What's new
By:

Coronavirus

Gameface said:
A few people I work with were talking on facebook and one said something like "If we were able to survive the Obama Presidency I'm sure we'll be able to survive the Trump Presidency."

I'm thinking back like what major issues did Obama cause? When did he look incompetent (tan suit notwithstanding)? What did he do to damage our relationships with our allies? What did he do to embolden our adversaries?

Yeah the media was way soft on him. There were issues that didn't get a lot of attention, like the aggressive deportations that were happening. But even looking back with a more critical eye it was a relatively uneventful Presidency.
Click to expand...

So first of all, I don't believe the media was soft on him for the most part. Was he new and exciting? Absolutely. Did he benefit by Hillary being unpopular? Yes. Did he benefit by going up against McCain after 8 years of disappointing Republican governing? Absolutely. Did he also benefit by being the first African American president? Sure. But after the initial honeymoon, the media was not soft on him. And the right wing media never even gave him a honeymoon. Glenn Beck was already touting on Fox News in March 2009 about taking the country back with his 9/12 Project rallies. Again, March 2009, Obama hadn't even been in office for 3 full months.

Secondly, our country is in the middle of a reshuffling. I think there were a lot of things happening in 2008. The changing economy was/is an issue we have yet to fully deal with. This has led to the country becoming de facto segregated with liberals moving to states and neighborhoods with fellow liberals while conservatives are moving into states and neighborhoods with fellow conservatives. This decreases the desire to work in a bipartisan manner as large groups of like-minded communities demand an ever-purer candidate. Pollster David Wasserman has this piece on communities that have more whole foods stores generally swing left while communities that have Cracker Barrel restaurants swing right. This polarization is only increasing. Read this article when you have a chance. It's not long but it gives a lot to think about. How do you encourage bipartisanship when communities are living in different realities?

Thirdly, the role of racism. It's undeniable and I don't intend to go into depth over this.

Lastly, I think a lot can be attributed to the implosion of the Bush presidency. Bush actually did well among minority groups in 2000. McCain did decent, but not well enough to win. Trump did the worst of the 3, yet won. Here's what the electorate makeup looked like in 2000:
Gore Bush (winner)
White 42% 55%
African American 90% 9%
Hispanic 62% 35%
Asian 55% 41%

Now notice the changes to the 2008 electorate:
Obama (winner) McCain
White 43% 55%
African American 95% 4%
Hispanic 67% 31%
Asian 62% 35%

Now look at how the 2016 electorate changed:
Clinton Trump (winner)
White 37% 57%
African American 89% 8%
Hispanic 66% 28%
Asian 65% 27%

I think a lot of this can be pinned onto the failure of Bush to succeed with his "compassionate conservativism." Had that succeeded, I think it would have kept the populism that we've seen (at least from the right) under control. Who knows what would've happened to the left had they lost for 12 or 16 straight years. However, since his presidency was seen as a terrible disaster (Bush's approval ratings sank to the mid 20s in late 2008). This led to insurgent anger which fed the populism of the tea party and Trump. As the establishment weakened it led the party into a complete identity search. They found it early in the Obama years with being a white grievance party and they've only solidified it since.

At some point Democrats will need to figure out their left flank (their coalition is almost too broad and large to mobilize) and I think the GOP will need to readjust. Either it'll continue to devolve into a marginalized old white non-college educated rural party and a new mainstream conservative party will take its place or it'll shed the populists and white supremacists who control it and allow for establishment mainstream politicians to exert control so it can compete nationally.

The electorate in some parts of the country just has zero incentive to work in a bipartisan manner. I mean, seriously, just look at Utah. Mike Lee has zero incentive to work with Democrats. Chris Stewart, whose district takes parts of North Salt Lake and St. George has even less incentive than Lee to work with Democrats. Likewise, Democrats in blue urban areas have little to no incentive to work with Republicans (especially when they've become so extreme as we're seeing today). How do you fix this? Not sure. Getting rid of gerrymandering would help. Making it easier to vote so that minority populations' voices are actually heard would help too. I also believe having a moderate Republican party that isn't alienating large parts of the country, especially minority populations and the college educated, would do a lot. It would force Democrats to have to compete in rural areas and force Republicans to have to compete in urban areas. The party of Reagan could compete in blue areas that the party of Trump could only dream of. But the GOP loses any incentive to change if they win again in 2020. A devastating loss in 2020 could be the catalyst for big changes. We'll see.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Red said:
Here is the opening statement that Dr. Rick Bright will deliver to the House Committee Thursday morning.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/13/politics/read-rick-bright-house-opening-statement/index.html

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/05/13/politics/rick-bright-testimony-congress/index.html

(CNN)Dr. Rick Bright, the ousted director of a key federal office charged with developing medical countermeasures, will testify before Congress on Thursday that the Trump administration was unprepared for the coronavirus pandemic and warn that the the US will face "unprecedented illness and fatalities" without additional preparations.

"Our window of opportunity is closing. If we fail to develop a national coordinated response, based in science, I fear the pandemic will get far worse and be prolonged, causing unprecedented illness and fatalities," Bright is expected to say Thursday, according to his prepared testimony obtained by CNN. "Without clear planning and implementation of the steps that I and other experts have outlined, 2020 will be darkest winter in modern history."
Click to expand...
For about a month, I’ve been meaning to post my view on this but haven’t gotten around to doing so because it requires adding a lot of context. The tl;dr form of this is that my suspicion is that our debate regarding how and when to open up is going to get us through the next 6-8 weeks. We’ll endlessly debate what effect this is having on infection rates and ultimately my suspicion is that these stay relatively unchanged, if not continue to decrease. If there’s a bump, I don’t see this being something massive, and there are a whole host of reasons that I’ll have to elaborate on later, but I’ll have to settle for just laying out the bare bones with that. We will debate what we’re seeing. If rates don’t spike, we will favor more palatable narratives of how we’ve opened up slower, people are being more cautious, and how we’re still not testing sufficiently (I’m not saying any of these are untrue, just stating what how we’ll be qualifying what we’re seeing). Ultimately, we’re going to arrive in August/September and a different narrative will really heat up: the summer suppression of the virus. Currently, this is an argument castigated as ignorant and wishful (but is and will change). This will become more accepted because the argument will be highlighted as more nuanced: that it wasn’t the summer and the heat killing the virus (as all those ignorant rubes believed), but because the summer facilitated social gathering in ways that were more consistent with social distancing — that people congregated more outside and away from each other. This will allow a few things to come out. One is that it will reinforce the idea of social distancing helping curtail the virus, rather than ‘magic’ or anything implemented by the administration, but it will also reassure and provide a level of vindication for the initial doomsday models of millions dead. After all, those represent one side of the simplistic dichotomy of ‘science and facts’ vs. ‘ignorance and greed,’ and how palatable is vindication that the original models weren’t wrong, just mistimed? Our discussion will shift to the fact that COVID started at the very end of winter, and we had massive casualties. True, it did not reach the millions projected (‘because we acted’), but the summer has provided false hope for all those who deny science, and they’ve prematurely spiked the football in their ignorance and arrogance, but now [end of summer] we’re headed into a full winter where the death toll will be like nothing we’ve ever seen. Lots of talk of “we’re ****ed” and “we have no idea what’s about to hit us.”

That’s the tl;dr. I’ll have to actually clarify most of this, but not now. Maybe this weekend. I’m not saying there isn’t a lot of truth in some of this, but this narrative is and will be coalescing over the coming months.
 
Last edited:
Ummmm



so it’s safe for workers to get their asses back to work but not safe for judges to meet? Interesting.
 
Wes Mantooth said:
Exponentially wrong? What in the holy hell are you talking about? We’re at 84,000+ deaths. We’re at 900+ on the day with 25 states, 3 territories and other entities still to report. Over 11,000 new cases today with all those states still to report. Numbers are going down. In NY. They’re basically going up in the rest of the country. Trump himself last week said to expect 3,000 deaths a day by June 1.

And all this despite restrictions over the last seven to eight weeks. But yes, hospitals are empty. Like wtf are you even talking about?

And give it another 10-15 days. All those states who opened up. Forget about it. The numbers should be worse there than they are today.

It’s not like, “Hey! Only 84,000 deaths, not one or two million like that moron Fauci said.” The game’s not over yet. Hell, the first quarter might not be over yet.
Click to expand...

Yes. Exponentially wrong.


Millions (plural) of deaths predicted, with intervention.

I am aware that this thing isn't over, but we aren't going to get close to that number and you know it.

And yes, the hospitals being open is important. Why? We were told we had to stay at home so we don't overwhelm hospitals, which would cause more deaths. We did that. Hospitals are laying people off now, because there's no traffic. So now it's turned into, "stay at home until there's a vaccine" or "stay at home until there's more testing", or "stay at home until this is all over". The goalposts keep moving. We're at over 30 million unemployed. 100,000 small businesses have permanently closed. Some reports say that if this continues, up to 7.5 million small business could permanently close. At what point do we have to say enough is enough? That's what I'm trying to get at! At what point Wesley?

24 and under, you're more likely to get struck by lightning than die of Corona. 54 and under, 0.0046% chance of death from Corona. I'll take those odds. Almost 40% of deaths are from nursing homes. That's relatively easy to manage. The elderly should be in a stay at home. Everybody else? Idk...

I think with what we know, it's reasonable to give people the CHOICE to return to work. The CHOICE to go out to eat. The CHOICE to go to church. The CHOICE to stay home.

I get that it's really nice for some people to stay at home, collect money for not working, play video games all day, but that isn't sustainable and will end up hurting the country long term. There isn't an easy answer, but I do think some discussion between "OPEN EVERYTHING UP NOW" and "WE GOTTA STAY HOME FOR A CURE" is good.
 
You’re choosing to say plural. Fauci said 1-2M. Not 2M with 100% certainty. Obviously it’s a wide margin like that because he can’t predict what Trump and governors will declare or how well citizens will adhere to what is declared or listen to scientific experts like himself and social distance based on their own belief of such science and what’s happening around them.

It should also be noted that many people have come forward saying the numbers are being underreported. That there may be in fact thousands who’ve died but did not count toward the tally because they were never tested.

So far as being exponentially off, I find you to be wrong. If we’re going by the strict definition of exponential, it’s wrong period. But even if we’re loosening up the term, I think you’ll still be wrong. We’re at about 85,000 deaths. Given where we seem to be headed, I’m guessing we’ll be at about 140,000 deaths in a month. And then it continues on. With no distinct end necessarily in sight.

Listen, I too get the unemployment stance. It’s a very real and serious threat to our existence in a much different way. I’ve already criticized much of the left for being ignorant to that reality. However, to shout out that Fauci was exponentially off at this stage in the game is wrong. We just don’t know at this point.
 
The reason our death count is higher than anywhere else in the world is simple: Americans are shallow, insecure and can't be bothered to do anything differently when they're only concerned about what affects them. Receiving mixed messages from leadership on a daily basis adds to the bewilderment. We eschew science in favor of gut feelings and discredit those whom we don't agree with.

Hope isn't a strategy, but that's the strategy this country seems to be running with. Re-opening the economy and saving lives is entirely possible in tandem as other countries are showing us, but in an election year, both parties are really leaning into what helps them win more seats and power in November.

But Trump is the home team here and should have the advantage of leading the charge - and is fumbling badly. The gaslighting of Fauci and anyone who resists is in full swing.

No true self-proclaimed patriot of this country could so easily offer up our elderly and at risk just to make a buck and serve four more years. Makes all those words written on the Statue of Liberty about giving us your tired, your weak, your poor and homeless just a bunch of bull-****.
 
RandyForRubio said:
Hospitals are laying people off now, because there's no traffic.
Click to expand...

The lack of traffic is from the cancellation of elective procedures and and delaying what could have been delayed. Areas hit by the virus have seen sections of their hospitals over whelmed even while other sections were empty; not every ward can be converted into an ICU.

I agree there needs to a conversation about what to open and when, and we can't stay locked down forever. On the other hand, the local drive-in just re-opened here in Illinois (one of the states harder hit, where Pritzker imposed a a ock down on the more severe side than many places), so I would say this conversation is always underway.
 
I'm not yelling at Fauci. Initial models with limited data are expected to be wrong. I've honestly got no issue with Fauci. He's done a good job.

What bothers me, is that the goalposts keep moving. The data has changed, but we're not changing with it.
 
RandyForRubio said:
Yes. Exponentially wrong.


Millions (plural) of deaths predicted, with intervention.

I am aware that this thing isn't over, but we aren't going to get close to that number and you know it.

And yes, the hospitals being open is important. Why? We were told we had to stay at home so we don't overwhelm hospitals, which would cause more deaths. We did that. Hospitals are laying people off now, because there's no traffic. So now it's turned into, "stay at home until there's a vaccine" or "stay at home until there's more testing", or "stay at home until this is all over". The goalposts keep moving. We're at over 30 million unemployed. 100,000 small businesses have permanently closed. Some reports say that if this continues, up to 7.5 million small business could permanently close. At what point do we have to say enough is enough? That's what I'm trying to get at! At what point Wesley?

24 and under, you're more likely to get struck by lightning than die of Corona. 54 and under, 0.0046% chance of death from Corona. I'll take those odds. Almost 40% of deaths are from nursing homes. That's relatively easy to manage. The elderly should be in a stay at home. Everybody else? Idk...

I think with what we know, it's reasonable to give people the CHOICE to return to work. The CHOICE to go out to eat. The CHOICE to go to church. The CHOICE to stay home.

I get that it's really nice for some people to stay at home, collect money for not working, play video games all day, but that isn't sustainable and will end up hurting the country long term. There isn't an easy answer, but I do think some discussion between "OPEN EVERYTHING UP NOW" and "WE GOTTA STAY HOME FOR A CURE" is good.
Click to expand...
We're stuck in a situation where our bias is to favor intervention because it allays a number of our unconscious anxieties. This is a common bias that drives a lot of healthcare decisions, but it's not specific to healthcare and is fairly broadly applicable to many facets of life and society. But when applied to healthcare specifically, it certainly has numerous consequences that often aren't perceived by our conscious evaluations (this is true elsewhere, too). I'll occasionally have medical residents or medical students with me and this is often a large point I try to emphasize. Medical training is often very intervention-focused. It requires larger contexts to be able to tolerate the anxiety to goes along with "doing nothing." The example I generally give is that of whether or not you should anti-coagulate (provide blood thinners to) someone with atrial fibrillation. It's a fairly simple and not-too-uncommon scenario that can be applicable to many other decisions. Atrial fibrillation is an arrhythmia that can lead to pooling of blood that may make one more likely to develop clots that then can pass out of the heart and, for instance, create an ischemic stroke in the brain. But putting someone on a blood thinner comes at it's own risks (risk of bleeding). The reason I use this scenario is because it's easier for people to put themselves in the shoes of someone making a decision on whether or not to anticoagulate a patient. When this hypothetical patient comes in, you will weigh out the risks vs. the benefits and ultimately arrive at some decision. A rhetorical question is posed about potential adverse outcomes of each decision. In the event that you decide to anticoagulate, the patient ends up having a fall, has a brain bleed, ends up on a ventilator in an ICU for 2 weeks, then dies. Nobody wants a patient to die, but the anxiety about this is assuaged by reassurances that one took a calculated risk to help an individual, and that this, while unpleasant, is part of a risk that was taken. The second scenario is that this same patient comes to clinic and a decision is made to not anticoagulate. This patient then ends up having a massive stroke, ends up on a ventilator in an ICU for two weeks, then dies. The subjective experience of the healthcare provider who participated in the decision is generally quite different in each of these scenarios, but in reality each scenario required a calculated risk that has no guarantees. As a general trend, there would be much more anxiety (guilt or second-guessing) in the individual that had an adverse outcomes related to withholding intervention rather than those who had an adverse outcome by providing an intervention. The second is much more likely to wonder "I could have saved this person, why did I do nothing?" But the first is reassured that their actions to intervene is evidence of actively attempting help a patient (and evidence of caring), and the insecurities one may feel is much more effectively mitigated than in the alternative scenario where they may feel that they should have been more proactive.

We're at a similar junction as a society. It's much easier on the psyche to tolerate indirect deaths that result from active measures that we're taking. It's much more psychologically distressing to our society to feel like deaths have happened because we feel that we allowed them to. When we collectively have these emotional biases, it facilitates us tolerating decisions that may not actually be better for the collective good, but is much more effective at pacifying our anxieties about current crises.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top