3 ms·

> Right wingers in a couple countries said that. Is Cuomo the governor for New York a right winger? He downplayed the pandemic as late as march 18. Pretty sure

> Right wingers in a couple countries said that. Is Cuomo the governor for New York a right winger? He downplayed the pandemic as late as march 18. Pretty sure he wasn't the only democrat doing it either. If he didn't downplay it New York wouldn't have had one of the worst corona responses in the world. Quotes: > "That is not going to happen, shelter in place, for New York City," Cuomo said on The Daily podcast by The New York Times. "For any city or county to take an emergency action, the state has to approve it. And I wouldn't approve shelter in place." > "Quarantine in place, you can't leave your home," Cuomo said. "The fear, the panic is a bigger problem than the virus." https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/18/cuomo-says-he-wont-approve-coronavirus-shelter-in-place-order-for-new-york-city.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/18/cuomo-says-he-wont-approve-c...

acdha 6y ago
That’s not saying that it wasn’t contagious or serious - he wasn’t saying it’d be over by Easter, Memorial Day, etc. or that it only affected people who were about to die. Also, March 18th was over 6 months ago whereas right-denial of the significance is still ongoing now. In contrast, NY has generally been recognized as having improved their handling dramatically The big problem is that in the United States so much depends on the federal response. Having the CDC treating it like a political response removed the trigger and support for a lot of local actions because they had to do on their own what would normally have been a CDC publication by February. Similarly, waiting extra months to get serious about travel bans meant that local officials had to deal with a constant stream of infection from outside of their jurisdiction.
- username90 6y ago
  > That’s not saying that it wasn’t contagious or serious He literally said that panic was worse than the disease. > The big problem is that in the United States so much depends on the federal response. He could have locked down New York, but he told people to continue their lives as usual. This resulted in over 30k deaths, most of which could have been saved if he weren't so adamant in keeping business as usual for another week. And likely if he locked down he would have saved neighboring states as well, so maybe a hundred thousand lives in total could have been saved if he wanted to. > Similarly, waiting extra months to get serious about travel bans This was said days after Trump had enacted the travel ban against Europe and after we had confirmed cases in here in Europe known to be spread fron New York. Everyone knew New York was a corona hotbed at this time, yet he still kept things open for 10 more days. With a doubling of every 4 days it means he could have saved 80% of everyone who died in the east if he wanted to, but he choose to keep things open since "panic is worse than the disease".

acdha 6y ago

That’s not saying that it wasn’t contagious or serious - he wasn’t saying it’d be over by Easter, Memorial Day, etc. or that it only affected people who were about to die. Also, March 18th was over 6 months ago whereas right-denial of the significance is still ongoing now. In contrast, NY has generally been recognized as having improved their handling dramatically The big problem is that in the United States so much depends on the federal response. Having the CDC treating it like a political response removed the trigger and support for a lot of local actions because they had to do on their own what would normally have been a CDC publication by February. Similarly, waiting extra months to get serious about travel bans meant that local officials had to deal with a constant stream of infection from outside of their jurisdiction.

username90 6y ago
> That’s not saying that it wasn’t contagious or serious He literally said that panic was worse than the disease. > The big problem is that in the United States so much depends on the federal response. He could have locked down New York, but he told people to continue their lives as usual. This resulted in over 30k deaths, most of which could have been saved if he weren't so adamant in keeping business as usual for another week. And likely if he locked down he would have saved neighboring states as well, so maybe a hundred thousand lives in total could have been saved if he wanted to. > Similarly, waiting extra months to get serious about travel bans This was said days after Trump had enacted the travel ban against Europe and after we had confirmed cases in here in Europe known to be spread fron New York. Everyone knew New York was a corona hotbed at this time, yet he still kept things open for 10 more days. With a doubling of every 4 days it means he could have saved 80% of everyone who died in the east if he wanted to, but he choose to keep things open since "panic is worse than the disease".