(04-08-2020 11:15 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 10:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I disagree with the posit of a more active federal government being dependent on a systemic change. A more active Fed could very well work within our system - by being the spoke at the center of the wheel with regards to proposed response measures, distribution of critical supplies, dissemination of best practices and information, incentivizing (or forcing, when necessary) private industry to respond where needed, effectively coordinating various federal agencies responsible for border control, test/drug approval, and on and on.

The Fed seems to be catching up on some areas, but still woefully behind on others.

Does anyone know if the Fed has pulled together even an outline a suggested path forward for repealing statewide stay at home orders?

Why would the Feds be responsible for 'state-wide' orders? Seems obvious that those orders would be handled by..... the states.

You made a nice speech about 'spokes and wheels' and then demonstrated the very antithesis of it.

'On the way up', the feds might recognize a future needs (that states might need to enact 'stay at home') and they might recommend it, engage in it themselves and should make resources available for those states that feel they need to do that.

'On the way down', it should be up to the states (with input and consultation from the feds) to decide that the need has passed and they can lessen their needs... but obviously that's going to come in North Dakota long before it comes in NY... and even when NY lifts the 'stay at home', it may still strongly urge people to work from home and need federal resources for support.

Anticipating Trump being Trump, I absolutely expect that at some point, he will ANNOUNCE that the 'stay at home orders have been lifted', and then when the formal press release is written or when he is pressed or when his spokespeople follow up, they will add... 'of course individual states must asses their own needs and what is best for them... and we will support them'... and that what Trump REALLY meant was that the Federal ADVICE for EVERYONE to shelter in place is lifted.... because of course, there IS no federal stay at home order or anything like that.... they lack the power to do so without declaring martial law.... and of course the left and the media will attack this as him either a) acting like a dictator or b) claiming victory when there are still battles being waged. It will be Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' moment, whether or not it actually is.

(04-08-2020 11:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 10:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 06:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 05:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We’ve seen a lot of good decision making by numerous state leaders to take this virus seriously and respond quickly with stay at home orders.

And that is the way our system is designed to work. Locals respond, states direct, and the federal government supports.

If you want to argue for a more active federal participation from the start, then you need to argue for systemic change. I have proposed one, although mine is more a change at the state level than the federal, As far as I know, nobody else has.

I disagree with the posit of a more active federal government being dependent on a systemic change. A more active Fed could very well work within our system - by being the spoke at the center of the wheel with regards to proposed response measures, distribution of critical supplies, dissemination of best practices and information, incentivizing (or forcing, when necessary) private industry to respond where needed, effectively coordinating various federal agencies responsible for border control, test/drug approval, and on and on.

The Fed seems to be catching up on some areas, but still woefully behind on others.

Does anyone know if the Fed has pulled together even an outline a suggested path forward for repealing statewide stay at home orders?

The Federal government doesnt have the power to 'repeal statewide stay at home orders'. Just as they dont have the power to put them into place for this crisis.

Further, a 'Fed' will have zero idea what is the best interest of Texas, let alone Harris county, or for that matter Gillespie county.

Why not let the state, and the various subdivisions address that question themselves? That is where the rubber meets the road, mind you.

For example, the Travis County judge extended the 'stay at home' from the 18th to the 25th. I am on board with that --- given the circumstances in Austin and Travis county.

But think about, what exactly do you propose the Fed do in 'organizing such a "repeal" '? Each and every 'stay at home' order is, and has been, different from every one else in more than one aspect. Let the entity that issued and defined such order be the one to note how to 'unthaw' *their* own order.

Kind of stupid to expect the Fed to do that on an overarching basis.

Then distinct feeling from some is that they either are unaware of the concepts and basics of Federalism, or just really dont like them.

(04-08-2020 11:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 11:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 10:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 06:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 05:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We’ve seen a lot of good decision making by numerous state leaders to take this virus seriously and respond quickly with stay at home orders.

And that is the way our system is designed to work. Locals respond, states direct, and the federal government supports.

If you want to argue for a more active federal participation from the start, then you need to argue for systemic change. I have proposed one, although mine is more a change at the state level than the federal, As far as I know, nobody else has.

I disagree with the posit of a more active federal government being dependent on a systemic change. A more active Fed could very well work within our system - by being the spoke at the center of the wheel with regards to proposed response measures, distribution of critical supplies, dissemination of best practices and information, incentivizing (or forcing, when necessary) private industry to respond where needed, effectively coordinating various federal agencies responsible for border control, test/drug approval, and on and on.

The Fed seems to be catching up on some areas, but still woefully behind on others.

Does anyone know if the Fed has pulled together even an outline a suggested path forward for repealing statewide stay at home orders?

The Federal government doesnt have the power to 'repeal statewide stay at home orders'. Just as they dont have the power to put them into place for this crisis.

Further, a 'Fed' will have zero idea what is the best interest of Texas, let alone Harris county, or for that matter Gillespie county.

Why not let the state, and the various subdivisions address that question themselves? That is where the rubber meets the road, mind you.

For example, the Travis County judge extended the 'stay at home' from the 18th to the 25th. I am on board with that --- given the circumstances in Austin and Travis county.

But think about, what exactly do you propose the Fed do in 'organizing such a "repeal" '? Each and every 'stay at home' order is, and has been, different from every one else in more than one aspect. Let the entity that issued and defined such order be the one to note how to 'unthaw' *their* own order.

Kind of stupid to expect the Fed to do that on an overarching basis.

Then distinct feeling from some is that they either are unaware of the concepts and basics of Federalism, or just really dont like them.

See my other post - a typo from typing too fast and inbetween work tasks.

But I appreciate all the thought and effort you put into responding to my mistake :)

Quote:Does anyone know if the Fed has pulled together even an outline of a suggested path forward for when states begin repealing statewide stay at home orders?"

(04-08-2020 10:57 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(04-07-2020 04:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  A significant part of this thread has been focused on why Covid-19 is all Trump's fault.

Worth noting that this is a complete lie that no one on this thread has said.

(04-08-2020 11:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 11:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 11:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 10:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 06:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And that is the way our system is designed to work. Locals respond, states direct, and the federal government supports.

If you want to argue for a more active federal participation from the start, then you need to argue for systemic change. I have proposed one, although mine is more a change at the state level than the federal, As far as I know, nobody else has.

I disagree with the posit of a more active federal government being dependent on a systemic change. A more active Fed could very well work within our system - by being the spoke at the center of the wheel with regards to proposed response measures, distribution of critical supplies, dissemination of best practices and information, incentivizing (or forcing, when necessary) private industry to respond where needed, effectively coordinating various federal agencies responsible for border control, test/drug approval, and on and on.

The Fed seems to be catching up on some areas, but still woefully behind on others.

Does anyone know if the Fed has pulled together even an outline a suggested path forward for repealing statewide stay at home orders?

The Federal government doesnt have the power to 'repeal statewide stay at home orders'. Just as they dont have the power to put them into place for this crisis.

Further, a 'Fed' will have zero idea what is the best interest of Texas, let alone Harris county, or for that matter Gillespie county.

Why not let the state, and the various subdivisions address that question themselves? That is where the rubber meets the road, mind you.

For example, the Travis County judge extended the 'stay at home' from the 18th to the 25th. I am on board with that --- given the circumstances in Austin and Travis county.

But think about, what exactly do you propose the Fed do in 'organizing such a "repeal" '? Each and every 'stay at home' order is, and has been, different from every one else in more than one aspect. Let the entity that issued and defined such order be the one to note how to 'unthaw' *their* own order.

Kind of stupid to expect the Fed to do that on an overarching basis.

Then distinct feeling from some is that they either are unaware of the concepts and basics of Federalism, or just really dont like them.

See my other post - a typo from typing too fast and inbetween work tasks.

But I appreciate all the thought and effort you put into responding to my mistake :)

You denoted:

Quote:Does anyone know if the Fed has pulled together even an outline of a suggested path forward for when states begin repealing statewide stay at home orders?"

I assume each state, and/or each county, has a much better insight into their own 'unthaw' program, both on the 'how' and the 'when'.

I can see Federal information, especially from folks like the CDC or NIH helpful as assistance as for 'when.' But again, each locality with have very particularized issues that wont/cant be addressed by generalized guidance.

(04-08-2020 12:42 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Rounghy half the deaths from coronabug are in NY, with most of those concentrated in NYC. Why not open the rest of the country up and keep NY, and especially NYC closed for a while? The rest of us can get back to work.

(04-08-2020 12:58 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 12:52 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 09:32 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 09:22 AM)DFWMINER Wrote:  IN MARCH OF 2020 THERE WERE 34,000 (rounded) LESS DEATHS THAN THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF DEATHS IN THE US OVER THE FOUR YEARS PRIOR!

According to the CDC’s website, in March 2020 there were a total of 193,000 deaths in the US. The average number of deaths in the US for March over the four years prior to 2020 (2016 – 2019) is 227,000. The difference between this year and the average for the past four years is 34,000. 2020 deaths are 85% of the average of the prior four years.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/04/strange-total-us-deaths-march-2020-actually-15-average-prior-four-years/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=PostSideSharingButtons&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons

I've been siting the CDC site for two weeks now. The population of the US INCREASED during March. Fewer Pneumonia deaths in March than last March.

The BS needs to stop. Quarantine NY and NYC maybe, but let the rest of us be free to go back to working again.

#LAWA: Let America Work Again

I agree. There have been 67 deaths in my state. Of those 67, 24 deaths are in counties that currently have no LTC infiltration of the virus. There are 47 counties that have LTC infiltration. By rule LTC residents live their lives in isolation. If staying at home is important why is it that so many nursing homes have outbreaks in them if they stopped visitation a month ago?

(04-08-2020 11:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Sorry, the way that was written made an inference I didn't want it to.

I wasn't suggesting the Feds would repeal those orders, it should have read: "Does anyone know if the Fed has pulled together even an outline of a suggested path forward for when states begin repealing statewide stay at home orders?"

I was wondering if the Feds have started preparing suggested guidance once we see these orders end, not if they are developing guidance for themselves to repeal the orders.

(04-08-2020 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yeah, hence a “suggested path forward.” Not a “thou shalt do this” but “thou should take these things into consideration and here are some suggested best practices from the experts within our federal institutions.”

(04-08-2020 01:16 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yeah, hence a “suggested path forward.” Not a “thou shalt do this” but “thou should take these things into consideration and here are some suggested best practices from the experts within our federal institutions.”

Why would the feds suggest a path forward to the states? This is precisely the 'one size fits all (or at least most)" that we're talking about.

What you're suggesting already happens through the FDA, the CDC, Homeland Security and others. Certainly there can be some reorganization and I'm sure will be a 'best practices' review... but why would the feds create '50 plans' when the states would already be doing that. The feds should only be asking... what did you need, didn't have or didn't have the power to get, and we should have provided....

and that's a job for congress. That's precisely what house members and senators are for.

(04-08-2020 01:22 PM)TigersOhMy Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 01:13 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  60,000... not 2.2 MILLION.

"Last Tuesday, Coronavirus Task Force Response Coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx pushed the talking point that by completely locking down the US economy and American public, the US government and Coronavirus task force “experts” were able to cut the total coronavirus deaths in the United States from 1 to 2.2 million deaths down to 100,000 to 200,000 deaths.

On Sunday the IMHE model used by the CDC and Dr. Birx and Dr. Fauci estimated the total US coronavirus deaths to be 81,766 by August 4th.
And 81,000 by May 21st.

On Wednesday — 3 days later — the updated their predictions AGAIN!
The latest IHME predictions call for 60,000 deaths by August.

This is starting to look like a typical flu more and more by the day!"

meanwhile, our local Dem officials

Quote:But, the day after IHME’s optimistic predictions gave many residents hope, city officials and experts leading Memphis’ response to the pandemic have expressed doubts over the updated model.

City of Memphis chief operating officer Doug McGowen said Tuesday he was skeptical of a revision that the surge “was not going to be as bad as we originally thought.”

Speaking at the April 7 Memphis-Shelby County COVID-19 task force briefing, McGowen said he’s “suspect” of any data that changes so dramatically overnight.

It didn't "change overnight"...it was never right to begin with

Quote:The All England Lawn Tennis Club (AELTC), which this week announced the cancelation of the 2020 Wimbledon Championships, has its risk and finance sub-committee to thank that the grand slam grass court event is insured against the likes of the coronavirus pandemic...

Meanwhile The Times as well as The Guardian reported the estimated payout for the cancelation to be in excess of £100 million (around $123.7 million). AELTC is said to be in the process of putting together the claim.

(04-08-2020 01:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Why would the Feds suggest a path forward for the states? Because they already provide that kind of support for states in countless other avenues and they have more resources and more expertise than many (and likely every) state does when it comes to pandemic response.

Quote:I'm not suggesting that the Feds create 50 separate plans. I'm suggesting there be a playbook (for lack of a better word) for how to evaluate and eventually implement, reopening each state. That playbook is then provided to the states for them to use (or not if they feel that is the correct decision).

Quote:The Fed should be pooling its resources and expertise and using that to provide information and resources for the states to use when they begin developing their plans. The individual agencies in our federal government provide this type of guidance all of the time - so it is nothing new (as you mention, this happens through the FDA, CDC, and so on). But in this instance, the disparate parts should really be made whole.

Do we know what sort of concerted effort the Federal government is making to provide this kind of support?

(04-08-2020 01:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And Ham, the reason I think the Fed should be leading in developing guidance/suggestions for these plans, is that I believe some form of continuity is going to be crucial in opening states back up effectively and mitigating severe rebound. If one state makes a mistake and basically opens up "too much" (for lack of a better word), their decision can impact other states.

Plus, I have to imagine there are a lot of federally run institutions that the states need to interact with, so they'll need to have a firm grasp on how those institutions will be operating.

(04-08-2020 02:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 01:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Why would the Feds suggest a path forward for the states? Because they already provide that kind of support for states in countless other avenues and they have more resources and more expertise than many (and likely every) state does when it comes to pandemic response.

That's what the CDC does.

Quote:I'm not suggesting that the Feds create 50 separate plans. I'm suggesting there be a playbook (for lack of a better word) for how to evaluate and eventually implement, reopening each state. That playbook is then provided to the states for them to use (or not if they feel that is the correct decision).

That too is what the CDC does. It's in their name.

Quote:The Fed should be pooling its resources and expertise and using that to provide information and resources for the states to use when they begin developing their plans. The individual agencies in our federal government provide this type of guidance all of the time - so it is nothing new (as you mention, this happens through the FDA, CDC, and so on). But in this instance, the disparate parts should really be made whole.

Do we know what sort of concerted effort the Federal government is making to provide this kind of support?

You need to be more specific because providing guidelines for action is specifically what the CDC does.

(04-08-2020 01:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And Ham, the reason I think the Fed should be leading in developing guidance/suggestions for these plans, is that I believe some form of continuity is going to be crucial in opening states back up effectively and mitigating severe rebound. If one state makes a mistake and basically opens up "too much" (for lack of a better word), their decision can impact other states.

Plus, I have to imagine there are a lot of federally run institutions that the states need to interact with, so they'll need to have a firm grasp on how those institutions will be operating.

Just like one state staying 'open' too long can impact other states.

Again, you'll need to be much more specific.... because I'm not aware of any federally run institutions that states need to interact with that didn't exist and interact with the states before the pandemic... even the national guard etc.

As I believe we are both acting in good faith here, I think this demonstrates why there will be 'someone' coming out of this on the other side arguing that the government has failed, and someone else wondering WTF that person is talking about.

There are some Federal resources and powers for emergencies... those would be contingency funds, office space, radios, trucks, construction crews, stockpiles of PPE, the ability to suspend things like permitting or federally mandating hospital staffing ratios etc etc the list is probably endless... When a state of emergency is declared, all of these resources are made available to the states. The governors (or their delegates like the state health departments or national guard or whatever) will ask the feds for help, and the feds will allocate their help.

When any state feels they don't need the help anymore, they will stop calling those people... I suspect there are states who have done little more than touched base with their primary (I'd guess) homeland security contact... probably a regional or even state office... but this is not a new or unique process.. It exists for all national emergencies.

What I find confusing is that you give Cuomo a good score despite what's going on in NYC, and place lots of blame on DeBlasio.... a bottom-up view... and yet when it comes to the feds, you seem to be taking a top-down approach.

If we develop a 'cure', I suspect that would portend one advice from the CDC
If we develop a 'vaccine' I suspect that would portend another.
If we merely get this to a manageable number, I suspect that would be a third, and of course there are thousands of variations of that available...

I suspect the most likely thing that happens first is the CDC suggests an easing of restrictions but encourages voluntarily maintaining many social constructs... like... not work from home if it's remotely feasible, but work from home if it's prudent from a business standpoint. 'What that means' would have 1mm different answers... and I wouldn't expect the government to address half of them directly. As is prudent, try and go back to more normal activities, but be conscious of crowds, common surfaces and good flu hygiene practices.

Please imagine the sort of scenario you're describing and be specific... because I honestly can't imagine what sort of ideas you are describing.... and more directly, please tell me why this wouldn't be an action of Congress, who would be in direct contact with their local constituents and their needs?

(04-08-2020 02:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm good. This is tiresome - the federal government should not be responsible for formulating a cohesive and comprehensive road map to assist states with easing restrictions.

(04-08-2020 02:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 02:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm good. This is tiresome - the federal government should not be responsible for formulating a cohesive and comprehensive road map to assist states with easing restrictions.

So much for 'acting in good faith'.

I don't know what the **** you mean by 'comprehensive road map' that the Federal government would be developing that the CDC doesn't already do. Give me an example of an issue and/or a measure... I don't care if it's a bad one... we're not debating your ability to imagine the future, just so long as it's something tangible...

(04-08-2020 02:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm over it for two reasons.

1) You keep jumping to conclusions that aren't mine (in the last response you said "because I'm not aware of any federally run institutions that states need to interact with that didn't exist and interact with the states before the pandemic" yet I came nowhere close to advocating for creating a new federal institution)

Quote:2) Your response to "are we doing this" isn't "yes we are" or "no we aren't" but "X, Y, and Z are responsible for that." And that doesn't get to my original question, which was, do we know if the Federal government has made these preparations.

Quote:So yeah, I don't feel like doing this going around in circles.

It seems like you think that the CDC (or other agencies that are part of the federal gov't) are already doing this. If they are already doing this, then my only response is that it would be good for that to be communicated somehow.

(04-08-2020 10:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I disagree with the posit of a more active federal government being dependent on a systemic change. A more active Fed could very well work within our system - by being the spoke at the center of the wheel with regards to proposed response measures, distribution of critical supplies, dissemination of best practices and information, incentivizing (or forcing, when necessary) private industry to respond where needed, effectively coordinating various federal agencies responsible for border control, test/drug approval, and on and on.

Quote:The Fed seems to be catching up on some areas, but still woefully behind on others.
Does anyone know if the Fed has pulled together even an outline a suggested path forward for when states begin repealing statewide stay at home orders?
EDITED TO REMOVE CONFUSION.