BaltACD Flintlock76 The governors aren't there for Mr. Trump to do anything with. In the end they'll have to answer to the voters of their respective states for what they did or didn't do. If they performed well they've got nothing to worry about. If they didn't then all the angels in Heaven coming down to give them endorsements won't do them any good. Trump has declined responsibility for anything and everything and dumped policy making on the Governors, as such Trump is no longer a leader in the issue.
Flintlock76 The governors aren't there for Mr. Trump to do anything with. In the end they'll have to answer to the voters of their respective states for what they did or didn't do. If they performed well they've got nothing to worry about. If they didn't then all the angels in Heaven coming down to give them endorsements won't do them any good.
Trump has declined responsibility for anything and everything and dumped policy making on the Governors, as such Trump is no longer a leader in the issue.
Where does the top level command authority for this type of crisis legally reside? Is it with the President or with the State Governors?
Euclid BaltACD Flintlock76 The governors aren't there for Mr. Trump to do anything with. In the end they'll have to answer to the voters of their respective states for what they did or didn't do. If they performed well they've got nothing to worry about. If they didn't then all the angels in Heaven coming down to give them endorsements won't do them any good. Trump has declined responsibility for anything and everything and dumped policy making on the Governors, as such Trump is no longer a leader in the issue. Where does the top level command authority for this type of crisis legally reside? Is it with the President or with the State Governors?
The President has declined responsibility and therefore has declined leadership. While the CDC is the leading federal scientific organization dealing with the problem, the President declines to follow their recommendations, further abdicating leadership.
Governors have taken the leadership position with regard to the populations of thier own states and without regard to adjoining states. For the purposes of Covid-19 the USA has become 50 separate entities, each marching to their own drummer as they interpert the pertinent data that reaches their health departments, where ever that data may originate - CDC, local universities, foreign country health professionals, potentially witch doctors and shamans.
In the past Presidents have taken the lead in such situations.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidWhere does the top level command authority for this type of crisis legally reside? Is it with the President or with the State Governors?
A poster on another forum brought up something that might address your question. "State's Rights."
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
It's called federalism. Something that's lost on a lot of people today that the country was founded on.
Gramp It's called federalism. Something that's lost on a lot of people today that the country was founded on.
You might want to examine a good history of the colonial period through early republic.
We have a Federal Repubic, with a stronger central government for defined areas, as expressed in the Constitution, our governing document, which replaced the state supremacy of the Articles of Confederation because of its obvious failures.
BaltACD Euclid BaltACD Flintlock76 The governors aren't there for Mr. Trump to do anything with. In the end they'll have to answer to the voters of their respective states for what they did or didn't do. If they performed well they've got nothing to worry about. If they didn't then all the angels in Heaven coming down to give them endorsements won't do them any good. Trump has declined responsibility for anything and everything and dumped policy making on the Governors, as such Trump is no longer a leader in the issue. Where does the top level command authority for this type of crisis legally reside? Is it with the President or with the State Governors? The President has declined responsibility and therefore has declined leadership. While the CDC is the leading federal scientific organization dealing with the problem, the President declines to follow their recommendations, further abdicating leadership. Governors have taken the leadership position with regard to the populations of thier own states and without regard to adjoining states. For the purposes of Covid-19 the USA has become 50 separate entities, each marching to their own drummer as they interpert the pertinent data that reaches their health departments, where ever that data may originate - CDC, local universities, foreign country health professionals, potentially witch doctors and shamans. In the past Presidents have taken the lead in such situations.
What you say (emphasis in red) above is why I asked the question as to whether the State Governors or the President have the top authority in a crisis such as this virus. I doubt that anybody can provide a definite answer to that question. It may get into issues about "States Rights," but I don't know the answer. And the answer may not be so clear cut.
However, the reason I ask is that if the President "declined responsiblity," he must have had the natural legal responsibility over the State Governors. And, if they had that natural responsibility, it would not be the President's to decline.
So how do we know if the President "declined responsibility" if we don't know whether that responsibility naturally resides with the President in the first place? If he never had it, he could not have declined it.
I see Bucky is riding his circular reasoning Merry go Round again!!
A leader that 'declines responsibility' for something that affects the entirety of the country is no longer The Leader. He may be a power grabber - but he is not a leader.
BaltACD A leader that 'declines responsibility' for something that affects the entirety of the country is no longer The Leader. He may be a power grabber - but he is not a leader.
Euclid BaltACD A leader that 'declines responsibility' for something that affects the entirety of the country is no longer The Leader. He may be a power grabber - but he is not a leader. You have given no evidence that the President has declined responsiblity.
You have given no evidence that the President has declined responsiblity.
The only evidence are his repeated recorded statements. I don't have it in his illegible handwriting.
BaltACD Euclid BaltACD A leader that 'declines responsibility' for something that affects the entirety of the country is no longer The Leader. He may be a power grabber - but he is not a leader. You have given no evidence that the President has declined responsiblity. The only evidence are his repeated recorded statements. I don't have it in his illegible handwriting.
Well, can you please paraphrase what he said in his statements?
Euclid BaltACD Euclid BaltACD A leader that 'declines responsibility' for something that affects the entirety of the country is no longer The Leader. He may be a power grabber - but he is not a leader. You have given no evidence that the President has declined responsiblity. The only evidence are his repeated recorded statements. I don't have it in his illegible handwriting. Well, can you please paraphrase what he said in his statements?
Do your own homework!
Latest from Israel's Health Ministry: 18,180 total cases, now 2,722 active cases 15,159 Recovered, 31 in serious condition, including 24 who are ventilated, 299 died.
We best not get too complacent. Another report that the US seems to have a virus strain that has mutated and seems to be more infectious than the rest of the world . Also in Brazil . It may be if this is the case that a vacine developed in Europe may not work here and there will be a need for a vacine to be developed here in the USA ?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/mutation-could-make-coronavirus-more-infectious-study-suggests/ar-BB15pHdc
But it is being tested in the USA, so we can hope, even if we cannot be assured, and you are right that another vacine may be required.
blue streak 1 Another report that the US seems to have a virus strain that has mutated and seems to be more infectious than the rest of the world
tree68 blue streak 1 Another report that the US seems to have a virus strain that has mutated and seems to be more infectious than the rest of the world
Actually we've been infected by more than one strain, NY had a strain from Europe that mutated, California had a strain from China. Viruses mutate all the time, it's what they do, the vaccine would attack the base virus, not the mutations.
Chances are your bad news is correct regarding vacines developed only from antibodies from those recovered from the virus. But some researchers are taking a different approach to determine what is needed to strengthen the Imune system in general against viruses in general. That research has also arrived at the preliminary testing stage, although results for mass inoculation may not be as soon as the first variety. There is thls hope, however.
Meanwhile
Euclid BaltACD Euclid BaltACD Flintlock76 The governors aren't there for Mr. Trump to do anything with. In the end they'll have to answer to the voters of their respective states for what they did or didn't do. If they performed well they've got nothing to worry about. If they didn't then all the angels in Heaven coming down to give them endorsements won't do them any good. Trump has declined responsibility for anything and everything and dumped policy making on the Governors, as such Trump is no longer a leader in the issue. Where does the top level command authority for this type of crisis legally reside? Is it with the President or with the State Governors? The President has declined responsibility and therefore has declined leadership. While the CDC is the leading federal scientific organization dealing with the problem, the President declines to follow their recommendations, further abdicating leadership. Governors have taken the leadership position with regard to the populations of thier own states and without regard to adjoining states. For the purposes of Covid-19 the USA has become 50 separate entities, each marching to their own drummer as they interpert the pertinent data that reaches their health departments, where ever that data may originate - CDC, local universities, foreign country health professionals, potentially witch doctors and shamans. In the past Presidents have taken the lead in such situations. What you say (emphasis in red) above is why I asked the question as to whether the State Governors or the President have the top authority in a crisis such as this virus. I doubt that anybody can provide a definite answer to that question. It may get into issues about "States Rights," but I don't know the answer. And the answer may not be so clear cut. However, the reason I ask is that if the President "declined responsiblity," he must have had the natural legal responsibility over the State Governors. And, if they had that natural responsibility, it would not be the President's to decline. So how do we know if the President "declined responsibility" if we don't know whether that responsibility naturally resides with the President in the first place? If he never had it, he could not have declined it.
That's Clintonian semantic niggling if I've ever seen it. Regardless of the formal divisions of responsibility, COVID-19 is a national-level crisis that requires national-level leadership and coordination. Meanwhile, the president has tried to have it both ways, denying the necessity of any kind of federal coordination while stepping in to take credit for any positive developments.
Psychot Euclid BaltACD Euclid BaltACD Flintlock76 The governors aren't there for Mr. Trump to do anything with. In the end they'll have to answer to the voters of their respective states for what they did or didn't do. If they performed well they've got nothing to worry about. If they didn't then all the angels in Heaven coming down to give them endorsements won't do them any good. Trump has declined responsibility for anything and everything and dumped policy making on the Governors, as such Trump is no longer a leader in the issue. Where does the top level command authority for this type of crisis legally reside? Is it with the President or with the State Governors? The President has declined responsibility and therefore has declined leadership. While the CDC is the leading federal scientific organization dealing with the problem, the President declines to follow their recommendations, further abdicating leadership. Governors have taken the leadership position with regard to the populations of thier own states and without regard to adjoining states. For the purposes of Covid-19 the USA has become 50 separate entities, each marching to their own drummer as they interpert the pertinent data that reaches their health departments, where ever that data may originate - CDC, local universities, foreign country health professionals, potentially witch doctors and shamans. In the past Presidents have taken the lead in such situations. What you say (emphasis in red) above is why I asked the question as to whether the State Governors or the President have the top authority in a crisis such as this virus. I doubt that anybody can provide a definite answer to that question. It may get into issues about "States Rights," but I don't know the answer. And the answer may not be so clear cut. However, the reason I ask is that if the President "declined responsiblity," he must have had the natural legal responsibility over the State Governors. And, if they had that natural responsibility, it would not be the President's to decline. So how do we know if the President "declined responsibility" if we don't know whether that responsibility naturally resides with the President in the first place? If he never had it, he could not have declined it. That's Clintonian semantic niggling if I've ever seen it. Regardless of the formal divisions of responsibility, COVID-19 is a national-level crisis that requires national-level leadership and coordination. Meanwhile, the president has tried to have it both ways, denying the necessity of any kind of federal coordination while stepping in to take credit for any positive developments.
I don't see how you can dismiss the formal divisions of responsibility, and then turn around and claim that the President is denying responsiblity. You call it semantic niggling. What exactly is semantic about it?
What specific responsibility has the President denied? It seems to me that there has been plenty of Federal coordination and response. He has allowed State governors to run the show with indefinite lockdowns that he does not approve of.
There is no indication that the governors would prefer the President to take charge of the responses of the individual states. On the contrary, I am sure the governors would protest if the President regulated all State response to the virus.
Euclid Psychot Euclid BaltACD Euclid BaltACD Flintlock76 The governors aren't there for Mr. Trump to do anything with. In the end they'll have to answer to the voters of their respective states for what they did or didn't do. If they performed well they've got nothing to worry about. If they didn't then all the angels in Heaven coming down to give them endorsements won't do them any good. Trump has declined responsibility for anything and everything and dumped policy making on the Governors, as such Trump is no longer a leader in the issue. Where does the top level command authority for this type of crisis legally reside? Is it with the President or with the State Governors? The President has declined responsibility and therefore has declined leadership. While the CDC is the leading federal scientific organization dealing with the problem, the President declines to follow their recommendations, further abdicating leadership. Governors have taken the leadership position with regard to the populations of thier own states and without regard to adjoining states. For the purposes of Covid-19 the USA has become 50 separate entities, each marching to their own drummer as they interpert the pertinent data that reaches their health departments, where ever that data may originate - CDC, local universities, foreign country health professionals, potentially witch doctors and shamans. In the past Presidents have taken the lead in such situations. What you say (emphasis in red) above is why I asked the question as to whether the State Governors or the President have the top authority in a crisis such as this virus. I doubt that anybody can provide a definite answer to that question. It may get into issues about "States Rights," but I don't know the answer. And the answer may not be so clear cut. However, the reason I ask is that if the President "declined responsiblity," he must have had the natural legal responsibility over the State Governors. And, if they had that natural responsibility, it would not be the President's to decline. So how do we know if the President "declined responsibility" if we don't know whether that responsibility naturally resides with the President in the first place? If he never had it, he could not have declined it. That's Clintonian semantic niggling if I've ever seen it. Regardless of the formal divisions of responsibility, COVID-19 is a national-level crisis that requires national-level leadership and coordination. Meanwhile, the president has tried to have it both ways, denying the necessity of any kind of federal coordination while stepping in to take credit for any positive developments. I don't see how you can dismiss the formal divisions of responsibility, and then turn around and claim that the President is denying responsiblity. You call it semantic niggling. What exactly is semantic about it? What specific responsibility has the President denied? It seems to me that there has been plenty of Federal coordination and response. He has allowed State governors to run the show with indefinite lockdowns that he does not approve of. There is no indication that the governors would prefer the President to take charge of the responses of the individual states. On the contrary, I am sure the governors would protest if the President regulated all State response to the virus.
No one is talking about the federal government assuming responsibility at the state level. What was being called for was coordination of supplies, specifically for testing, at the federal level -- as opposed to having states bid against each other and against the federal government for those supplies.
The president, when asked whether he felt responsible for our nationwide testing issues, specifically denied any responsibility. On other occasions, he provided a deliberately obtuse reply along the lines of what you're saying: "the federal government isn't going to set up a testing center in a Wal-mart parking lot." No one wanted that.
The vaccine has already passed tests on mice, and they have already begun discussion with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding approval to begin human testung.
Saw a picture of the victim who had to have a double lung transplant. That bad lung was scarry. I cannot imagine what a ventilator might do to those lungs. Maybe a hyperbaric (sp?) chamber would be better as it would not put any external pressure on the insides of lungs ?
blue streak 1 Saw a picture of the victim who had to have a double lung transplant. That bad lung was scarry. I cannot imagine what a ventilator might do to those lungs. Maybe a hyperbaric (sp?) chamber would be better as it would not put any external pressure on the insides of lungs ?
OLD PARADIGM STARTING TO SHIFT;
A NEW PLAYBOOK
https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/21/coronavirus-analysis-recommends-less-reliance-on-ventilators/
From the link:
“By using ventilators more sparingly on Covid-19 patients, physicians could reduce the more-than-50% death rate for those put on the machines, according to an analysis published Tuesday in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene.
The authors argue that physicians need a new playbook for when to use ventilators for Covid-19 patients — a message consistent with new treatment guidelines issued Tuesday by the National Institutes of Health, which advocates a phased approach to breathing support that would defer the use of ventilators if possible.
As the pandemic has flooded hospitals with a disease that physicians had never before seen, health care workers have had to figure out treatment protocols on the fly. Starting this month, a few physicians have voiced concern that some hospitals have been too quick to put Covid-19 patients on mechanical ventilators, that elderly patients in particular may have been harmed more than helped, and that less invasive breathing support, including simple oxygen-delivering nose prongs, might be safer and more effective.
The new analysis, from an international team of physician-researchers, supports what had until now been mainly two hunches: that some of the Covid-19 patients put on ventilators didn’t need to be, and that unusual features of the disease can make mechanical ventilation harmful to the lungs.”
An inconvenient truth - barring a vaccine, or the virus miraculously going away, we're all going to catch this virus. Anyone who doesn't understand that is fooling themselves.
Has anyone noticed that about the time the fear factor starts to recede, we are told that some group previously thought to be less affected by the virus really is affected?
I'd love to see some scientific studies on the effectiveness of the various masks. One fellow did a test on the oxygen levels under a mask - said levels dropped to dangerous levels (the alarm on the tester sounded) within a minute or so of donning a common cloth mask. It's no wonder people are reporting headaches and other symptoms.
Wearing a mask - properly - may have some benefit if physical distancing is not possible. In the meantime, IMHO, it's chiefly symbolic. Of course, if you aren't wearing a mask, you don't care about your fellow man...
There are those at risk - and they should be all the more careful. But if thousands of people can shop at a "big box" store every day and those stores haven't become hotbeds of spreading the virus, then there are other factors involved.
I watched an interview with Housing and Human Services secretary Dr. Ben Carson. Dr. Carson said this about COVID-19:
"It's out there, it's not going away. We're just going to have to live with it."
He didn't elaborate, and the interviewer didn't follow up on the statement with another question, so as to what Dr. Carson meant by that we'll just have to draw our own conclusions.
The conclusion I draw is we know a lot more about the disease than we did when the crisis hit, it can be dealt with now, effective treatments are available, so we should stop living in fear and get on with life. That's what I do. Personally I'm a lot more concerned about being taken out of this world by an incompetant driver than a virus. At any rate, something's going to kill me one day anyway.
As Stonewall Jackson said, "God has fixed the time for my death, I do not concern myself with it."
You can't hide from death. Death is patient, death will wait for you and find you, where ever you are. But the fact is while you're hiding from death you're also hiding from life. And life won't wait for you, it will pass you by without a second thought, and when you've realized your mistake in hiding bargaining for more time won't work.
Please, don't hide from life. But do take the sensible and practical precautions. And maybe your catchng the virus will be postponed until the effective vacine becomes available or treatments are more effective than they are now or both.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.