this is so. My experience with much smaller businesses would indicate this is not so. But apparently they are more expert in these things than I am.

So you fire the coach, and he installs a new strength coach and a new receivers coach. Wow, presto chang-o, the team starts winning. I wonder why we cannot do this at Rice. If it is so easy with national agencies like the CDC, it should be a snap in a little ole football program of less than 200 people all in one place.

It is frustrating trying to talk common sense to people who have no experience and no desire to learn, but are single minded in a goal that has nothing to do with the facts. I certainly understand ham's frustrations.

The goal here for the lefties is to replace Trump. They don't care if the replacement is a step up or a step or three down. But to bring down the stag, first they need to bleed him a little. So they pick at everything he does or doesn't do, everything he does or doesn't say, and how he says or doesn't say it. They do it with lies (he's Putin's puppet) and innuendo (lots of smoke there - we need to see what's up) So when they do it yet again, it has little force. Just more of the same. The guy who bitched in November 2016 is bitching now. BFD.

Elections always come down to the lesser evil. Nothing BigLad or any of the others can say can make me think Biden is the lesser evil. A person who says "it's OK to not pay your rent" is a damn fool. What's next, "It's OK to walk into a grocery store and take what you need without paying"? How about it is OK to walk into a bank and take what you need"?

I did not vote in the presidential race in 2016. Like Hillary and many others, I thought it just an exercise in futility, and we would be stuck with somebody whose entire agenda would be accomplished when she stepped off the inaugural platform, and I did not think Trump, even if elected, would be much more than a different kind of vanity President.

Boy was I wrong. Based on what he has done, I will vote for him in 2020, my first ever vote for him, despite the fevered desire of the lefties here to convince he is a (fool, idiot, evil genius, trust fund baby, corrupt, racist, xenophobic, ugly, ill mannered, puppet, yada yada yada) and therefore I should vote for (anybody else), including a doddering old fool who will be controlled by who knows who.

Sorry, BigLad, I do not see a better alternative to Trump, at least not one who is running.

It fits your agenda to criticize everything about him. All you have to do is show me somebody better. So far, you have an F- in that. Beta, Sanders, Deblassio, Biden, Harris - not worth a cup of warm spit. Collectively. All any of them can say is they are NotTrump. Or that they will pursue policies I think wrong, ill-advised, and unworkable.

I have somebody in mind that I think would be better than all of them. But he is not running this year. I hope he runs in 2024, regardless of how 2020 turns out.

I have someone in mind as well. But *she* is not running this year.

(04-01-2020 09:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  There are some people here who believe giant agencies turn on a dime with the installation of a new chief. Or a new anybody. I have seen no evidence that this is so. My experience with much smaller businesses would indicate this is not so. But apparently they are more expert in these things than I am.
So you fire the coach, and he installs a new strength coach and a new receivers coach. Wow, presto chang-o, the team starts winning. I wonder why we cannot do this at Rice. If it is so easy with national agencies like the CDC, it should be a snap in a little ole football program of less than 200 people all in one place.
It is frustrating trying to talk common sense to people who have no experience and no desire to learn, but are single minded in a goal that has nothing to do with the facts. I certainly understand ham's frustrations.
The goal here for the lefties is to replace Trump. They don't care if the replacement is a step up or a step or three down. But to bring down the stag, first they need to bleed him a little. So they pick at everything he does or doesn't do, everything he does or doesn't say, and how he says or doesn't say it. They do it with lies (he's Putin's puppet) and innuendo (lots of smoke there - we need to see what's up) So when they do it yet again, it has little force. Just more of the same. The guy who bitched in November 2016 is bitching now. BFD.

What I find alarming is how many people try to tell me how terrible Trump is, but when questioned to provide factual support, have nothing. "He is blah, blah, blah." But when asked to provide factual support for those assertions, all they say is, "He is blah, blah, blah."

I am tired of hearing so much about how horribly he has handled CV-19, without the person who made the statement being able to provide any specific changes that he/she would have made. I can identify things I think he should have done differently, but on balance I give him a B+. "OMG, he fired the pandemic response team (he didn't actually but that's the claim)" So what difference does that make? "It just stands to reason that we could respond to a pandemic better with a pandemic response team." Actually, it doesn't. The pandemic response team was maybe 20-30 people. How many tests can 20-30 people prepare or evaluate in a day, week, or month? Despite the word "response" in their name, they don't really respond. They administer and "manage." The pandemic response "plan" they prepared is a plan for aligning all of the federal agencies, none of whom actually respond to anything. As a work of bureaucratese gobbledy-gook it is magnificent. As a plan to do anything, it doesn't include actually doing anything. I have yet to find anyone who can tell me what the "pandemic response team" would have done that would have made any difference.

Unlike most of those people, I've been through a few crisis/emergency response rodeos as a military officer, government contractor, and citizen. People who have never been there simply do not realize how hard they are, at least at the start. In large part, that's because we don't have anybody actually responsible for doing anything, so that has to be developed ad hoc after the fact. I have personal experience with a situation where one group trained and prepared and obtained necessary resources prior to the fact, and another in the same situation did not, and the difference in performance between the two in an actual emergency was striking. That would have made a difference. But the pandemic response team would not have done that. Hell, they let the shortage of masks exist for several years without taking any action to address the situation.

Quote:Elections always come down to the lesser evil. Nothing BigLad or any of the others can say can make me think Biden is the lesser evil. A person who says "it's OK to not pay your rent" is a damn fool. What's next, "It's OK to walk into a grocery store and take what you need without paying"? How about it is OK to walk into a bank and take what you need"?
I did not vote in the presidential race in 2016. Like Hillary and many others, I thought it just an exercise in futility, and we would be stuck with somebody whose entire agenda would be accomplished when she stepped off the inaugural platform, and I did not think Trump, even if elected, would be much more than a different kind of vanity President.
Boy was I wrong. Based on what he has done, I will vote for him in 2020, my first ever vote for him, despite the fevered desire of the lefties here to convince he is a (fool, idiot, evil genius, trust fund baby, corrupt, racist, xenophobic, ugly, ill mannered, puppet, yada yada yada) and therefore I should vote for (anybody else), including a doddering old fool who will be controlled by who knows who.
Sorry, BigLad, I do not see a better alternative to Trump, at least not one who is running.
It fits your agenda to criticize everything about him. All you have to do is show me somebody better. So far, you have an F- in that. Beta, Sanders, Deblassio, Biden, Harris - not worth a cup of warm spit. Collectively. All any of them can say is they are NotTrump. Or that they will pursue policies I think wrong, ill-advised, and unworkable.
I have somebody in mind that I think would be better than all of them. But he is not running this year. I hope he runs in 2024, regardless of how 2020 turns out.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Every single democrat who stood for the presidency in the primaries, along with every other party leader, has openly espoused at least two or three issue positions that are absolute drop-dead show-stoppers for me. That makes them my enemy.

For me it's more about...

On the list of issues to address for the US, I don't think 'fighting Covid-19' would have been on the top of the list.... because of course we didn't know that Covid-19 existed and our most recent similar issues seem to have been managed with few complaints... so really no reason to think there is an issue here. The focus was on global health, which is about things like immunizations and general wellness.. You don't know you have a problem until you put the contingency plan into action and you see that it's not 'perfect'... even though nobody had this opinion beforehand (not that it was perfect, but that it was reasonable/prudent/logical based on what little we knew)

(04-01-2020 09:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-01-2020 09:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  There are some people here who believe giant agencies turn on a dime with the installation of a new chief. Or a new anybody. I have seen no evidence that this is so. My experience with much smaller businesses would indicate this is not so. But apparently they are more expert in these things than I am.

So you fire the coach, and he installs a new strength coach and a new receivers coach. Wow, presto chang-o, the team starts winning. I wonder why we cannot do this at Rice. If it is so easy with national agencies like the CDC, it should be a snap in a little ole football program of less than 200 people all in one place.

It is frustrating trying to talk common sense to people who have no experience and no desire to learn, but are single minded in a goal that has nothing to do with the facts. I certainly understand ham's frustrations.

The goal here for the lefties is to replace Trump. They don't care if the replacement is a step up or a step or three down. But to bring down the stag, first they need to bleed him a little. So they pick at everything he does or doesn't do, everything he does or doesn't say, and how he says or doesn't say it. They do it with lies (he's Putin's puppet) and innuendo (lots of smoke there - we need to see what's up) So when they do it yet again, it has little force. Just more of the same. The guy who bitched in November 2016 is bitching now. BFD.

Elections always come down to the lesser evil. Nothing BigLad or any of the others can say can make me think Biden is the lesser evil. A person who says "it's OK to not pay your rent" is a damn fool. What's next, "It's OK to walk into a grocery store and take what you need without paying"? How about it is OK to walk into a bank and take what you need"?

I did not vote in the presidential race in 2016. Like Hillary and many others, I thought it just an exercise in futility, and we would be stuck with somebody whose entire agenda would be accomplished when she stepped off the inaugural platform, and I did not think Trump, even if elected, would be much more than a different kind of vanity President.

Boy was I wrong. Based on what he has done, I will vote for him in 2020, my first ever vote for him, despite the fevered desire of the lefties here to convince he is a (fool, idiot, evil genius, trust fund baby, corrupt, racist, xenophobic, ugly, ill mannered, puppet, yada yada yada) and therefore I should vote for (anybody else), including a doddering old fool who will be controlled by who knows who.

Sorry, BigLad, I do not see a better alternative to Trump, at least not one who is running.

It fits your agenda to criticize everything about him. All you have to do is show me somebody better. So far, you have an F- in that. Beta, Sanders, Deblassio, Biden, Harris - not worth a cup of warm spit. Collectively. All any of them can say is they are NotTrump. Or that they will pursue policies I think wrong, ill-advised, and unworkable.

I have somebody in mind that I think would be better than all of them. But he is not running this year. I hope he runs in 2024, regardless of how 2020 turns out.

I have someone in mind as well. But *she* is not running this year.

Condy?

(04-01-2020 10:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What I find alarming is how many people try to tell me how terrible Trump is, but when questioned to provide factual support, have nothing. "He is blah, blah, blah." But when asked to provide factual support for those assertions, all they say is, "He is blah, blah, blah."

- Trump disbanded the NSC pandemic unit, weakening the speed by which we could respond to this threat
- NSC protocols are that procurement of PPE should be an immediate priority at the earliest possibility of a potential pandemic; Trump's administration didn't do this (remarkably, PPE was even being given away to China) and medical workers are facing shortfalls
- SARS-CoV2 testing has been and remains woefully inadequate; executive decision making in the CDC and FDA, as parts of the Trump administration, bear clear culpability
- Trump dismissed the threat of this virus at the earliest stages, calling it just a flu, saying it was a Democratic hoax, and making irrational predictions of the course of the disease, despite data and reports from intelligence stressing the potential severity

You've been given multiple examples in which this administration and Trump directly have made mistakes with this situation, you've just chosen to ignore them or make lame rationalizations to shunt the blame at others. No judgment in that, that's how most minds work, to filter out information that would lead us to conclude we were wrong or idiotic. It's a self-defense mechanism to maintain self-worth, and it probably runs on overdrive for a fragile ego'ed narcissist.