11 ms·

All of this is a consequence of ideologies that have become popular in the US both in politics and in business. Having government direct a mobilization is not

by not2b 6y ago

All of this is a consequence of ideologies that have become popular in the US both in politics and in business. Having government direct a mobilization is not acceptable. A mandate that people wear masks is not acceptable. Having manufacturing capacity to make low-value products in large numbers in the US is bad business when poorer countries can do it for less. Having spare inventory is bad, because just-in-time manufacturing is more efficient. Accepting a reasonable profit at a time of crisis is considered stupid when a business can make windfall profits by pitting states against each other or signing a sweetheart deal in exchange for a no-bid contract. We're looking a lot like Russia under Yeltsin when the place was collapsing and people were stealing everything that wasn't nailed down. Now, all of this could be turned around quickly with good leadership that could rally the country behind a cause, but we chose someone who is committed to division, who's willing to undermine the efforts of those who work for him, who, even at this time of crisis thinks that nothing other than personal loyalty to him and that he should never make a mistake.

ghufran_syed 6y ago
So you think it would be better under a different political leader? I think it’s great that you’re still such an optimist
- shreyansj 6y ago
  Different political leader - we don't know. A different political leader who was not divisive and dismissive of science - yes, it would have been better.
  - chosenbreed37 6y ago
    That's true. A counterpoint is Japan or Sweden where citizens changed their behaviour prior to any government action. Social distancing, avoiding bars, public transport, staying away from elderly relatives, face masks, etc etc. I think it's a sad state of affairs if people only take action under the instruction from a government.
  - bjustin 6y ago
    I do think more or less any other leader likely would have done at least a little better. But if the same events in late 2019/early 2020 had happened under President Obama in 2015/2016 instead, I think it likely that many people in the opposing party would have ended up taking the same anti-science positions we see now. Federal action would have made the pandemic less bad but individuals and other levels of government could still have caused problems.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      Only Nixon could go to China. Imagine how much different things would have been if Trump had embraced the CDC and science like the other nations did. His followers would have gone along with it.
- scarface74 6y ago
  On the state level, no sane governor would sue mayors for requiring face masks. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/16/georgia-mayors-brian-kemp-face-masks-366497 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/16/georgia-mayors-bria... On the federal level, no sane President would go out of his way to force states to give the CDC less information. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/us/politics/trump-cdc-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/us/politics/trump-cdc-cor...
- harimau777 6y ago
  I think there would probably still be systemic problems, but I don't see how anyone could think that it wouldn't be better under another leader. Trump is overtly incompetent.
- sfteus 6y ago
  If you're trying to tell me that you think we wouldn't be better off with a leader that said this was a present and real threat and put out a mandatory mask order back in Feb/March, shut down travel and enforced travel quarantines, used the Defense Production Act to create and deliver PPE where needed, didn't confiscate PPE from states and re-sell it to the highest bidder, didn't publicly contradict the pandemic response team and CDC, implemented an effective national testing and contact tracing strategy, etc, then I'd say you're not here for an honest dialogue.
- s5300 6y ago
  Well, the last administration literally made something called “Playbook for Early Response to High-Consequence Emerging Infectious Disease Threats and Biological Incidents.” AKA how to handle a pandemic for dummies What did our current administration do? Claim it at first did not exist, and then definitely didn't look at it when they were informed it did exist. Really, you're not putting any effort in your trolling/cynicism
- jimbokun 6y ago
  > So you think it would be better under a different political leader? No US President in my living memory would have screwed this up as badly as Donald Trump has.
mistermann 6y ago
> Now, all of this could be turned around quickly with good leadership that could rally the country behind a cause, but we chose someone who... Were all of these issues nonexistent under prior administrations? Or, as for turning it around, are you asserting that Clinton both could have and would have done so? If so, how do you know this?
- greesil 6y ago
  Interdimensional cable. You can't prove that I don't have it. Ask yourself this, could the current administration's response have been better given what was known at the time? If the answer is emphatically yes, then perhaps another person is better suited for the job.
  - mynameisvlad 6y ago
    Why is this even a discussion we're having? Yes, literally anybody would have had a better response than what we got. Just looking at the current state of the US vs practically any other country in the world shows how cripplingly bad the response has been from the current administration. Sometimes, I really hate the people in this country.
    - greesil 6y ago
      I can take a guess. People consume different information sources, and have different ideologies. So, they may arrive at different conclusions than you. I suspect this is more heavily on the ideology side because it's hard to deny the body count.
      - mynameisvlad 6y ago
        It was more of a rhetorical question. I know why it's happening, it's just ridiculous and infuriating that it is happening. Anyone who comes in with good faith and actually objectively looks at the statistics and response can't possibly come to a different conclusion. The problem comes down to the "good faith" and "objective" parts of that sentence.
jorblumesea 6y ago
While it's easy to blame Trump (and he deserves a heaping pile of blame), the corruption and destruction of a functional US government has long been the goal of those on the right. Since the 80s there has been a concerted movement to defund and destroy the effective ability of our government for ideological and personal reasons. Then, when the water treatment plants break down or the education system is a mess they can privatize it and reap the profits. Or they can establish charter schools that teach creationism, segregate classrooms again, or reduce education to minorities. This is just one chess move in a long game that has been playing out since the 50s. Within this context, the moves here are not surprising, especially with Betsy DeVos in charge. Read her bio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betsy_DeVos#School_vouchers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betsy_DeVos#School_vouchers
- s5300 6y ago
  Dear HN users: I plea that you refrain down voting any comment that advises you to take a look at DeVos's Wikipedia page. I HIGHLY advise reading Betsy DeVos's Wikipedia page. With no offense intended (truly) I've got the idea that quite a portion of HN users probably don't know just how much of an absolute shitshow the head of U.S. Education is. DeVos is certifiably insane
  - morelisp 6y ago
    I will third this. Please, just look. You'll need to go through decades of multi-level marketing scams, private military contracting, torturous approach to treating autism and other behavioral therapies, and multi-generational Charismatic Christian hate groups before you can even dig into her atrocious educational policies.
    - morelisp 6y ago
      Lots of people who believe divorce should be illegal out downvoting tonight!
      - mynameisvlad 6y ago
RestlessMind 6y ago
> Having government direct a mobilization is not acceptable. Then you would expect divergent performance in the D-controlled states (eg. California) vs the R-controlled states (eg. Texas), no? So far, I see all types of states having similar outcomes. > ... good leadership ... but we chose someone who is committed to division, ... I'm no fan of our current leader, but let's be honest Obama failed to properly launch a simple website for his signature initiative[1]. The problem is much deeper. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HealthCare.gov#Issues_during_launch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HealthCare.gov#Issues_during_l...
- jimbokun 6y ago
  > Then you would expect divergent performance in the D-controlled states (eg. California) vs the R-controlled states (eg. Texas), no? So far, I see all types of states having similar outcomes. Maybe if it were also possible to lock down borders between states, making them truly separate sovereign nations. A lot of states had a declining infection rate and looked to be getting things under control, then people traveled to other states and brought back the virus with them. There are still things only the federal government can do or coordinate.
  - panzagl 6y ago
    You mean when all the New Yorkers left for Florida?
- bshoemaker 6y ago
  This is not true; a) more rural states have a much easier time with covid and b) blue states started off being hit the hardest, but red states are now catching up because their governors are incompetent
- jimbokun 6y ago
  > I'm no fan of our current leader, but let's be honest Obama failed to properly launch a simple website for his signature initiative[1]. The problem is much deeper. This strikes me as a pretty passive-aggressive argument style. Who, in your opinion, is the better leader? Which of Obama or Trump do you think would handle this pandemic better? You are picking out one mistake, and kind-of-sort-of implying that makes them both the same, except you don't have the courage to directly state that. If you have a point to make, make it.
maerF0x0 6y ago
> A mandate that people wear masks is not acceptable. Personally speaking I'm all good with wearing a mask if they let me out of my house. The Shelter in place thing has been such an overreaction that I'm kind of primed to rebel just because I'm so incensed by the violation of rights... Wearing a mask is like requiring wearing a seatbelt. Shelter in place is like saying no one can drive except a few exceptionals.
- mynameisvlad 6y ago
  I don't believe there are any states currently issuing stay at home (which is different than SIP) orders. It also has 100% not been an overreaction. It saved countless lives by preventing spread. That whole flattening the curve thing and how well countries that have actually followed through and did not open early should show you how effective it has been.
  - maerF0x0 6y ago
    It would be interesting to see the data of which is more effective. I'm currently biased towards believing that masks were highly effective and SIP orders mostly are not (because people still leave for groceries, for example) . If we create the false dichotomy of Masks vs SIP I would recommend Masks
    - mynameisvlad 6y ago
      Stay at home orders work because they minimize contact someone has with others. Sure, people might still go to the groceries or other essential tasks. Once or twice a week. But if they're otherwise obeying the order and staying at home then just by not travelling to and from the office, going on recreational walks/drives/etc, and in general being isolated with a few people is obviously going to drastically limit the spread. It's not going to cut it down to 0, but it's still far less than the other extreme of living life normally and interacting with random people and surfaces daily. Why are you even trying to create a false dichotomy? Just stay at home and wear a mask, ffs. It's really not that hard. Saving lives should not be this grand political issue it's become in the US. It's objectively very simple. Limit contact and limit spread, and you'll have fewer cases. You limit contact by having people stay at home, and you limit spread by having people wear masks. This isn't rocket science or anything.
rayiner 6y ago
We’re not a “country.” We’re 50 different states with a federal government, which doesn’t have public health as one of its assigned roles. This isn’t an ideological point, it’s a bare recitation of fact. Somehow, other federal republics like Germany managed to engage in an effective pandemic response while leaving most of the work to the states. For example, while Germany eventually had a mask order everywhere, the states all implemented them at different times. School reopening was all done on different schedules with different procedures. Merkel didn’t issue a national mask order, for the same reason Trump didn’t: she wasn’t legally allowed to. This was not a surprise. Nobody thought pandemic response was mainly a federal responsibility. States, particularly New York, were just completely unprepared for a job they knew was theirs. So I agree ideologies are the problem, but this is a problematic ideology too. Why would people use a pandemic to try and relitigate the basic structure of our government? Why can’t we just work within the system to solve problems?
- monkeyfacebag 6y ago
  wait, what is the CDC then? I am not trying to argue with you. I haven't heard the take that the US government doesn't have a public health role and am looking to learn.
  - GeneralMayhem 6y ago
    You haven't heard it before because it's patently not true. The CDC, the FDA, the NIH, FEMA, not to mention the droves of smaller groups you and I have never heard of that are embedded in other agencies - the federal government has a massive public health role. It's so clear that I have to seriously question the motives of anyone saying that it doesn't.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    So there is theory and practice. In theory, public health is a purely state issue. In practice, it’s a mostly state issue. But there is a real legal limit here: the federal government has no general police power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_constitutional_law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_co... > In United States constitutional law, police power is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants. This is not an unusual principle. Germany has a similar principle, which is why Angela Merkel didn’t issue a mask order either. The federal agencies are best understood as having a coordinating role for when inter-state issues are involved. This CDC PowerPoint (which predates Covid) explains: https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/docs/phl101/PHL101-Unit-5-16Jan09-Secure.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/docs/phl101/PHL101-Unit-5-16Jan09-S... See the first bullet on Slide 8: “State and local governments carry out most communicable disease surveillance and control under the police power.” See Slide 10: “Most powers for public health surveillance, investigations, and interventions derive from state and local law.” The federal government provides “expert public health assistance” and regulates “disease carriers who cross state lines.” So when we talk about things like tracing protocols, where does that fit? The CDC can provide expert advice about what sorts of testing protocols are effective. But the state governments must actually develop and execute the surveillance and intervention: testing patients, quarantining them, etc. The federal government is supposed to assist insofar as patients might move between states. This is how everyone has always understood the division of labor in public health to be set up. Countries like Germany have similar legal structures, and have managed just fine. Even countries like Japan, where the central government does have a general police power, still delegates things like testing because the local governments are more nimble. Only in America would be ignore the clear division of labor that’s in place during a pandemic.

by not2b 6y ago

ghufran_syed 6y ago

So you think it would be better under a different political leader? I think it’s great that you’re still such an optimist

shreyansj 6y ago
Different political leader - we don't know. A different political leader who was not divisive and dismissive of science - yes, it would have been better.
- chosenbreed37 6y ago
  That's true. A counterpoint is Japan or Sweden where citizens changed their behaviour prior to any government action. Social distancing, avoiding bars, public transport, staying away from elderly relatives, face masks, etc etc. I think it's a sad state of affairs if people only take action under the instruction from a government.
- bjustin 6y ago
  I do think more or less any other leader likely would have done at least a little better. But if the same events in late 2019/early 2020 had happened under President Obama in 2015/2016 instead, I think it likely that many people in the opposing party would have ended up taking the same anti-science positions we see now. Federal action would have made the pandemic less bad but individuals and other levels of government could still have caused problems.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Only Nixon could go to China. Imagine how much different things would have been if Trump had embraced the CDC and science like the other nations did. His followers would have gone along with it.
scarface74 6y ago
On the state level, no sane governor would sue mayors for requiring face masks. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/16/georgia-mayors-brian-kemp-face-masks-366497 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/16/georgia-mayors-bria... On the federal level, no sane President would go out of his way to force states to give the CDC less information. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/us/politics/trump-cdc-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/us/politics/trump-cdc-cor...
harimau777 6y ago
I think there would probably still be systemic problems, but I don't see how anyone could think that it wouldn't be better under another leader. Trump is overtly incompetent.
sfteus 6y ago
If you're trying to tell me that you think we wouldn't be better off with a leader that said this was a present and real threat and put out a mandatory mask order back in Feb/March, shut down travel and enforced travel quarantines, used the Defense Production Act to create and deliver PPE where needed, didn't confiscate PPE from states and re-sell it to the highest bidder, didn't publicly contradict the pandemic response team and CDC, implemented an effective national testing and contact tracing strategy, etc, then I'd say you're not here for an honest dialogue.
s5300 6y ago
Well, the last administration literally made something called “Playbook for Early Response to High-Consequence Emerging Infectious Disease Threats and Biological Incidents.” AKA how to handle a pandemic for dummies What did our current administration do? Claim it at first did not exist, and then definitely didn't look at it when they were informed it did exist. Really, you're not putting any effort in your trolling/cynicism
jimbokun 6y ago
> So you think it would be better under a different political leader? No US President in my living memory would have screwed this up as badly as Donald Trump has.

mistermann 6y ago

> Now, all of this could be turned around quickly with good leadership that could rally the country behind a cause, but we chose someone who... Were all of these issues nonexistent under prior administrations? Or, as for turning it around, are you asserting that Clinton both could have and would have done so? If so, how do you know this?

greesil 6y ago
Interdimensional cable. You can't prove that I don't have it. Ask yourself this, could the current administration's response have been better given what was known at the time? If the answer is emphatically yes, then perhaps another person is better suited for the job.
- mynameisvlad 6y ago
  Why is this even a discussion we're having? Yes, literally anybody would have had a better response than what we got. Just looking at the current state of the US vs practically any other country in the world shows how cripplingly bad the response has been from the current administration. Sometimes, I really hate the people in this country.
  - greesil 6y ago
    I can take a guess. People consume different information sources, and have different ideologies. So, they may arrive at different conclusions than you. I suspect this is more heavily on the ideology side because it's hard to deny the body count.
    - mynameisvlad 6y ago
      It was more of a rhetorical question. I know why it's happening, it's just ridiculous and infuriating that it is happening. Anyone who comes in with good faith and actually objectively looks at the statistics and response can't possibly come to a different conclusion. The problem comes down to the "good faith" and "objective" parts of that sentence.

jorblumesea 6y ago

While it's easy to blame Trump (and he deserves a heaping pile of blame), the corruption and destruction of a functional US government has long been the goal of those on the right. Since the 80s there has been a concerted movement to defund and destroy the effective ability of our government for ideological and personal reasons. Then, when the water treatment plants break down or the education system is a mess they can privatize it and reap the profits. Or they can establish charter schools that teach creationism, segregate classrooms again, or reduce education to minorities. This is just one chess move in a long game that has been playing out since the 50s. Within this context, the moves here are not surprising, especially with Betsy DeVos in charge. Read her bio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betsy_DeVos#School_vouchers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betsy_DeVos#School_vouchers

s5300 6y ago
Dear HN users: I plea that you refrain down voting any comment that advises you to take a look at DeVos's Wikipedia page. I HIGHLY advise reading Betsy DeVos's Wikipedia page. With no offense intended (truly) I've got the idea that quite a portion of HN users probably don't know just how much of an absolute shitshow the head of U.S. Education is. DeVos is certifiably insane
- morelisp 6y ago
  I will third this. Please, just look. You'll need to go through decades of multi-level marketing scams, private military contracting, torturous approach to treating autism and other behavioral therapies, and multi-generational Charismatic Christian hate groups before you can even dig into her atrocious educational policies.
  - morelisp 6y ago
    Lots of people who believe divorce should be illegal out downvoting tonight!
    - mynameisvlad 6y ago

RestlessMind 6y ago

> Having government direct a mobilization is not acceptable. Then you would expect divergent performance in the D-controlled states (eg. California) vs the R-controlled states (eg. Texas), no? So far, I see all types of states having similar outcomes. > ... good leadership ... but we chose someone who is committed to division, ... I'm no fan of our current leader, but let's be honest Obama failed to properly launch a simple website for his signature initiative[1]. The problem is much deeper. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HealthCare.gov#Issues_during_launch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HealthCare.gov#Issues_during_l...

jimbokun 6y ago
> Then you would expect divergent performance in the D-controlled states (eg. California) vs the R-controlled states (eg. Texas), no? So far, I see all types of states having similar outcomes. Maybe if it were also possible to lock down borders between states, making them truly separate sovereign nations. A lot of states had a declining infection rate and looked to be getting things under control, then people traveled to other states and brought back the virus with them. There are still things only the federal government can do or coordinate.
- panzagl 6y ago
  You mean when all the New Yorkers left for Florida?
bshoemaker 6y ago
This is not true; a) more rural states have a much easier time with covid and b) blue states started off being hit the hardest, but red states are now catching up because their governors are incompetent
jimbokun 6y ago
> I'm no fan of our current leader, but let's be honest Obama failed to properly launch a simple website for his signature initiative[1]. The problem is much deeper. This strikes me as a pretty passive-aggressive argument style. Who, in your opinion, is the better leader? Which of Obama or Trump do you think would handle this pandemic better? You are picking out one mistake, and kind-of-sort-of implying that makes them both the same, except you don't have the courage to directly state that. If you have a point to make, make it.

maerF0x0 6y ago

> A mandate that people wear masks is not acceptable. Personally speaking I'm all good with wearing a mask if they let me out of my house. The Shelter in place thing has been such an overreaction that I'm kind of primed to rebel just because I'm so incensed by the violation of rights... Wearing a mask is like requiring wearing a seatbelt. Shelter in place is like saying no one can drive except a few exceptionals.

mynameisvlad 6y ago
I don't believe there are any states currently issuing stay at home (which is different than SIP) orders. It also has 100% not been an overreaction. It saved countless lives by preventing spread. That whole flattening the curve thing and how well countries that have actually followed through and did not open early should show you how effective it has been.
- maerF0x0 6y ago
  It would be interesting to see the data of which is more effective. I'm currently biased towards believing that masks were highly effective and SIP orders mostly are not (because people still leave for groceries, for example) . If we create the false dichotomy of Masks vs SIP I would recommend Masks
  - mynameisvlad 6y ago
    Stay at home orders work because they minimize contact someone has with others. Sure, people might still go to the groceries or other essential tasks. Once or twice a week. But if they're otherwise obeying the order and staying at home then just by not travelling to and from the office, going on recreational walks/drives/etc, and in general being isolated with a few people is obviously going to drastically limit the spread. It's not going to cut it down to 0, but it's still far less than the other extreme of living life normally and interacting with random people and surfaces daily. Why are you even trying to create a false dichotomy? Just stay at home and wear a mask, ffs. It's really not that hard. Saving lives should not be this grand political issue it's become in the US. It's objectively very simple. Limit contact and limit spread, and you'll have fewer cases. You limit contact by having people stay at home, and you limit spread by having people wear masks. This isn't rocket science or anything.

rayiner 6y ago

We’re not a “country.” We’re 50 different states with a federal government, which doesn’t have public health as one of its assigned roles. This isn’t an ideological point, it’s a bare recitation of fact. Somehow, other federal republics like Germany managed to engage in an effective pandemic response while leaving most of the work to the states. For example, while Germany eventually had a mask order everywhere, the states all implemented them at different times. School reopening was all done on different schedules with different procedures. Merkel didn’t issue a national mask order, for the same reason Trump didn’t: she wasn’t legally allowed to. This was not a surprise. Nobody thought pandemic response was mainly a federal responsibility. States, particularly New York, were just completely unprepared for a job they knew was theirs. So I agree ideologies are the problem, but this is a problematic ideology too. Why would people use a pandemic to try and relitigate the basic structure of our government? Why can’t we just work within the system to solve problems?

monkeyfacebag 6y ago
wait, what is the CDC then? I am not trying to argue with you. I haven't heard the take that the US government doesn't have a public health role and am looking to learn.
- GeneralMayhem 6y ago
  You haven't heard it before because it's patently not true. The CDC, the FDA, the NIH, FEMA, not to mention the droves of smaller groups you and I have never heard of that are embedded in other agencies - the federal government has a massive public health role. It's so clear that I have to seriously question the motives of anyone saying that it doesn't.
- rayiner 6y ago
  So there is theory and practice. In theory, public health is a purely state issue. In practice, it’s a mostly state issue. But there is a real legal limit here: the federal government has no general police power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_constitutional_law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_co... > In United States constitutional law, police power is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants. This is not an unusual principle. Germany has a similar principle, which is why Angela Merkel didn’t issue a mask order either. The federal agencies are best understood as having a coordinating role for when inter-state issues are involved. This CDC PowerPoint (which predates Covid) explains: https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/docs/phl101/PHL101-Unit-5-16Jan09-Secure.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/docs/phl101/PHL101-Unit-5-16Jan09-S... See the first bullet on Slide 8: “State and local governments carry out most communicable disease surveillance and control under the police power.” See Slide 10: “Most powers for public health surveillance, investigations, and interventions derive from state and local law.” The federal government provides “expert public health assistance” and regulates “disease carriers who cross state lines.” So when we talk about things like tracing protocols, where does that fit? The CDC can provide expert advice about what sorts of testing protocols are effective. But the state governments must actually develop and execute the surveillance and intervention: testing patients, quarantining them, etc. The federal government is supposed to assist insofar as patients might move between states. This is how everyone has always understood the division of labor in public health to be set up. Countries like Germany have similar legal structures, and have managed just fine. Even countries like Japan, where the central government does have a general police power, still delegates things like testing because the local governments are more nimble. Only in America would be ignore the clear division of labor that’s in place during a pandemic.