New England Journal of Medicine blasts Trump officials' response to virus, calls for new leaders

[Dashinka 24,493]

29 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  They are a medical journal and they are commenting on a medical situation that was mishandled politically. The point is they rarely get involved in politics, and yet the immediate defense is they are bashing Trump. The defense of Trump is getting cult like. We can come up with all the excuses and deflections in the world, but it is what it is. The administration handled Covid-19 poorly. In the end they have to own that.

Can you cite anything that President Trump did that did not follow what Drs. Fauci and Birx suggested?  Like I said earlier, if the NEJM unnamed editorial writer has a problem with the US response to the Vid, why are they not calling out the eliminant public health experts that have been in place way before President Trump entered the WH? 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

2 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Aren't you pretty much describing all self-absorbed politicians? 

No because if Obama had done it, we would be hearing about his great courage and leadership, for staying strong for  the family 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

40 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Can you cite anything that President Trump did that did not follow what Drs. Fauci and Birx suggested?  Like I said earlier, if the NEJM unnamed editorial writer has a problem with the US response to the Vid, why are they not calling out the eliminant public health experts that have been in place way before President Trump entered the WH? 

Listen to da expertz! 

 

It's funny anyone on the left mentions cults. As someone who didn't even vote for Trump in 2016 I've sat here ever since watching this same "cultish" behavior from people soliciting "experts" as to why we should take proof-free trash seriously just because its signed with a name and title. It's the same exact tactic repeated over and over to a point where it's far too many to count. Dozens of "experts" marched in front of cameras over the span of 2-3 years to peddle the "Russia" conspiracy, more "experts" as to why Ford's evidence-free accusations and comical testimony should tear apart a SCOTUS nominee, more "experts" telling a President what his foreign policy ought to be and wanting him impeached because it doesn't agree with theirs, Dr. Hollywood Fauci, now this sort of thing repeated endlessly. 

 

What a shock.. here I don't see any solutions, who to vote for, and why their policy is better, or why their preferred candidate's (and their party, if applicable) actions are a better alternative to what's going on now, doesn't address the discrepancies in fault between actual powers (federal/state/local) and actions. Instead, it reads as any MSM op-ed does, as "orange man bad" vitriol. It's not something that appeals to logic, or reason, rationality, it's just a partisan call to action.. something preferred by "cult" members. While many spent the earlier years of this Presidency placating this idiocy, you'll notice it falls on deaf ears now, and just gets mocked or discarded. That's the appropriate thing to do, learn to make a convincing argument for a change. Destroying institutions by attaching this appeal to authority confirmation bias as if they're merely a harpoon to advance your own viewpoint is as cultish and deranged as it gets.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Dashinka 24,493]

38 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Listen to da expertz! 

 

It's funny anyone on the left mentions cults. As someone who didn't even vote for Trump in 2016 I've sat here ever since watching this same "cultish" behavior from people soliciting "experts" as to why we should take proof-free trash seriously just because its signed with a name and title. It's the same exact tactic repeated over and over to a point where it's far too many to count. Dozens of "experts" marched in front of cameras over the span of 2-3 years to peddle the "Russia" conspiracy, more "experts" as to why Ford's evidence-free accusations and comical testimony should tear apart a SCOTUS nominee, more "experts" telling a President what his foreign policy ought to be and wanting him impeached because it doesn't agree with theirs, Dr. Hollywood Fauci, now this sort of thing repeated endlessly. 

 

What a shock.. here I don't see any solutions, who to vote for, and why their policy is better, or why their preferred candidate's (and their party, if applicable) actions are a better alternative to what's going on now, doesn't address the discrepancies in fault between actual powers (federal/state/local) and actions. Instead, it reads as any MSM op-ed does, as "orange man bad" vitriol. It's not something that appeals to logic, or reason, rationality, it's just a partisan call to action.. something preferred by "cult" members. While many spent the earlier years of this Presidency placating this idiocy, you'll notice it falls on deaf ears now, and just gets mocked or discarded. That's the appropriate thing to do, learn to make a convincing argument for a change. Destroying institutions by attaching this appeal to authority confirmation bias as if they're merely a harpoon to advance your own viewpoint is as cultish and deranged as it gets.

That is really the question now isn't it.  Joe and his allies in the media have hyped up the fear of the Vid as much as possible, and say he would do better, but for some reason his campaign will not elaborate on how he would have done, or will do better.  

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

Can you cite anything that President Trump did that did not follow what Drs. Fauci and Birx suggested?  Like I said earlier, if the NEJM unnamed editorial writer has a problem with the US response to the Vid, why are they not calling out the eliminant public health experts that have been in place way before President Trump entered the WH? 

 

   They started by only requiring quarantine for people with obvious symptoms returning from an epidemic area. The initial response failed to account for asymptomatic spread. Most governments made this mistake, so it could apply to them as well. It's a big reason why countries that were not hit early have been more effective at limiting spread. We then declined to use WHO test kits at a time when testing would have had the most impact. The administration took a pigheaded stance with the WHO in general because they have already taken issue with China and expect the WHO to have mimicked that. None of that came from Fauci or anyone else.

 

  The whole antagonism towards mask wearing in general (to the point of mocking and discouraging mask use) also falls squarely on the administration.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

No because if Obama had done it, we would be hearing about his great courage and leadership, for staying strong for  the family 

 

    We can speculate all day, but you can take Obama or Bush or Clinton or Reagan. All different people with different strengths and failings, and at least one thing in common. They wouldn't have acted the way Trump does.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

17 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   They started by only requiring quarantine for people with obvious symptoms returning from an epidemic area. The initial response failed to account for asymptomatic spread. Most governments made this mistake, so it could apply to them as well. It's a big reason why countries that were not hit early have been more effective at limiting spread. We then declined to use WHO test kits at a time when testing would have had the most impact. The administration took a pigheaded stance with the WHO in general because they have already taken issue with China and expect the WHO to have mimicked that. None of that came from Fauci or anyone else.

 

  The whole antagonism towards mask wearing in general (to the point of mocking and discouraging mask use) also falls squarely on the administration.

The Trump administration didn't create "antagonism toward mask wearing", it's long existed in American society, and some executive orders would've never changed what are sociocultural issues about hygienic and social practices. The fact that we see some of the biggest preachers saying exactly what you are regularly going maskless around others (openly or in private when they think no one is looking) and acting like wgaf really tells us how much this has to do with health. People can squeeze the orange (man bad) as much as they desire, the return on this effort isn't resulting in more than a few drops (if any at all) at this point. It's done. 

 

15 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    We can speculate all day, but you can take Obama or Bush or Clinton or Reagan. All different people with different strengths and failings, and at least one thing in common. They wouldn't have acted the way Trump does.

They would've been just as ineffective at changing the things you describe, because they didn't. No amount of Trump hating and persona invective changes it. 

 

Those with a genuine interest in productive changes will focus on structural issues and changes there over time, rather than the momentary "see target, attack target" political tradewinds. 

Edited October 8, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

14 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    We can speculate all day, but you can take Obama or Bush or Clinton or Reagan. All different people with different strengths and failings, and at least one thing in common. They wouldn't have acted the way Trump does.

I disagree that they might not have appeared in the limo like Trump did or come out on the balcony to reassure the people.

 

The part about the insane twitter posts, the name calling, and in general acting like a unpresidential brat I don't disagree on. Trump is his own worst enemy.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

The sad part about all this. I just had a black friend/coworker tell me she will not be taking the vaccine as it might be targeted toward her community 

 

Unfathomable the democrats would be hinting it may be unsafe if developed while Trump is in office. How many lives will this cost.

 

As if Trump could have anything to do with the vaccine being safe or unsafe. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   They started by only requiring quarantine for people with obvious symptoms returning from an epidemic area. The initial response failed to account for asymptomatic spread. Most governments made this mistake, so it could apply to them as well. It's a big reason why countries that were not hit early have been more effective at limiting spread. We then declined to use WHO test kits at a time when testing would have had the most impact. The administration took a pigheaded stance with the WHO in general because they have already taken issue with China and expect the WHO to have mimicked that. None of that came from Fauci or anyone else.

 

  The whole antagonism towards mask wearing in general (to the point of mocking and discouraging mask use) also falls squarely on the administration.

Yes, because never in history has anyone been quarantined without having symptoms or at least being exposed to any deadly disease. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

47 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Yes, because never in history has anyone been quarantined without having symptoms or at least being exposed to any deadly disease. 

 

      Obviously some of the people who returned had been exposed. In retrospect, failure to consider the possibility of asymptomatic spread was probably the single biggest factor in the initial transmission of Covid.

[Dashinka 24,493]

2 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   They started by only requiring quarantine for people with obvious symptoms returning from an epidemic area. The initial response failed to account for asymptomatic spread. Most governments made this mistake, so it could apply to them as well. It's a big reason why countries that were not hit early have been more effective at limiting spread. We then declined to use WHO test kits at a time when testing would have had the most impact. The administration took a pigheaded stance with the WHO in general because they have already taken issue with China and expect the WHO to have mimicked that. None of that came from Fauci or anyone else.

 

  The whole antagonism towards mask wearing in general (to the point of mocking and discouraging mask use) also falls squarely on the administration.

I think the mask wearing thing came from the experts who were saying not to wear them at one point.  It is not surprising to get mixed messages from Drs., and scientists, so I am not sure how Administration types could have changed that.  Also, I do not remember Fauci or Birx or the CDC saying we needed to quarantine asymptomatic people, and since most of the initial testing was done on people with symptoms, I am not sure anyone would have had a good idea who was out there showing no symptoms.  We have already discussed the entire WHO episode, and they were not very good at leading the world through this whole ordeal.  Even today there are noted epidemiologists debating what should have been done, so who should we believe.  I have said early on that the CDC screwed up in their testing kits, but again, those are the Drs. and scientists, so why is the NEJM not calling them out?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

5 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

I think the mask wearing thing came from the experts who were saying not to wear them at one point.  It is not surprising to get mixed messages from Drs., and scientists, so I am not sure how Administration types could have changed that.  Also, I do not remember Fauci or Birx or the CDC saying we needed to quarantine asymptomatic people, and since most of the initial testing was done on people with symptoms, I am not sure anyone would have had a good idea who was out there showing no symptoms.  We have already discussed the entire WHO episode, and they were not very good at leading the world through this whole ordeal.  Even today there are noted epidemiologists debating what should have been done, so who should we believe.  I have said early on that the CDC screwed up in their testing kits, but again, those are the Drs. and scientists, so why is the NEJM not calling them out?

 

      It's not a new concept. Many states have 21 day quarantine and/or monitoring for people returning from travel to areas where Ebola was spreading. The travel itself is the risk factor. Everyone is subject to the protocol. Governments worldwide made an assumption on how Covid spread, and it turned out to be wrong. You can't look at the humanitarian and economic cost and not consider the factor that played.

[Dashinka 24,493]

6 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

      It's not a new concept. Many states have 21 day quarantine and/or monitoring for people returning from travel to areas where Ebola was spreading. The travel itself is the risk factor. Everyone is subject to the protocol. Governments worldwide made an assumption on how Covid spread, and it turned out to be wrong. You can't look at the humanitarian and economic cost and not consider the factor that played.

Yes, I agree, The President should have stopped all international travel in February, and then they could have forced any repatriation flights into quarantine.  I am sure that would have went over very well with the MSM and the Democrats at the time, but it may have done something for the huge spike NY and the other East coast cities had from all the travel from Europe.  Of course at that time very little was known about the virus and the messages coming from the experts was quite mixed.  Beyond that, it was still up to the states to follow their own science.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

52 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Yes, I agree, The President should have stopped all international travel in February, and then they could have forced any repatriation flights into quarantine.  I am sure that would have went over very well with the MSM and the Democrats at the time, but it may have done something for the huge spike NY and the other East coast cities had from all the travel from Europe.  Of course at that time very little was known about the virus and the messages coming from the experts was quite mixed.  Beyond that, it was still up to the states to follow their own science.

 

  There were only two options worth doing. Either don't ban flights and let everyone in and hope you can screen for illness, or ban travel and quarantine everyone coming in from the endemic area. Hindsight is 20:20 but banning travel and letting some people in didn't really accomplish anything different than letting everyone in would have done. Travel ban/restriction and quarantine might have worked.