(03-18-2020 04:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The problem is that there was no way to make any of these things happen, except maybe to overrule CDC/FDA on the testing. The problem was not that we didn't have enough bureaucrats sitting around the west wing pontificating. The problem was that we didn't have enough shoes on the ground DOING. And one more bureaucracy wasn't going to solve that.

(03-18-2020 05:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  First of all, things could be a lot worse--A LOT WORSE--than the current result.

(03-18-2020 05:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Second, without some specifics, it's hard to see how things could have been better. I've given my specifics. Use the WHO test until CDC got theirs ready. Tell FDA to stifle themselves, this is an emergency. Utilize the National Guard to set up field testing locations to get tests done faster. Farm out the testing and vaccine/antidote development and production to state, local, and private facilities to get it done quicker. No "cease and desist" letter to Dr. Chu, or anything even remotely approaching that. Initially, try to quarantine the high risk population. And even with these specific criticisms, overall I'd give it about a B+.

(03-11-2020 10:01 AM)mrbig Wrote:  For fun, I made my own graph of the epidemiologic curves for some of the hottest countries right now. Since they each had their 1st confirmed infections at different times and had different initial spreads, Day 1 on this graph is approximately when each country hit 200 confirmed infections.



The sources for my data are a combination of:
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/download-todays-data-geographic-distribution-covid-19-cases-worldwide
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/infectious-disease-topics/covid-19?f%25255B0%25255D=field_related_topics%3A178636&f%255B0%255D=field_related_topics%3A178636#news
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

Quote: In late January, South Korean health officials summoned representatives from more than 20 medical companies from their lunar New Year celebrations to a conference room tucked inside Seoul’s busy train station.

One of the country’s top infectious disease officials delivered an urgent message: South Korea needed an effective test immediately to detect the novel coronavirus, then running rampant in China. He promised the companies swift regulatory approval.

Though there were only four known cases in South Korea at that point, “we were very nervous. We believed that it could develop into a pandemic,” one attendee, Lee Sang-won, an infectious diseases expert at the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told Reuters.

“We acted like an army,” he said...

The administration of President Donald Trump was tripped up by government rules and conventions, former officials and public health experts say. Instead of drafting the private sector early on to develop tests, as South Korea did, U.S. health officials relied, as is customary, on test kits prepared by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, some of which proved faulty. Then, sticking to its time-consuming vetting procedures, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration didn’t approve tests other than the CDC’s until Feb. 29, more than five weeks after discussions with outside labs had begun...

“Of course, a kit that’s approved in one week isn’t as good as one that goes through a year of clinical trials,” he said. So in the early days, Lee said, the government cross-checked cases to ensure the tests were working properly.

Cross-checking involved verifying that labs got the same result the government did on an initial pool of patient samples. As of last week, nearly 100 labs were available to perform tests nationwide, according to government figures...

The CDC didn’t send out new test kits until late February. Meanwhile, public health experts say, a crucial window was closing on containing the virus, which by then was known to have infected more than 60 people.

The U.S. emergency declaration issued in late January created additional hurdles that hindered a wider expansion in testing, according to former federal officials and lab professionals.

The declaration eased the way for drugmakers to pursue vaccines and antiviral treatments for COVID-19. But public health experts said that the same declaration made it harder to expand diagnostic testing outside the CDC...

“Traditional public health thinking is,‘Don’t create widespread panic and don’t go over the top. Keep the testing narrow in a precision rifle approach rather than a mass, shotgun approach,’” Schaffner said. “That failed in this instance. This virus acted differently and it overwhelmed the U.S. system. South Korea had a much better sense of what was happening...’

As U.S. efforts faltered, South Korean officials cleared a test from a second company, Seegene Inc, on Feb. 12.

With many more tests in hand, health officials were well armed to attack a fast-moving virus and aggressively track down people who may have been exposed. This testing-backed offensive helped South Korea reduce the number of new cases over a matter of weeks, serving as a model for other countries grappling with the pandemic.

In mid-February, cases spiked at a secretive church in the southeastern city of Daegu. On Feb. 26, Daegu city officials said they would test every single member of the church, including those without symptoms.

As of March 10, Daegu said that it had tested almost all of the 10,000 members of the church in that area, and about 40% came back positive. The city, which now accounts for about three-quarters of total infections in South Korea, has seen new cases sharply drop. On Wednesday, officials announced 46 new cases compared to a peak of 741 cases on Feb. 29...

In recent days, as the public criticism grew louder, Trump appointed a testing czar to improve coordination across agencies. The FDA launched a 24-hour hotline for laboratories needing help to accelerate testing, approved two company applications for higher-volume testing and granted states the flexibility to authorize new tests so labs can bypass the FDA.

(03-19-2020 06:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Everyone should take the time to read this detailed article on our testing woes by Reuters. The article provides a lot of insight into the mechanisms of our testing and validating protocols and how we have arrived at a situation where we still do not have sufficient testing capabilities to adequately identify our infected population.

A few, highlight worthy lines:

Quote: In late January, South Korean health officials summoned representatives from more than 20 medical companies from their lunar New Year celebrations to a conference room tucked inside Seoul’s busy train station.

One of the country’s top infectious disease officials delivered an urgent message: South Korea needed an effective test immediately to detect the novel coronavirus, then running rampant in China. He promised the companies swift regulatory approval.

Though there were only four known cases in South Korea at that point, “we were very nervous. We believed that it could develop into a pandemic,” one attendee, Lee Sang-won, an infectious diseases expert at the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told Reuters.

“We acted like an army,” he said...

The administration of President Donald Trump was tripped up by government rules and conventions, former officials and public health experts say. Instead of drafting the private sector early on to develop tests, as South Korea did, U.S. health officials relied, as is customary, on test kits prepared by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, some of which proved faulty. Then, sticking to its time-consuming vetting procedures, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration didn’t approve tests other than the CDC’s until Feb. 29, more than five weeks after discussions with outside labs had begun...

“Of course, a kit that’s approved in one week isn’t as good as one that goes through a year of clinical trials,” he said. So in the early days, Lee said, the government cross-checked cases to ensure the tests were working properly.

Cross-checking involved verifying that labs got the same result the government did on an initial pool of patient samples. As of last week, nearly 100 labs were available to perform tests nationwide, according to government figures...

The CDC didn’t send out new test kits until late February. Meanwhile, public health experts say, a crucial window was closing on containing the virus, which by then was known to have infected more than 60 people.

The U.S. emergency declaration issued in late January created additional hurdles that hindered a wider expansion in testing, according to former federal officials and lab professionals.

The declaration eased the way for drugmakers to pursue vaccines and antiviral treatments for COVID-19. But public health experts said that the same declaration made it harder to expand diagnostic testing outside the CDC...

“Traditional public health thinking is,‘Don’t create widespread panic and don’t go over the top. Keep the testing narrow in a precision rifle approach rather than a mass, shotgun approach,’” Schaffner said. “That failed in this instance. This virus acted differently and it overwhelmed the U.S. system. South Korea had a much better sense of what was happening...’

As U.S. efforts faltered, South Korean officials cleared a test from a second company, Seegene Inc, on Feb. 12.

With many more tests in hand, health officials were well armed to attack a fast-moving virus and aggressively track down people who may have been exposed. This testing-backed offensive helped South Korea reduce the number of new cases over a matter of weeks, serving as a model for other countries grappling with the pandemic.

In mid-February, cases spiked at a secretive church in the southeastern city of Daegu. On Feb. 26, Daegu city officials said they would test every single member of the church, including those without symptoms.

As of March 10, Daegu said that it had tested almost all of the 10,000 members of the church in that area, and about 40% came back positive. The city, which now accounts for about three-quarters of total infections in South Korea, has seen new cases sharply drop. On Wednesday, officials announced 46 new cases compared to a peak of 741 cases on Feb. 29...

In recent days, as the public criticism grew louder, Trump appointed a testing czar to improve coordination across agencies. The FDA launched a 24-hour hotline for laboratories needing help to accelerate testing, approved two company applications for higher-volume testing and granted states the flexibility to authorize new tests so labs can bypass the FDA.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-testing-specialrep-idUSKBN2153BW

(03-19-2020 07:43 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 06:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Everyone should take the time to read this detailed article on our testing woes by Reuters. The article provides a lot of insight into the mechanisms of our testing and validating protocols and how we have arrived at a situation where we still do not have sufficient testing capabilities to adequately identify our infected population.

A few, highlight worthy lines:

Quote: In late January, South Korean health officials summoned representatives from more than 20 medical companies from their lunar New Year celebrations to a conference room tucked inside Seoul’s busy train station.

One of the country’s top infectious disease officials delivered an urgent message: South Korea needed an effective test immediately to detect the novel coronavirus, then running rampant in China. He promised the companies swift regulatory approval.

Though there were only four known cases in South Korea at that point, “we were very nervous. We believed that it could develop into a pandemic,” one attendee, Lee Sang-won, an infectious diseases expert at the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told Reuters.

“We acted like an army,” he said...

The administration of President Donald Trump was tripped up by government rules and conventions, former officials and public health experts say. Instead of drafting the private sector early on to develop tests, as South Korea did, U.S. health officials relied, as is customary, on test kits prepared by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, some of which proved faulty. Then, sticking to its time-consuming vetting procedures, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration didn’t approve tests other than the CDC’s until Feb. 29, more than five weeks after discussions with outside labs had begun...

“Of course, a kit that’s approved in one week isn’t as good as one that goes through a year of clinical trials,” he said. So in the early days, Lee said, the government cross-checked cases to ensure the tests were working properly.

Cross-checking involved verifying that labs got the same result the government did on an initial pool of patient samples. As of last week, nearly 100 labs were available to perform tests nationwide, according to government figures...

The CDC didn’t send out new test kits until late February. Meanwhile, public health experts say, a crucial window was closing on containing the virus, which by then was known to have infected more than 60 people.

The U.S. emergency declaration issued in late January created additional hurdles that hindered a wider expansion in testing, according to former federal officials and lab professionals.

The declaration eased the way for drugmakers to pursue vaccines and antiviral treatments for COVID-19. But public health experts said that the same declaration made it harder to expand diagnostic testing outside the CDC...

“Traditional public health thinking is,‘Don’t create widespread panic and don’t go over the top. Keep the testing narrow in a precision rifle approach rather than a mass, shotgun approach,’” Schaffner said. “That failed in this instance. This virus acted differently and it overwhelmed the U.S. system. South Korea had a much better sense of what was happening...’

As U.S. efforts faltered, South Korean officials cleared a test from a second company, Seegene Inc, on Feb. 12.

With many more tests in hand, health officials were well armed to attack a fast-moving virus and aggressively track down people who may have been exposed. This testing-backed offensive helped South Korea reduce the number of new cases over a matter of weeks, serving as a model for other countries grappling with the pandemic.

In mid-February, cases spiked at a secretive church in the southeastern city of Daegu. On Feb. 26, Daegu city officials said they would test every single member of the church, including those without symptoms.

As of March 10, Daegu said that it had tested almost all of the 10,000 members of the church in that area, and about 40% came back positive. The city, which now accounts for about three-quarters of total infections in South Korea, has seen new cases sharply drop. On Wednesday, officials announced 46 new cases compared to a peak of 741 cases on Feb. 29...

In recent days, as the public criticism grew louder, Trump appointed a testing czar to improve coordination across agencies. The FDA launched a 24-hour hotline for laboratories needing help to accelerate testing, approved two company applications for higher-volume testing and granted states the flexibility to authorize new tests so labs can bypass the FDA.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-testing-specialrep-idUSKBN2153BW

I like the bolded. That should be permanent.

(03-19-2020 08:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Somebody here recently pointed out that the virus has wiped out the gains in the Dow accumulated in the Trump era.

Which leads me to speculate - what would have happened if Trump had not been elected?

I doubt a President Hillary would have made the changes that helped fuel the quick and high rise of business during the last three years. She was touted as Obama's third term, so assuming she continued the comparatively slow rise we had from him, we would have been around 21,000 now (est). A 12K drop in the Dow would have have us well under Dow 10K, wiping out nearly all the Obama gains too. Would we be better off in that case? Would we be worse?

It also seems to be an assumption on the part of some that a Hillary Administration would have met this crisis both better and sooner. That is implicit in the criticisms of Trump's handling/response. Of course we cannot speak definitively of the road not taken, but I was wondering what some of the posters here thought of that. I think it likely she would not have taken any steps to reduce a bloated bureaucracy - whether that is good or bad is open to interpretation.

I think, just my personal opinion, that the US is better off now with a Trump Administration than it would have been with a Hillary Administration. JMHO. I expect certain posters to believe differently (I can even name them), but I would like to hear WHY they think President Hillary would have been better.

of course, it is all opinion and speculation, as would be any alternate history. I cannot show that a Dewey Administration would have handled Korea differently, either better or worse.

(03-19-2020 09:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 08:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Somebody here recently pointed out that the virus has wiped out the gains in the Dow accumulated in the Trump era.

Which leads me to speculate - what would have happened if Trump had not been elected?

I doubt a President Hillary would have made the changes that helped fuel the quick and high rise of business during the last three years. She was touted as Obama's third term, so assuming she continued the comparatively slow rise we had from him, we would have been around 21,000 now (est). A 12K drop in the Dow would have have us well under Dow 10K, wiping out nearly all the Obama gains too. Would we be better off in that case? Would we be worse?

It also seems to be an assumption on the part of some that a Hillary Administration would have met this crisis both better and sooner. That is implicit in the criticisms of Trump's handling/response. Of course we cannot speak definitively of the road not taken, but I was wondering what some of the posters here thought of that. I think it likely she would not have taken any steps to reduce a bloated bureaucracy - whether that is good or bad is open to interpretation.

I think, just my personal opinion, that the US is better off now with a Trump Administration than it would have been with a Hillary Administration. JMHO. I expect certain posters to believe differently (I can even name them), but I would like to hear WHY they think President Hillary would have been better.

of course, it is all opinion and speculation, as would be any alternate history. I cannot show that a Dewey Administration would have handled Korea differently, either better or worse.

In a hypothetical Clinton admin, I agree that we would not have seen such high market values. A lot of the gains from Trump were likely speculative, which is why they dropped so quickly. I think many investors were always anxious, just waiting for a shoe to drop because they felt that the gains were speculative.

Regarding the response, I absolutely think Clinton would have handled it better, and for two reasons.

1) Clinton has a significant amount of experience within the executive branch, within Congress, and within the world of public health through the Clinton foundation. All of those combine to make me believe she would have been more prepared to lead from the top to mobilize our federal response in a faster, more robust manner.

2) Clinton is a much more serious leader than Trump, and I don't think she would have been minimizing the potential consequences the way Trump did for the first two months of the year. Trump's unfocused approach clearly filtered down.

Now, just because Clinton would have handled this better doesn't mean we can predict how outcomes would have changed - either in the market or in the field. But I would have felt much more confident that we had a competent leader in the WH. Right now, the best part of our federal response has been Dr. Fauci, and Trump, Mr. Don't Evacuate The Cruise Ships Because I Like Our Numbers, has been near the bottom. Something has seemed to light a fire under Trump's ass recently, and we're seeing him respond in kind, which is welcome.

(03-18-2020 03:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I don't think the article specifically backs up Big's claims. But since his claims dealt with why the position was created, and you then asked for some backup about claims about why the position was created, it sounded like this information would be relevant.

The date of the article doesn't mean much when discussing why the position was created.

(03-18-2020 03:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Shouldn't we be comparing our results to countries that seem to be controlling the virus and stopping the exponential growth?

What if the US and Europe are all poorly reacting to COVID-19?

(03-18-2020 04:00 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Did anyone ever provide a citation to this? Not trying to be snippy, I asked a while back and don't recall seeing one (but I acknowledge I skim some of the posts and might have missed it). Still, I'll take false positives over false negatives and run with that test until we have something better.

(03-18-2020 04:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Spit balling here, and not sure how exactly these would be done, so everyone nitpick away if you want.

(03-19-2020 01:59 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 05:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  First of all, things could be a lot worse--A LOT WORSE--than the current result.

How so?

(03-19-2020 01:59 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Again, the NSC pandemic response directorate could have ordered or recommended these things. You don't believe they would have (again, thumbs up ass fat cat bureaucrats). But they could have and neither of us know othewise.

(03-19-2020 06:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  A few, highlight worthy lines:

Quote:
The administration of President Donald Trump was tripped up by government rules and conventions, former officials and public health experts say. Instead of drafting the private sector early on to develop tests, as South Korea did, U.S. health officials relied, as is customary, on test kits prepared by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, some of which proved faulty. Then, sticking to its time-consuming vetting procedures, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration didn’t approve tests other than the CDC’s until Feb. 29, more than five weeks after discussions with outside labs had begun...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-healt...SKBN2153BW

(03-19-2020 09:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  1) Clinton has a significant amount of experience within the executive branch, within Congress, and within the world of public health through the Clinton foundation. All of those combine to make me believe she would have been more prepared to lead from the top to mobilize our federal response in a faster, more robust manner.

(03-19-2020 08:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Somebody here recently pointed out that the virus has wiped out the gains in the Dow accumulated in the Trump era.

Which leads me to speculate - what would have happened if Trump had not been elected?

I doubt a President Hillary would have made the changes that helped fuel the quick and high rise of business during the last three years. She was touted as Obama's third term, so assuming she continued the comparatively slow rise we had from him, we would have been around 21,000 now (est). A 12K drop in the Dow would have have us well under Dow 10K, wiping out nearly all the Obama gains too. Would we be better off in that case? Would we be worse?

It also seems to be an assumption on the part of some that a Hillary Administration would have met this crisis both better and sooner. That is implicit in the criticisms of Trump's handling/response. Of course we cannot speak definitively of the road not taken, but I was wondering what some of the posters here thought of that. I think it likely she would not have taken any steps to reduce a bloated bureaucracy - whether that is good or bad is open to interpretation.

I think, just my personal opinion, that the US is better off now with a Trump Administration than it would have been with a Hillary Administration. JMHO. I expect certain posters to believe differently (I can even name them), but I would like to hear WHY they think President Hillary would have been better.

of course, it is all opinion and speculation, as would be any alternate history. I cannot show that a Dewey Administration would have handled Korea differently, either better or worse.

(03-19-2020 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Two, what would have happened in my National Guard scenario. Guard would have been able to put about 50-100 mobile testing tents on the ground in Walmart, Target, and shopping center parking lots on about day 3 to 5. Except we didn't have any tests for them to use. Head of NG would have been screaming, "Get us some GD testing kits NOW." Somebody, Trump if nobody else, would have said, "Hey, we've got this WHO test, CDC, you get those and get them out to the NG now, and use state, local, and private facilities to produce them, or develop their own, and we'll change out if and as you get something better." CDC might very well have said, "But. But. But," to which Trump or someone would have said, "Shove those buts up your ass, and get it done."

(03-19-2020 11:36 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Two, what would have happened in my National Guard scenario. Guard would have been able to put about 50-100 mobile testing tents on the ground in Walmart, Target, and shopping center parking lots on about day 3 to 5. Except we didn't have any tests for them to use. Head of NG would have been screaming, "Get us some GD testing kits NOW." Somebody, Trump if nobody else, would have said, "Hey, we've got this WHO test, CDC, you get those and get them out to the NG now, and use state, local, and private facilities to produce them, or develop their own, and we'll change out if and as you get something better." CDC might very well have said, "But. But. But," to which Trump or someone would have said, "Shove those buts up your ass, and get it done."

Does the National Guard (and there are actually 50 of them, each under the command of a different governor and NOT under the command of the President) have much in the way of medical labs?

There are no lack of people able to take the test samples. Any doctor's office or clinic can do that. The tests are of no use until they are processed, so unless the National Guards have medical labs then they wouldn't contribute anything that's needed.

ETA: Actually, there are 54 National Guards. I thoughtlessly omitted territories and D.C.

(03-19-2020 11:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 11:36 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Two, what would have happened in my National Guard scenario. Guard would have been able to put about 50-100 mobile testing tents on the ground in Walmart, Target, and shopping center parking lots on about day 3 to 5. Except we didn't have any tests for them to use. Head of NG would have been screaming, "Get us some GD testing kits NOW." Somebody, Trump if nobody else, would have said, "Hey, we've got this WHO test, CDC, you get those and get them out to the NG now, and use state, local, and private facilities to produce them, or develop their own, and we'll change out if and as you get something better." CDC might very well have said, "But. But. But," to which Trump or someone would have said, "Shove those buts up your ass, and get it done."

Does the National Guard (and there are actually 50 of them, each under the command of a different governor and NOT under the command of the President) have much in the way of medical labs?

There are no lack of people able to take the test samples. Any doctor's office or clinic can do that. The tests are of no use until they are processed, so unless the National Guards have medical labs then they wouldn't contribute anything that's needed.

ETA: Actually, there are 54 National Guards. I thoughtlessly omitted territories and D.C.

I don't believe the shortage is on test analysis, but on production of the test themselves. Had testing kept up, it would make sense to create mobile testing locations where you can maintain a safe distance from others and get tested.

So I see a benefit to basically outsourcing that process.

(03-19-2020 11:49 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 11:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 11:36 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Two, what would have happened in my National Guard scenario. Guard would have been able to put about 50-100 mobile testing tents on the ground in Walmart, Target, and shopping center parking lots on about day 3 to 5. Except we didn't have any tests for them to use. Head of NG would have been screaming, "Get us some GD testing kits NOW." Somebody, Trump if nobody else, would have said, "Hey, we've got this WHO test, CDC, you get those and get them out to the NG now, and use state, local, and private facilities to produce them, or develop their own, and we'll change out if and as you get something better." CDC might very well have said, "But. But. But," to which Trump or someone would have said, "Shove those buts up your ass, and get it done."

Does the National Guard (and there are actually 50 of them, each under the command of a different governor and NOT under the command of the President) have much in the way of medical labs?

There are no lack of people able to take the test samples. Any doctor's office or clinic can do that. The tests are of no use until they are processed, so unless the National Guards have medical labs then they wouldn't contribute anything that's needed.

ETA: Actually, there are 54 National Guards. I thoughtlessly omitted territories and D.C.

I don't believe the shortage is on test analysis, but on production of the test themselves. Had testing kept up, it would make sense to create mobile testing locations where you can maintain a safe distance from others and get tested.

So I see a benefit to basically outsourcing that process.

Yes, but that doesn't require the National Guard. It could be done by them, but no better or worse than technicians working extra shifts, or volunteers, or whatever. And since the National Guard doesn't manufacture test kits or run medical laboratories (to my knowledge), they don't contribute anything essential to testing.