Nightly graphs. I didn't read any comments today so if anyone is calling me out, calling me names, or calling for a response, I'm not trying to ignore anyone.

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

I don't really disagree. Plenty of easy-to-find graphs out there. But it takes me less than 2 minutes to update and post them so not really any harm either. It is good to see a lot of other hard-hit countries straightening and bending their curves finally.

(04-01-2020 06:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  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.

Why do you keep saying this? New Orleans had a shelter of last resort for people who did not have the means to leave. I have responded to you twice on this now and you ignore me and just keep repeating it. Can you at least provide a citation or 2? I don't really care, I didn't think Blanco did a good job. I just don't remember her telling New Orleans to shelter in place.

(04-01-2020 08:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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.

Actually, I think the earliest he should have considered using the DPA was when Azar sent the $2 billion request for PPE purchases. I agree it wouldn't have made nearly as much sense on 1/20/20 with a single confirmed case. So start using it as a negotiating tactic around then and then use it as a hammer later if needed. Don't wait until freaking mid-march when there are already numerous outbreaks, a few thousand confirmed cases, and exponential growth.

(04-01-2020 08:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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.

And your response to the reports that much PPE is being purchased by foreign countries and shipped out of the USA? If Trump's plan to not use the DPA on PPE is so genius, it seems like those reports need to be inaccurate.

(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.

Yeah, that is a terrible analogy. The better analogy would be that every house on my street is on fire and I have a fire extinguisher. I am not loaning my fire extinguisher in that case because my own house is on fire. I am completely willing to share sugar with my neighbor ... so long as they do not come within 6 feet of me.

(04-01-2020 09:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Since you bring up red/blue, I would just like to point out the places with the worst numbers have Democratic mayors/governors.

I predict that other than NYC, this comment will not age well. NYC's high population density and high use of public transportation makes it more susceptible than many other big cities so it is hard to compare.

(04-01-2020 09:08 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  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.

We can just agree to disagree. Obama's response was proportional to the threat. Trump's response has not been proportional to the threat. The threats themselves are so vastly different that it makes comparing them tough. It would have been an insane overreaction for Obama to call for anything like what is happening in most of the country with the stay at home and extreme social distancing. And it would be likewise insane for Trump to not call for it.

(04-01-2020 10:40 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  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)

Well here is a significant difference between you and me. I have long thought that the threat of pandemic disease caused a far greater threat to american life and prosperity that anything else. By a long shot. More pandemics will come too and while this one is tough, it is easy to imagine something even worse (longer incubation, higher fatality rate, etc.). I have worried more about pandemic disease in the last decade than Russia, Iran, and North Korea combined.

1,833 people died from Hurricane Katrina. 2,977 people died from the 9/11 attacks. We are up to 5,137 for Covid-19 and obviously we are going to end up much, much, much higher than that despite the extreme mitigation measures many of us have been taking the last few weeks.

(04-01-2020 12:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  This is not being posted as an 'I told you so'... it is being posted as a 'just because a CDC director didn't say it before, doesn't mean they won't.'

I said this weeks ago and some argued that 'what I'm saying, they haven't heard any 'experts' say'.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/fac...li=AAggFp4

The tone of such claims ranged from condescending to frustrated, with the US Surgeon General Jerome Adams tweeting in late February -- in all caps -- "STOP BUYING MASKS!"

"They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can't get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk," he added, in a post that has since been retweeted over 43,000 times.

That same week, Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), appeared before lawmakers. Asked if people should wear masks, he had a straightforward answer: "No."

Now he's not so sure. On Monday, Redfield said told NPR that the CDC was reviewing its guidelines and may recommend general mask use to guard against community infection. It's likely only a matter of time before other mask holdouts, most prominently the World Health Organization (WHO), follow suit.

SOMETIMES the answer depends on details of the question... timing etc... and sometimes people who are 'experts' just make mistakes.

I don't remember what you posted weeks ago, but I too saw that experts were recommending not wearing masks for normal people just walking around, but that it was better to social distance and wash hands and not touch face because they needed the masks for health care providers. I still think that is the better advice because if the doctors/nurses go down, we are even more screwed. I also remember hearing there was concern that people who were not used of wearing masks and being in sterile fields would end up touching their faces and the outside of the mask even more than usual.

I can sit at home without a mask and stay pretty safe. I will admit that I put a nitrile glove on to hold my wife's hand for a few minutes tonight. Not sure whether that is a breach of her isolation, but it felt nice after a long day.

(04-01-2020 12:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Taking them from the top:
- I would argue that "disbanding the NSC pandemic unit" (which is a more accurate description than "firing" them) had little or no impact. If you want to claim that it did, please indicate how and why. And no, "it stands to reason that it would have helped" is not responsive to that question. They don't actually DO anything. They just ponder and pontificate. And we were short doers, not ponderers and pontificators.

The funniest thing about you repeatedly repeatedly repeating this same argument is that you provide no more "indication of how and why" than anyone else. You argument is 100% "it stands to reason" because you don't believe having someone overseeing both the CDC and FDA early in the process would have helped. I know why you believe this, no need to repeat it again. Just saying the foundation for your argument is no stronger.

For the people who keep bringing up H1N1, was their a single hospital in the USA overwhelmed by H1N1 patients that required critical care?

(04-02-2020 01:38 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(04-01-2020 08:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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.

Actually, I think the earliest he should have considered using the DPA was when Azar sent the $2 billion request for PPE purchases. I agree it wouldn't have made nearly as much sense on 1/20/20 with a single confirmed case. So start using it as a negotiating tactic around then and then use it as a hammer later if needed. Don't wait until freaking mid-march when there are already numerous outbreaks, a few thousand confirmed cases, and exponential growth.

I take it you have absolute full access and knowledge to the math that they used to the make the decisions? I would prefer you actually read the piece as a whole.

The blunt truth is you have no fing idea what the private industry expected output, or ramp up, or ramp up time was during that time. Yet you are here given your expert opinion on when exactly DPA should have 'been considered' (waffle words given the topic -- I am sure the DPA was 'considered' even before all of those the parameters, and related parameters, were known.

The issue isnt when it was 'considered' (i.e. a question we will never know since none of us are in the Oval Office, nor in the line of policy wonks). The issue is when it was, or should have been, invoked. Again, your statement above seemingly makes an opinion knowing none of the actual parameters that are needed to actually make that decision. I find that somewhat arrogant, to be blunt.

Quote:

(04-01-2020 08:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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.

And your response to the reports that much PPE is being purchased by foreign countries and shipped out of the USA? If Trump's plan to not use the DPA on PPE is so genius, it seems like those reports need to be inaccurate.

Again, read the comments in full. Trump may well use the DPA. I would assume that the companies in the issue arent running around blithely, nor are they being stumbling blocks in getting to the goal needed. Those are the times you need to invoke the DPA.

Think about it. If you are short, and the companies are seemingly ramping up in an extraordinary fashion, and being highly cooperative with the government in doing so, there is no need to invoke the DPA.

The DPA is 'logjam dynamite', not 'numbers dynamite'. That issue doesnt seem to be making it into your thought process. Your posit above is actually superfluous.

So, Mr Only the Facts, please note where I said 'Trump's plan is genius'? Funny, I missed that. What I did do was give you a primer on the operation of the DPA, and the reasons why it may not have been invoked at this time re: PPE.

Answer this: If the companies are kicking ass and taking names, and the expected uptick is sufficient to meet the needs in the near or medium future, and such increases are done solely through interaction with the companies without any DPA, why the boner to use the DPA if that has happened?

Or in other words, say the United States only has 25% of the expected PPE in the hopper due to dumb ass neglect from the previous administration. The companies themselves say 'well Mr President, we can refill that hopper (which will meet the expected needs) in 8 weeks time. This is with us using every facility we have and reopening anything shut down, and retooling the suppository filling lines to do PPE'.

It doesnt matter how you slice it, they cant wave a wand and have them overnite. But they are scrambling over themselves to flood the stuff out shortly. Exactly what use is the DPA in that regard? The use of it is zero.

Now change it. Say that CarCo says it will make respirators, but then after drags it heels in retooling, in forming a joint venture, or simply because the executive assistant accidentally used the reminder email copy to role. At the point there is corporate foot dragging, the President lowers the hammer by saying 'Guess what CarCo, we gave you every opportunity to get your **** together to get going on this, and you still arent. In return, we are semi-nationalizing for the duration your efforts do this. Now kindly STFU and get to work.'

But to make those decisions you need to know a huge amount of supply chain background -- far more than the simple 'amount in the hopper'. In practice, a metric ton more. That is why it is asinine for anyone outside the decision loop to set some certain date on 'when he should have *invoked* (not considered) the use of the DPA.

As for your comment above about 'he should have considered it at date X', bluntly you have no fing idea what was considered at the level of the Oval Office strategy, and rejected at that time, let alone at any other time. And that is another action on your part that smacks of arrogance.

(04-02-2020 01:40 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(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.

Yeah, that is a terrible analogy. The better analogy would be that every house on my street is on fire and I have a fire extinguisher. I am not loaning my fire extinguisher in that case because my own house is on fire. I am completely willing to share sugar with my neighbor ... so long as they do not come within 6 feet of me.

The issue being presented is that if you have 100,000,000 marbles, you are bitching about the use of 1500 of them.

The number is so relatively low to be utterly inconsequential -- but that is a horrendous Trump mistake. Sounds either really stupid to me, are venality that is beyond measure.

(04-02-2020 01:44 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(04-01-2020 09:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Since you bring up red/blue, I would just like to point out the places with the worst numbers have Democratic mayors/governors.

I predict that other than NYC, this comment will not age well. NYC's high population density and high use of public transportation makes it more susceptible than many other big cities so it is hard to compare.

Paging Florida...

But yeah, I don’t see Dem or Rep leaders at the state level acting overwhelmingly different right now (but I’m not exactly clued in to all responses in all 50 states). I do know that we saw both Dem and Rep governors take quick, decisive actions in some instances (Ohio and Kentucky for example), while the same can be said for delayed action (Florida and more local leadership in NY and Texas).

(04-02-2020 02:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-02-2020 01:38 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(04-01-2020 08:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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.

Actually, I think the earliest he should have considered using the DPA was when Azar sent the $2 billion request for PPE purchases. I agree it wouldn't have made nearly as much sense on 1/20/20 with a single confirmed case. So start using it as a negotiating tactic around then and then use it as a hammer later if needed. Don't wait until freaking mid-march when there are already numerous outbreaks, a few thousand confirmed cases, and exponential growth.

I take it you have absolute full access and knowledge to the math that they used to the make the decisions? I would prefer you actually read the piece as a whole.

The blunt truth is you have no fing idea what the private industry expected output, or ramp up, or ramp up time was during that time. Yet you are here given your expert opinion on when exactly DPA should have 'been considered' (waffle words given the topic -- I am sure the DPA was 'considered' even before all of those the parameters, and related parameters, were known.

The issue isnt when it was 'considered' (i.e. a question we will never know since none of us are in the Oval Office, nor in the line of policy wonks). The issue is when it was, or should have been, invoked. Again, your statement above seemingly makes an opinion knowing none of the actual parameters that are needed to actually make that decision. I find that somewhat arrogant, to be blunt.

Quote:

(04-01-2020 08:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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.

And your response to the reports that much PPE is being purchased by foreign countries and shipped out of the USA? If Trump's plan to not use the DPA on PPE is so genius, it seems like those reports need to be inaccurate.

Again, read the comments in full. Trump may well use the DPA. I would assume that the companies in the issue arent running around blithely, nor are they being stumbling blocks in getting to the goal needed. Those are the times you need to invoke the DPA.

Think about it. If you are short, and the companies are seemingly ramping up in an extraordinary fashion, and being highly cooperative with the government in doing so, there is no need to invoke the DPA.

The DPA is 'logjam dynamite', not 'numbers dynamite'. That issue doesnt seem to be making it into your thought process. Your posit above is actually superfluous.

So, Mr Only the Facts, please note where I said 'Trump's plan is genius'? Funny, I missed that. What I did do was give you a primer on the operation of the DPA, and the reasons why it may not have been invoked at this time re: PPE.

Answer this: If the companies are kicking ass and taking names, and the expected uptick is sufficient to meet the needs in the near or medium future, and such increases are done solely through interaction with the companies without any DPA, why the boner to use the DPA if that has happened?

Or in other words, say the United States only has 25% of the expected PPE in the hopper due to dumb ass neglect from the previous administration. The companies themselves say 'well Mr President, we can refill that hopper (which will meet the expected needs) in 8 weeks time. This is with us using every facility we have and reopening anything shut down, and retooling the suppository filling lines to do PPE'.

It doesnt matter how you slice it, they cant wave a wand and have them overnite. But they are scrambling over themselves to flood the stuff out shortly. Exactly what use is the DPA in that regard? The use of it is zero.

Now change it. Say that CarCo says it will make respirators, but then after drags it heels in retooling, in forming a joint venture, or simply because the executive assistant accidentally used the reminder email copy to role. At the point there is corporate foot dragging, the President lowers the hammer by saying 'Guess what CarCo, we gave you every opportunity to get your **** together to get going on this, and you still arent. In return, we are semi-nationalizing for the duration your efforts do this. Now kindly STFU and get to work.'

But to make those decisions you need to know a huge amount of supply chain background -- far more than the simple 'amount in the hopper'. In practice, a metric ton more. That is why it is asinine for anyone outside the decision loop to set some certain date on 'when he should have *invoked* (not considered) the use of the DPA.

As for your comment above about 'he should have considered it at date X', bluntly you have no fing idea what was considered at the level of the Oval Office strategy, and rejected at that time, let alone at any other time. And that is another action on your part that smacks of arrogance.

Given the level of details Tanq is requiring us to know before making a criticism, down to what sort of conversations were occurring but not being enacted, im shocked he ever offers criticism of anyone outside of his own organization.

I get there are a lot of moving parts and issues that none of us are privy to, and those issues can and should inform overall opinions. But it’s not like there weren’t others in government or experts in the field of public health or epidemiology who were sounding the alarm as early as early February, when Trump and his administration were attempting to downplay the virus and not let a cruise ship dock, explicitly, to keep the numbers looking good.

Edits: and frankly, you get judged on what you do, not conversations in the background. So if there is a decrease in funding or a slow supply chain or whatever keeps people from getting the supplies they need, then the admin should explain those things and make it clear what actions the admin is actually taking to get through those issues.

(04-02-2020 01:40 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Yeah, that is a terrible analogy. The better analogy would be that every house on my street is on fire and I have a fire extinguisher. I am not loaning my fire extinguisher in that case because my own house is on fire. I am completely willing to share sugar with my neighbor ... so long as they do not come within 6 feet of me.

I'd say the better analogy, given the scale, is every house on your street is on fire and you have a glass of water.

RIP me

Fountains of Wayne's Adam Schlesinger Dead at 52 from COVID-19

(04-02-2020 06:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-02-2020 02:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-02-2020 01:38 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(04-01-2020 08:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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.

Actually, I think the earliest he should have considered using the DPA was when Azar sent the $2 billion request for PPE purchases. I agree it wouldn't have made nearly as much sense on 1/20/20 with a single confirmed case. So start using it as a negotiating tactic around then and then use it as a hammer later if needed. Don't wait until freaking mid-march when there are already numerous outbreaks, a few thousand confirmed cases, and exponential growth.

I take it you have absolute full access and knowledge to the math that they used to the make the decisions? I would prefer you actually read the piece as a whole.

The blunt truth is you have no fing idea what the private industry expected output, or ramp up, or ramp up time was during that time. Yet you are here given your expert opinion on when exactly DPA should have 'been considered' (waffle words given the topic -- I am sure the DPA was 'considered' even before all of those the parameters, and related parameters, were known.

The issue isnt when it was 'considered' (i.e. a question we will never know since none of us are in the Oval Office, nor in the line of policy wonks). The issue is when it was, or should have been, invoked. Again, your statement above seemingly makes an opinion knowing none of the actual parameters that are needed to actually make that decision. I find that somewhat arrogant, to be blunt.

Quote:

(04-01-2020 08:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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.

And your response to the reports that much PPE is being purchased by foreign countries and shipped out of the USA? If Trump's plan to not use the DPA on PPE is so genius, it seems like those reports need to be inaccurate.

Again, read the comments in full. Trump may well use the DPA. I would assume that the companies in the issue arent running around blithely, nor are they being stumbling blocks in getting to the goal needed. Those are the times you need to invoke the DPA.

Think about it. If you are short, and the companies are seemingly ramping up in an extraordinary fashion, and being highly cooperative with the government in doing so, there is no need to invoke the DPA.

The DPA is 'logjam dynamite', not 'numbers dynamite'. That issue doesnt seem to be making it into your thought process. Your posit above is actually superfluous.

So, Mr Only the Facts, please note where I said 'Trump's plan is genius'? Funny, I missed that. What I did do was give you a primer on the operation of the DPA, and the reasons why it may not have been invoked at this time re: PPE.

Answer this: If the companies are kicking ass and taking names, and the expected uptick is sufficient to meet the needs in the near or medium future, and such increases are done solely through interaction with the companies without any DPA, why the boner to use the DPA if that has happened?

Or in other words, say the United States only has 25% of the expected PPE in the hopper due to dumb ass neglect from the previous administration. The companies themselves say 'well Mr President, we can refill that hopper (which will meet the expected needs) in 8 weeks time. This is with us using every facility we have and reopening anything shut down, and retooling the suppository filling lines to do PPE'.

It doesnt matter how you slice it, they cant wave a wand and have them overnite. But they are scrambling over themselves to flood the stuff out shortly. Exactly what use is the DPA in that regard? The use of it is zero.

Now change it. Say that CarCo says it will make respirators, but then after drags it heels in retooling, in forming a joint venture, or simply because the executive assistant accidentally used the reminder email copy to role. At the point there is corporate foot dragging, the President lowers the hammer by saying 'Guess what CarCo, we gave you every opportunity to get your **** together to get going on this, and you still arent. In return, we are semi-nationalizing for the duration your efforts do this. Now kindly STFU and get to work.'

But to make those decisions you need to know a huge amount of supply chain background -- far more than the simple 'amount in the hopper'. In practice, a metric ton more. That is why it is asinine for anyone outside the decision loop to set some certain date on 'when he should have *invoked* (not considered) the use of the DPA.

As for your comment above about 'he should have considered it at date X', bluntly you have no fing idea what was considered at the level of the Oval Office strategy, and rejected at that time, let alone at any other time. And that is another action on your part that smacks of arrogance.

Given the level of details Tanq is requiring us to know before making a criticism, down to what sort of conversations were occurring but not being enacted, im shocked he ever offers criticism of anyone outside of his own organization.

Sorry for bringing those salient details up, lad.

The underlying issue of 'whether to invoke the DPA' goes a long way past counting pinkie toes. In my opinion, the decision to laud or critique that decision kind of runs with that. Sorry to ruin your world with that.

Feel free to make a kneejerk one dimensional analysis if that floats your boat. Funny, I thought you were the full, unbridled champion of 'rational decision considering the relevant facts.' Guess not in this case. Funny that.

I do notice your whiny critique isnt with the background, or with the political (i.e. the 'nationalization') issues that I brought up. You are crying that it is too hard to be a critic given those issues. Interesting perspective when you think of it.

(04-02-2020 08:37 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  RIP me

Fountains of Wayne's Adam Schlesinger Dead at 52 from COVID-19

all kinds of time

Ellis Marsalis RIP