+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: Members (/forum-401.html)
+----- Forum: Rice (/forum-444.html)
+------ Forum: Kent Rowald Memorial Quad (/forum-660.html)
+------ Thread: Coronoavirus Covid-19 thread (/thread-895134.html)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188
RE: Coronoavirus Covid-19 thread - mrbig - 03-19-2020 11:56 PM
(03-19-2020 11:49 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: 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.
My wife took her own swab for testing on Monday. Both my older kids (15 and 11) had flu swabs in the fall and are intimately familiar with the unpleasant experience of having an extra-long q-tip shoved basically up into your brain. When my wife told them that she swabbed herself, they were both so disgusted that they left the dinner table
RE: Coronoavirus Covid-19 thread - mrbig - 03-20-2020 12:09 AM
(03-19-2020 02:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(03-19-2020 01:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: Richard Burr saw all this coming and told his well-connected fellow North Carolinians. OO, this is why I think someone other than Trump could have responded better. Trump did not take this seriously until it was dire. Had we had someone in office that took this seriously like Burr, as opposed to Mr. Keep The Numbers Low, I'm far more confident we would have had a more proactive response.
Quote:The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee warned a small group of well-connected constituents three weeks ago to prepare for dire economic and societal effects of the coronavirus, according to a secret recording obtained by NPR.
The remarks from U.S. Sen. Richard Burr were more stark than any he had delivered in more public forums.
On Feb. 27, when the United States had 15 confirmed cases of COVID-19, President Trump was tamping down fears and suggesting that the virus could be seasonal.
"It's going to disappear. One day, it's like a miracle. It will disappear," the president said then, before adding, "it could get worse before it gets better. It could maybe go away. We'll see what happens..."
Thirteen days before the State Department began to warn against travel to Europe, and 15 days before the Trump administration banned European travelers, Burr warned those in the room to reconsider...
Sixteen days before North Carolina closed its schools over the threat of the coronavirus, Burr warned it could happen...
And Burr invoked the possibility that the military might be mobilized to combat the coronavirus. Only now, three weeks later, is the public learning of that prospect.
"We're going to send a military hospital there; it's going to be in tents and going to be set up on the ground somewhere," Burr said at the luncheon. "It's going to be a decision the president and DOD make. And we're going to have medical professionals supplemented by local staff to treat the people that need treatment."
Burr has a unique perspective on the government's response to a pandemic, and not just because of his role as Intelligence Committee chairman. He helped to write the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (PAHPA), which forms the framework for the federal response.
https://www.npr.org/2020/03/19/818192535/burr-recording-sparks-questions-about-private-comments-on-covid-19?fbclid=IwAR3CbbZaoHO6QhCS-CF9XCtSQQ7CdkfMol1niPiFwVDEfRoOCcv9OYNcNUk
Side note - I still find it funny that I was generally lampooned by some posters on here when I initially suggested the military or Army Corp be used to help respond. Yet here we are - countless officials are suggesting the same thing and we are starting to see some movement. Weird.
Maybe president Burr would have acted quicker than president Trump. And, IMO, President Trump acted quicker than President Hillary would have. Your complaint seems to be that Trump was not the best possible person out of 350mm people,which does not mean he was the the worst.
I bolded the phrase where Burr told a small group of well connected constituents - does this not constitute insider trading? If any of those well connected people sold their stock on this advice, is that a crime? And if Trump (or Pelosi or anybody in the government) similarly told a small group of their friends to head for the lifeboats, would that be proper? I can only imagine we would be heading for another impeachment if Trump had done that.
But again, the difference to telling a small group and speaking to the nation is many orders of magnitude. I have likened the President several times to the guy who stands in front of the theater and tells people that there is no cause for concern, but please head to the exits in an orderly manner. Burr would be more like the guy who whispers to his family, "Let's leave". But the guy on stage is responsible for calming fears. When Roosevelt said " we have nothing to fear but fear itself", it was not true, but it was what the nation needed to hear.
The problem with your example is that Trump was the guy who stands in front of the theater when the fire is burning and says "Its under control, no need to leave the theater" when he really has no idea. Burr whispers to his family "I think this fire is going to be a big problem." Not sure how Burr's actions indicate he told his own family to get out of the theater (in your example).
And for the record, I do think Clinton would have acted quicker and in a way that was better for the country. I also think Rubio, Kasich, Pence, Bush, Romney, Paul Ryan, and most of the rest would have done a significantly better job. I don't have any reason to think Clinton would have done any better or worse than any of those Republicans in this situation, because the vast majority of the time, emergency response transcends politics. Trump could have come out of this looking like Bush after 9/11, instead he will come out of it looking like Bush after Katrina. JMHO.
RE: Coronoavirus Covid-19 thread - tanqtonic - 03-20-2020 12:18 AM
(03-20-2020 12:09 AM)mrbig Wrote:(03-19-2020 02:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(03-19-2020 01:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: Richard Burr saw all this coming and told his well-connected fellow North Carolinians. OO, this is why I think someone other than Trump could have responded better. Trump did not take this seriously until it was dire. Had we had someone in office that took this seriously like Burr, as opposed to Mr. Keep The Numbers Low, I'm far more confident we would have had a more proactive response.
Quote:The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee warned a small group of well-connected constituents three weeks ago to prepare for dire economic and societal effects of the coronavirus, according to a secret recording obtained by NPR.
The remarks from U.S. Sen. Richard Burr were more stark than any he had delivered in more public forums.
On Feb. 27, when the United States had 15 confirmed cases of COVID-19, President Trump was tamping down fears and suggesting that the virus could be seasonal.
"It's going to disappear. One day, it's like a miracle. It will disappear," the president said then, before adding, "it could get worse before it gets better. It could maybe go away. We'll see what happens..."
Thirteen days before the State Department began to warn against travel to Europe, and 15 days before the Trump administration banned European travelers, Burr warned those in the room to reconsider...
Sixteen days before North Carolina closed its schools over the threat of the coronavirus, Burr warned it could happen...
And Burr invoked the possibility that the military might be mobilized to combat the coronavirus. Only now, three weeks later, is the public learning of that prospect.
"We're going to send a military hospital there; it's going to be in tents and going to be set up on the ground somewhere," Burr said at the luncheon. "It's going to be a decision the president and DOD make. And we're going to have medical professionals supplemented by local staff to treat the people that need treatment."
Burr has a unique perspective on the government's response to a pandemic, and not just because of his role as Intelligence Committee chairman. He helped to write the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (PAHPA), which forms the framework for the federal response.
https://www.npr.org/2020/03/19/818192535/burr-recording-sparks-questions-about-private-comments-on-covid-19?fbclid=IwAR3CbbZaoHO6QhCS-CF9XCtSQQ7CdkfMol1niPiFwVDEfRoOCcv9OYNcNUk
Side note - I still find it funny that I was generally lampooned by some posters on here when I initially suggested the military or Army Corp be used to help respond. Yet here we are - countless officials are suggesting the same thing and we are starting to see some movement. Weird.
Maybe president Burr would have acted quicker than president Trump. And, IMO, President Trump acted quicker than President Hillary would have. Your complaint seems to be that Trump was not the best possible person out of 350mm people,which does not mean he was the the worst.
I bolded the phrase where Burr told a small group of well connected constituents - does this not constitute insider trading? If any of those well connected people sold their stock on this advice, is that a crime? And if Trump (or Pelosi or anybody in the government) similarly told a small group of their friends to head for the lifeboats, would that be proper? I can only imagine we would be heading for another impeachment if Trump had done that.
But again, the difference to telling a small group and speaking to the nation is many orders of magnitude. I have likened the President several times to the guy who stands in front of the theater and tells people that there is no cause for concern, but please head to the exits in an orderly manner. Burr would be more like the guy who whispers to his family, "Let's leave". But the guy on stage is responsible for calming fears. When Roosevelt said " we have nothing to fear but fear itself", it was not true, but it was what the nation needed to hear.
The problem with your example is that Trump was the guy who stands in front of the theater when the fire is burning and says "Its under control, no need to leave the theater" when he really has no idea. Burr whispers to his family "I think this fire is going to be a big problem." Not sure how Burr's actions indicate he told his own family to get out of the theater (in your example).
And for the record, I do think Clinton would have acted quicker and in a way that was better for the country. I also think Rubio, Kasich, Pence, Bush, Romney, Paul Ryan, and most of the rest would have done a significantly better job. I don't have any reason to think Clinton would have done any better or worse than any of those Republicans in this situation, because the vast majority of the time, emergency response transcends politics. Trump could have come out of this looking like Bush after 9/11, instead he will come out of it looking like Bush after Katrina. JMHO.
And assuming that, how fing good are you going to feel 'proving' how bad Trump is after the weekend is done, we have 40 fing million people under essentially medical house arrest, and probably another 10 million with no jobs?
No offense big, (and #s) the time to proudly proclaim 'how anti Trump' you are, or 'how fing bad Trump', or whether Trump did what he could and felt prudent was justified based on the facts at the time is not really now. Just saying.
Ive gone nearly 72 hours without sleep trying to save 5 clients businesses and the 200+ jobs associated them, so the ongoing contest of either big's and lad's anti-Trump dick is bigger than any defense of Trump is kind of stale at this point to me.
Whether a fing one person position at the NSC would have made a hill of beans difference at this juncture seems kind of venal. And bluntly, if you dont like Trumps actions, then dont fing vote him. Now that is settled, lets all try to do our damndest to keep whatever little corner we can going forward.
Sorry, I am seriously punchy due to lack of sleep, and at this point pretty gd depressed.
RE: Coronoavirus Covid-19 thread - Owl 69/70/75 - 03-20-2020 12:48 AM
(03-20-2020 12:09 AM)mrbig Wrote: The problem with your example is that Trump was the guy who stands in front of the theater when the fire is burning and says "Its under control, no need to leave the theater" when he really has no idea. Burr whispers to his family "I think this fire is going to be a big problem." Not sure how Burr's actions indicate he told his own family to get out of the theater (in your example).
I think Trump was trying more to dispense optimism at at time when the whole country was engaging in mass panic. I think it was more like FDR's "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself," at a time when FDR had no idea how to solve the problems the country was facing. It didn't work, in no small part because the democrats and the media see this is their last chance to do what "Russia" and "Ukraine" failed to do, and so every misstep was going to get magnified, and a few that were not missteps turned into them.
As someone who has been through an emergency response or two, and has planned for a few more, I would give Trump about a B+ at this point. Not an A, he was too slow in taking the response away from CDC and FDA, and because of that we got off to a slow start. But these things always get off to a slow start, because we don't have anybody trained and ready to go from day one. It is a capability that we have chosen not to maintain, apparently because of cost.
Quote:And for the record, I do think Clinton would have acted quicker and in a way that was better for the country. I also think Rubio, Kasich, Pence, Bush, Romney, Paul Ryan, and most of the rest would have done a significantly better job. I don't have any reason to think Clinton would have done any better or worse than any of those Republicans in this situation, because the vast majority of the time, emergency response transcends politics. Trump could have come out of this looking like Bush after 9/11, instead he will come out of it looking like Bush after Katrina. JMHO.
I don't see any reason to think that, except you like Clinton more than Trump. I'm not sure what a "significantly better job" would look like, so perhaps you can give us your idea of what that is. And quite frankly, I thought Bush handled Katrina better than he handled 9/11.
RE: Coronoavirus Covid-19 thread - mrbig - 03-20-2020 01:51 AM
(03-19-2020 02:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: Two, during my time in the Naval Reserve, I was a member of something called the Gulf Coast Readiness Council. We focused primarily on how to do what would be needed in time of war, but there was also some peacetime emphasis. As a member of the council, I was aware of hurricane planning for various Gulf Coast cities. The New Orleans plan was very clear--get everybody the hell out of town ASAP. Blanco overruled the plan for Katrina, and she and Nagin came up with this "shelter in place" idea with disastrous consequences.
Please stop with this nonsense. As I posted somewhere else, Nagin ordered a mandatory evacuation before Katrina. Sorry I'm a little sensitive, but 6 feet of water in your house will make you hope that others will at least be accurate with the basic facts when trying to make political points.
- Katrina made landfall in Louisiana around 6 am on Monday, August 29, 2005.
- On the Thursday, 8/25/05 evening National Hurricane Center projection maps, New Orleans was about 30 miles outside the western edge of the cone on both the 5 pm and 11 pm maps. The center of the cone was in the middle of the Florida panhandle (east of Panama City Beach).
- Governor Blanco declared a state of emergency on Friday, 8/26/05, about 3 days before Katrina made landfall. On the 5 am and 11 am maps, New Orleans was just inside the western edge of the cone with the center of the cone now over Panama City Beach.
- The consensus at the time is that it would take 72 hours to evacuate New Orleans. 72 hours before landfall, New Orleans was ~250 miles from the center of the projection cone.
- Throughout Friday, 8/26/05, each successive projection map moved New Orleans further and further into the cone. The 5 pm map had the center of the cone over the Mississippi/Alabama Border. It wasn't until the 11 pm map that New Orleans was in the middle of the cone. At this time, evacuations had been recommended for many other coastal communities south of New Orleans and many people were already leaving New Orleans.
- On Saturday, 8/27/05 at 5 pm, Mayor Nagin ordered a voluntary evacuation of New Orleans. No one had ever ordered a mandatory evacuation in New Orleans.
- On Sunday, 8/28/05 at 9:30 am, Mayor Nagin ordered the first ever mandatory evacuation of New Orleans. While many people had already left, knowing that they wouldn't be able to get everyone out (people in hospitals, people without transportation, etc.), Nagin set up a few "shelters of last resort" to at least get people into buildings they knew would survive the storm.
So please stop with your "shelter in place" nonsense. The dramatic forecast shift on Friday, 8/26/05 was primarily responsible for so many people getting stuck in New Orleans. No one in their right mind would have ordered an evacuation that morning. And 24 hours later it was too late to get everyone out. Mandatory evacuations were ordered in other communities the morning of Saturday, 8/27/05. Part of the reason New Orleans held off on its evacuation order was so that people south of New Orleans (Grand Isle, Buras, Port Sulfur, etc.) could safely and quickly evacuate.
![[Image: 10.AL1205W5.GIF]](http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/graphics/AT12/10.AL1205W5.GIF)
![[Image: 12.AL1205W5.GIF]](http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/graphics/AT12/12.AL1205W5.GIF)
![[Image: 15.AL1205W5.GIF]](http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/graphics/AT12/15.AL1205W5.GIF)
RE: Coronoavirus Covid-19 thread - tanqtonic - 03-20-2020 01:59 AM
Before I get labeled a complete ******* ---
Big, I really, really, really hope that you and everyone around you comes through. Good luck with the tests. The fact that your wife has to have one is enough to make me cringe.
If any of you all test positive, please do tell anything I can do to help.
In addition to the very real and somewhat immediate possibility of the failure of his business, the spouse of the majority owner of one of my clients just got tested recently due to possible symptoms and still awaiting the result. I cant imagine the stress level associated with such a test.
And, by the way: there is a *very* serious shortage of blood currently. Even more so than usual due to the circumstances. I would urge anyone who can, is healthy, and is willing, to donate.
RE: Coronoavirus Covid-19 thread - mrbig - 03-20-2020 02:14 AM
(03-19-2020 04:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: The FT has been posting data reported on here as well (one specific analyst... can't remember name.. last name hyphenated... like John Barret-Howes) graphing the spread of the virus beginning the day of the first confirmation in a number of countries.
The slope of our line for the first month or so (since case 1) was among the better lines which can easily be interpreted as a good initial response.
We were testing so few people during the first month or so, I don't see how you can consider this data reliable enough to give the USA's initial response an "attaboy".
Here is his graph for the number of infected. USA tracking similar to Spain and looking worse than every country except China (who of course had unique circumstances as the 1st country to deal with this virus):
![[Image: ETfvZPmXkAYVxNG?format=jpg&name=large]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ETfvZPmXkAYVxNG?format=jpg&name=large)
And here is his graph for deaths. I think if you put individual states on the graph, we wouldn't fair so well (but most of the states would still be very early in the graph).
![[Image: ETfvNanXsAA1O06?format=jpg&name=large]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ETfvNanXsAA1O06?format=jpg&name=large)
His use of log scales for the y-axis makes things look less scary.
RE: Coronoavirus Covid-19 thread - mrbig - 03-20-2020 02:23 AM
(03-19-2020 11:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: I think you're kidding yourself if you think they [the NSC pandemic response directorate] would have done so, because they don't have any DOING responsibility, just pondering and pontificating responsibility.
Have you seen any specific descriptions of their responsibilities and authorities? I have only seen general descriptions. If you have seen something more specific that you used to formulate your opinions, I would be interested to read it. My impression is that you are saying this just because of your general disdain for "bureaucracy" and "bureaucrats" and not because you have considered more specific details of what this specific NSC directorate was responsible for. But I am happy to be proven wrong if you have more specific information that I haven't read.
RE: Coronoavirus Covid-19 thread - mrbig - 03-20-2020 02:33 AM
(03-20-2020 12:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: And assuming that, how fing good are you going to feel 'proving' how bad Trump is after the weekend is done, we have 40 fing million people under essentially medical house arrest, and probably another 10 million with no jobs?
No offense big, (and #s) the time to proudly proclaim 'how anti Trump' you are, or 'how fing bad Trump', or whether Trump did what he could and felt prudent was justified based on the facts at the time is not really now. Just saying.
Ive gone nearly 72 hours without sleep trying to save 5 clients businesses and the 200+ jobs associated them, so the ongoing contest of either big's and lad's anti-Trump dick is bigger than any defense of Trump is kind of stale at this point to me.
Whether a fing one person position at the NSC would have made a hill of beans difference at this juncture seems kind of venal. And bluntly, if you dont like Trumps actions, then dont fing vote him. Now that is settled, lets all try to do our damndest to keep whatever little corner we can going forward.
Sorry, I am seriously punchy due to lack of sleep, and at this point pretty gd depressed.
No worries, I think we all get it at this point.
My one comment on the work you are doing is that I wished the current stimulus bill was structured completely different. I wish the federal government could say "businesses, don't fire anyone. we will guarantee the normal pay of your employees (including a fair estimate of tips for those in the service industry) for the next 4-6 weeks, capped at payment of an annual salary of $xxx,xxx (whatever congress can agree on). Profiteering from this will be a felony, so you better be honest with your claims because we are processing them now, sending out the checks now, and reviewing the substance of the claims later. Also, banks should extend short-term loans needed to cover these salary reimbursements at no interest, to be reimbursed by the companies when they receive their checks. Any bank who does not comply will not be eligible for any potential bank bailout that might be needed as future steps."
RE: Coronoavirus Covid-19 thread - mrbig - 03-20-2020 02:41 AM
(03-20-2020 12:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: I think Trump was trying more to dispense optimism at at time when the whole country was engaging in mass panic.
I think Trump should have been taking more actions in early February when he was doing nothing and into late February when he was continually downplaying concerns. No one was engaging in mass panic at the time, we were continuing with life as normal as the virus was spreading.
(03-20-2020 12:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:Quote:And for the record, I do think Clinton would have acted quicker and in a way that was better for the country. I also think Rubio, Kasich, Pence, Bush, Romney, Paul Ryan, and most of the rest would have done a significantly better job. I don't have any reason to think Clinton would have done any better or worse than any of those Republicans in this situation, because the vast majority of the time, emergency response transcends politics. Trump could have come out of this looking like Bush after 9/11, instead he will come out of it looking like Bush after Katrina. JMHO.
I don't see any reason to think that, except you like Clinton more than Trump. I'm not sure what a "significantly better job" would look like, so perhaps you can give us your idea of what that is.
I have no particular love for Rubio, Kasich, Pence, or the rest. But I do think they have a perspective of government and an understanding of and interest in pandemic threats that exceeds Trump. Again, just my opinion. I think Trump's response has been about as bad as possible. Lad's quote of Senator Chris Murphy's tweet is pretty instructive. I think these other Republicans (and Clinton) would have been more likely to hear and accept and act on news they didn't want to hear. I think they would have begun stock piling essentials and organizing a coordinated response earlier. And I think Clinton would have responded similarly to that group of Republicans.
RE: Coronoavirus Covid-19 thread - mrbig - 03-20-2020 02:44 AM
(03-20-2020 01:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: And, by the way: there is a *very* serious shortage of blood currently. Even more so than usual due to the circumstances. I would urge anyone who can, is healthy, and is willing, to donate.
This is a good point. My wife is a universal donor and has given in the past. If her test is negative, I'll point this out to her. I almost faint when I watch people give blood, so not sure I can do it short of saving the life of an actual person in front of me. Not proud to admit it.
RE: Coronoavirus Covid-19 thread - Owl 69/70/75 - 03-20-2020 05:07 AM
(03-20-2020 02:33 AM)mrbig Wrote:(03-20-2020 12:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: And assuming that, how fing good are you going to feel 'proving' how bad Trump is after the weekend is done, we have 40 fing million people under essentially medical house arrest, and probably another 10 million with no jobs?No worries, I think we all get it at this point.
No offense big, (and #s) the time to proudly proclaim 'how anti Trump' you are, or 'how fing bad Trump', or whether Trump did what he could and felt prudent was justified based on the facts at the time is not really now. Just saying.
Ive gone nearly 72 hours without sleep trying to save 5 clients businesses and the 200+ jobs associated them, so the ongoing contest of either big's and lad's anti-Trump dick is bigger than any defense of Trump is kind of stale at this point to me.
Whether a fing one person position at the NSC would have made a hill of beans difference at this juncture seems kind of venal. And bluntly, if you dont like Trumps actions, then dont fing vote him. Now that is settled, lets all try to do our damndest to keep whatever little corner we can going forward.
Sorry, I am seriously punchy due to lack of sleep, and at this point pretty gd depressed.
My one comment on the work you are doing is that I wished the current stimulus bill was structured completely different. I wish the federal government could say "businesses, don't fire anyone. we will guarantee the normal pay of your employees (including a fair estimate of tips for those in the service industry) for the next 4-6 weeks, capped at payment of an annual salary of $xxx,xxx (whatever congress can agree on). Profiteering from this will be a felony, so you better be honest with your claims because we are processing them now, sending out the checks now, and reviewing the substance of the claims later. Also, banks should extend short-term loans needed to cover these salary reimbursements at no interest, to be reimbursed by the companies when they receive their checks. Any bank who does not comply will not be eligible for any potential bank bailout that might be needed as future steps."
Germans have a thing called kurzarbeit ("short work") where they do this to avoid unemployment. That would be an excellent approach IMO.
RE: Coronoavirus Covid-19 thread - Owl 69/70/75 - 03-20-2020 05:29 AM
(03-20-2020 02:23 AM)mrbig Wrote:(03-19-2020 11:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: I think you're kidding yourself if you think they [the NSC pandemic response directorate] would have done so, because they don't have any DOING responsibility, just pondering and pontificating responsibility.Have you seen any specific descriptions of their responsibilities and authorities? I have only seen general descriptions. If you have seen something more specific that you used to formulate your opinions, I would be interested to read it. My impression is that you are saying this just because of your general disdain for "bureaucracy" and "bureaucrats" and not because you have considered more specific details of what this specific NSC directorate was responsible for. But I am happy to be proven wrong if you have more specific information that I haven't read.
I know they don't have any DOING responsibility because they don't have enough people to DO anything. They can direct, but they can't DO. They don't make test kits, they don't do testing, they don't do research, they don't DO things, and there aren't enough of them to make a difference if they did. Given all that I do know, I'm fairly certain they are administrators, not clinicians. And what is needed is somebody with a bias for action.
As far as my dislike for bureaucrats and bureaucracy, let's consider for a minute what actually happened. Bolton did a reorganization, not a mass firing. Some people left, others took the same responsibilities into a different organizational structure. Some left later and were replaced by presumably similarly competent people. So, many of the people who could have made the determination, say, to use the WHO test while our own test was under development, or to use Dr. Chu's test, were still around and still responsible for the same things, only in a different organizational structure. If they were going to press for those things under the old structure, they could still do so under the new, but apparently they did not.
Again, this is just a guess, but I would expect them to prefer to keep everything under the control of CDC and FDA rather than taking the skunk works approach that we now seem to be embracing. In fact, I can't imagine anyone but Donald Trump who would choose to get state, local, and private interests into CDC's bailiwick to such an extent.
RE: Coronoavirus Covid-19 thread - Owl 69/70/75 - 03-20-2020 05:44 AM
(03-20-2020 02:41 AM)mrbig Wrote: I have no particular love for Rubio, Kasich, Pence, or the rest. But I do think they have a perspective of government and an understanding of and interest in pandemic threats that exceeds Trump. Again, just my opinion. I think Trump's response has been about as bad as possible. Lad's quote of Senator Chris Murphy's tweet is pretty instructive. I think these other Republicans (and Clinton) would have been more likely to hear and accept and act on news they didn't want to hear. I think they would have begun stock piling essentials and organizing a coordinated response earlier. And I think Clinton would have responded similarly to that group of Republicans.
I think it's that "perspective of government" that would be the problem. I think that perspective would lead them to presume that government, and in particular top-down government, is the proper approach to solve the problem. I think we need more of an all-hands-on-deck approach that encourages skunk works like Dr. Chu, rather than sending her a "cease and desist" letter.
When Richard Nixon gave us the 55 mph speed limit, Americans learned how to use CB radios. I think that's more the spirit that will resolve this, not directives coming down from Washington.
As far as stockpiling essentials, I'm not sure that anyone not engaged in DOING things in the field can fully understand what are essentials that need to be stockpiled. That's a lot of what's behind my National Guard idea. You really don't know what you need until to try doing it, or at least train realistically for it.
I really, really don't understand what a directorate in DC would have done to make the problem better. Because the problems aren't at the top, they are at the worker bee level. That's based upon my understanding of organizational dynamics, plus some feel for how things come unglued in crisis situations.
When the balloon goes up, there are always going to be situations where, "It's time to put up the tent, but the truck driver hauling the tent got lost and is somewhere in East Bumf-k. So what do we do?" Those things always happen at the start. It's why in wars you kill an inordinate number of your own troops in the opening days. The only way I know to avoid or minimize those glitches is to have somebody ready to go who has already trained on this and knows where the light switches are coming in.
I don't think we are going to agree on evaluation of Trump, largely because of my inherent skepticism about things that you seem to hold dear. So Tanq is probably right, it's probably best to focus on doing the things we can do going forward. I would hope that you, and others, would agree with me that we need some kind of dedicated crisis/disaster response ACTION capability.
RE: Coronoavirus Covid-19 thread - tanqtonic - 03-20-2020 08:41 AM
Some other thoughts:
I agree with the outrage over Burr and Loeffler. But, unfortunately, there is a 'US Congress' carve-out for what would be termed 'insider trading'.
Dont take this as a defense, but do take it as a 'it sucks, and two things should happen: a) the law with the carve out should change; and b) if they traded specifically on the basis of that knowledge, their constituents should absolutely vote them out.
To be fair, they may not have traded specifically on the basis of that knowledge. And, in line with the current impetus of 'objective facts', I would prefer to have objective facts that preclude that possibility before full indictment.
At this point I personally think that they probably did so, but when I note that that is a very subjective point of view, and I rationally think that they deserve the level of an objective basis, and be provided a forum to show anything in that vein.
As an aside, thanks for letting me have my blow up last night. The last 72 have been rather unworldly, especially in the much more limited volume practice I engage in now. Never thought I would have another 'law firm' style 'have to work 72 straight' on multiple clients and multiple issues. I am finding this mid 50s thing doesnt help do those things much .....
RE: Coronoavirus Covid-19 thread - OptimisticOwl - 03-20-2020 08:47 AM
I am so sick and tired of BigLad's efforts to prove...what? That Trump was not the best person to lead our country? That Trump is the worst person to lead our country? I don't think anybody on the right s busy trying to prove he is the best person in the world. They sometimes point out to BigLad that their points are incorrect, slanted, or assumptive. But there is not a proTrump frenzy that is the mirror image to the antiTrump frenzy that has gone on for 3 years and continues here.
Did Travis make the best decisions at the Alamo? Would Crockett or Bowie done it better?
Did FDR make all perfect decisions in WWII? Would one of his opponents done better?
Which of our presidents has been perfect? Johnson? Either Johnson?
It would be a rather silly academic task to devote much time to answering those questions. But we are not historians - we are living this history.
We only had two possible outcomes for leader - Trump and Hillary. If you think Hillary would have done better, say so and state why. personally, if the choice is putting my fate in the hands of one or the other I would choose Trump. Why? Because he has been a doer and leader all his life while Hillary has never accomplished anything on her own. Her husband and her party have always propped her up and guided her. But if you prefer Hilldog just because she is a Democrat, stand up and proudly proclaim your party loyalty. Fact is, we can only speculate on what she would have done and when and how.
This petty bickering over casting blame is getting us nowhere. Now I would say this here is a tempest in a teapot, of no consequence, but it is indicative of the larger storm that the Dems are doing - trying to divide the nation so that half do not think the leader is worth a ole of warm horsespit. Yeah, it is an election year, yeah, their mission in life is to defeat him, but at some point in a crisis we need to pull together. I don't Dem/Rep was so important on December 8, 1941. This is a crisis just as threatening as that one. So far that is not evident from the Dems, who seem hellbent on not letting a good crisis go to waste.
JMHO
RE: Coronoavirus Covid-19 thread - tanqtonic - 03-20-2020 08:47 AM
(03-20-2020 02:41 AM)mrbig Wrote:(03-20-2020 12:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: I think Trump was trying more to dispense optimism at at time when the whole country was engaging in mass panic.
I think Trump should have been taking more actions in early February when he was doing nothing and into late February when he was continually downplaying concerns. No one was engaging in mass panic at the time, we were continuing with life as normal as the virus was spreading.
(03-20-2020 12:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:Quote:And for the record, I do think Clinton would have acted quicker and in a way that was better for the country. I also think Rubio, Kasich, Pence, Bush, Romney, Paul Ryan, and most of the rest would have done a significantly better job. I don't have any reason to think Clinton would have done any better or worse than any of those Republicans in this situation, because the vast majority of the time, emergency response transcends politics. Trump could have come out of this looking like Bush after 9/11, instead he will come out of it looking like Bush after Katrina. JMHO.
I don't see any reason to think that, except you like Clinton more than Trump. I'm not sure what a "significantly better job" would look like, so perhaps you can give us your idea of what that is.
I have no particular love for Rubio, Kasich, Pence, or the rest. But I do think they have a perspective of government and an understanding of and interest in pandemic threats that exceeds Trump. Again, just my opinion. I think Trump's response has been about as bad as possible. Lad's quote of Senator Chris Murphy's tweet is pretty instructive. I think these other Republicans (and Clinton) would have been more likely to hear and accept and act on news they didn't want to hear. I think they would have begun stock piling essentials and organizing a coordinated response earlier. And I think Clinton would have responded similarly to that group of Republicans.
Any tweet coming from Senator Murphy is obviously and objectively self-serving. As much as any tweet from any elected official in todays party politics world.
If you take such a tweet from Senator Murphy as 'objective' evidence and also try to present it as such, then lord have mercies on our collective political souls.
/snark on/ I am glad now that tweets from Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and any other politician are now de facto objective proof on something, even if opinion, notwithstanding any political bias inherent there. /snark off/
RE: Coronoavirus Covid-19 thread - Hambone10 - 03-20-2020 08:58 AM
(03-19-2020 11:56 PM)mrbig Wrote:When being trained, we had to swab each other... so everyone hated everyone else. I can't imagine swabbing ones-self, though I suppose at least you know when you will 'stop' which could give someone a little comfort.(03-19-2020 11:49 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: 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.
My wife took her own swab for testing on Monday. Both my older kids (15 and 11) had flu swabs in the fall and are intimately familiar with the unpleasant experience of having an extra-long q-tip shoved basically up into your brain. When my wife told them that she swabbed herself, they were both so disgusted that they left the dinner table
This is one of the biggest things that leads to false negatives. People naturally recoil from the swab and you don't get a good sample (don't get to the back of the cavity). Even some very seasoned MAs and RNs don't go deep enough even without a recoil.
(03-20-2020 02:14 AM)mrbig Wrote:(03-19-2020 04:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: The FT has been posting data reported on here as well (one specific analyst... can't remember name.. last name hyphenated... like John Barret-Howes) graphing the spread of the virus beginning the day of the first confirmation in a number of countries.
The slope of our line for the first month or so (since case 1) was among the better lines which can easily be interpreted as a good initial response.
We were testing so few people during the first month or so, I don't see how you can consider this data reliable enough to give the USA's initial response an "attaboy".
Here is his graph for the number of infected. USA tracking similar to Spain and looking worse than every country except China (who of course had unique circumstances as the 1st country to deal with this virus):
And here is his graph for deaths. I think if you put individual states on the graph, we wouldn't fair so well (but most of the states would still be very early in the graph).
His use of log scales for the y-axis makes things look less scary.
Big....
First let me wish you and your family well. People don't give healthcare workers in situations like these nearly enough credit. Some people are so damn rude to people who are LITERALLY risking their lives to try and help them.
To the above.... I can't see your links so I am going merely by your description and then the graphs I think you're using. John Burn-Murdoch... Thank you
Here is what I've been looking at...
https://www.ft.com/content/a26fbf7e-48f8-11ea-aeb3-955839e06441
Look at the first graph.... all data from John's Hopkins.
Notice the big bump on day 13 which still has us well ahead of Europe but looking much more like them than S. Korea and Japan.
That is specifically what I'm speaking of in terms of we were doing very well, then around the time we limited Europe, there was a bump.
What difference does the number of people tested make to measuring efficacy? Why would you test people with virtually no reason to think they had the disease? No exposure, no symptoms. We did the same in Ebola and SARS and everything else. We never had mass testing for those diseases. Never.
Why also would you look at 'numbers of infected' (chart 2) in a population of 46mm and then compare it to a population of 350mm and use the raw numbers as evidence of efficacy? The entire nation of Spain could get infected and only 1/6 of our population and your comparison would suggest that they actually did a better job than we did in containing it? Of course the numbers matter, but not when measuring efficacy... you have to consider the whole population.
Chart 2 is misleading due to scale, but we're all used to that. I mean, it actually looks like China's curve has flattened since day 18 when it hit 30k, but in the next 20 days it more than doubled and according to chart 4 is up another 15k or so.
At any rate... based on chart 1 which is the one that has been on his twitter for the longest period, it does seem that unlike most other countries, we started off pretty well and now have started to do worse, but still not as bad as many similar nations.
Now, measures based on testing can certainly be misleading based on the number of test given... but it's not as if everyone else has also been testing everyone in the nation since day 1. I'd like to see a chart of the deaths, adjusted per population.
at 200 deaths vs much smaller nations like Spain and Iran at over 1,000... We're not looking bad. Adjusted for population, we're probably doing better than UK at 145 and certainl France at 372. Eyeballing S. Korea at 94, we're certainly more than twice their size so that looks okay. Germany MAY be better.
China I have no faith in at all. I really struggle to believe that Italy has surpassed them in deaths with only half the confirmed cases... even that (their number of confirmed) I don't totally buy.... but that is what is reported.
Again, eyeballing... but it seems clear that China, Italy Iran and Spain have screwed the pooch.
The US seems at the very least, competitive with (and it seems to me, marginally better than) France, UK, S. Korea and perhaps even S.Korea, Netherlands, Belgium and even Switzerland when you consider the populations.
So while certainly we could do better... I don't see much support whatsoever for the contention that this has been an abject failure as described by many.
RE: Coronoavirus Covid-19 thread - OptimisticOwl - 03-20-2020 09:08 AM
(03-20-2020 02:41 AM)mrbig Wrote: And for the record, I do think Clinton would have acted quicker and in a way that was better for the country.
Why do you think this? Has she ever shown decisiveness? Has she ever shown a willingness to go against the bureaucracy? has she ever done anything about anything?
Quote:I also think Rubio, Kasich, Pence, Bush, Romney, Paul Ryan, and most of the rest would have done a significantly better job.
Again, why? Of course, the history is that none of those would ever of had the opportunity to lead our country - the choice was Trump/Clinton. Might as well throw Rahm Emmanuel into the mix. Or Ben Franklin.
Quote:Trump could have come out of this looking like Bush after 9/11, instead he will come out of it looking like Bush after Katrina. JMHO.
With the best efforts of the Dems to hinder him and cast all he does in the worst light, the latter may happen. The worst scenario for them on their quest to unseat him is that he comes out looking good with positive results.
But I think what happens in the next 4 months will determine that. If we are coming out of it then, if the Dow is climbing back up, if businesses are re-opening, I doubt all the whining about a quicker response or more boots on the ground in China will have much sway.
But never underestimate the far reaching effects of the left's propaganda arm.
Of course, if we are not coming out of it in 4 months, Dems will get their wet dream of of an all Dem unstoppable government, and then we can spend the next four years screwing up the responses, killing the economy even further, and whining about the mess they inherited, blaming Trump for everything. Sound familiar?.
RE: Coronoavirus Covid-19 thread - Hambone10 - 03-20-2020 09:09 AM
Okay... perfect example of the sort of politics causing problems that I'm speaking of.
I don't think it's up to the President to shut down US beaches/cancel spring break... but Florida politicians just did that... however they waited until AFTER the Spring Breakers had arrived to do it. So where are those people going to go? Certainly some will go home, but others... especially ones like the 'Corona isn't going to stop us from partying' idiots... To the casinos that ARE STILL OPEN (and all the seniors that frequent them) or to other confined spaces.
So I could easily see a spike in cases and especially deaths in Florida that could easily spread as those people return home. One could argue they should have shut down sooner... but that's a political hot button... Once they were there, the smarter move would have been to keep them out in the sun and wind and humidity. I don't care the parties of the people... but politics certainly played a part in what I see as some poor decisions here.