quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

I saw the photos taken of the crowded NYC subway

yes, you did see a photo or two a month ago. The situation has been addressed and while not perfect is much better. Some were inconvenienced for the good of many.
The trolley is barreling down the track towards five grandmothers. You can pull the switch and redirect it so that it kills no one. But you have to wear a mask to buy a toaster oven. What do you do?

No, you can't make it kill no one, that's the point.

1) It will kill many no matter what. We try to influence that to minimize the death toll.
2) Any and every action we take to minimize the death toll from COVID-19 also has other consequences, and those include deaths and disease other than COVID-19. A more balanced approach with broader vision is better than a narrow, myopic approach.

Consider that NY State nursing home edict. It mandated that patients be taken in (or back in) even if they have COVID-19. Are nursing homes set up to/capable of quarantining patients in an effective manner? None I've ever seen. They don't have the facilities or the resources. But the edict went even farther. It prohibited testing those patients for COVID-19. That point alone is bombastically stupid, the edict in its entirety even more so. The consequences were many deaths, perhaps thousands, among the most vulnerable to the disease.

Was that done on purpose? Of course not. So how could something so obviously stupid be done? Because the officials in charge were thinking too narrowly and too short-sighted. They were thinking about keeping the supply of hospital beds from being overwhelmed. They blew it.

And that example shows a direct COVID-19 consequence. The consequences outside COVID-19 itself (deaths and disease from other causes brought about by actions to address COVID-19) seem utterly beyond the thinking of many officials right now. Not to mention many in the media.

I hope that the order was not done on purpose. But with some people you never know. Describe the Nazi concentration camps to them and some people will joke about them but they will not deny that is what they actually want.

I think both RangerJoe and witqs cold do to use some examples of how leaving it all to the States has helped, rather than a Federally mandated mitigation program implemented early.

You're both just shooting digs at NY and not actually talking about the issue, which is a bit of a problem around here. There are many tragedies in this several month period, and a lot of them could have been lessened by an earlier Federal mandate to enforce mitigation measures and set up consistent guidelines for ALL of the States. It's likely the lockdown could have been shorter, the cases less, deaths less and economy less affected overall if these things were tackled by the Federal Government earlier.

Fauci confirmed he advised a shutdown in late February. He also confirmed in an interview that there was " a lot of pushback" about shutting down at that point.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52264860

I mean, obviously, if we had, right from the very beginning, shut everything down, it may have been a little bit different. But there was a lot of pushback about shutting things down back then.

All of this sent Trump to Twitter in a fluster to talk about firing Fauci.

"Fauci was telling people on February 29th that there was nothing to worry about and it posed no threat to the US public at large," it said. "Time to #FireFauci..."


This goes through figures using IHME to show how Federally mandated mitigation could have reduced deaths in the US if the government had imposed measures earlier.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/opinion/covid-social-distancing.html

On March 16, the White House issued initial social distancing guidelines, including closing schools and avoiding groups of more than 10. But an estimated 90 percent of the cumulative deaths in the United States from Covid-19, at least from the first wave of the epidemic, might have been prevented by putting social distancing policies into effect two weeks earlier, on March 2, when there were only 11 deaths in the entire country. The effect would have been substantial had the policies been imposed even one week earlier, on March 9, resulting in approximately a 60 percent reduction in deaths.

To determine the impact of early interventions, we used growth rates in cumulative deaths calculated by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington from the date that social distancing measures were introduced until the predicted end of the epidemic, and applied them to case numbers from earlier points when such measures could hypothetically have been put into effect.

Ok. Open for insults, derogatory comments, refutations based on pure emotion and other usual non-objective tactics.

I, for one, would be leery of giving that kind of power to any President of the US.

In the US, there were 8 states that didn't issue mandatory stay at home orders. None of those States were in risk of their hospitals being overrun which was the primary, original goal of the lockdown. There always exist more than one way to skin a cat.

There were many other states that had lockdowns of differing severity. In each individual state you see a wide disparity among local counties and their state govts. Some counties are actually in open rebellion. Most state Govnr's don't have the legal authority.

The argument that the lockdown doesn't carry it's own deathtoll has somehow been excluded.

The decision to have a centralized mandate, would carry with it an important factor. Down the road, the economic costs of decision making during the time of the Pandemic would be distributed equally. For example, say my company has production in China that I now desire to bring back to the States. Would I pick New York, with it high tax, high cost, likely future shutdown environment, or someplace like South Dakota or Arkansas. I would only pick New York if the logistics savings or customer engagement was very concentrated there or the state plied me with tons of tax dollars/offsets or the Govt guaranteed I was immune from any future lockdown.

But if Arkansas was forced to shutdown, well then, that removes a very big decision making input.

Cap said earlier that he fears a 4 year or so economic turnaround. I think we are more like at 10 years right now, based on the 2008 economic downturn or even longer. Just to give an idea of the hideous changes that are upon us, Gov Cuomo of New York is openly questioning having brick and mortar schools. Colleges are going to be especially hard hit.

Not only are we living in the greatest medical experiment of all time, we are going to see a huge economic migration across the world. It took almost 3 generations for economic interdependencies to return to their pre WW1 pre Spanish flu levels.

May you live in interesting times.[:)]

quote:

I don't know much about Cuomo, but I'd assume any governor is trying to do his best under difficult circumstances.

quote:

Inside Sweden's immigrant communities, anecdotal evidence emerged early in the outbreak that suggested that some — particularly those from Somalia and Iraq — were hit harder than others. Last month, data from Sweden’s Public Health Agency confirmed that Somali Swedes made up almost 5 percent of the country's COVID-19 cases, yet represented less than 1 percent of its 10 million people.

Many in these communities are more likely to live in crowded, multigeneration households and are unable to work remotely.

“No one cares for taxi drivers in Sweden,” said Khalaf, who tested positive and was admitted to a hospital when his condition deteriorated. Despite difficulties breathing, the 49-year-old says he was sent home after six hours and told his body was strong enough to “fight it off.”

In Finland, Helsinki authorities warned of a similar over-representation among Somali immigrants in the capital — some 200 cases, or about 14%, of all confirmed infections. In Norway, where immigrants make up nearly 15% of the general population, they represent about 25% of confirmed coronavirus cases.

“I think a pandemic like this one, or any crisis will hit the most vulnerable people in society the most wherever in the world, and we see this in many many countries," said Isabella Lovin, Sweden's deputy prime minister, in an interview with The Associated Press.

Noting that the virus was spreading faster in some crowded Stockholm suburbs, Lovin said said the city is providing short-term accommodation to some people whose relatives are vulnerable.

Sweden, Norway and Finland recognized early failings in community outreach in minority languages and are seeking to fix this. The town of Jarfalla, outside Stockholm, has had high school students hand out leaflets in Somali, Persian, French and other languages, urging people to wash their hands and stay home if sick.

With Sweden's relatively low-key approach to fighting the virus that relies mainly on voluntary social distancing, there are concerns the message has not reached everyone in immigrant neighborhoods.

“It’s important that everyone living here who has a different mother tongue gets the right information,” said Warda Addallah, a 17-year-old Somali Swede.

Anders Wallensten, Sweden’s deputy state epidemiologist, said officials have worked harder on communicating with such groups "to make sure they have the knowledge to protect themselves and avoid spreading the disease to others.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

I saw the photos taken of the crowded NYC subway

yes, you did see a photo or two a month ago. The situation has been addressed and while not perfect is much better. Some were inconvenienced for the good of many.
The trolley is barreling down the track towards five grandmothers. You can pull the switch and redirect it so that it kills no one. But you have to wear a mask to buy a toaster oven. What do you do?

No, you can't make it kill no one, that's the point.

1) It will kill many no matter what. We try to influence that to minimize the death toll.
2) Any and every action we take to minimize the death toll from COVID-19 also has other consequences, and those include deaths and disease other than COVID-19. A more balanced approach with broader vision is better than a narrow, myopic approach.

Consider that NY State nursing home edict. It mandated that patients be taken in (or back in) even if they have COVID-19. Are nursing homes set up to/capable of quarantining patients in an effective manner? None I've ever seen. They don't have the facilities or the resources. But the edict went even farther. It prohibited testing those patients for COVID-19. That point alone is bombastically stupid, the edict in its entirety even more so. The consequences were many deaths, perhaps thousands, among the most vulnerable to the disease.

Was that done on purpose? Of course not. So how could something so obviously stupid be done? Because the officials in charge were thinking too narrowly and too short-sighted. They were thinking about keeping the supply of hospital beds from being overwhelmed. They blew it.

And that example shows a direct COVID-19 consequence. The consequences outside COVID-19 itself (deaths and disease from other causes brought about by actions to address COVID-19) seem utterly beyond the thinking of many officials right now. Not to mention many in the media.

I hope that the order was not done on purpose. But with some people you never know. Describe the Nazi concentration camps to them and some people will joke about them but they will not deny that is what they actually want.

I think both RangerJoe and witqs cold do to use some examples of how leaving it all to the States has helped, rather than a Federally mandated mitigation program implemented early.

You're both just shooting digs at NY and not actually talking about the issue, which is a bit of a problem around here. There are many tragedies in this several month period, and a lot of them could have been lessened by an earlier Federal mandate to enforce mitigation measures and set up consistent guidelines for ALL of the States. It's likely the lockdown could have been shorter, the cases less, deaths less and economy less affected overall if these things were tackled by the Federal Government earlier.

Fauci confirmed he advised a shutdown in late February. He also confirmed in an interview that there was " a lot of pushback" about shutting down at that point.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52264860

I mean, obviously, if we had, right from the very beginning, shut everything down, it may have been a little bit different. But there was a lot of pushback about shutting things down back then.

All of this sent Trump to Twitter in a fluster to talk about firing Fauci.

"Fauci was telling people on February 29th that there was nothing to worry about and it posed no threat to the US public at large," it said. "Time to #FireFauci..."


This goes through figures using IHME to show how Federally mandated mitigation could have reduced deaths in the US if the government had imposed measures earlier.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/opinion/covid-social-distancing.html

On March 16, the White House issued initial social distancing guidelines, including closing schools and avoiding groups of more than 10. But an estimated 90 percent of the cumulative deaths in the United States from Covid-19, at least from the first wave of the epidemic, might have been prevented by putting social distancing policies into effect two weeks earlier, on March 2, when there were only 11 deaths in the entire country. The effect would have been substantial had the policies been imposed even one week earlier, on March 9, resulting in approximately a 60 percent reduction in deaths.

To determine the impact of early interventions, we used growth rates in cumulative deaths calculated by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington from the date that social distancing measures were introduced until the predicted end of the epidemic, and applied them to case numbers from earlier points when such measures could hypothetically have been put into effect.

Ok. Open for insults, derogatory comments, refutations based on pure emotion and other usual non-objective tactics.

Erik,

You are the one 'shooting digs'. Fauci has said, more than once and on video, that Trump did what he asked the first time every time (including Trump not doing things Fauci asked him not to do). And that specifically includes Fauci going back on air to counter the misuse of his answer to a hypothetical question, the very one which you include here.

Your default is 'centralize everything', that you've made clear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

I saw the photos taken of the crowded NYC subway

yes, you did see a photo or two a month ago. The situation has been addressed and while not perfect is much better. Some were inconvenienced for the good of many.
The trolley is barreling down the track towards five grandmothers. You can pull the switch and redirect it so that it kills no one. But you have to wear a mask to buy a toaster oven. What do you do?

No, you can't make it kill no one, that's the point.

1) It will kill many no matter what. We try to influence that to minimize the death toll.
2) Any and every action we take to minimize the death toll from COVID-19 also has other consequences, and those include deaths and disease other than COVID-19. A more balanced approach with broader vision is better than a narrow, myopic approach.

Consider that NY State nursing home edict. It mandated that patients be taken in (or back in) even if they have COVID-19. Are nursing homes set up to/capable of quarantining patients in an effective manner? None I've ever seen. They don't have the facilities or the resources. But the edict went even farther. It prohibited testing those patients for COVID-19. That point alone is bombastically stupid, the edict in its entirety even more so. The consequences were many deaths, perhaps thousands, among the most vulnerable to the disease.

Was that done on purpose? Of course not. So how could something so obviously stupid be done? Because the officials in charge were thinking too narrowly and too short-sighted. They were thinking about keeping the supply of hospital beds from being overwhelmed. They blew it.

And that example shows a direct COVID-19 consequence. The consequences outside COVID-19 itself (deaths and disease from other causes brought about by actions to address COVID-19) seem utterly beyond the thinking of many officials right now. Not to mention many in the media.

I hope that the order was not done on purpose. But with some people you never know. Describe the Nazi concentration camps to them and some people will joke about them but they will not deny that is what they actually want.

I think both RangerJoe and witqs cold do to use some examples of how leaving it all to the States has helped, rather than a Federally mandated mitigation program implemented early.

You're both just shooting digs at NY and not actually talking about the issue, which is a bit of a problem around here. There are many tragedies in this several month period, and a lot of them could have been lessened by an earlier Federal mandate to enforce mitigation measures and set up consistent guidelines for ALL of the States. It's likely the lockdown could have been shorter, the cases less, deaths less and economy less affected overall if these things were tackled by the Federal Government earlier.

Fauci confirmed he advised a shutdown in late February. He also confirmed in an interview that there was " a lot of pushback" about shutting down at that point.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52264860

I mean, obviously, if we had, right from the very beginning, shut everything down, it may have been a little bit different. But there was a lot of pushback about shutting things down back then.

All of this sent Trump to Twitter in a fluster to talk about firing Fauci.

"Fauci was telling people on February 29th that there was nothing to worry about and it posed no threat to the US public at large," it said. "Time to #FireFauci..."


This goes through figures using IHME to show how Federally mandated mitigation could have reduced deaths in the US if the government had imposed measures earlier.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/opinion/covid-social-distancing.html

On March 16, the White House issued initial social distancing guidelines, including closing schools and avoiding groups of more than 10. But an estimated 90 percent of the cumulative deaths in the United States from Covid-19, at least from the first wave of the epidemic, might have been prevented by putting social distancing policies into effect two weeks earlier, on March 2, when there were only 11 deaths in the entire country. The effect would have been substantial had the policies been imposed even one week earlier, on March 9, resulting in approximately a 60 percent reduction in deaths.

To determine the impact of early interventions, we used growth rates in cumulative deaths calculated by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington from the date that social distancing measures were introduced until the predicted end of the epidemic, and applied them to case numbers from earlier points when such measures could hypothetically have been put into effect.

Ok. Open for insults, derogatory comments, refutations based on pure emotion and other usual non-objective tactics.

Erik,

You are the one 'shooting digs'. Fauci has said, more than once and on video, that Trump did what he asked the first time every time (including Trump not doing things Fauci asked him not to do). And that specifically includes Fauci going back on air to counter the misuse of his answer to a hypothetical question, the very one which you include here.

Your default is 'centralize everything', that you've made clear.

After recent events, my interest was taken with the decision making at the top levels of US government.

From this, and the recent interaction between Trump and Dr Brix, I am of the opinion that Fauci, Brix (and likely anyone else involved in the process) would say the sky is green if it kept Trump on side.

Trump's comments (well, tweets) on the subject are in the public domain.

If you read those comments as the comments of a leader that takes the situation and the advice seriously, then perhaps get your eyes tested.

quote:

ORIGINAL: durnedwolf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

I saw the photos taken of the crowded NYC subway

yes, you did see a photo or two a month ago. The situation has been addressed and while not perfect is much better. Some were inconvenienced for the good of many.
The trolley is barreling down the track towards five grandmothers. You can pull the switch and redirect it so that it kills no one. But you have to wear a mask to buy a toaster oven. What do you do?

No, you can't make it kill no one, that's the point.

1) It will kill many no matter what. We try to influence that to minimize the death toll.
2) Any and every action we take to minimize the death toll from COVID-19 also has other consequences, and those include deaths and disease other than COVID-19. A more balanced approach with broader vision is better than a narrow, myopic approach.

Consider that NY State nursing home edict. It mandated that patients be taken in (or back in) even if they have COVID-19. Are nursing homes set up to/capable of quarantining patients in an effective manner? None I've ever seen. They don't have the facilities or the resources. But the edict went even farther. It prohibited testing those patients for COVID-19. That point alone is bombastically stupid, the edict in its entirety even more so. The consequences were many deaths, perhaps thousands, among the most vulnerable to the disease.

Was that done on purpose? Of course not. So how could something so obviously stupid be done? Because the officials in charge were thinking too narrowly and too short-sighted. They were thinking about keeping the supply of hospital beds from being overwhelmed. They blew it.

And that example shows a direct COVID-19 consequence. The consequences outside COVID-19 itself (deaths and disease from other causes brought about by actions to address COVID-19) seem utterly beyond the thinking of many officials right now. Not to mention many in the media.

I hope that the order was not done on purpose. But with some people you never know. Describe the Nazi concentration camps to them and some people will joke about them but they will not deny that is what they actually want.

I think both RangerJoe and witqs cold do to use some examples of how leaving it all to the States has helped, rather than a Federally mandated mitigation program implemented early.

You're both just shooting digs at NY and not actually talking about the issue, which is a bit of a problem around here. There are many tragedies in this several month period, and a lot of them could have been lessened by an earlier Federal mandate to enforce mitigation measures and set up consistent guidelines for ALL of the States. It's likely the lockdown could have been shorter, the cases less, deaths less and economy less affected overall if these things were tackled by the Federal Government earlier.

Fauci confirmed he advised a shutdown in late February. He also confirmed in an interview that there was " a lot of pushback" about shutting down at that point.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52264860

I mean, obviously, if we had, right from the very beginning, shut everything down, it may have been a little bit different. But there was a lot of pushback about shutting things down back then.

All of this sent Trump to Twitter in a fluster to talk about firing Fauci.

"Fauci was telling people on February 29th that there was nothing to worry about and it posed no threat to the US public at large," it said. "Time to #FireFauci..."


This goes through figures using IHME to show how Federally mandated mitigation could have reduced deaths in the US if the government had imposed measures earlier.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/opinion/covid-social-distancing.html

On March 16, the White House issued initial social distancing guidelines, including closing schools and avoiding groups of more than 10. But an estimated 90 percent of the cumulative deaths in the United States from Covid-19, at least from the first wave of the epidemic, might have been prevented by putting social distancing policies into effect two weeks earlier, on March 2, when there were only 11 deaths in the entire country. The effect would have been substantial had the policies been imposed even one week earlier, on March 9, resulting in approximately a 60 percent reduction in deaths.

To determine the impact of early interventions, we used growth rates in cumulative deaths calculated by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington from the date that social distancing measures were introduced until the predicted end of the epidemic, and applied them to case numbers from earlier points when such measures could hypothetically have been put into effect.

Ok. Open for insults, derogatory comments, refutations based on pure emotion and other usual non-objective tactics.

I, for one, would be leery of giving that kind of power to any President of the US.

In the US, there were 8 states that didn't issue mandatory stay at home orders. None of those States were in risk of their hospitals being overrun which was the primary, original goal of the lockdown. There always exist more than one way to skin a cat.

There were many other states that had lockdowns of differing severity. In each individual state you see a wide disparity among local counties and their state govts. Some counties are actually in open rebellion. Most state Govnr's don't have the legal authority.

The argument that the lockdown doesn't carry it's own deathtoll has somehow been excluded.

The decision to have a centralized mandate, would carry with it an important factor. Down the road, the economic costs of decision making during the time of the Pandemic would be distributed equally. For example, say my company has production in China that I now desire to bring back to the States. Would I pick New York, with it high tax, high cost, likely future shutdown environment, or someplace like South Dakota or Arkansas. I would only pick New York if the logistics savings or customer engagement was very concentrated there or the state plied me with tons of tax dollars/offsets or the Govt guaranteed I was immune from any future lockdown.

But if Arkansas was forced to shutdown, well then, that removes a very big decision making input.

Cap said earlier that he fears a 4 year or so economic turnaround. I think we are more like at 10 years right now, based on the 2008 economic downturn or even longer. Just to give an idea of the hideous changes that are upon us, Gov Cuomo of New York is openly questioning having brick and mortar schools. Colleges are going to be especially hard hit.

Not only are we living in the greatest medical experiment of all time, we are going to see a huge economic migration across the world. It took almost 3 generations for economic interdependencies to return to their pre WW1 pre Spanish flu levels.

May you live in interesting times.[:)]

I don't know why you'd be leery of giving that kind of power to the Prez... It's OK to authorize a nuclear launch but not OK to issue an emergency order? I think he can run on an emergency order for 90 days and then Congress has to back it or the order ceases.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

I saw the photos taken of the crowded NYC subway

yes, you did see a photo or two a month ago. The situation has been addressed and while not perfect is much better. Some were inconvenienced for the good of many.
The trolley is barreling down the track towards five grandmothers. You can pull the switch and redirect it so that it kills no one. But you have to wear a mask to buy a toaster oven. What do you do?

No, you can't make it kill no one, that's the point.

1) It will kill many no matter what. We try to influence that to minimize the death toll.
2) Any and every action we take to minimize the death toll from COVID-19 also has other consequences, and those include deaths and disease other than COVID-19. A more balanced approach with broader vision is better than a narrow, myopic approach.

Consider that NY State nursing home edict. It mandated that patients be taken in (or back in) even if they have COVID-19. Are nursing homes set up to/capable of quarantining patients in an effective manner? None I've ever seen. They don't have the facilities or the resources. But the edict went even farther. It prohibited testing those patients for COVID-19. That point alone is bombastically stupid, the edict in its entirety even more so. The consequences were many deaths, perhaps thousands, among the most vulnerable to the disease.

Was that done on purpose? Of course not. So how could something so obviously stupid be done? Because the officials in charge were thinking too narrowly and too short-sighted. They were thinking about keeping the supply of hospital beds from being overwhelmed. They blew it.

And that example shows a direct COVID-19 consequence. The consequences outside COVID-19 itself (deaths and disease from other causes brought about by actions to address COVID-19) seem utterly beyond the thinking of many officials right now. Not to mention many in the media.

I hope that the order was not done on purpose. But with some people you never know. Describe the Nazi concentration camps to them and some people will joke about them but they will not deny that is what they actually want.

I think both RangerJoe and witqs cold do to use some examples of how leaving it all to the States has helped, rather than a Federally mandated mitigation program implemented early.

You're both just shooting digs at NY and not actually talking about the issue, which is a bit of a problem around here. There are many tragedies in this several month period, and a lot of them could have been lessened by an earlier Federal mandate to enforce mitigation measures and set up consistent guidelines for ALL of the States. It's likely the lockdown could have been shorter, the cases less, deaths less and economy less affected overall if these things were tackled by the Federal Government earlier.

Fauci confirmed he advised a shutdown in late February. He also confirmed in an interview that there was " a lot of pushback" about shutting down at that point.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52264860

I mean, obviously, if we had, right from the very beginning, shut everything down, it may have been a little bit different. But there was a lot of pushback about shutting things down back then.

All of this sent Trump to Twitter in a fluster to talk about firing Fauci.

"Fauci was telling people on February 29th that there was nothing to worry about and it posed no threat to the US public at large," it said. "Time to #FireFauci..."


This goes through figures using IHME to show how Federally mandated mitigation could have reduced deaths in the US if the government had imposed measures earlier.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/opinion/covid-social-distancing.html

On March 16, the White House issued initial social distancing guidelines, including closing schools and avoiding groups of more than 10. But an estimated 90 percent of the cumulative deaths in the United States from Covid-19, at least from the first wave of the epidemic, might have been prevented by putting social distancing policies into effect two weeks earlier, on March 2, when there were only 11 deaths in the entire country. The effect would have been substantial had the policies been imposed even one week earlier, on March 9, resulting in approximately a 60 percent reduction in deaths.

To determine the impact of early interventions, we used growth rates in cumulative deaths calculated by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington from the date that social distancing measures were introduced until the predicted end of the epidemic, and applied them to case numbers from earlier points when such measures could hypothetically have been put into effect.

Ok. Open for insults, derogatory comments, refutations based on pure emotion and other usual non-objective tactics.

Erik,

You are the one 'shooting digs'. Fauci has said, more than once and on video, that Trump did what he asked the first time every time (including Trump not doing things Fauci asked him not to do). And that specifically includes Fauci going back on air to counter the misuse of his answer to a hypothetical question, the very one which you include here.

Your default is 'centralize everything', that you've made clear.

After recent events, my interest was taken with the decision making at the top levels of US government.

From this, and the recent interaction between Trump and Dr Brix, I am of the opinion that Fauci, Brix (and likely anyone else involved in the process) would say the sky is green if it kept Trump on side.

Trump's comments (well, tweets) on the subject are in the public domain.

If you read those comments as the comments of a leader that takes the situation and the advice seriously, then perhaps get your eyes tested.

Thank you. Of course they're trying to stay influential to save lives, regardless of the backlash they may receive personally. .

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

I saw the photos taken of the crowded NYC subway

yes, you did see a photo or two a month ago. The situation has been addressed and while not perfect is much better. Some were inconvenienced for the good of many.
The trolley is barreling down the track towards five grandmothers. You can pull the switch and redirect it so that it kills no one. But you have to wear a mask to buy a toaster oven. What do you do?

No, you can't make it kill no one, that's the point.

1) It will kill many no matter what. We try to influence that to minimize the death toll.
2) Any and every action we take to minimize the death toll from COVID-19 also has other consequences, and those include deaths and disease other than COVID-19. A more balanced approach with broader vision is better than a narrow, myopic approach.

Consider that NY State nursing home edict. It mandated that patients be taken in (or back in) even if they have COVID-19. Are nursing homes set up to/capable of quarantining patients in an effective manner? None I've ever seen. They don't have the facilities or the resources. But the edict went even farther. It prohibited testing those patients for COVID-19. That point alone is bombastically stupid, the edict in its entirety even more so. The consequences were many deaths, perhaps thousands, among the most vulnerable to the disease.

Was that done on purpose? Of course not. So how could something so obviously stupid be done? Because the officials in charge were thinking too narrowly and too short-sighted. They were thinking about keeping the supply of hospital beds from being overwhelmed. They blew it.

And that example shows a direct COVID-19 consequence. The consequences outside COVID-19 itself (deaths and disease from other causes brought about by actions to address COVID-19) seem utterly beyond the thinking of many officials right now. Not to mention many in the media.

I hope that the order was not done on purpose. But with some people you never know. Describe the Nazi concentration camps to them and some people will joke about them but they will not deny that is what they actually want.

I think both RangerJoe and witqs cold do to use some examples of how leaving it all to the States has helped, rather than a Federally mandated mitigation program implemented early.

You're both just shooting digs at NY and not actually talking about the issue, which is a bit of a problem around here. There are many tragedies in this several month period, and a lot of them could have been lessened by an earlier Federal mandate to enforce mitigation measures and set up consistent guidelines for ALL of the States. It's likely the lockdown could have been shorter, the cases less, deaths less and economy less affected overall if these things were tackled by the Federal Government earlier.

Fauci confirmed he advised a shutdown in late February. He also confirmed in an interview that there was " a lot of pushback" about shutting down at that point.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52264860

I mean, obviously, if we had, right from the very beginning, shut everything down, it may have been a little bit different. But there was a lot of pushback about shutting things down back then.

All of this sent Trump to Twitter in a fluster to talk about firing Fauci.

"Fauci was telling people on February 29th that there was nothing to worry about and it posed no threat to the US public at large," it said. "Time to #FireFauci..."


This goes through figures using IHME to show how Federally mandated mitigation could have reduced deaths in the US if the government had imposed measures earlier.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/opinion/covid-social-distancing.html

On March 16, the White House issued initial social distancing guidelines, including closing schools and avoiding groups of more than 10. But an estimated 90 percent of the cumulative deaths in the United States from Covid-19, at least from the first wave of the epidemic, might have been prevented by putting social distancing policies into effect two weeks earlier, on March 2, when there were only 11 deaths in the entire country. The effect would have been substantial had the policies been imposed even one week earlier, on March 9, resulting in approximately a 60 percent reduction in deaths.

To determine the impact of early interventions, we used growth rates in cumulative deaths calculated by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington from the date that social distancing measures were introduced until the predicted end of the epidemic, and applied them to case numbers from earlier points when such measures could hypothetically have been put into effect.

Ok. Open for insults, derogatory comments, refutations based on pure emotion and other usual non-objective tactics.

Erik,

You are the one 'shooting digs'. Fauci has said, more than once and on video, that Trump did what he asked the first time every time (including Trump not doing things Fauci asked him not to do). And that specifically includes Fauci going back on air to counter the misuse of his answer to a hypothetical question, the very one which you include here.

Your default is 'centralize everything', that you've made clear.

There are no digs. The personnel stuff is because I'm fed up with the BS you and others throw ardour at anyone who presents something slightly different than your world view, and is met with outrage without any foundation in fact. My default is to look widely for expert advice, objective information and base my posts on the best science has to offer in the moment. There are no politics in that, no agenda, just trying to understand.

This is objective information I'm getting from sources that are verified. How do you explain what Fauci said in this interview?

Have a look. One week to have 60% less deaths in this phase. Two weeks earlier to have 90% less. Even if there is some error margin in those projections, I'd certainly take 40-50% less deaths. Wouldn't you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

I don't know much about Cuomo, but I'd assume any governor is trying to do his best under difficult circumstances.

To give you some background on Cuomo's scruples [before he was Governor] :
Attorney General Andrew Cuomo was under investigation for unaccountable billions of dollars missing from the coiffures at HUD during his time in charge of the Dept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_valuation_code_of_conduct

It's a complex issue, but unless he had a personal revelation once moving into the Governor's office, Andrew Cuomo is the type that will step on the public to get his way [to put it nicely].

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I, for one, would be leery of giving that kind of power to any President of the US.

quote:


In the US, there were 8 states that didn't issue mandatory stay at home orders. None of those States were in risk of their hospitals being overrun which was the primary, original goal of the lockdown. There always exist more than one way to skin a cat.

quote:


There were many other states that had lockdowns of differing severity. In each individual state you see a wide disparity among local counties and their state govts. Some counties are actually in open rebellion. Most state Govnr's don't have the legal authority.

quote:



The argument that the lockdown doesn't carry it's own deathtoll has somehow been excluded.

quote:



The decision to have a centralized mandate, would carry with it an important factor. Down the road, the economic costs of decision making during the time of the Pandemic would be distributed equally. For example, say my company has production in China that I now desire to bring back to the States. Would I pick New York, with it high tax, high cost, likely future shutdown environment, or someplace like South Dakota or Arkansas. I would only pick New York if the logistics savings or customer engagement was very concentrated there or the state plied me with tons of tax dollars/offsets or the Govt guaranteed I was immune from any future lockdown.

But if Arkansas was forced to shutdown, well then, that removes a very big decision making input.

quote:


Cap said earlier that he fears a 4 year or so economic turnaround. I think we are more like at 10 years right now, based on the 2008 economic downturn or even longer. Just to give an idea of the hideous changes that are upon us, Gov Cuomo of New York is openly questioning having brick and mortar schools. Colleges are going to be especially hard hit.

Not only are we living in the greatest medical experiment of all time, we are going to see a huge economic migration across the world. It took almost 3 generations for economic interdependencies to return to their pre WW1 pre Spanish flu levels.

May you live in interesting times.[:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

I saw the photos taken of the crowded NYC subway

yes, you did see a photo or two a month ago. The situation has been addressed and while not perfect is much better. Some were inconvenienced for the good of many.
The trolley is barreling down the track towards five grandmothers. You can pull the switch and redirect it so that it kills no one. But you have to wear a mask to buy a toaster oven. What do you do?

No, you can't make it kill no one, that's the point.

1) It will kill many no matter what. We try to influence that to minimize the death toll.
2) Any and every action we take to minimize the death toll from COVID-19 also has other consequences, and those include deaths and disease other than COVID-19. A more balanced approach with broader vision is better than a narrow, myopic approach.

Consider that NY State nursing home edict. It mandated that patients be taken in (or back in) even if they have COVID-19. Are nursing homes set up to/capable of quarantining patients in an effective manner? None I've ever seen. They don't have the facilities or the resources. But the edict went even farther. It prohibited testing those patients for COVID-19. That point alone is bombastically stupid, the edict in its entirety even more so. The consequences were many deaths, perhaps thousands, among the most vulnerable to the disease.

Was that done on purpose? Of course not. So how could something so obviously stupid be done? Because the officials in charge were thinking too narrowly and too short-sighted. They were thinking about keeping the supply of hospital beds from being overwhelmed. They blew it.

And that example shows a direct COVID-19 consequence. The consequences outside COVID-19 itself (deaths and disease from other causes brought about by actions to address COVID-19) seem utterly beyond the thinking of many officials right now. Not to mention many in the media.

I hope that the order was not done on purpose. But with some people you never know. Describe the Nazi concentration camps to them and some people will joke about them but they will not deny that is what they actually want.

I think both RangerJoe and witqs cold do to use some examples of how leaving it all to the States has helped, rather than a Federally mandated mitigation program implemented early.

You're both just shooting digs at NY and not actually talking about the issue, which is a bit of a problem around here. There are many tragedies in this several month period, and a lot of them could have been lessened by an earlier Federal mandate to enforce mitigation measures and set up consistent guidelines for ALL of the States. It's likely the lockdown could have been shorter, the cases less, deaths less and economy less affected overall if these things were tackled by the Federal Government earlier.

Fauci confirmed he advised a shutdown in late February. He also confirmed in an interview that there was " a lot of pushback" about shutting down at that point.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52264860

I mean, obviously, if we had, right from the very beginning, shut everything down, it may have been a little bit different. But there was a lot of pushback about shutting things down back then.

All of this sent Trump to Twitter in a fluster to talk about firing Fauci.

"Fauci was telling people on February 29th that there was nothing to worry about and it posed no threat to the US public at large," it said. "Time to #FireFauci..."


This goes through figures using IHME to show how Federally mandated mitigation could have reduced deaths in the US if the government had imposed measures earlier.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/opinion/covid-social-distancing.html

On March 16, the White House issued initial social distancing guidelines, including closing schools and avoiding groups of more than 10. But an estimated 90 percent of the cumulative deaths in the United States from Covid-19, at least from the first wave of the epidemic, might have been prevented by putting social distancing policies into effect two weeks earlier, on March 2, when there were only 11 deaths in the entire country. The effect would have been substantial had the policies been imposed even one week earlier, on March 9, resulting in approximately a 60 percent reduction in deaths.

To determine the impact of early interventions, we used growth rates in cumulative deaths calculated by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington from the date that social distancing measures were introduced until the predicted end of the epidemic, and applied them to case numbers from earlier points when such measures could hypothetically have been put into effect.

Ok. Open for insults, derogatory comments, refutations based on pure emotion and other usual non-objective tactics.

Erik,

You are the one 'shooting digs'. Fauci has said, more than once and on video, that Trump did what he asked the first time every time (including Trump not doing things Fauci asked him not to do). And that specifically includes Fauci going back on air to counter the misuse of his answer to a hypothetical question, the very one which you include here.

Your default is 'centralize everything', that you've made clear.

There are no digs. The personnel stuff is because I'm fed up with the BS you and others throw ardour at anyone who presents something slightly different than your world view, and is met with outrage without any foundation in fact. My default is to look widely for expert advice, objective information and base my posts on the best science has to offer in the moment. There are no politics in that, no agenda, just trying to understand.

This is objective information I'm getting from sources that are verified. How do you explain what Fauci said in this interview?

Have a look. One week to have 60% less deaths in this phase. Two weeks earlier to have 90% less. Even if there is some error margin in those projections, I'd certainly take 40-50% less deaths. Wouldn't you?

You appear to be only looking at the deaths from Covid-19. How about the other deaths caused by the lockdowns? How about other lives ruined or not made better? That death of the young lady that I posted is tragic, the worse tragedy is that the family donates her organs and they are not used because of the lockdowns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


I do need to get my eyes tested, but that is another story. [8|]

Please show me where Trump did not take their advice. From what I have read, Trump has taken their advice. But remember, Trump does not rule by fiat.

quote:

Coumo also wanted control of the Federal ventilator supply

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Should we ban driving because people might get shot?

...

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Launch a nuclear device is part of his job as Commander in Chief of the US military. For what reason is there a need for an emergency order and what part of the Constitution allows for that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I do need to get my eyes tested, but that is another story. [8|]

Please show me where Trump did not take their advice. From what I have read, Trump has taken their advice. But remember, Trump does not rule by fiat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

You appear to be only looking at the deaths from Covid-19. How about the other deaths caused by the lockdowns? How about other lives ruined or not made better? That death of the young lady that I posted is tragic, the worse tragedy is that the family donates her organs and they are not used because of the lockdowns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

Coumo also wanted control of the Federal ventilator supply

Huh? Where did you here that? He certainly wanted control of what was in his state but he wanted control of the entire federal supply? Really?

quote:

It's a complex issue, but unless he had a personal revelation once moving into the Governor's office, Andrew Cuomo is the type that will step on the public to get his way [to put it nicely].

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

Coumo also wanted control of the Federal ventilator supply

Huh? Where did you here that? He certainly wanted control of what was in his state but he wanted control of the entire federal supply? Really?

quote:

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Tuesday demanded the federal government take dramatic action to send thousands of stockpiled ventilators immediately to his state first, saying the Empire State’s immense coronavirus caseload threatened catastrophe in days without it.

He said New York has more than 25,000 coronavirus cases — at least 10 times as many as any other state — and his state needs 30,000 more ventilators on top of the 7,000 it has.

Cuomo wants all of what he called a current federal stockpile of 20,000 ventilators to brace for the coming “apex” in cases in New York, which he says will arrive as soon as 14 days.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

Coumo also wanted control of the Federal ventilator supply

Huh? Where did you here that? He certainly wanted control of what was in his state but he wanted control of the entire federal supply? Really?

Gov. Andrew Cuomo demands stockpiled ventilators go immediately to New York first
by: CNN Wire
Posted: Mar 24, 2020

quote:

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Tuesday demanded the federal government take dramatic action to send thousands of stockpiled ventilators immediately to his state first, saying the Empire State’s immense coronavirus caseload threatened catastrophe in days without it.

He said New York has more than 25,000 coronavirus cases — at least 10 times as many as any other state — and his state needs 30,000 more ventilators on top of the 7,000 it has.

Cuomo wants all of what he called a current federal stockpile of 20,000 ventilators to brace for the coming “apex” in cases in New York, which he says will arrive as soon as 14 days.

https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/gov-andrew-cuomo-demands-stockpiled-ventilators-go-immediately-to-new-york-first/

quote:

Cuomo for reportedly declining to buy 16,000 ventilators in 2015 to deal with a potential future pandemic.

“He had 16,000 ventilators that he could have bought and he didn’t buy them. He should’ve ordered the ventilators,” Trump said during a Fox News town hall. “They can’t blame us for that. Gov. Cuomo is supposed to be buying his own ventilators.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

Coumo also wanted control of the Federal ventilator supply

Huh? Where did you here that? He certainly wanted control of what was in his state but he wanted control of the entire federal supply? Really?

Gov. Andrew Cuomo demands stockpiled ventilators go immediately to New York first
by: CNN Wire
Posted: Mar 24, 2020

quote:

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Tuesday demanded the federal government take dramatic action to send thousands of stockpiled ventilators immediately to his state first, saying the Empire State’s immense coronavirus caseload threatened catastrophe in days without it.

He said New York has more than 25,000 coronavirus cases — at least 10 times as many as any other state — and his state needs 30,000 more ventilators on top of the 7,000 it has.

Cuomo wants all of what he called a current federal stockpile of 20,000 ventilators to brace for the coming “apex” in cases in New York, which he says will arrive as soon as 14 days.

https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/gov-andrew-cuomo-demands-stockpiled-ventilators-go-immediately-to-new-york-first/

quote:

Elon Musk says Tesla may leave its Palo Alto headquarters and Fremont, California factory.

In a tweet Saturday morning, the chief executive continued his outrage against shelter-in-place orders that have forced most non-essential businesses to close.

Last week, Musk likened the rules to fascism, and urged leaders to "give people their goddamn freedom back."

After a week of decrying coronavirus shelter-in-place orders that have left Tesla's main factory shuttered and unable to produce vehicles, Elon Musk says the company may move its factory out of the state.

"Tesla is filing a lawsuit against Alameda County immediately," the chief executive said on Twitter Saturday morning. "The unelected & ignorant 'Interim Health Officer' of Alameda is acting contrary to the Governor, the President, our Constitutional freedoms & just plain common sense!"

That was followed up with a threat to move Tesla's headquarters outside the state.

"Frankly, this is the final straw," he replied. "Tesla will now move its HQ and future programs to Texas/Nevada immediately. If we even retain Fremont manufacturing activity at all, it will be dependent on how Tesla is treated in the future. Tesla is the last carmaker left in CA."—Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 9, 2020

It wasn't immediately clear if a suit had yet been filed, or in which court Tesla will file the lawsuit. Most state and federal courts are closed on weekends and do not allow filing. In a subsequent Tweet, Musk alsourged shareholders to file a class action suit for damages caused by shutdown.

Tesla's press relations department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Alameda County did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

....Creepy...

"We are businesses, nonprofits, governments and individuals...working in collaboration to ensure that the future of digital identity is, indeed, #goodID."

https://id2020.org/


[image]local://upfiles/55056/B96032B7BB124B40BEE0FF640373D049.jpg[/image]

Never trust a guy who wants everyone on the planet to have a vaccine verification card, but REFUSED to have his own children vaccinated.

quote:

WHAT WOULD YOU DO if your six year old son or daughter tested positive for COVID19 and was taken from your home to a quarantine center by Ventura Health Authorities? This SHOCKING VIDEO demands that you plan ahead. #BeBrave #HistoryRepeating pic.twitter.com/e5RC7dCO7o

— Del Bigtree (@delbigtree) May 6, 2020

quote:

“He had 16,000 ventilators that he could have bought and he didn’t buy them. He should’ve ordered the ventilators,” Trump said during a Fox News town hall. “They can’t blame us for that. Gov. Cuomo is supposed to be buying his own ventilators.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Trump cites Post op-ed to blast Cuomo for not buying ventilators — in 2015
By Bob Fredericks
March 24, 2020

quote:

Cuomo for reportedly declining to buy 16,000 ventilators in 2015 to deal with a potential future pandemic.

“He had 16,000 ventilators that he could have bought and he didn’t buy them. He should’ve ordered the ventilators,” Trump said during a Fox News town hall. “They can’t blame us for that. Gov. Cuomo is supposed to be buying his own ventilators.”

https://nypost.com/2020/03/24/trump-cites-post-op-ed-to-blast-cuomo-for-not-buying-ventilators-in-2015/

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

....Creepy...

"We are businesses, nonprofits, governments and individuals...working in collaboration to ensure that the future of digital identity is, indeed, #goodID."

https://id2020.org/

Never trust a guy who wants everyone on the planet to have a vaccine verification card, but REFUSED to have his own children vaccinated.

FALSE

https://apnews.com/afs:Content:8873480039

quote:

Australia might see more deaths from an increase in suicides relating to the coronavirus pandemic than from the actual virus, according to a report from a university in the country.

SBS News reported that mental health researchers at Sydney University’s Brain and Mind Centre are predicting a 25 percent to 50 percent uptick in suicides during the country’s lockdown, and potentially beyond.

Models from the university are predicting that an extra 750 to 1,500 suicides a year could end up being attributed to the financial and mental health toll created by the virus, and by shuttering society to respond to it.

Up to 30 percent of those new suicide deaths could tragically occur among young people who are now overburdened by the pandemic and the fear and uncertainty surrounding it.

To make matters worse, the prediction of an increased suicide rate could play out over a prolonged five-year period.
.
.
.
According to Worldometers, which tracks global statistics in real time, more than 377,000 people worldwide have committed suicide so far in 2020, while more than 270,000 have died from the coronavirus globally.

The global suicide rate thus already outpaces lives lost due to the coronavirus.

President Donald Trump drew flak from the media when he suggested in March that the government’s response to the virus cannot be too heavy-handed, tweeting: “WE CANNOT LET THE CURE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF.”

Trump also cited his fear about an increased suicide rate coinciding with mass public lockdowns.

“You’re going to lose more people by putting a country into a massive recession or depression.” Trump said during a Fox News town hall on March 24. “You’re going to lose people. You’re going to have suicides by the thousands.”

Other experts are warning that more people could soon be dying from other causes as well at a time when the majority of resources being directed to the pandemic.

The Telegraph reported this week that a reduced focus on tuberculosis by health care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic could lead to an additional 1.4 million deaths from tuberculosis and 6.3 million additional cases over the next five years, as routine doctor visits and health screenings are not happening.

That’s without mentioning cancer screenings and other essential health services that have been put on hold.

The United Nations last month also warned of famines of “biblical proportion” due to the coronavirus pandemic.

U.N. executive David Beasley described the current global situation as “the worst humanitarian crisis since World War Two,” and added there are 130 million more people around the world who are now on the edge of starvation because of the pandemic.

These dire warnings come as the efficacy of mass lockdowns is already being questioned.

According to the data from a newly released medical survey, roughly 66 percent of hospitalized coronavirus patients within New York state — easily the hardest hit by the pandemic — were admitted from the safety of their own homes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Trump cites Post op-ed to blast Cuomo for not buying ventilators — in 2015
By Bob Fredericks
March 24, 2020

quote:

Cuomo for reportedly declining to buy 16,000 ventilators in 2015 to deal with a potential future pandemic.

“He had 16,000 ventilators that he could have bought and he didn’t buy them. He should’ve ordered the ventilators,” Trump said during a Fox News town hall. “They can’t blame us for that. Gov. Cuomo is supposed to be buying his own ventilators.”

https://nypost.com/2020/03/24/trump-cites-post-op-ed-to-blast-cuomo-for-not-buying-ventilators-in-2015/

Did you read the article?

Then-state health commissioner Howard Zucker assembled a task force for rationing the ventilators they already had that recommended that the state not purchase the 16,000 ventilators because there weren’t enough doctors and medical personnel to operate them.

Instead, the task force devised a classification system to prioritize which patients would be treated on a ventilator.

Aside from this, NY was going through the most intense phase during the time those vents were requested, and we can look back and say that many were not needed. No one knew that then, or if the lockdown would actually work enough to keep the health system functioning. In the largest metropolitan area in the US this is not an outrageous request in the face of a pandemic.

Like so many other parts of this situation in the states it turned into politics. So sad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

“He had 16,000 ventilators that he could have bought and he didn’t buy them. He should’ve ordered the ventilators,” Trump said during a Fox News town hall. “They can’t blame us for that. Gov. Cuomo is supposed to be buying his own ventilators.”

Well if Trump said it it must be true! , but it's not really the States job to fight global pandemics. Every State should be prepared to fight global pandemics? What about earthquakes, floods and hurricanes? That's on the states too? No Federal response to global events? Trump also suggested injecting disinfectants and I suspect that is not true either.

quote:

Yes, I read that. I also read where the panels that would make the decision as to who would get a ventilator and who would not were called death panels. But I chose not to post that as it might seem inflammatory.