[BostonCard]

These would be cogent comments, if the United States was the only country in the world, or if other nations had reacted to the information available about Covid-19 with strong countermeasures and more alacrity. But  - as I have pointed out at wearismone length - no Western nation did so. (The island and peninsular nations that are proximate to China are outliers, which is why I always qualify the point with the word 'Western'. There's a lot of history there we don't know. Methinks both nations were on high alert because of negative experiences with SARS a few years earlier, and serendipity blessed them.)

Your no competent country argument is starting to sound like a no true Scottsman fallacy.  We deserved better than what we got.

BC

[BostonCard]

These would be cogent comments, if the United States was the only country in the world, or if other nations had reacted to the information available about Covid-19 with strong countermeasures and more alacrity. But  - as I have pointed out at wearismone length - no Western nation did so. (The island and peninsular nations that are proximate to China are outliers, which is why I always qualify the point with the word 'Western'. There's a lot of history there we don't know. Methinks both nations were on high alert because of negative experiences with SARS a few years earlier, and serendipity blessed them.)

Your no competent country argument is starting to sound like a no true Scottsman fallacy.  We deserved better than what we got.

BC

[chrisk]

Maybe he did – it’s the economy stupid. Which is probably part of the reason he reacted so slowly. In any event I’m done. My point is not the Trump handled this well - he didn’t. My point is that to put all this on Trump is simplistic and absurd. We have a precedent – and that’s Katrina. Where Bush got all the blame heaped upon him. When in fact there again was plenty of blame to go around Federal state local media etc.

If you've read what I've posted on here long enough, you will know that I didn't think much of Cuomo's response, and I thought Di Blasio was downright awful.  I've praised Republicans like Mike DeWine (and Democrats) that have responded well, and blasted Democrats that have responded poorly (along with a fair share of Republicans).  I have evaluated the response on the basis of its relative competence or lack thereof.  Trump gets mentioned most of all, because the buck ostensibly stops there.  While public health response is by definition a state and local one in our federal system, the tone is set at the top.  And the tone set at the top of this country was one at indifference at the coming crisis.

Now, maybe it wouldn't have made a damned bit of difference, but imagine a world in which a President John Kasich warns all Americans in late January about how dangerous this virus could be, breaks through the bureaucracy and silos that exist between the FDA and CDC to prioritize widespread testing, stresses the importance of taking measures to protect the American public, coordinates the purchase of PPE, ventilators, and other supplies at a federal level so that states aren't competing with one another, sets up a task force to come up with guidelines for how and when states should impose measures of social distancing, browbeats governors who dilly dally while cases accumulate, and goes to congress to get money appropriated for an emergent pandemic response that uses a Manhattan project-like effort to quickly develop widespread testing and hire and train and deploy contact tracers like hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars depended on it. Maybe it doesn't make a damned bit of difference and we are still looking at hundreds of thousands of deaths at this point in time despite our best efforts (I don't think that would have been the case, but I don't know the counterfactual), and maybe the opposition tries to stymie him at every turn and Americans ignore him and the sclerotic bureaucracy can't be whipped into shape.  But at least I would be able to point to his actions and say that he took the pandemic seriously, and did all he could.  Instead, we have a president who has at his best been indifferent to the virus, and at his worst actively undermined efforts to contain the pandemic.  So forgive me if I draw a straight line between his actions (or lack thereof) and the toll of the pandemic.  The title of this post contrasted the US response to that of South Korea, Australia, Germany, and Singapore.  Goose has pointed out that we didn't have the built capacity of those other countries ready to deploy.  Fair enough.  But what kills me is that by and large we didn't even try.

BC

Great response. Just want to add that many Americans have become less trusting of government over the last 50 years, which leads to not follow suggestions, pleas, mandates, or laws of the government. This is despite the fact that government plays a smaller role in life in the US than in other developed countries. Americans made tremendous sacrifices in WWII. Would today's populace comply to the same degree? 300-400K Americans died in WWII. It is not inconceivable that this disaster could kill as many Americans in a shorter period of time.

Is fighting for the freedom of other countries more important than taking simple precautions to save American lives?

[chrisk]

Maybe he did – it’s the economy stupid. Which is probably part of the reason he reacted so slowly. In any event I’m done. My point is not the Trump handled this well - he didn’t. My point is that to put all this on Trump is simplistic and absurd. We have a precedent – and that’s Katrina. Where Bush got all the blame heaped upon him. When in fact there again was plenty of blame to go around Federal state local media etc.

If you've read what I've posted on here long enough, you will know that I didn't think much of Cuomo's response, and I thought Di Blasio was downright awful.  I've praised Republicans like Mike DeWine (and Democrats) that have responded well, and blasted Democrats that have responded poorly (along with a fair share of Republicans).  I have evaluated the response on the basis of its relative competence or lack thereof.  Trump gets mentioned most of all, because the buck ostensibly stops there.  While public health response is by definition a state and local one in our federal system, the tone is set at the top.  And the tone set at the top of this country was one at indifference at the coming crisis.

Now, maybe it wouldn't have made a damned bit of difference, but imagine a world in which a President John Kasich warns all Americans in late January about how dangerous this virus could be, breaks through the bureaucracy and silos that exist between the FDA and CDC to prioritize widespread testing, stresses the importance of taking measures to protect the American public, coordinates the purchase of PPE, ventilators, and other supplies at a federal level so that states aren't competing with one another, sets up a task force to come up with guidelines for how and when states should impose measures of social distancing, browbeats governors who dilly dally while cases accumulate, and goes to congress to get money appropriated for an emergent pandemic response that uses a Manhattan project-like effort to quickly develop widespread testing and hire and train and deploy contact tracers like hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars depended on it. Maybe it doesn't make a damned bit of difference and we are still looking at hundreds of thousands of deaths at this point in time despite our best efforts (I don't think that would have been the case, but I don't know the counterfactual), and maybe the opposition tries to stymie him at every turn and Americans ignore him and the sclerotic bureaucracy can't be whipped into shape.  But at least I would be able to point to his actions and say that he took the pandemic seriously, and did all he could.  Instead, we have a president who has at his best been indifferent to the virus, and at his worst actively undermined efforts to contain the pandemic.  So forgive me if I draw a straight line between his actions (or lack thereof) and the toll of the pandemic.  The title of this post contrasted the US response to that of South Korea, Australia, Germany, and Singapore.  Goose has pointed out that we didn't have the built capacity of those other countries ready to deploy.  Fair enough.  But what kills me is that by and large we didn't even try.

BC

Great response. Just want to add that many Americans have become less trusting of government over the last 50 years, which leads to not follow suggestions, pleas, mandates, or laws of the government. This is despite the fact that government plays a smaller role in life in the US than in other developed countries. Americans made tremendous sacrifices in WWII. Would today's populace comply to the same degree? 300-400K Americans died in WWII. It is not inconceivable that this disaster could kill as many Americans in a shorter period of time.

Is fighting for the freedom of other countries more important than taking simple precautions to save American lives?

[Goose]

The title of this post contrasted the US response to that of South Korea, Australia, Germany, and Singapore.  Goose has pointed out that we didn't have the built capacity of those other countries ready to deploy.  Fair enough.  But what kills me is that by and large we didn't even try.


BC

I support that idea. I have a slightly different take on it though. Obama, Bush, and even a hypothetical Kasich aren't going to break the stovepipes between the CDC   FDA, etc. They wouldn't even know they exist. What probably would have happened with a more competent administration, and probably all we can expect, was some watchful waiting until it was clear we were in deep trouble and then doing about what we did. Any leader with any sense isn't going "all in" on the idea there is or is not a health emergency until they pretty much know for sure one way or the other. Snap decisions just aren't going to happen. Trump did make the snap decision that there wasn't. Big mistake. The others would have said "We are keeping an eye on it." and actually done so.

The problem was and is that the rank-and-file in HHS isn't mission oriented and isn't motivated to succeed no matter the politics. The president is only going to at best follow the advice of the CDC. The advice from the CDC has to come from the professionals, not the politicians, because the appointed heads just don't know squat in general about public health. BC might remember a post that I deleted. I was attempting to argue that the heads of HHS over the last 20 years were generally not qualified. It turns out that isn't quite true. It is a very uneven group over the years. However, what is true is that they were all politicians by the time the got the job (perhaps bar one).

But that isn't necessarily fatal. The German head of public health at the Federal level is also a lawyer with no medical training. It doesn't matter, because the professionals that report to him are trained and are not going quietly into the night. They have a job to do, they are going to make recommendations and they have every expectation they will be honored. Similarly, the Bavarian Public Health organization pressured their state to begin a curfew almost 10 days before the national level followed along. It is typically German that the Company Grade/NCO level people are first rate and will get it done even if their superiors are at best average. If they have to work out a side deal with Roche to make tests before Merkel is ready to do so, they will. When things are getting really bad, it is better to ask forgiveness than permission. That is the type of people we need at our CDC. We used to have them, but we don't any more. Failure is an option.

In order to get the valiant attempt against long odds, you need those kind of people in the trenches at the CDC, state, and local level. The leaders are not experts in the subject matter. You need people to tell the leaders what is the problem, what is the solution, and why they are sure. Those experts have to own it, or it won't stick. If you don't have that level of ownership the leaders won't really know what to do and will be driven only by politics. If they are really bad leaders, they may ignore good advice anyway, but they should at least get it. Germany had that. We didn't, and haven't for a long while.

[Goose]

The title of this post contrasted the US response to that of South Korea, Australia, Germany, and Singapore.  Goose has pointed out that we didn't have the built capacity of those other countries ready to deploy.  Fair enough.  But what kills me is that by and large we didn't even try.


BC

I support that idea. I have a slightly different take on it though. Obama, Bush, and even a hypothetical Kasich aren't going to break the stovepipes between the CDC   FDA, etc. They wouldn't even know they exist. What probably would have happened with a more competent administration, and probably all we can expect, was some watchful waiting until it was clear we were in deep trouble and then doing about what we did. Any leader with any sense isn't going "all in" on the idea there is or is not a health emergency until they pretty much know for sure one way or the other. Snap decisions just aren't going to happen. Trump did make the snap decision that there wasn't. Big mistake. The others would have said "We are keeping an eye on it." and actually done so.

The problem was and is that the rank-and-file in HHS isn't mission oriented and isn't motivated to succeed no matter the politics. The president is only going to at best follow the advice of the CDC. The advice from the CDC has to come from the professionals, not the politicians, because the appointed heads just don't know squat in general about public health. BC might remember a post that I deleted. I was attempting to argue that the heads of HHS over the last 20 years were generally not qualified. It turns out that isn't quite true. It is a very uneven group over the years. However, what is true is that they were all politicians by the time the got the job (perhaps bar one).

But that isn't necessarily fatal. The German head of public health at the Federal level is also a lawyer with no medical training. It doesn't matter, because the professionals that report to him are trained and are not going quietly into the night. They have a job to do, they are going to make recommendations and they have every expectation they will be honored. Similarly, the Bavarian Public Health organization pressured their state to begin a curfew almost 10 days before the national level followed along. It is typically German that the Company Grade/NCO level people are first rate and will get it done even if their superiors are at best average. If they have to work out a side deal with Roche to make tests before Merkel is ready to do so, they will. When things are getting really bad, it is better to ask forgiveness than permission. That is the type of people we need at our CDC. We used to have them, but we don't any more. Failure is an option.

In order to get the valiant attempt against long odds, you need those kind of people in the trenches at the CDC, state, and local level. The leaders are not experts in the subject matter. You need people to tell the leaders what is the problem, what is the solution, and why they are sure. Those experts have to own it, or it won't stick. If you don't have that level of ownership the leaders won't really know what to do and will be driven only by politics. If they are really bad leaders, they may ignore good advice anyway, but they should at least get it. Germany had that. We didn't, and haven't for a long while.

[terry]

By the way – I don’t believe Trump had the authority to order states to tell people to shelter in place.  Anymore than he had the authority to order states to open up their economies.  You no doubt remember when he made that comment and was blasted for it. As he should’ve been.

No, Trump didn't have the legal authority to order "shelter in place." But he had the platform to exercise leadership. The President is in a unique position. He's the guy with the bully pulpit. He could have used his position to drive home the risks, to explain the difficulty of beating the virus, and to call for sacrifice. He could have used his influence to convince the public and the governors that "shelter in place" was a necessity. He could have issued guidelines pushing for "shelter in place" well before most states or counties actually imposed it. He could have given the governors political cover to impose restrictions. He could have got out in front of the virus, shaped public opinion, and exercised leadership. Instead, Trump insisted on denying the risk, misrepresenting reality, and telling people the virus would just go away.

There was a brief period of time in mid-to-late March when it looked like Trump was finally taking the virus seriously. He finally seemed to admit the risk and the possible range of fatalities. He issued federal guidelines for "15 Days to Slow the Spread." The recommendations in those guidelines were weak, but better than nothing. It seemed that Trump had woken up to reality at last. Trump's approval rating moved up a couple of points during this time, possibly because it looked like he actually might start acting the way a President ought to act.

But Trump's awakening to reality was short-lived (as was the bump in his approval ratings). Soon he was back to denying the risk, spreading misinformation, and insisting that all was well. Instead of supporting the states' efforts to fight the virus, he largely left them to fend for themselves, and in some cases actively tried to undermine their public health measures. He made masks into a political statement rather than a common-sense public health precaution. A failure of leadership.

[terry]

By the way – I don’t believe Trump had the authority to order states to tell people to shelter in place.  Anymore than he had the authority to order states to open up their economies.  You no doubt remember when he made that comment and was blasted for it. As he should’ve been.

No, Trump didn't have the legal authority to order "shelter in place." But he had the platform to exercise leadership. The President is in a unique position. He's the guy with the bully pulpit. He could have used his position to drive home the risks, to explain the difficulty of beating the virus, and to call for sacrifice. He could have used his influence to convince the public and the governors that "shelter in place" was a necessity. He could have issued guidelines pushing for "shelter in place" well before most states or counties actually imposed it. He could have given the governors political cover to impose restrictions. He could have got out in front of the virus, shaped public opinion, and exercised leadership. Instead, Trump insisted on denying the risk, misrepresenting reality, and telling people the virus would just go away.

There was a brief period of time in mid-to-late March when it looked like Trump was finally taking the virus seriously. He finally seemed to admit the risk and the possible range of fatalities. He issued federal guidelines for "15 Days to Slow the Spread." The recommendations in those guidelines were weak, but better than nothing. It seemed that Trump had woken up to reality at last. Trump's approval rating moved up a couple of points during this time, possibly because it looked like he actually might start acting the way a President ought to act.

But Trump's awakening to reality was short-lived (as was the bump in his approval ratings). Soon he was back to denying the risk, spreading misinformation, and insisting that all was well. Instead of supporting the states' efforts to fight the virus, he largely left them to fend for themselves, and in some cases actively tried to undermine their public health measures. He made masks into a political statement rather than a common-sense public health precaution. A failure of leadership.

[Genuine Realist]

By the way – I don’t believe Trump had the authority to order states to tell people to shelter in place.  Anymore than he had the authority to order states to open up their economies.  You no doubt remember when he made that comment and was blasted for it. As he should’ve been.

No, Trump didn't have the legal authority to order "shelter in place." But he had the platform to exercise leadership. The President is in a unique position. He's the guy with the bully pulpit. He could have used his position to drive home the risks, to explain the difficulty of beating the virus, and to call for sacrifice. He could have used his influence to convince the public and the governors that "shelter in place" was a necessity. He could have issued guidelines pushing for "shelter in place" well before most states or counties actually imposed it. He could have given the governors political cover to impose restrictions. He could have got out in front of the virus, shaped public opinion, and exercised leadership. Instead, Trump insisted on denying the risk, misrepresenting reality, and telling people the virus would just go away.

There was a brief period of time in mid-to-late March when it looked like Trump was finally taking the virus seriously. He finally seemed to admit the risk and the possible range of fatalities. He issued federal guidelines for "15 Days to Slow the Spread." The recommendations in those guidelines were weak, but better than nothing. It seemed that Trump had woken up to reality at last. Trump's approval rating moved up a couple of points during this time, possibly because it looked like he actually might start acting the way a President ought to act.

But Trump's awakening to reality was short-lived (as was the bump in his approval ratings). Soon he was back to denying the risk, spreading misinformation, and insisting that all was well. Instead of supporting the states' efforts to fight the virus, he largely left them to fend for themselves, and in some cases actively tried to undermine their public health measures. He made masks into a political statement rather than a common-sense public health precaution. A failure of leadership.

Trump's behavior since the point in time that the medical community reached a consensus that C-!9 was no ordinary seasonal flu )approximately March 1st)  has been beyond despicable. The opposition criticized him for unresponsiveness, to some extent unfairly, but unfair criticism is the heat that comes in the Presidential kitchen. Rather than shake it off and get on with the business of addressing the most serious national crisis since World War II (no exaggeration), he goes - as always - eyeball to eyeball with them, belittling them AND the C-19 crisis, thereby endangering both lives and the economy.

So now in June we have a public that is divided on the means and ends, an inevitability in American politics when the government exercises authority as drastic as SIP - but one in which the President should - must - be a unifying force. Trump. however, has made his way on deliberately divisive confrontational politics, and knows no other way. The result is a completely disastrous Administration that will be mercifully gone in November. Then maybe we can begin to pick up the shattered remnants of the political dialog. If the New York Times went bankrupt on the same day, it would be proof of the existence of God. But that's too much to hope for.

The fact that the case against Trump in the early stages (when everyone was trying to figure this thing out) makes the case against him once the clinical data did coalesce to critical mass all the worse.

[Genuine Realist]

By the way – I don’t believe Trump had the authority to order states to tell people to shelter in place.  Anymore than he had the authority to order states to open up their economies.  You no doubt remember when he made that comment and was blasted for it. As he should’ve been.

No, Trump didn't have the legal authority to order "shelter in place." But he had the platform to exercise leadership. The President is in a unique position. He's the guy with the bully pulpit. He could have used his position to drive home the risks, to explain the difficulty of beating the virus, and to call for sacrifice. He could have used his influence to convince the public and the governors that "shelter in place" was a necessity. He could have issued guidelines pushing for "shelter in place" well before most states or counties actually imposed it. He could have given the governors political cover to impose restrictions. He could have got out in front of the virus, shaped public opinion, and exercised leadership. Instead, Trump insisted on denying the risk, misrepresenting reality, and telling people the virus would just go away.

There was a brief period of time in mid-to-late March when it looked like Trump was finally taking the virus seriously. He finally seemed to admit the risk and the possible range of fatalities. He issued federal guidelines for "15 Days to Slow the Spread." The recommendations in those guidelines were weak, but better than nothing. It seemed that Trump had woken up to reality at last. Trump's approval rating moved up a couple of points during this time, possibly because it looked like he actually might start acting the way a President ought to act.

But Trump's awakening to reality was short-lived (as was the bump in his approval ratings). Soon he was back to denying the risk, spreading misinformation, and insisting that all was well. Instead of supporting the states' efforts to fight the virus, he largely left them to fend for themselves, and in some cases actively tried to undermine their public health measures. He made masks into a political statement rather than a common-sense public health precaution. A failure of leadership.

Trump's behavior since the point in time that the medical community reached a consensus that C-!9 was no ordinary seasonal flu )approximately March 1st)  has been beyond despicable. The opposition criticized him for unresponsiveness, to some extent unfairly, but unfair criticism is the heat that comes in the Presidential kitchen. Rather than shake it off and get on with the business of addressing the most serious national crisis since World War II (no exaggeration), he goes - as always - eyeball to eyeball with them, belittling them AND the C-19 crisis, thereby endangering both lives and the economy.

So now in June we have a public that is divided on the means and ends, an inevitability in American politics when the government exercises authority as drastic as SIP - but one in which the President should - must - be a unifying force. Trump. however, has made his way on deliberately divisive confrontational politics, and knows no other way. The result is a completely disastrous Administration that will be mercifully gone in November. Then maybe we can begin to pick up the shattered remnants of the political dialog. If the New York Times went bankrupt on the same day, it would be proof of the existence of God. But that's too much to hope for.

The fact that the case against Trump in the early stages (when everyone was trying to figure this thing out) makes the case against him once the clinical data did coalesce to critical mass all the worse.