A Proposed Path Forward - Printable Version

A Proposed Path Forward - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: A Proposed Path Forward (/thread-19432.html)

Pages: 1 2

A Proposed Path Forward - 2006alum - 04-16-2020

To be honest, what this pandemic has shown me is how susceptible most of us are to motivated reasoning. (And I include myself in this.)

My sense is that the same folks who are interested in finding ways to blame China are the same people who support Trump and therefore have an interest in him coming off as good as possible. Indeed, Trump has been fundraising off the message we need to "hold China accountable." It seems the American Right is throwing everything possible into the argument that we should be blaming China, the WHO, etc. Anyone but Trump, who has said "I don't accept responsibility at all." As far as I am concerned, these arguments are as persuasive as South Park's trenchant musical number:

The folks who have tended to bang the drums about getting the economy to "re-open" as quickly as possible tend to support Trump, a President whose strongest reelection argument was the strong economy. As of today, we've lost nearly all of the jobs created since the Great Recession. With a Great Depression Economy and horrible job losses, what's Trump's reelection pitch? I'd be a great President but for China? I'd be a great President but for these pesky state governors and their efforts to protect their citizens?

I'm sure those on the right can throw similar accusations at the "TRUMP RUINED EVERYTHING" posts.

None of these folks has shown how any of these arguments does anything to help the US enhance testing, implement a nation-wide social contact tracing system, get people back to work, or develop treatments and a vaccine (the latter of two of which would likely be accelerated by cooperation with China). Those are the only measures that will help us "re-open" the economy. Restaurant bookings on Open Table had fallen 70% before state and local governments began the lockdowns. Those cancellations were because folks didn't feel confident dining out, and they won't again until we have the testing, tracing, and isolation infrastructure in place.

So: I, for one, want to try, going forward, to focus on practical solutions, be they social, economic, or public health. I'm going to stop engaging with these arguments - the blame China theories, which won't help us defeat COVID-19 NOR re-open the economy, and the "we have to re-open" arguments that are not accompanied by a thoughtful plan for how to do that - for testing, tracing, and isolation, etc.. Otherwise, these are arguments are just whaboutisms to change the subject from our own governments' (plural - federal, state, and local) failures to put these measures into place. And yes, I mean all of them - there are some clear heroes in this pandemic, but it's clear to me that, collectively, we as a country were largely asleep at the switch.

To the degree others would like to focus on practical solutions going forward, I would welcome and encourage you to do the same. We've had some really great discussions about the future of WFH, how restaurants will survive and adapt, and how small businesses are trying to handle this. These are great. If I want to debate blaming China, etc., there are like 8 cable news networks that will serve up your preferred flavor of partisan fury.

RE: A Proposed Path Forward - Mick - 04-16-2020

(04-16-2020, 01:36 PM)2006alum Wrote: To the degree others would like to focus on practical solutions going forward, I would welcome and encourage you to do the same. We've had some really great discussions about the future of WFH, how restaurants will survive and adapt, and how small businesses are trying to handle this. These are great. If I want to debate blaming China, etc., there are like 8 cable news networks that will serve up your preferred flavor of partisan fury.

Thanks. And rest assured, I'm not voting for Trump, nor do I think he will win (and I called his 2016 win five months in advance). I do find it a little odd that there are people who demand that you establish your bona fides by declaring Trump antipathy -- so I'll do it here to put people at ease. I just think Trump isn't very important in the grand scheme of things, not just because he'll be voted out in seven months but because he's ineffective in addressing COVID-19. I haven't felt the need to denounce him every e-mail, so I apologize to the board moderators and those who demand it before participation.

With respect to China...Trump won't have to deal with them in the long run, but the next president will have to do so. The reason people focus on it is because China is both likely to behave badly and negatively affect humans outside of its borders and they are one of the two most powerful nations on earth. China can be a great force for good or a great force for bad, and people are trying to figure them out. And that's why people are interested. Might I suggest ignoring or skipping over the posts that cause stress? That's what I do.

With respect to the economy, a very large part of this country is much more concerned about putting food on the table, and being able to sleep under their roof than the people who seem to ignore those concerns. I realize it's only 22 million+ Americans who are out of work, but some people are concerned about the economy as a going concern, so to speak. That's all.

RE: A Proposed Path Forward - martyup - 04-16-2020

A path forward? Anyone living outside a big city (size TBD) go to work and wash your hands often. Avoid contact with other people and stay home if you are sick. No gatherings of more than 10 people where social distancing is not possible. Keep the elderly and higher risk people at home or otherwise separated from others.

If you live in a big city, shelter in place until community spread is cut to some defined level (TBD).

Keep travel restrictions in place. Use the Abbott Labs 5 minute test for anyone boarding a commercial flight with a destination within the USA.

The experts seem to agree that social distancing will only slow the progression of this virus. We were told that SiP was required to keep the hospitals from becoming overwhelmed. In almost all areas, we are past this danger. So, it is time to start letting people go back to work. This virus will be with us indefinitely and many of us will eventually get it. But, well over 98% will recover, many with no symptoms.

RE: A Proposed Path Forward - Farm93 - 04-16-2020

You view of game theory is likely correct.

For every country or organization that does not want Trump's policies at this point they are best served to just let him complain and tweet.

Should Trump lose they will quickly work with POTUS46 and restore the USA's bipartisan policies of the previous 70+ years. If they were too anti-Trump it might be hard to be first in line in 2021, so best to be quiet.

Should Trump win those entities will quickly work with every other country in the world knowing that Trump in term #2 will be even less inclined to do things that might please potential swing voters.

RE: A Proposed Path Forward - g1313 - 04-16-2020

(04-16-2020, 02:18 PM)martyup Wrote: We were told that SiP was required to keep the hospitals from becoming overwhelmed. In almost all areas, we are past this danger.

I don't think this part is completely true. The hospitals are not overwhelmed because SiP is ongoing. Once we end SiP, they can easily get overwhelmed again if we don't have a solid track-and-quarantine strategy.

RE: A Proposed Path Forward - cardcrimson - 04-16-2020

I guess I must have missed the path forward part of this thread.

"Should Trump lose they will quickly work with POTUS46 and restore the USA's bipartisan policies of the previous 70+ years." Yeah, the eight years prior to Trump we sure bipartisan, weren't they. . . .

The unperceived bias here continues to amaze.

RE: A Proposed Path Forward - IdCard83 - 04-16-2020

(04-16-2020, 02:53 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: I guess I must have missed the path forward part of this thread.

"Should Trump lose they will quickly work with POTUS46 and restore the USA's bipartisan policies of the previous 70+ years." Yeah, the eight years prior to Trump we sure bipartisan, weren't they. . . .

The unperceived bias here continues to amaze.

As someone with 2 Stanford degrees I am continually amazed at the bias and stupidity displayed on this board. I have observed for almost 3 months how wrong most of you have been and how nimbly you change your positions to make Trump look wrong. Banning travel from China - how racist, how stupid, he's overreacting. Now you all and the Maddows of the world say he was too slow. Where are all the ventilators- what's he doing we need hospital beds. Now there are ventilators all over the place with states and governors racing to lend them to other states (that they might need to run for POTUS in 2024). Hospitals are being dismantled faster than governors can violate the Bill of Rights. Churches closed but liquor stores open. Geo. Washington looks at James Madison and asks, "so these rights are guaranteed? Right?" Madison says, "yes, as long as no one's sick." So I guess FDR was right to intern the Japanese Americans. We've destroyed our economy over something that will kill half as many MEN who will die of breast cancer, if you're under 45 with COVID-19. More will die of opioid overdose and not a single politician cares about that. Maybe next virus they will come and take our car keys by force so we have to SiP. Wake up America.

RE: A Proposed Path Forward - magnus - 04-16-2020

Not addressing other comments brought up and this is not in response only to the previous post, but to many others that use a similar comparison.

Covid has already killed over 30K americans (and counting)...in under 2 months. Even after taking extreme action. Comparing it to other causes of death that are tallied over a year or longer is not a fair comparison.

RE: A Proposed Path Forward - 2006alum - 04-16-2020

(04-16-2020, 03:34 PM)IdCard83 Wrote: As someone with 2 Stanford degrees I am continually amazed at the bias and stupidity displayed on this board. I have observed for almost 3 months how wrong most of you have been and how nimbly you change your positions to make Trump look wrong. Banning travel from China - how racist, how stupid, he's overreacting. Now you all and the Maddows of the world say he was too slow.

Since you have two Stanford degrees, I assume your critical reading skills are sharp, so could you please point me to the posts where folks in this forum called the travel "ban" (used lightly because 40,000 people have arrived from China since it was imposed) racist? The first COVID-19 thread began on February 27, a month after the "ban." It wasn't until March 17 that this dedicated forum was created. In all that time, I can't recall a single poster saying that the travel ban was racist, or stupid (other than in its execution and in its limited efficacy while other foreign travel was still permitted). I very much doubt the folks who were posting about COVID-19 starting Feb. 27 thought that was an overreaction -- if anything, most of us were fretting that the federal government wasn't doing enough.

But thank you for making my point for me, by recycling GOP talking points whether or not they apply.

RE: A Proposed Path Forward - BostonCard - 04-16-2020

(04-16-2020, 02:03 PM)Mick Wrote: With respect to China...Trump won't have to deal with them in the long run, but the next president will have to do so. The reason people focus on it is because China is both likely to behave badly and negatively affect humans outside of its borders and they are one of the two most powerful nations on earth. China can be a great force for good or a great force for bad, and people are trying to figure them out. And that's why people are interested. Might I suggest ignoring or skipping over the posts that cause stress? That's what I do.

I think this is right, but it extends far beyond Covid-19, and into realms such as the repression of Uighurs, the attempt to subvert the rule of law in Hong Kong, to their claims on Taiwan, to their assertion of sovereignty of the "9-dashed" line, to censoring and internal repression. The response to COVID-19 fits into that, of course, but I think it is a small part.

BC

(04-16-2020, 02:53 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: I guess I must have missed the path forward part of this thread.

"Should Trump lose they will quickly work with POTUS46 and restore the USA's bipartisan policies of the previous 70+ years." Yeah, the eight years prior to Trump we sure bipartisan, weren't they. . . .

The unperceived bias here continues to amaze.

It depends who "they" are. I am thinking that the poster was referring to entities like NATO, for which, for all the partisanship pre-Trump, was pretty much universally supported.

BC

RE: A Proposed Path Forward - cardcrimson - 04-16-2020

(04-16-2020, 04:49 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(04-16-2020, 02:53 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: I guess I must have missed the path forward part of this thread.

"Should Trump lose they will quickly work with POTUS46 and restore the USA's bipartisan policies of the previous 70+ years." Yeah, the eight years prior to Trump we sure bipartisan, weren't they. . . .

The unperceived bias here continues to amaze.

It depends who "they" are. I am thinking that the poster was referring to entities like NATO, for which, for all the partisanship pre-Trump, was pretty much universally supported.

BC

I think Trump supports NATO, he just wants the Euros to support it as well, and to the amount they agreed to. So folks call it "Nativism" or "Partisanship". Perhaps it is, but other countries have taken advantage of the American benevolence for a long, long time.

In many areas, like NATO, the UN, the WHO, he's trying to put an end to the "bend and grab" policy of his predecessors, and it's hard to argue that. With so many issues at home, even before Covid-19, we can't be the world's checkbook and need to make sure we get a return on our international investments. The US is the single largest funder for the WHO. How did that investment turn out?

RE: A Proposed Path Forward - Goose - 04-16-2020

(04-16-2020, 05:20 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: I think Trump supports NATO, he just wants the Euros to support it as well, and to the amount they agreed to. So folks call it "Nativism" or "Partisanship". Perhaps it is, but other countries have taken advantage of the American benevolence for a long, long time.

In many areas, like NATO, the UN, the WHO, he's trying to put an end to the "bend and grab" policy of his predecessors, and it's hard to argue that.

Well cardcrimson, I will argue that. Trump (and probably 99% of "America") doesn't get it. We don't support NATO because we love the other member states. Yes, we do have cultural and political ties to essentially all of them, and we do need them in the global marketplace. And yes, we do probably "love" them. But the reason we support NATO today is because we would rather fight Russia on the Vistula, or, failing that, the Oder, or the Rhine, or the Meuse as opposed to the Hudson. And yes, Der Bundeswehr is a national disgrace. But we don't support NATO because we are nice guys. It is totally self interest.

The confrontational approach that the present administration has chosen is IMHO exactly the wrong way to attack the problem. The peoples of Europe need to step up and help. The way to do that is go public with criticism of their readiness that appeals directly to the nation, not the politicians. Warn Macron, Merkle et al that you are going to do so, and then point out to the people that 1.5 Panzer Divisions isn't going to cut it.

RE: A Proposed Path Forward - cardcrimson - 04-16-2020

(04-16-2020, 08:53 PM)Goose Wrote:
(04-16-2020, 05:20 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: I think Trump supports NATO, he just wants the Euros to support it as well, and to the amount they agreed to. So folks call it "Nativism" or "Partisanship". Perhaps it is, but other countries have taken advantage of the American benevolence for a long, long time.

In many areas, like NATO, the UN, the WHO, he's trying to put an end to the "bend and grab" policy of his predecessors, and it's hard to argue that.
Well cardcrimson, I will argue that. Trump (and probably 99% of "America") doesn't get it. We don't support NATO because we love the other member states. Yes, we do have cultural and political ties to essentially all of them, and we do need them in the global marketplace. And yes, we do probably "love" them. But the reason we support NATO today is because we would rather fight Russia on the Vistula, or, failing that, the Oder, or the Rhine, or the Meuse as opposed to the Hudson. And yes, Der Bundeswehr is a national disgrace. But we don't support NATO because we are nice guys. It is totally self interest.

The confrontational approach that the present administration has chosen is IMHO exactly the wrong way to attack the problem. The peoples of Europe need to step up and help. The way to do that is go public with criticism of their readiness that appeals directly to the nation, not the politicians. Warn Macron, Merkle et al that you are going to do so, and then point out to the people that 1.5 Panzer Divisions isn't going to cut it.

I apologize, I wasn't clear enough.

You are correct, we support NATO purely selfishly and for protection against the Russian threat (perhaps even the Chinese). That said, prior administrations failed to get the fellow NATO parties to pay their agreed upon commitments. The diplomatic approach failed, the appeals to their readiness fell on deaf ears. Trump called the Euros bluff, if you don't pay what you agreed to, we're out, and you're on your own. Unconventional and ballsy approached, but it seemed to work, didn't it? After all, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

RE: A Proposed Path Forward - teejers1 - 04-16-2020

(04-16-2020, 01:36 PM)2006alum Wrote: My sense is that the same folks who are interested in finding ways to blame China are the same people who support Trump and therefore have an interest in him coming off as good as possible.

The folks who have tended to bang the drums about getting the economy to "re-open" as quickly as possible tend to support Trump, a President whose strongest reelection argument was the strong economy.

I can't speak for anyone but myself:

1. I don't trust China as far as I can throw it;

2. I couldn't give 2 $hits about what China did or didn't do re: the virus at the outset - it's here and now, and the US has to deal with it in best way it can;

3. I don't like Trump and didn't vote for him (and won't), and the national "response" to this virus has been rudderless;

4. I am completely interested in seeing the US economy rebound as quickly as possible . . . simply because this cratering we're living sucks for the millions adversely affected (including all of us); and

5. The people who want the economy to suffer through election day to better ensure the ouster of Trump are despicable; the people who want to recklessly re-engage the economy to boost re-election chances for Trump are despicable.

That about sums it up.

P.S. Though a Trump detractor, I also don't see the need to piss on him/his administration in every post about the virus (or any other topic). And I don't mind reading posts from those who we believe are on the conservative side. I've always been in favor of free expression, and quite frankly think the censorship practiced on this board is a bit silly (barring the out-and-out obvious troll - but even then, I prefer just ignoring the guy).

RE: A Proposed Path Forward - BostonCard - 04-16-2020

I think that's too narrow and transactional a view of NATO. Yes, it would be better for us if our allies spent more on self defense, but our biggest advantage compared to Russia or China or any of our other adversaries is the existence of those allies (not just NATO but Japan, ANZ, etc.) Whether those countries spend 1.5% of GDP or 2% of GDP on defense is almost immaterial to their value to us as allies.

BC

RE: A Proposed Path Forward - Goose - 04-16-2020

(04-16-2020, 09:22 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: I apologize, I wasn't clear enough.

You are correct, we support NATO purely selfishly and for protection against the Russian threat (perhaps even the Chinese). That said, prior administrations failed to get the fellow NATO parties to pay their agreed upon commitments. The diplomatic approach failed, the appeals to their readiness fell on deaf ears. Trump called the Euros bluff, if you don't pay what you agreed to, we're out, and you're on your own. Unconventional and ballsy approached, but it seemed to work, didn't it? After all, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

No, it didn't work. Things in Germany are still AFU. There is once again a promise of spending more money, but that won't happen if the NATO nations populations don't want it to happen. Trump made that harder, not easier, by making the local leaders look like they were caving in to the USA again. In point of fact, the USA can't call the European nations bluff. Even if not one European soldier decided to help us fight Russia, we would still prefer to do it in Europe than points west. They know that and our military absolutely knows that. We aren't leaving NATO, because that would be worse for us than for them, and they know it.

The trick here is that there are lots of members of the European public who want to avoid being overrun in a great power struggle between Russia and the USA. Those people want a stronger European defense. The USA needs to mobilize those people with effective information and comparison of the Table of Organization of European forces to Russian forces. The European heads of state will always spend the minimum their population will allow. We need to make that minimum politically acceptable number bigger. Right now, Europe is depending on the Poles to defend them. Tell a German or a Frenchman that and they will not be happy campers.

RE: A Proposed Path Forward - BostonCard - 04-16-2020

(04-16-2020, 09:36 PM)teejers1 Wrote: I can't speak for anyone but myself:

1. I don't trust China as far as I can throw it;

2. I couldn't give 2 $hits about what China did or didn't do re: the virus at the outset - it's here and now, and the US has to deal with it in best way it can;

3. I don't like Trump and didn't vote for him (and won't), and the national "response" to this virus has been rudderless;

4. I am completely interested in seeing the US economy rebound as quickly as possible . . . simply because this cratering we're living sucks for the millions adversely affected (including all of us); and

5. The people who want the economy to suffer through election day to better ensure the ouster of Trump are despicable; the people who want to recklessly re-engage the economy to boost re-election chances for Trump are despicable.

That about sums it up.

You can speak for me too. I agree with you up and down.

Plus, if (when?) someone other than Trump is elected in November, that person will have to deal with the aftermath of this crisis. The worse the crisis is, the worse the aftermath will be. I think Obama suffered quite significantly because of the depth of the Great Recession (yes, he had his own blunders, which I'm not blind to).

But yeah, I hope nobody is celebrating this tragedy. Even if we escape direct impact, we will all be poorer as a result. Talk about cutting off one's nose to spite the face.

BC

BC

RE: A Proposed Path Forward - JustAnotherFan - 04-17-2020

(04-16-2020, 02:03 PM)Mick Wrote:
(04-16-2020, 01:36 PM)2006alum Wrote: To the degree others would like to focus on practical solutions going forward, I would welcome and encourage you to do the same. We've had some really great discussions about the future of WFH, how restaurants will survive and adapt, and how small businesses are trying to handle this. These are great. If I want to debate blaming China, etc., there are like 8 cable news networks that will serve up your preferred flavor of partisan fury.

Thanks. And rest assured, I'm not voting for Trump, nor do I think he will win (and I called his 2016 win five months in advance). I do find it a little odd that there are people who demand that you establish your bona fides by declaring Trump antipathy -- so I'll do it here to put people at ease. I just think Trump isn't very important in the grand scheme of things, not just because he'll be voted out in seven months but because he's ineffective in addressing COVID-19. I haven't felt the need to denounce him every e-mail, so I apologize to the board moderators and those who demand it before participation.

With respect to China...Trump won't have to deal with them in the long run, but the next president will have to do so. The reason people focus on it is because China is both likely to behave badly and negatively affect humans outside of its borders and they are one of the two most powerful nations on earth. China can be a great force for good or a great force for bad, and people are trying to figure them out. And that's why people are interested. Might I suggest ignoring or skipping over the posts that cause stress? That's what I do.

With respect to the economy, a very large part of this country is much more concerned about putting food on the table, and being able to sleep under their roof than the people who seem to ignore those concerns. I realize it's only 22 million+ Americans who are out of work, but some people are concerned about the economy as a going concern, so to speak. That's all.

Am I the only non-Trump supporter who believes he is going to win in November?

RE: A Proposed Path Forward - Mick - 04-17-2020

(04-16-2020, 09:41 PM)Goose Wrote:
(04-16-2020, 09:22 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: You are correct, we support NATO purely selfishly and for protection against the Russian threat (perhaps even the Chinese). That said, prior administrations failed to get the fellow NATO parties to pay their agreed upon commitments. The diplomatic approach failed, the appeals to their readiness fell on deaf ears. Trump called the Euros bluff, if you don't pay what you agreed to, we're out, and you're on your own. Unconventional and ballsy approached, but it seemed to work, didn't it? After all, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

No, it didn't work. Things in Germany are still AFU. There is once again a promise of spending more money, but that won't happen if the NATO nations populations don't want it to happen. Trump made that harder, not easier, by making the local leaders look like they were caving in to the USA again. In point of fact, the USA can't call the European nations bluff. Even if not one European soldier decided to help us fight Russia, we would still prefer to do it in Europe than points west. They know that and our military absolutely knows that. We aren't leaving NATO, because that would be worse for us than for them, and they know it.

The trick here is that there are lots of members of the European public who want to avoid being overrun in a great power struggle between Russia and the USA. Those people want a stronger European defense. The USA needs to mobilize those people with effective information and comparison of the Table of Organization of European forces to Russian forces. The European heads of state will always spend the minimum their population will allow. We need to make that minimum politically acceptable number bigger. Right now, Europe is depending on the Poles to defend them. Tell a German or a Frenchman that and they will not be happy campers.

Over the past five years, only Bulgaria among NATO nations has materially increased its percentage contribution to NATO defense to the American GDP % level, and Lithuania, Latvia and Romania have boosted theirs to 2% of GDP. USA is at 3.42% of GDP.
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2019_11/20191129_pr-2019-123-en.pdf

There's one approach to the NATO imbalance of contributions that we haven't tried. Instead of trying to get our "allies" to fulfill the obligations to which they'd agreed, let's lower the ocean, so to speak. The 2020 defense budget is $738 billion. Lots of it includes "aspirational" purchases:
https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/12/19/pentagon-finally-gets-its-2020-budget-from-congress/

It's pretty clear that we can't afford a defense budget that sizable, particularly in the post-pandemic world. So instead of browbeating fellow NATO nations, why not reduce our expenditures (over time) to half of our current 3.42%, say to 1.71%? That puts us in line with most of the other NATO nations. I daresay a defense budget of a mere $369 billion could still keep the world protected. And close some overseas bases, we only have 800.

RE: A Proposed Path Forward - oldalum - 04-17-2020

just want to point out how intelligent and pleasant to read this thread is, minus the China and Trump bashing and defending!