This thread is the only one on IORR where you are allowed to express your political opinions. Please do not go here if you can't respect other opinions. Also, please post with respect. No personal attacks, and no campaigns, i.e. please do not repeat the very same message every day or so.

I am opening this thread because many have strong opinions on the corona virus SARS-CoV-2, the disease COVID-19, and the way it has been handled by our politicians and health authorities during the past few months.

When posting your opinion, then please avoid quoting if possible. If you quote as to start a fight, or to oppose, your post may be deleted, in case the original post, the one you quote, is offending. By not quoting, your post, and your opinion, stand on it's own, it will be much stronger.

For general non-political discussions on the corona virus cases, please use the original thread:

Coronavirus COVID-19 status around the world

Bjornulf



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-04-15 17:41 by bv.

Thank you, BV. This should be interesting.

Thank you BV for opening this thread.

In my opinion. President Trump's attempt to divert attention from the shortcomings of his own administration by attacking the World Health Organisation is disgraceful. No, I'll got further, it's wicked.

If one good thing comes out of this pandemic it will be that more people come to realise that government is not in itself a bad thing, because if and when we get out of this mess, it will be government and science that save us.

Trump is a child who inhabits his own parallel universe. He/it is frightening and it is very disheartening and scary to see how some think he's doing a good job. How is he doing good job? By calling it the chiiinnnaaa virus? He's a despicable man with no regard for anything apart from HIS wealth.

This whole episode must gall him. Not because so many citizens of the country for which he is supposed to care about are ill and dead, But because much of HIS wealth is disappearing with the Stock market dropping and his resorts empty. THAT'S all he cares about.

How could he appoint Kushner and his daughter to a Covid19 Task force? WHAT WOULD THEY KNOW?

He is contemptible. To those who think he's a good/great leader...I take it you'd be ok with him walking up to your wife and grabbing her genitals? As he himself says "as a celebrity" you can get away with. He's dirt. An empty vessel.

Rod

Women leaders are doing a disproportionately great job at handling the pandemic. So why aren't there more of them? (CNN April 15, 2020)

(CNN) In Taiwan, early intervention measures have controlled the coronavirus pandemic so successfully that it is now exporting millions of face masks to help the European Union and others.

Germany has overseen the largest-scale coronavirus testing program in Europe, conducting 350,000 tests each week, detecting the virus early enough to isolate and treat patients effectively.

In New Zealand, the prime minister took early action to shut down tourism and impose a month-long lockdown on the entire country, limiting coronavirus casualties to just nine deaths.

All three places have received accolades for their impressive handling of the coronavirus pandemic. They are scattered across the globe: one is in the heart of Europe, one is in Asia and the other is in the South Pacific.

But they have one thing in common: they're all led by women.

...

PS. Norway and Denmark are also led by women, and both countries took early action.

Bjornulf



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-04-15 12:30 by bv.

The Norwegian health minister is in tune with the Norwegian PM regarding WHO:

Høie med klar tale etter Trumps kutt: – Vi må styrke WHO (VG, leading Norwegian newspaper - 15 April 2020)

Google translate:

Norwegian minister of Health Høye speaking clearly after Trump's cut: - We must strengthen WHO

"The answer to this situation is more international cooperation, not less," the Minister of Health said of the US shutdown to the WHO. Audun Lysbakken (SV) believes that Norway must immediately take the initiative for countries to work together to replace Trump's cut - dollar for dollar.

Bjornulf

If anything this virus puts our systems to the test:

The EU which should be built on solidarity shows its true face for the second time in 12 years and ought to be reformed if it doesn't want more nations to consider leaving it. If its leadership was democratically elected and the policies were introduced to help the weaker instead of throwing them into dept, we might would have seen real solidarity in these times.

Another thing is that many people now see behind the russophia, sinophobia and anti-cuban-sentiments that were conveyed by media and governments for years with those nations now sending crucial help and doctors all around the world. Of course one can question what the ulterior motives behind these actions are but in these times such impartial aids are needed as the virus can't be defeated by a nation alone. And even if UN-institutions sometimes seem to be rigid, the WHO and alike are also needed in order to develop a unified response to the crisis. So my guess is by cutting the US-funding of the WHO Trump only brings himself into deeper trouble and alienates the US further from the other parts of the world.

But that can be seen positively as this might bring Europe and Asia with everything in between together, which is what our leaders already hoped would happen 20-30 years ago. Unbelievable how much time we've lost and how much more effective such threats could be tackled if the world wasn't seen to be bipolar anymore by some.
I seem to be rambling on about world orders, but to me these thoughts are at the core of dealing with global problems, be it the corona virus or global warming with millions of people soon to be forced to give up their homes or the threat of nuclear war, of course.
The doomsday clock is set to 100 seconds to midnight and that was before this thing. It's not set by some conspiracy theorists or people who think liberals want to turn frogs gay. Its set by scientists observing what happens in the world and trying to show to people how serious the situation is. Not much time left. I hope this crisis exposes the deeply rooted faults in our systems and shows us the potential we have if we move forward together in unison with science, politics and economy.

Always nice to lose oneself in utopian dreams for five minutes per day...not much better than out of touch millionaires singing Imagine, I guess

It is during a crisis you see why your true friends are.

When Italy was left in the dark by EU early on during the corona pandemi crisis, they got assistance through doctors and medical equipment from China, Russia and Cuba. Sure there is a political aspect of this crisis.

Norway sent a team of 20 to 25 nurses, physicians and logistics personnel to Italy early April, through a non-political action done by the team, previously working with Ebola assistance in Africa etc.

References:

For Help On Coronavirus, Italy Turns To China, Russia And Cuba (NPR - March 25, 2020)

Also on Sunday came a medical brigade from Cuba — whose experts had previously battled Ebola in Africa. Thirty-seven Cuban doctors and 15 nurses (described by La Repubblica as the "most simpatico") were deployed to the Lombardy town of Crema. Photos of the Cuban team posted on Italy's Civil Protection Agency Facebook page had been shared almost 21,000 times by Wednesday morning. The many comments were of gratitude — and anger that the U.S., Italy's traditional ally, seemed absent.

Solidarity in Europe': Norway to Send Team to Italy to Help Fight COVID-19 (Reuters / New York Times - April 5, 2020)

"Solidarity in Europe is not a theoretical exercise and now is the time to show it in practice," Norwegian Health Secretary Bent Hoeie said. "We must help each other when crisis hits."

Bjornulf

The blame game is in full swing in the West Wing . It's the Democrats fault , and also the World Health Organization . Amazing how he takes no responsibility in his role in this Pandemic or his administrations lack luster and too late response . Never mind about science and what the medical experts are saying it's all about him and his re election and his pockets . He even considered dismissing Dr. Fauchi because he dared speak out that more lives could have been saved if the administration had acted quicker . I feel horrible for all the lives being lost from the pandemic virus . Then the isolation for the ill and then passing away in a cold and sterile environment of a hospital without being surrounded by your family and friends to comfort you in your time of Dying . Nurses talking about holding the hands of there patients as they draw there last breath . God Help Us and here our pleas for mercy !!!

The statement is essentially right that Germany copes with the situation in a better way than some other European countries (to date). I think that we have an effective health system (which is rather expensive for all by pay as you go scheme, however). The capacities of intensive care were boosted in the last weeks, so that the German physicians could even help patients from France, Italy and other countries. The essential problem which all countries have to manage with is to reduce the rate of new infections to stretch the time patients have severe symptoms like pneumonia and severe respiratory distress, or in other words: that not too much patients have severe symptoms at the same time - till the international community of experts has developed a vaccine, an immunization substance or an effective remedy. The politicians in Germany looked to virological and epidemiological scientists for advice rather early and put their suggestions into practice consequently. It is not the success of one single person (man or woman), since we have a federalistic political system. Every German Federal Land has separate (but related) administrative regulations, particularly in health matters. But: Even as for me one could imagine some worse political leaders than Chancellor Merkel in this situation ...

Quote
bv
Women leaders are doing a disproportionately great job at handling the pandemic. So why aren't there more of them? (CNN April 15, 2020)

(CNN) In Taiwan, early intervention measures have controlled the coronavirus pandemic so successfully that it is now exporting millions of face masks to help the European Union and others.

Germany has overseen the largest-scale coronavirus testing program in Europe, conducting 350,000 tests each week, detecting the virus early enough to isolate and treat patients effectively.

In New Zealand, the prime minister took early action to shut down tourism and impose a month-long lockdown on the entire country, limiting coronavirus casualties to just nine deaths.

All three places have received accolades for their impressive handling of the coronavirus pandemic. They are scattered across the globe: one is in the heart of Europe, one is in Asia and the other is in the South Pacific.

But they have one thing in common: they're all led by women.

...

PS. Norway and Denmark are also led by women, and both countries took early action.

Bill Gates says Trump's decision to halt WHO funding is 'as dangerous as it sounds'

(CNN Business)President Donald Trump's decision to withhold funding to the World Health Organization pending a review of its handling of the coronavirus pandemic is "as dangerous as it sounds," Bill Gates said Wednesday.

"Their work is slowing the spread of Covid-19 and if that work is stopped no other organization can replace them. The world needs @WHO now more than ever," the Microsoft founder and philanthropist said in a tweet.
The WHO declared coronavirus a public health emergency of international concern in late January and a week later, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation pledged up to $100 million to help contain the outbreak.
Those funds, the foundation said, would be used to help find a vaccine for the virus, limit its spread and improve detection and treatment."

[edition.cnn.com]

The Huge Cost of Waiting to Contain the Pandemic
As the numbers show, the timing of social distancing can have an enormous impact on death tolls

"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."

[www.nytimes.com]

Quote
MisterDDDD
The Huge Cost of Waiting to Contain the Pandemic
As the numbers show, the timing of social distancing can have an enormous impact on death tolls

"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."

[www.nytimes.com]

While intellectually obvious based on the information that we've been exposed to for the last couple of months, and from country comparisons on early action vs. inaction, this is still a stunning and simple graph. Thanks for sharing.

Like it or not, the root cause for this crisis is the nature of the Chinese communist regime. Communist regimes are by nature closed spaces that seal themselves off from the world and are afraid and/or refuse to issue bad news about their countries. If there had been more transparency from China about the medical situation chances are the entire world picture would be much different right now.

For example, China could have banned their own nationals from travelling to other countries as well as banning incoming arrivals as soon as it became clear that there was a local pandemic situation taking place. Perhaps this could have been done by the second week of January. How did the virus spread all around the world? It's probably because of normal business air travel which has to be huge considering China's manufacturing base. And in this day and age, you can be 99% as effective in your business dealings through teleconferencing.

The truth about what happened in China will probably never come out. Don't be surprised if there was systematic suppression of the sharing of information at all levels because the first knee-jerk reaction from communist political apparatchiks is to shut down the free flow of information if that information is going to make the state look bad. And that probably reached right into the WHO.

Look at the mask issue for what was and is taking place in most of the world as a model for what was probably taking place in China at all levels. "You don't need a mask but wear a mask if you are taking care of a sick person." Yeah sure, that really makes sense to me.

[www.theguardian.com]

Wed 8 Apr 2020

Donald Trump has blamed the World Health Organization for failures in the initial response to the coronavirus pandemic, even threatening to cut its funding, but most health experts say it has performed well with limited resources.

Accusing the WHO of giving bad advice, being “China-centric” and even withholding information, Trump claimed to have stopped US funding in a press briefing on Tuesday, only to claim a few minutes later that he was just considering it, pending a review of its performance.

In fact, the US is already about $200m in arrears in assessed contributions (national membership fees). It has given more in donations, and was the biggest single donor in 2019 – certainly far more than China, which gives a paltry amount given the size of its economy.

But the US is far from providing the majority of the WHO’s funds, as Trump claimed, and its voluntary contributions have largely been tied to specific projects. WHO’s total annual budget is about $2.5bn, and contributions from member states have not significantly increased over three decades.

“The WHO’s budget is around the equivalent of a large US hospital, which is utterly incommensurate with its global responsibilities,” said Lawrence Gostin, a public health law professor at Georgetown University. “So, if the US president were a global health leader, he’d be leading a call to at minimum double the WHO budget in the face of this pandemic.”

Global health experts have generally given the WHO good marks for its transparency and the speed with which it has responded to the coronavirus, under its director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. It is universally seen as much better than its sluggish, error-strewn response to the Ebola outbreak in west Africa in 2014, three years before Tedros took over.

“I have been a longstanding critic and I’ve described their performance on Ebola as catastrophic. But I think overall their performance on this outbreak has been, not perfect, but pretty good,” Ashish Jha, a public health professor at Harvard, said.

“They’ve been very transparent as much as they have known the data. They have had daily calls, they have been very clear about the severity of this illness, and how the global community has to respond.”

Anthony Fauci, the director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Robert Redfield, the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, took part in WHO conference calls about coronavirus from 7 January, according to sources familiar with the conversations.

Tedros declared a “public health emergency of international concern” on 30 January, calling on governments to pursue containment and testing efforts. The declaration was criticised by some as coming several days too late, but others say the organisation’s awareness of the dangers was held back by China’s government, which initially suppressed information about the initial outbreak in Wuhan, and refused entry to WHO experts.

On the same day Trump was confidently predicting the coronavirus did not present a serious threat to the US, assuring Americans: “It’s going to have a very good ending.”

Gavin Yamey, the director of Duke University’s center for policy impact in global health, said: “If the United States had followed the WHO’s very clear advice on identifying cases, isolating cases and conducting contact tracing, then it wouldn’t be in the appalling situation that it is in today.”

Despite its declaration, the WHO did not advocate travel restrictions of the sort imposed by Trump a day later on non-American travellers arriving from China. The president has pointed to this as an example of bad advice. But Gostin, who is director of the WHO centre on global health law, said that the organisation cannot generally call for travel bans under international law – and such bans can be counterproductive, leading countries to withhold vital information for fear of economic isolation.

“To blame the WHO for acting on the basis of international law and science in ways that are entirely consistent with what WHO practices have been for decades is the height of hypocrisy,” he said.

Trump claimed that his ban “shut down” intercontinental transmission of the virus, but an ABC television investigation found that there were 3,200 flights from China to the US in the critical period between December and March.

By the time Trump’s ban was announced, it was far too late to stop the virus entering the US. It was already rampant in US communities, but Trump continued to tell Americans that the outbreak would not affect them, and wholesale US testing failed to get off the ground for another six weeks.

The US president’s accusations that the WHO is “China-centric” have more resonance with public health scholars. The WHO has largely excluded Taiwan from its discussions, and dodged questions about the Taiwanese response, which has been one of the most effective. But because of pressure from Beijing – which sees Taiwan as an integral part of its territory and opposes any form of recognition – the blindspot is a UN-wide phenomenon.

Tedros also praised Chinese transparency and its national response, lauding President Xi Jinping for his “political leadership”, even though Beijing had tried to hide the seriousness of the situation in Wuhan for several critical weeks,.

“I think the effusive praise for China, in the early days, was probably unnecessary,” Jha said.

Other say that a certain amount of diplomatic flattery was necessary to coax Xi into allowing in WHO experts and sharing information.

Amanda Glassman, the executive vice-president and senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, said a deeper problem is the WHO’s low budget and relatively toothless structure. Unlike the nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, it has no redress against governments that do not cooperate.

“It operates in countries at the pleasure and permission of the host country governments. So in the case of China, to be allowed to enter China, it was a negotiation to get there,” Glassman said.

She added that the real challenge for the WHO has yet come, when the pandemic really hits poorer countries with fragile, underfunded health services, who rely heavily on the organisation.

Unlike the Ebola outbreak in 2014, the US will not be there to take the lead, and it will be up to the WHO to coordinate scarce resources and expertise.

“Can they do that in 40 countries at once?” Glassman asked. “That is the part that remains to be tested.”

Of course, the easy way out of this is to blame communists for the mess that some "developed" countries have with their health systems. Even if the Chinese government tried to block information about the situation (which is not exclusively a communist thing to do, look at Mr.Trump) the real reason for the lack of supplies and the massive inequality between rich and poor/black and white etc in healing expectancy is to be found in the deregulation that has been taking place in the health system (among all the other crucial social services) since the 80s. If more of the industries important to such situations are privatized, producing the amount of supplies needed in an epidemic that only comes every 100 years is not profitable. Sadly, free markets are only focused on the present. Now we have the opportunity to learn.

Quote
MonkeyMan2000
Of course, the easy way out of this is to blame communists for the mess that some "developed" countries have with their health systems. Even if the Chinese government tried to block information about the situation (which is not exclusively a communist thing to do, look at Mr.Trump) the real reason for the lack of supplies and the massive inequality between rich and poor/black and white etc in healing expectancy is to be found in the deregulation that has been taking place in the health system (among all the other crucial social services) since the 80s. If more of the industries important to such situations are privatized, producing the amount of supplies needed in an epidemic that only comes every 100 years is not profitable. Sadly, free markets are only focused on the present. Now we have the opportunity to learn.

I think that you are wrong about deregulation. For decades people had that original model of telephone in their houses and nothing ever changed. They broke up the regulated telephone monopoly and now you have a telephone and a supercomputer in your pocket and a ridiculous amount of choice.

With respect to the issue of an epidemic that only comes once every 100 years, foresight is a complex issue. Pretty much no country since the 1918-19 Spanish flu has said, "Every year let's contribute to a strategic medical stockpile consisting of reserve hospitals, reserve medical equipment, reserve personal protection equipment, etc." It has never been an election issue, and the press has never raised the issue. The comments from Bill Gates and others were treated as intellectual pursuits only.

And even if some government wanted to build up a strategic medical stockpile, other people would be fighting for their slice of the pie. "The strategic medical stockpile is a waste of resources, we need more social housing." And so on. It's hard to imagine a big city with a big modern strategic reserve hospital that sits empty.

Should we have a strategic medical stockpile? I think it makes sense and perhaps going forward we can allocate resources for it. Perhaps over 20 years we can put enough medical resources in the "bank" such that we will be ready if another bug comes along.

It is a waste of time to blame the IORR moderator being unfair here. It is like telling your mother and father you want to replace them. Sure you can, but then you can't expect to come by and enjoy Thanksgiving and Xmas and all of that in their home as you please at any times.

I will delete any such complaints. If you don't think I am fair, then please do not waste your time telling me here. I have been moderating IORR the same way since mid '90's i.e. for 25 years, and I intend to keep the same policy for the next 25 years.

Bjornulf

Quote
SomeTorontoGirl
[www.theguardian.com]

Wed 8 Apr 2020

Donald Trump has blamed the World Health Organization for failures in the initial response to the coronavirus pandemic, even threatening to cut its funding, but most health experts say it has performed well with limited resources.

Given the fact that some of Trump's ways of acting (i.e. attacking the press, etc) have been replied ipsis litteris here in Brazil, I wonder how long will it take until our president start threatening the WHO as well.

The World Health Organization - WHO - told all of the world by mid January 2020 all about this virus. They even had a test ready, in approx two weeks from they got the info about the virus from China. The test was ready mid Jan, and countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore etc used it from the very start.

All countries in the world got - and do still get - the very same info and recommendations from WHO at the very same time. Some countries did early actions, others did little.

Bjornulf

Trump's signature to be on stimulus checks, delaying mailing process: report
April 14, 2020
By Mike Murphy

Federal stimulus checks for millions of Americans will be delayed by several days because President Donald Trump wanted his signature to be on them, the Washington Post reported late Tuesday. It will reportedly be the first time any president's signature has appeared on checks to taxpayers. Since the president is not actually authorized to sign checks from the U.S. Treasury, Trump's signature will appear in the "memo" space on the bottom left, across from the authorized signature of a nonpartisan Bureau of the Fiscal Service official. The Post reported the final decision was made Monday night, and will delay the first batch of checks to be mailed out. Treasury Department officials denied to the Post that Trump's signature caused a delay, saying checks were not scheduled to be mailed until next week anyway. The signature will not appear on direct deposits, only on checks mailed to taxpayers for whom the government does not have banking information.

[www.marketwatch.com]

Quote
bv
It is a waste of time to blame the IORR moderator being unfair here. It is like telling your mother and father you want to replace them. Sure you can, but then you can't expect to come by and enjoy Thanksgiving and Xmas and all of that in their home as you please at any times.

I will delete any such complaints. If you don't think I am fair, then please do not waste your time telling me here. I have been moderating IORR the same way since mid '90's i.e. for 25 years, and I intend to keep the same policy for the next 25 years.

I fail to understand why you removed my last post. Most of my post was about what Doctors and nurses are dealing with. The emotional toll. Also about Trumps daily press Conferences.

I also provided links to interesting NY Times stories. Sorry if I offended you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-04-15 19:12 by Rocknroll1969.

Trump's freeze on WHO funding in the midst of a pandemic has rightly triggered global outrage and been roundly condemned. The editor-in-chief of the Lancet medical journal even went so far as to call it a crime against humanity.

Whatever Trump's claim, it comes across as a spiteful and pathetic attempt to deflect blame from his own failings in this pandemic. The way he shouts down as "fake" any journalists (especially women) who try to pin him down by asking questions that he doesn't like or can't answer is in the same vein - disgraceful and egregious. Hardly presidential behaviour. Now is not the time for leaders to be playing games and desperately trying to big themselves up and trample over anything or anyone perceived to be in the way of their reputation and ambition.

But history will be the last judge.

[www.theguardian.com]

[www.theguardian.com]

[www.theguardian.com]

President Donald Trump made it official Tuesday that the administration was halting money to the World Health Organization, the international body that said in January that COVID-19 could not be spread by human-to-human contact....good move closing U.S. borders in January despite resistance

Time will tell but the swirl of conspiracy and actual wonder about where COVID-19 originates from is a bit fuzzy, with fingers pointing at labs for being inadequate and/or leaking it and the Chinese government covering things up, holding back information, giving out misinformation and, duhhhh, lying.

Meanwhile, well, someone gets their feelings hurt when asked about February by yelling about January and goes on a gaslighting rant.

Direct connection to Wuhan was in December and first official US case January 19 but there is some info I have learned, personally, as in not online but from someone working on a vaccine, that it's been in the US since October. If that will ever be technically known is not known at the moment.

Fact check: Trump denies saying another thing he said and makes more false claims at coronavirus briefing

(CNN) - Another coronavirus briefing. Another series of false claims.

Speaking Tuesday in the Rose Garden of the White House, President Donald Trump denied making a comment he did make. He criticized the World Health Organization for the same thing he has done before. He wrongly suggested he was the only national leader to impose travel restrictions on China. He claimed he was "authorizing" governors to lift coronavirus restrictions even though this power always belonged to governors. He falsely claimed, again, that "nobody ever thought" there would be a crisis like this. And he repeated some of his favorite false claims about his tariffs on China.

Here's a rundown of Trump's claims, and the facts around them.

Trump's praise for China's supposed transparency

After he criticized the World Health Organization for praising China's supposed transparency over the coronavirus, Trump was pressed about his own previous praise of China's supposed transparency. "I don't talk about China's transparency," Trump responded. "You know, if I'm so good to China, how come I was the only person, the only leader of a country, that closed our borders tightly against China?"

Facts First: Trump did praise China, and its president, Xi Jinping, for its supposed transparency. Moreover, Trump didn't completely shut down travel between China and the United States; nearly 40,000 people traveled from China to the United States after he announced travel restrictions, according to an April 4 New York Times analysis of data collected in both countries. And Trump was far from the only leader to impose travel restrictions from China. A Washington Post analysis found that 38 countries imposed significant travel restrictions on China "before or at the same time the U.S. restrictions were put in place." (The Post analysis did not count 12 other countries "that took some sort of action before the United States but with measures that were not as sweeping.")

Trump has explicitly praised China for "transparency" related to the virus. On January 24, he tweeted that "China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency," and that "In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi!" (On March 21, Trump defended his initial claim that China had acted with transparency by arguing that "China was transparent at that time, but when we saw what happened, they could have been transparent much earlier than they were.")

Trump consistently overplays the severity of his travel restrictions on China. They did not constitute a complete border closure: They did not apply to American citizens, permanent residents or many of the family members of citizens and permanent residents. The New York Times reported that nearly 40,000 people have flown to the US from China since Trump's restrictions went into effect February 2.

'Authorizing' the governors to reopen

Trump claimed at Monday's briefing that he has "total" authority to decide when states lift their coronavirus-related social and economic restrictions. Backtracking Tuesday, he said: "I will be speaking to all 50 governors very shortly and I will then be authorizing each individual governor of each individual state to implement a reopening, and a very powerful reopening plan, of their state at a time and in a manner as most appropriate."

Facts First: Trump was asserting authority many legal scholars say he does not have. There is no legislation that explicitly gives the power to authorize (or refuse to authorize) governors to lift their own restrictions, and many legal scholars say governors have a long-established constitutional authority over public health matters in their states. In other words, Trump was claiming to be handing governors leeway that was never his to hand out in the first place.

At Tuesday's briefing, Trump blamed any shortages in medical equipment or resources on past administrations and reiterated his belief that no one could have been prepared for the current situation because these circumstances were unforeseen. "In all fairness to previous administrations, nobody ever thought anything like this was going to happen," the President said.

Facts First: This is false. The US intelligence community and public health experts had warned for years that the country was at risk from a pandemic. Experts had also warned that the country would face shortages of critical medical equipment, such as ventilators, if a pandemic occurred."

You can read a full fact check here:
[lite.cnn.com]

self-moderated



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-04-15 19:34 by stickyfingers101.

I like to look at all sides and draw my own conclusions instead of have an editorial writer tell me my opinion.

Did the US act in a responsible, even proactive manner, on some things? Yes with the travel ban. Did it miss the boat on others? Probably in some areas with social distancing and stay at home orders.

Did the WHO act appropriately based on the information provided? Probably. Could they have done more to make sure they were getting good information? Probably. There has been quite a few reports of the current head of the WHO's dealings with China over the years that cause suspicion.

Is the Chinese government being honest? Probably a mixed bag. There's reports they kept things quiet while they stockpiled PPE and so forth before other countries attempted the same. There's also a recent report of University studies within China showing how it was initially much worse than reported and those studies have recently been removed from existence (though as everyone should know by now, once on the internet, always available somehow). All of his certainly raises some eyebrows.

Is U.S. media biased? Well, there's estimates that 80-90% of our media votes democrat. And I'm sure many try to be good reporters and keep bias out of their reporting but I'm also sure no matter how hard they try it can shift the tone of the story. And this being the case, the small amount of news media that doesn't stay within these lines is labeled extreme and biased. Are there some extremes in both directions? Of course! A few examples may be MSNBC and Newsmax.

Should the U.S. have stopped payments to the WHO? Probably not the best time to do so, but money talks, and if there's anything that may spur on discussion around if they acted appropriately or if there's a better means to do so, money, or lack thereof, does that.

Is the U.S. president an a-hole? Probably. Though I got a better job making a better salary and my retirement savings increased 50% since election night (though I'm currently down 10% from those highs). As some have pointed out, if you're going in for surgery, do you want the best guy for the job even though he may be a jerk or do you want a nice guy who may not know what he's doing? I'll take the former every time.

Is the U.S. president good for the world? Mixed bag. His America First policy probably is not (though as an American I believe I've benefited). He has taken on China's trade policy and counterfeiting which should be good for everyone but China. North Korea so far hasn't gone the way anyone's hoped. His speech in Saudi Arabia on terrorism was long overdue.

What I'm trying to get at is I don't think any of this is black and white, and much probably comes down to each individuals circumstances. For me it's always "am I better off than I was before", and the answer's 'yes'. I could care less if the president is white, black, purple, man, woman, or other, and just because I disagree with someone of a different race or sex than myself doesn't make me racist or sexist. For many, especially now, their answer to "am I better off today" may be 'no'. So we may differ on opinion but should be able to understand why someone else has a different one. Do I like/dislike democrats/republicans? I think they've both done dumb things, and I think they've both done good things. But discussion, not shouting down the opposition which helps no one understand why someone may feel differently, should help everyone understand the differences, and also the similarities which probably far outweigh the differences. I'm not looking for a new messiah (already have one of those), someone who looks good, sounds good, I'm looking for someone who can keep me and my family safe and allow me to achieve my goals of paying my bills and hopefully retiring some day.

Am I worried about other things? Sure. Global warming? Yes. Though I think the question is not is the earth warming but is man a major cause of it and/or is it cyclical? There's plenty of studies that show it's cyclical though that doesn't mean the current warming trend is. There's also plenty of studies that show man is a cause but a minor one, and there's others that show the opposite. Should we convert to a cleaner form of fuel? Certainly. Can we do that overnight? Absolutely not. There's going to be a long transition period, and that started years ago and will continue for many more. Can the U.S. go it alone and make much of a difference? Nope; others will take advantage of the economic impact and the amount of pollution and it's impact to Earth is too small relative to the rest of the world (though I certainly understand per capita we may be above the norm). So again it needs to be a carefully coordinated negotiated transition or it'll never work.

Thanks BV, this might be a good diversion (and maybe not!) so this sort of thing doesn't filter into everything else. Many other message boards have a free-for-all soapbox (with limitations of course against racist or threatening language), even if it's not your own opinion (and based on some of my recent comments that have been removed I take it they're not...but I take you at your word it's not personal so I take no offense). After all, it is your website, you should do with it what you wish, if anyone (including myself) feel strongly otherwise they can start their own, which I'm not about to do as I get great info here about one of my favorite bands that I couldn't possibly get by doing that! Plus I'm a math minor, I find your statistics interesting.

CNN...Fake News...pushed the fake Russian collusion hoax and fake impeachment