Erik_MagOne other misstep on Trump's part was not putting pressure on the CDC to get testing kits out and not issuing an executive order to let other labs develop their own tests.
From what I understand from Redfield, CDC lost little if any time (none of it particularly 'blameable' except by agenda-driven hacks) in developing an effective and manufacturable test directly from the sequence data. I suspect that if someone writes a fair history of this crisis there will be some admiration for the actual combination of science and technology that combined in this effort.
Where it seems "CDC" fell down was in supervising quality control of the test reagents after the tests were greenlighted for quantity production. That is apparently what had people high up 'falling on their swords' with Japanese-style apologies ... but a corresponding part of the story is that states receiving the tests insisted that any replacement reagents come only through the CDC, and hence through procurement bureaucracy, if I learned the story correctly only in the form of new complete packaged 'working' tests.
To me it makes sense to 'freeze' the design for something to be rolled out in emergency mass quantities, to be analyzed by a necessary variety of labs, and to produce meaningful statistics to aid epidemiology efforts. Having multiple ad hoc proprietary tests, perhaps of dubious comparability, processed heaven knows where with who knows what lead times, would itself become a matter of censure in anything less than explosive outbreak propagation or acceleration of perceived deaths ... which in the United States largely postdated the test-development logistics agenda.
One of the lessons I hope has been learned is how to build a certain amount of 'agile' style response into test development, procurement, and deployment, so that in future if 'field problems' are encountered with testing, it can be modified within the necessary framework of trust for 'distributed users' including other social or government agencies.
charlie hebdo Cuomo did not have the power to shut down Kennedy.
Cuomo did not have the power to shut down Kennedy.
No argument there, my criticism of Cuomo was that he took too long to impose a shutdown order on his own state. I do think he was out of line critizing other states imposing quaratine on travelers from the NYC area I also specifically said that international travel bans were the president's job.
Outside of the NYC are hotspots, the US record has been pretty good in comparison to most other countries (though bad when compared to Taiwan - who did have leadership acutely aware of viral epidemics).
I agree. It's easy for Taiwan to isolate, however. Germany has done a good job. Low death rate and lots of accurate testing. If we had simply acquired their test, we would have been better off. Instead we have an uncoordinated mish-mash.
https://apnews.com/a758f05f337736e93dd0c280deff9b10
Where we were slow.
charlie hebdoI agree. It's easy for Taiwan to isolate, however. Germany has done a good job. Low death rate and lots of accurate testing. If we had simply acquired their test, we would have been better off. Instead we have an uncoordinated mish-mash.
When you proclaim no responsibility you also broadcast you are not a leader.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
charlie hebdohttps://apnews.com/a758f05f337736e93dd0c280deff9b10 Where we were slow.
How clever of them to invoke the idea of 'narrative' to distract us from the clever, verging on sly, use of language in this article to nail Trump.
It is very, very, very true that, if a tight ban on people who 'had been to China' is imposed, the very next logical step is to similarly ban people who 'had been to China and returned from there to other countries before then proceeding to the United States -- which is the gist of what I understand the point of criticizing 'delayed response' to be. In the practical context of observed history I'd expect this to have been met by even more of the "response" we saw from 'the usual Democrats' at the time it was meaningful to repidly impose it. So righteous 20/20-hindsight selective spin of blame is not precisely the smoking gun that's trying to be created here.
It's certainly a cautionary tale, and an important lesson learned, for future emergent-pandemic response. As is careful policy to avoid 'racial perceptions' when actually taking steps to arrest potential travel-borne spread from an infected region all the way to a particular country.
Overmod charlie hebdo https://apnews.com/a758f05f337736e93dd0c280deff9b10 Where we were slow. How clever of them to invoke the idea of 'narrative' to distract us from the clever, verging on sly, use of language in this article to nail Trump. It is very, very, very true that, if a tight ban on people who 'had been to China' is imposed, the very next logical step is to similarly ban people who 'had been to China and returned from there to other countries before then proceeding to the United States -- which is the gist of what I understand the point of criticizing 'delayed response' to be. In the practical context of observed history I'd expect this to have been met by even more of the "response" we saw from 'the usual Democrats' at the time it was meaningful to repidly impose it. So righteous 20/20-hindsight selective spin of blame is not precisely the smoking gun that's trying to be created here. It's certainly a cautionary tale, and an important lesson learned, for future emergent-pandemic response. As is careful policy to avoid 'racial perceptions' when actually taking steps to arrest potential travel-borne spread from an infected region all the way to a particular country.
charlie hebdo https://apnews.com/a758f05f337736e93dd0c280deff9b10 Where we were slow.
The article seems to contain a lot of disconnceted and incomplete thoughts.
Here is something I have heard: China made an effort to close off Wuhan, and prevent people from leaving Wuhan to enter other parts of China. At the same time, they allowed people to freely leave Wuhan to travel to other countries. It this true?
If so, why would China allow people to leave Wuhan and travel outside of China when they knew it was too dangerous to let them travel in China outside of Wuhan?
BaltACD When you proclaim no responsibility you also broadcast you are not a leader.
Several of the (D) governors have said that Trump has done a reasonable of getting supplies were needed. It also appears that Trump had a better feel for how many ventilators NY needed than Cuomo. Trump also got the ball rolling on the virus response in January at a time the Dr. Fauci has said it was not likely to be a problem. Trump shares Obama's problem of an enormous ego and willingness to blame others.
Trump's touting of HCQ as a treatment was reasonable though he did go overboard on it. There have been reports over the years of possible antiviral effectiveness, a plausible method of action and some anecdotes of effectiveness against COVID-19. Thinking of LOGISTICS, HCQ is cheap, production can be ramped rapidly and the side effects are well known (better to have a fair medication NOW, versus a perfect one ten years from now). The low cost and wide availability means that it can be used early in the course of infection, provided that it proves to be effective (there is a thorough test in progress).
My biggest qualm with leadership is the poor understanding of the models used to predict case rates and of how the virus is actually spread. The IHME model is a curve fitting exercize, good for predicting maybe a week in the future. It does seem to take into account differences in the daily experiences of rural versus urban areas. The April 10 version of the model Newsom is using shows today's hospital beds used at 4 times higher than actual usage (Apr 1 version is 8X higher than actual). The lifetime of virus indoors can be days, while may be a few minutes outdoors on a hot, humid sunny day.
Changing subjects slightly: I think having multiple tests is a good thing (Manhattan Project strategy), better to have fair data now than perfect data in the future. The other aspect is that it helps get the best test in the long run.
Germany did well in part as they quickly got the data on what was likely the first case in the country and thus were able to thoroughly investigate how the disease was spread. One example was being spread by contact with a salt shaker. The US had community spread in progress well before anyone was being tested for it. Lastly, the experience in the US is vastly different between the NYC area and the rest of the country - there has been on new case reported in my city in the last two weeks.
Erik_MagTrump shares Obama's problem of an enormous ego and willingness to blame others.
Besides Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, what President since 1933* didn't have "an enormous ego"? "Ordinary" men don't run for the Presidency.
And to compare Obama's ego with Trump's? Ridiculous.
One of those Presidents is borderline-mentally ill, and it isn't Mr. Obama.
* possible exceptions: Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter
NKP: It's pointless to try to have a rational discussion with Trumpists like Erik or Euclid.
BaltACD charlie hebdo I agree. It's easy for Taiwan to isolate, however. Germany has done a good job. Low death rate and lots of accurate testing. If we had simply acquired their test, we would have been better off. Instead we have an uncoordinated mish-mash. When you proclaim no responsibility you also broadcast you are not a leader.
charlie hebdo I agree. It's easy for Taiwan to isolate, however. Germany has done a good job. Low death rate and lots of accurate testing. If we had simply acquired their test, we would have been better off. Instead we have an uncoordinated mish-mash.
We do not have a leader, only an ignorant would-be Führer.
charlie hebdoWe do not have a leader, only an ignorant would-be Führer.
He's not in Hitler's category in almost any sense -- and his style isn't Hitler's, either. If you have to make trolling fun of him by comparing him to an actual fascist leader, I think he's much more like the 'source' example, Mussolini.
And please, no personal insults for Obama. I don't care for his politics at all, and I find some of his credentials highly dubious in absolute terms, but he's far from the worst president we've had as a person, I don't find his ego ridiculously outsized, and I have no complaint with his intelligence.
It helps that I knew his wife pretty well at Princeton, and she was (and is) no fool. If she married him, that's an implicit strong recommendation in a variety of ways.
charlie hebdo NKP: It's pointless to try to have a rational discussion with Trumpists like Erik or Euclid.
FWIW, I didn't vote for Trump. This was in part because I questioned whether he had the qualifications for the job and partly in distaste for some of his more extreme fans. I don't have a problem with legitimate criticism (e.g. specific examples on what he could have done better), and he certainly comes across as someone with poor impulse control. On the other hand, I am willing to give him credit where credit is due.
As far as leadership goes, my favorite example of a great leader is Chester Nimitz, who skill was inspiring the best from the people working for him and making sure those people had the resources to do their jobs.
Erik_MagAs far as leadership goes, my favorite example of a great leader is Chester Nimitz, who skill was inspiring the best from the people working for him and making sure those people had the resources to do their jobs.
You don't like General Schriever better?
I remember a quote from General Eisenhower, post-presidency:
"I never would have gotten as far as I did if I hadn't learned to hide my ego!"
Erik_Mag charlie hebdo NKP: It's pointless to try to have a rational discussion with Trumpists like Erik or Euclid. FWIW, I didn't vote for Trump. This was in part because I questioned whether he had the qualifications for the job and partly in distaste for some of his more extreme fans. I don't have a problem with legitimate criticism (e.g. specific examples on what he could have done better), and he certainly comes across as someone with poor impulse control. On the other hand, I am willing to give him credit where credit is due. As far as leadership goes, my favorite example of a great leader is Chester Nimitz, who skill was inspiring the best from the people working for him and making sure those people had the resources to do their jobs.
Point taken. Nimitz was one of our better leaders in WWII, sort of the anti-MacArthur.
Actually, this is originally from Erik_Mag:
charlie hebdoAs far as leadership goes, my favorite example of a great leader is Chester Nimitz, who skill was inspiring the best from the people working for him and making sure those people had the resources to do their jobs.
Adm. Nimitz awarded my father a Personal Citation in 1945 for his work in quickly getting damaged destroyers in the South Pacific back into action. For that and other reasons, I genuflect before the memory of Adm. Nimitz.
My grandfather, a US Marine from 1908 - 1913, greatly admired Gen. Smedley Butler, "the Fighting Quaker," who was beloved by Marines for many years. He later played a significant part in keeping the veterans non-violent during the 1932 Bonus March on Washington, DC.
Flintlock: Are you an admirer of Gen. Butler?
All Marines are admirers of General Smedley D. Butler!
The man was awarded not one, but two Medals of Honor! And was honest enough to admit when he did the deeds that got him the medals he "...would rather have been anywhere else than where I was at the time!"
I won't tell the story, he's easy enough to look up.
NKP guy Actually, this is originally from Erik_Mag: charlie hebdo As far as leadership goes, my favorite example of a great leader is Chester Nimitz, who skill was inspiring the best from the people working for him and making sure those people had the resources to do their jobs. Adm. Nimitz awarded my father a Personal Citation in 1945 for his work in quickly getting damaged destroyers in the South Pacific back into action. For that and other reasons, I genuflect before the memory of Adm. Nimitz. My grandfather, a US Marine from 1908 - 1913, greatly admired Gen. Smedley Butler, "the Fighting Quaker," who was beloved by Marines for many years. He later played a significant part in keeping the veterans non-violent during the 1932 Bonus March on Washington, DC. Flintlock: Are you an admirer of Gen. Butler?
charlie hebdo As far as leadership goes, my favorite example of a great leader is Chester Nimitz, who skill was inspiring the best from the people working for him and making sure those people had the resources to do their jobs.
You misattributed the source in quoting. Of course Erik said it, not I.
He was more famously involved in stopping the "Business Plot" an attempted coup by business leaders, backed by Morgan, to remove FDR. He also became a critic of the use of military to back business interests a a pacifist.
Overmod You don't like General Schriever better?
Schriever was a sharp dude as well, but Nimitz was really impressive in how he helped pull off Midway. Rochefort was an important contributor to Midway turning out as it did, but Nimitz was the one who made ships available despite what Washington wanted. Other impressive thing about Nimitz was that LeMay had nice things to say about him.
Favorite story from Schriever era: The engineers for the Atlas missile guidance/control systems were looking for smaller and lighter electronics. One company showed up with samples of the then brand new silicon transistors and asked for a few dozen. The company said "wait a minute, we don't have that kind of production. The engineers talked to the Air Force about the trasnsistors, the Air Force told the company that this was the highest priority project in the country and YOU WILL set up manufacturing facility. The company in question was Texas Instruments.
I heard this from one of the Convair engineers involved.
FWIW, I've heard that Schriever had told off a few congress critters when they were lobbying for one of their constituents.
I have heartburn on how world wide case reporting is done. Germany for example has a very narrow reporting system that eliminates many possible cases. Brussels on the other hand is reporting a much higher rate that appears very open ? It has been cited as reporting correctly. As far as China ? Wow cannot believe it at all. Russia seems to be catching up ? Right now the USA has reported having 30% ( 1.1M ) of all world's cases. Does anyone really believe that ?
Then we have the USA. Florida is now hiding some reporting by direction that local persons cannot report some cases. See Miami Hearald. Also protecting senior homes reports. Its about time that nursing homes get the examination of their lack of good protocols.
Media is not really saying what is the present plan. So many call it stopping the virus. Aint so. It is just slowing the virus. None of us are immune but many only get a mild case. Are we all to get it sooner or later ? I certainly do not know. If a vacine comes too late for the oldsters then funeral homes are going to be backed up. No one has really explained why the over 60 persons are so much more vulnerable.
I really hope that there is not a second wave ?
All the executive orders are going to be challenged in courts. With different court rullings I expect that the fines etc will eventually end up at the Supreme court in a couple years. It makes one wonder how executive orders can hold up ? SCOTUS will have to walk a very fine line.
Many politicians are going to be fighting for their political lives.h
OM: The key adjective which you overlooked was "would-be" in describing or modifying the current occupant's aspirations or role model . He may resemble il duce in his strutting and poses but the speech style is more skin to an updated Wolf.
blue streak 1Many politicians are going to be fighting for their political lives.
And many should lose!
charlie hebdo...the speech style is more akin to an updated Wolf.
I think only peripherally.
Hitler put great care into his arguments and delivery, and was a master at evoking the kinds of emotion that would further his messages. Trump has repeatedly disparaged any idea of using rhetoric to actually further anything he wants -- if anything, he starts almost wheedling when that comes into play. He's also made, or at least tried to make, attempts by "the media" look like concerted attacks (and, technically, they usually are, which doesn't help the situation) -- that is not the priority that successful fascism generally puts on information control.
Now, to people who just see an orator spitting and yelling and getting red in the face while trying to dominate a situation, then yes, Trump and Hitler would seem similar. If Trump actually adopts a manner of 'speechifying' that excites troglodytic tendencies in a racist proportion of his followers, again yes, you could rank him with some of the great demagogues. But personally I don't give him the credit for exploiting rhetoric knowingly, or as part of a managed agenda to assume more and more absolute power.
charlie hebdoHe was more famously involved in stopping the "Business Plot" an attempted coup by business leaders, backed by Morgan, to remove FDR.
About as likely a real "Plot" as the supposed business cabal described in House's 'Philip Dru, Administrator' -- and about as likely to succeed if it had in fact been tried. Did McGuire actually think that a half-million would succeed where the Bonus Army did not? (Or that a bunch of, you know, those ... financiers ... would be able to keep the secret under wraps long enough to produce their chosen fascism, with people like Long still very ascendant in their own plans to exploit it?)
Choosing Butler as the figurehead for a right-wing plot at a particularly infelicitous time was a major mistake, not the sort of thing a conspiracy other than a confederacy of dunces would use as a linchpin of strategy. One has to wonder at some of the subsequent Congressional testimony, too.
I always saw a kind of parallel between this and General Taylor at the time just before he promoted the Uncertain Trumpet. Not that either of them were wrong.
Euclid ~snip~ Here is something I have heard: China made an effort to close off Wuhan, and prevent people from leaving Wuhan to enter other parts of China. At the same time, they allowed people to freely leave Wuhan to travel to other countries. It this true? If so, why would China allow people to leave Wuhan and travel outside of China when they knew it was too dangerous to let them travel in China outside of Wuhan?
~snip~
It's China, they're not interested in protecting the rest of the world, only protecting their own. It's not that hard a concept to understand, we'd probably do the same thing, at least as far as people traveling to certain areas outside the U.S., that I won't name but should be easy to figure out.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR Euclid ~snip~ Here is something I have heard: China made an effort to close off Wuhan, and prevent people from leaving Wuhan to enter other parts of China. At the same time, they allowed people to freely leave Wuhan to travel to other countries. It this true? If so, why would China allow people to leave Wuhan and travel outside of China when they knew it was too dangerous to let them travel in China outside of Wuhan? It's China, they're not interested in protecting the rest of the world, only protecting their own. It's not that hard a concept to understand, we'd probably do the same thing, at least as far as people traveling to certain areas outside the U.S., that I won't name but should be easy to figure out.
I pose the question under the assumption that what it says is true. I am not completely convinced that it the case. And if it is true, I would not conclude that we would do the same thing.
But assuming that it is true, Yes, it is not a hard concept to understand. The point is that for China to understand the threat of the virus; to protect people from it within china; and to not inform other countries while letting Chinese citizens to freely travel to those countries seems like a form of criminal negligence. I don't think that can be dismissed just because China does not care about the rest of the world.
Flintlock76admirers of General Smedley D. Butler!
One of my all time favorites. His statements about being an enforcer for Wall Street catalyzed my current world view.
OvermodIf Trump actually adopts a manner of 'speechifying' that excites troglodytic tendencies in a racist proportion of his followers, again yes, you could rank him with some of the great demagogues. But personally I don't give him the credit for exploiting rhetoric knowingly, or as part of a managed agenda to assume more and more absolute power.
I think the reason he is not doing that is because it is not his intention.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.