4 ms·

> Trump took action in January... That's a strange way to put it. He took exactly one executive action: he restricted travel from China. This was very import

> Trump took action in January... That's a strange way to put it. He took exactly one executive action: he restricted travel from China. This was very important and probably bought us some precious time. But for the next month and a half, Trump squandered that time with complacence, misinformation, and bureaucratic paralysis, all while downplaying the disease and vilifying reports of its severity as a hoax. Contrast this with S. Korea and Taiwan. The U.S. and South Korea both reported their first cases on the same day -- January 20. The S. Korean government listened to the experts and took quick and decisive action, and they are rapidly getting their outbreak under control without draconian lockdowns. We have a leadership vacuum at the federal level. > despite the ongoing impeachment circus This is supposed to be an excuse? If I remember correctly, Trump told us he was a strong leader who could easily handle more than one task at a time.

gindely 7y ago
The US response was abysmal. Trump's China ban was effectively a racist strike to his trade war. Hardly a sufficient response to the disease. But it was a response to the disease. You describe the difference between the West and the peri-Chinese liberal wealthy states - not the difference between the US and everyone else. So Trump did something. He didn't do enough. Morrison did something. He didn't do enough. Merkel did as little as she could. She didn't do enough. Johnson eventually acted - and actively tried to get as many British residents infected as he could. If the US failure to take quick and decisive action is Trump's unique failure then every western state has a leadership vacuum. Yes, there are symptoms of the US partisan malaise in this. Somehow a public health emergency of international concern became a political divide. But that doesn't explain the similarities in the initial US response - the response that meant the disease became established in the US. It's far, far more likely that all Western leaders relied on the same advice - given to them by advisers who experienced an official pandemic. Swine flu was widely regarded as an overreaction and sowed its seeds of apathy in our experts. We're reaping that crop today.
- nate_meurer 7y ago
  I don't really agree with the gist of this, but your response is reasoned and well articulated, and your analysis of our collectively poor decision making is spot on I think. Trump did far worse than almost any other world leader. He didn't merely underperform. He spent nearly two precious months actively mocking and attacking efforts to try and inform and prepare us for the pandemic. Only when Trump figured out he could try to spin himself as a "wartime president" did he start to put on an air of concern. Angela Merkel for example was obviously, clearly waiting to be convinced on a scientific basis -- weighing evidence, currying expert advice, waiting for more data until the last possible moment before putting a gun to the head of the economy and pulling the trigger. To Trump, this is, as with everything single thing he does, primarily a sales and PR mission.

gindely 7y ago

The US response was abysmal. Trump's China ban was effectively a racist strike to his trade war. Hardly a sufficient response to the disease. But it was a response to the disease. You describe the difference between the West and the peri-Chinese liberal wealthy states - not the difference between the US and everyone else. So Trump did something. He didn't do enough. Morrison did something. He didn't do enough. Merkel did as little as she could. She didn't do enough. Johnson eventually acted - and actively tried to get as many British residents infected as he could. If the US failure to take quick and decisive action is Trump's unique failure then every western state has a leadership vacuum. Yes, there are symptoms of the US partisan malaise in this. Somehow a public health emergency of international concern became a political divide. But that doesn't explain the similarities in the initial US response - the response that meant the disease became established in the US. It's far, far more likely that all Western leaders relied on the same advice - given to them by advisers who experienced an official pandemic. Swine flu was widely regarded as an overreaction and sowed its seeds of apathy in our experts. We're reaping that crop today.

nate_meurer 7y ago
I don't really agree with the gist of this, but your response is reasoned and well articulated, and your analysis of our collectively poor decision making is spot on I think. Trump did far worse than almost any other world leader. He didn't merely underperform. He spent nearly two precious months actively mocking and attacking efforts to try and inform and prepare us for the pandemic. Only when Trump figured out he could try to spin himself as a "wartime president" did he start to put on an air of concern. Angela Merkel for example was obviously, clearly waiting to be convinced on a scientific basis -- weighing evidence, currying expert advice, waiting for more data until the last possible moment before putting a gun to the head of the economy and pulling the trigger. To Trump, this is, as with everything single thing he does, primarily a sales and PR mission.