***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[dwalk31]

dwalk31 , you still believe this administration's coronavirus response wasn't disastrous?

Based on the information available to me, I still do not think this administration’s response was disastrous.

It appears that you are taking that reported information as true. But you thought it was disastrous prior to that report so it’s really no surprise.

 

[dwalk31]

Joe Biden narrows down his VP list, with Karen Bass emerging as one of several key contenders

Joe Biden narrows down his VP list, with Karen Bass emerging as one of several key contenders

Joe Biden heads into the weekend weighing the biggest decision of his presidential campaign so far, and people close to the process tell CNN that the former vice president is believed to have now begun to narrow his personal shortlist of potential running mates to a handful of women.

www.google.com

 

[(*Fin)]

Based on the information available to me, I still do not think this administration’s response was disastrous.

It appears that you are taking that reported information as true. But you thought it was disastrous prior to that report so it’s really no surprise.

 

[boris]

Based on the information available to me, I still do not think this administration’s response was disastrous.

It appears that you are taking that reported information as true. But you thought it was disastrous prior to that report so it’s really no surprise.

"Pro-life" but 150,000+ dead and climbing is not disastrous. This is along the same lines as you condemning voter suppression while simultaneously defending and supporting those that suppress minority votes.

 

[IATT]

Based on the information available to me, I still do not think this administration’s response was disastrous.

It appears that you are taking that reported information as true. But you thought it was disastrous prior to that report so it’s really no surprise.

this week

Trump’s New COVID Doctor Says Sex With Demons Makes You Sick

The president is pushing the coronavirus theories of a Houston doctor who also says sexual visitations by demons and alien DNA are at the root of Americans’ common health concerns.

www.thedailybeast.com

Trump Retweets Attacks Against Fauci on Coronavirus Policy

President Trump revived his support for hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid-19 and spread messages attacking the government’s top infectious disease official, promoting a series of statements at odds with his government’s policy.

www.wsj.com

Twitter temporarily restricts Donald Trump Jr.'s account after he posts video claiming masks are unnecessary

Twitter restricted Donald Trump Jr.'s ability to tweet after he posted a video featuring a doctor making false claims about coronavirus cures and stating that people "don't need masks" to prevent the virus from spreading, a Twitter spokesperson said Tuesday.

edition.cnn.com

 

[IATT]

"Pro-life" but 150,000+ dead and climbing is not disastrous. This is along the same lines as you condemning voter suppression while simultaneously defending and supporting those that suppress minority votes.

 

[storm2006]

Based on the information available to me, I still do not think this administration’s response was disastrous.

It appears that you are taking that reported information as true. But you thought it was disastrous prior to that report so it’s really no surprise.

Mr. Delkshowitz - you stated that you do not believe the administration’s response was disastrous. May you please elaborate on what a disastrous response would have looked like? In terms of response (or lack there of), outcomes and other relevant metrics.

 

[whywesteppin]

Based on the information available to me, I still do not think this administration’s response was disastrous.

It appears that you are taking that reported information as true. But you thought it was disastrous prior to that report so it’s really no surprise.

As someone who is fairly well-informed on this issue, I can say that it has been disastrous. If you are actually interested, I can explain or at least link to some articles. A good starting point is this one that was posted earlier in the thread:

How Jared Kushner’s Secret Testing Plan “Went Poof Into Thin Air”

This spring, a team working under the president’s son-in-law produced a plan for an aggressive, coordinated national COVID-19 response that could have brought the pandemic under control. So why did the White House spike it in favor of a shambolic 50-state response?

www.vanityfair.com

The information in this article shows that the administration wasn't just wrong in their response -- they may have been intentionally wrong. What's more, they actually had a valid strategy (one that experts and epidemiologists would consider a fairly good approach) but did not execute it, either due to politics or due to incompetence. What's more (the article doesn't really get into this), they have dropped the ball at nearly every juncture, starting in December/January, again in February/March, again in April, and again in the summer months. Not only has this resulted in unnecessary loss of life, it has prolonged the damage to the economy (the only way to save the economy is to stop the virus), it has put us in a worse position moving forward (more people infected = more difficult to open anything, more difficult to test, more difficult to trace, etc.), etc. etc. These kind of things require leadership to be proactive but instead the administration has not just been slow, they have been late (for example, shutting down travel from Europe AFTER it had already spread was kind of pointless). These things require leadership from the top (local leadership is helpful but not enough), but instead we have gotten nothing of the sort.

We can potentially argue about whether the tax relief plan a couple years ago helped the economy as there may be uncertainty to the data and a lot of politics involved, but in this case we have a clear cut public health disaster and the analysis is one of science, not politics. There are of course some gray areas, some discussion about the optimal strategies, but none of them overlap with the way this administration has handled the pandemic.

 

[dwalk31]

"Pro-life" but 150,000+ dead and climbing is not disastrous. This is along the same lines as you condemning voter suppression while simultaneously defending and supporting those that suppress minority votes.

1 person dying is disastrous. But that wasn’t your question.

Your question was whether this administration’s response was disastrous and that was my answer to that question.

The loss of life is unquestionably disastrous.

 

[storm2006]

1 person dying is disastrous. But that wasn’t your question.

Your question was whether this administration’s response was disastrous and that was my answer to that question.

The loss of life is unquestionably disastrous.

Mr. Delkshowitz - You claim that one person dying is disastrous and that the loss of life is unquestionably disastrous. May you please tell us how you define the loss of over 150,000 lives?

Thank you.

 

[dwalk31]

Mr. Delkshowitz - you stated that you do not believe the administration’s response was disastrous. May you please elaborate on what a disastrous response would have looked like? In terms of response (or lack there of), outcomes and other relevant metrics.

A disastrous response, to me, would have been to leave certain travel open, to not rely on the advice of Dr. Fauci and other medical expert, and to not release guidelines for states to follow, etc.

Dr. Fauci testified, today, that this situation would have been far worse but for the decisions that were made.

It is without doubt that the response could have been better, but there is a long way between disastrous and could have been better.

 

[dwalk31]

Mr. Delkshowitz - You claim that one person dying is disastrous and that the loss of life is unquestionably disastrous. May you please tell us how you define the loss of over 150,000 lives?

Thank you.

Over 150,000 people losing their lives is disastrous. Truly sad.

But that wasn’t the initial question.

 

[boris]

1 person dying is disastrous. But that wasn’t your question.

Your question was whether this administration’s response was disastrous and that was my answer to that question.

The loss of life is unquestionably disastrous.

The administration's response has undoubtedly led to unnecessary deaths.

 

[plansb]

“Giroir said that data shows that right now across the US, 56% of tests are "back within three days, 76% are back within five days."”

that quote above is enough to say that the federal govt response to covid has been a complete and utter disaster. ~6 months later and those are still the numbers? How can you be so pitiful to still say that is ok? Where is the leadership that we rely on our federal govt for? ******* pig. You are disgusting.

On another note gym Jordan is a scumbag, as we all know. Fauci is a better man than I. I’d tel him to go **** himself, and walk out. No one is stopping people from practicing their religion, they just saying to stay out of church. You don’t need a ******* church to practice religion. The point at the end was good though.

 

[dwalk31]

As someone who is fairly well-informed on this issue, I can say that it has been disastrous. If you are actually interested, I can explain or at least link to some articles. A good starting point is this one that was posted earlier in the thread:

How Jared Kushner’s Secret Testing Plan “Went Poof Into Thin Air”

This spring, a team working under the president’s son-in-law produced a plan for an aggressive, coordinated national COVID-19 response that could have brought the pandemic under control. So why did the White House spike it in favor of a shambolic 50-state response?

www.vanityfair.com

The information in this article shows that the administration wasn't just wrong in their response -- they may have been intentionally wrong. What's more, they actually had a valid strategy (one that experts and epidemiologists would consider a fairly good approach) but did not execute it, either due to politics or due to incompetence. What's more (the article doesn't really get into this), they have dropped the ball at nearly every juncture, starting in December/January, again in February/March, again in April, and again in the summer months. Not only has this resulted in unnecessary loss of life, it has prolonged the damage to the economy (the only way to save the economy is to stop the virus), it has put us in a worse position moving forward (more people infected = more difficult to open anything, more difficult to test, more difficult to trace, etc.), etc. etc. These kind of things require leadership to be proactive but instead the administration has not just been slow, they have been late (for example, shutting down travel from Europe AFTER it had already spread was kind of pointless). These things require leadership from the top (local leadership is helpful but not enough), but instead we have gotten nothing of the sort.

We can potentially argue about whether the tax relief plan a couple years ago helped the economy as there may be uncertainty to the data and a lot of politics involved, but in this case we have a clear cut public health disaster and the analysis is one of science, not politics. There are of course some gray areas, some discussion about the optimal strategies, but none of them overlap with the way this administration has handled the pandemic.

Here’s the thing. You are accepting everything in the article as true.

If everything in that article is true, this is a very different discussion. But that hasn’t been established yet, only alleged.

The article states that the WhiteHouse has said many of the allegations are false.

 

[plansb]

The article needs its day in court.

 

[elpablo21]

 

[dwalk31]

The administration's response has undoubtedly led to unnecessary deaths.

The administration’s response has undoubtedly prevented a lot of deaths as well, based on the statement by Dr. Fauci this morning.

Your question would be like me asking you if saving lives is disastrous.

All of these things can be true:

1. The administration did okay, based on the information available to them at the times, but they could have done much better.

2. Thousands of lives were saved due to this administration’s response.

3. It is a disaster that even 1 person lost their life due to COVID-19 so it is undoubtedly a disaster that 150,000+ have.

 

[IATT]

The administration’s response has undoubtedly prevented a lot of deaths as well, based on the statement by Dr. Fauci this morning.

Your question would be like me asking you if saving lives is disastrous.

All of these things can be true:

1. The administration did okay, based on the information available to them at the times, but they could have done much better.

2. Thousands of lives were saved due to this administration’s response.

3. It is a disaster that even 1 person lost their life due to COVID-19 so it is undoubtedly a disaster that 150,000+ have.

 

[whywesteppin]

Here’s the thing. You are accepting everything in the article as true.

If everything in that article is true, this is a very different discussion. But that hasn’t been established yet, only alleged.

The article states that the WhiteHouse has said many of the allegations are false.

The majority of my points were not based on the article.

 

[plansb]

Natural selection.

 

[dwalk31]

The majority of my points were not based on the article.

How Jared Kushner’s Secret Testing Plan “Went Poof Into Thin Air”

This spring, a team working under the president’s son-in-law produced a plan for an aggressive, coordinated national COVID-19 response that could have brought the pandemic under control. So why did the White House spike it in favor of a shambolic 50-state response?

www.vanityfair.com

The information in this article shows that the administration wasn't just wrong in their response -- they may have been intentionally wrong.

 

[storm2006]

The administration’s response has undoubtedly prevented a lot of deaths as well, based on the statement by Dr. Fauci this morning.

Your question would be like me asking you if saving lives is disastrous.

All of these things can be true:

1. The administration did okay, based on the information available to them at the times, but they could have done much better.

2. Thousands of lives were saved due to this administration’s response.

3. It is a disaster that even 1 person lost their life due to COVID-19 so it is undoubtedly a disaster that 150,000+ have.

Items 1 and 2 don’t tell the full picture. Yes, they saved lives and yes, they could have done better. But if they did better, they would have saved more lives.

Item 3 is somewhat disingenuous. Based on global reports, death was unavoidable. The United States having significantly more deaths than several other countries combined, by an order of magnitude, based on a number of metrics points to a disastrous response IMO.

Before it devolves to that - please spare myself and other posters a Merriam-Webster break down of the word ”disastrous” in an attempt to defend the Administration’s response. Thank you.

 

[Upptempo]

 

[boris]

The administration’s response has undoubtedly prevented a lot of deaths as well, based on the statement by Dr. Fauci this morning.

Your question would be like me asking you if saving lives is disastrous.

All of these things can be true:

1. The administration did okay, based on the information available to them at the times, but they could have done much better.

2. Thousands of lives were saved due to this administration’s response.

3. It is a disaster that even 1 person lost their life due to COVID-19 so it is undoubtedly a disaster that 150,000+ have.

They ignored information that was available at the time, though. All you can muster is that "they could have done much better"? It seems your standard is that they didn't completely act like they don't give a **** about people. They at least kind of did their jobs.

Basically you seem to be fine with the response because at least they didn't do nothing, right? And you got some relief money out of it!