4 ms·

Whatever your stance is, I think COVID showed how ineffective the federal government is in the face of a crisis. Imagine if COVID was more severe or something

Whatever your stance is, I think COVID showed how ineffective the federal government is in the face of a crisis. Imagine if COVID was more severe or something else entirely, we'd all be dead before our elected officials could figure out how it can benefit them. Pin it on incompetence, negligence, political grandstanding--the federal government could not contain the crisis and was always months behind what we needed. We were mass producing ventilators when we should've been mass producing tests or masks, we were going maskless based on trailing data instead of the current spikes etc. It was like a shitty game of telephone where people died because the messaging became so delayed and distorted.

sremani 5y ago
As a person who has distaste for 'Mandates', a successful Pandemic reaction will always look like an 'Overreaction'. If Federal government has any role in the creation or distribution of effective Vaccines, I would consider it a success. It is still far from perfect but it was a success. I am not trying to change anyones view on this -- just expressing my point of view.
criddell 5y ago
The effectiveness of the federal government is complicated. You mentioned some disappointing aspects but I think it's worth keeping in mind some of the positive parts too. For one, the new vaccines are a triumph. As I understand it, DARPA was an early funder of research and development around MRNA tech. And Trump's Operation Warp Speed is, for me, a rare highlight of his time in office.
- BaseballPhysics 5y ago
  Not to mention the huge subsidy programs that likely saved the economy from a far more profound shock. But that wouldn't support the anti-government narrative that seems to be so popular among Americans in general and techies in particular.
herdcall 5y ago
Trying to contain the virus was the bad strategy because of the effectivenesss of the virus in spreading, with/without masks; protecting the vulnerable (mainly elderly) would've been more effective, as I understand. See the excellent interview of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya by Lex Fridman (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIOGUYOPAsA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIOGUYOPAsA). On the plus side, producing vaccines by end of 2020 was nothing short of stunning IMO, with all the skepticism at that time on the timeline. Bid kudos to the pharmas of course, but a lot of credit should also go to the Trump administration, whatever you may think of the president.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Bhattacharya has been consistently wrong on COVID from basically the start, declaring it nearly done as early as April 2020. Is there reason to believe that has changed? (Lots of cited examples at https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/jlockdowns/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/jlockdowns/)
- redmen 5y ago
  - pschuegr 5y ago
    I don't know anything about him except that a friend has recommended him. What's the problem?
    - redmen 5y ago
      He is playing a character. Met him and he showed the opposite of what he was trying to sell his audience. Claims he doesn't care about money then took a bunch of huge sponsorship deals. Claims he didn't want fame but went on to try to network with a guy from Hollywood claiming he could make him famous. Claims to love everyone, and given the chance he attacks people with deep anger. Has a massive massive ego, always brags about being alpha. I donno, hes just not in any way who he claims to be.
mathstuf 5y ago
I think the ineffectiveness comes from the lack of gravitas such problems have on the public psyche. We now feel that it is "over", so we relax instead of buckling down and asking ourselves "how can we make the next time this happens not such a shitshow?". Luckily, there are organs within the government that do keep at least some focus on it. The problem is getting public and political attention to not chase whatever shiny Hollywood is doing or the Strawman of the Week is being put forth instead. However, I have far more trust in these government organs at doing something effective than leaving it to "the market" which will just always be distracted by money instead of "taking one for the team" and focusing on the hard problems "just in case".
- wutbrodo 5y ago
  > We now feel that it is "over", so we relax instead of buckling down and asking ourselves "how can we make the next time this happens not such a shitshow?" The cultural rot that prevents iterating on effective government runs deep, and has little to do with exhaustion. In _Spring 2020_, i was shocked by the strong reaction I got from my friends at even passing mentions of the FDA/CDC's significant and severe early failures. In the usual reductive framing, I'm a pretty "big govt" guy. While govt is horrendously incompetent, as a baseline, it allows us to choose from a wider array of goals, more precisely than the market does. But I learned that even my nominally-intelligent friends are too simple-minded to understand this, and that their support is rooted in religious belief in an omnicompetent govt that provides flawless protection from the world's dangers. An environment that can't even see failures is not one that's going to improve upon them. Already, the excuses have been lined up: every single failure was due in some way to Trump, and now that he's gone (hopefully), the gov't can go back to its usual, hyper-efficient mode of function (lol)
  - mathstuf 5y ago
    Yes, realizing that not everything is perfect (good or evil) is a good base that needs to be done first. Trump made lots of blunders and such, but the morass that is our government is also what insulated it from his attempts to destroy it. If government were an efficient machine, a strong leader would be able to redirect it much more easily. However, we instead have a swarm of pearl-clutching monstrosities that have defenses they can deploy. Yes, it makes improvement slow, but it also (largely) protects us from terrible leadership.
ecf 5y ago
The main thing Covid has shown, imo, is that there exists a segment of the population that will do everything in their power to sabotage good-faith efforts of beating the virus in an effort to prove they’re right.
rubyist5eva 5y ago
> I think COVID showed how ineffective the federal government is in the face of a crisis. I've always said, the federal government is only good at killing people (referring to the military)...I'm starting to think it applies to a lot more than that.

sremani 5y ago

As a person who has distaste for 'Mandates', a successful Pandemic reaction will always look like an 'Overreaction'. If Federal government has any role in the creation or distribution of effective Vaccines, I would consider it a success. It is still far from perfect but it was a success. I am not trying to change anyones view on this -- just expressing my point of view.

criddell 5y ago

The effectiveness of the federal government is complicated. You mentioned some disappointing aspects but I think it's worth keeping in mind some of the positive parts too. For one, the new vaccines are a triumph. As I understand it, DARPA was an early funder of research and development around MRNA tech. And Trump's Operation Warp Speed is, for me, a rare highlight of his time in office.

BaseballPhysics 5y ago
Not to mention the huge subsidy programs that likely saved the economy from a far more profound shock. But that wouldn't support the anti-government narrative that seems to be so popular among Americans in general and techies in particular.

herdcall 5y ago

Trying to contain the virus was the bad strategy because of the effectivenesss of the virus in spreading, with/without masks; protecting the vulnerable (mainly elderly) would've been more effective, as I understand. See the excellent interview of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya by Lex Fridman (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIOGUYOPAsA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIOGUYOPAsA). On the plus side, producing vaccines by end of 2020 was nothing short of stunning IMO, with all the skepticism at that time on the timeline. Bid kudos to the pharmas of course, but a lot of credit should also go to the Trump administration, whatever you may think of the president.

ceejayoz 5y ago
Bhattacharya has been consistently wrong on COVID from basically the start, declaring it nearly done as early as April 2020. Is there reason to believe that has changed? (Lots of cited examples at https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/jlockdowns/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/jlockdowns/)
redmen 5y ago
- pschuegr 5y ago
  I don't know anything about him except that a friend has recommended him. What's the problem?
  - redmen 5y ago
    He is playing a character. Met him and he showed the opposite of what he was trying to sell his audience. Claims he doesn't care about money then took a bunch of huge sponsorship deals. Claims he didn't want fame but went on to try to network with a guy from Hollywood claiming he could make him famous. Claims to love everyone, and given the chance he attacks people with deep anger. Has a massive massive ego, always brags about being alpha. I donno, hes just not in any way who he claims to be.

mathstuf 5y ago

I think the ineffectiveness comes from the lack of gravitas such problems have on the public psyche. We now feel that it is "over", so we relax instead of buckling down and asking ourselves "how can we make the next time this happens not such a shitshow?". Luckily, there are organs within the government that do keep at least some focus on it. The problem is getting public and political attention to not chase whatever shiny Hollywood is doing or the Strawman of the Week is being put forth instead. However, I have far more trust in these government organs at doing something effective than leaving it to "the market" which will just always be distracted by money instead of "taking one for the team" and focusing on the hard problems "just in case".

wutbrodo 5y ago
> We now feel that it is "over", so we relax instead of buckling down and asking ourselves "how can we make the next time this happens not such a shitshow?" The cultural rot that prevents iterating on effective government runs deep, and has little to do with exhaustion. In _Spring 2020_, i was shocked by the strong reaction I got from my friends at even passing mentions of the FDA/CDC's significant and severe early failures. In the usual reductive framing, I'm a pretty "big govt" guy. While govt is horrendously incompetent, as a baseline, it allows us to choose from a wider array of goals, more precisely than the market does. But I learned that even my nominally-intelligent friends are too simple-minded to understand this, and that their support is rooted in religious belief in an omnicompetent govt that provides flawless protection from the world's dangers. An environment that can't even see failures is not one that's going to improve upon them. Already, the excuses have been lined up: every single failure was due in some way to Trump, and now that he's gone (hopefully), the gov't can go back to its usual, hyper-efficient mode of function (lol)
- mathstuf 5y ago
  Yes, realizing that not everything is perfect (good or evil) is a good base that needs to be done first. Trump made lots of blunders and such, but the morass that is our government is also what insulated it from his attempts to destroy it. If government were an efficient machine, a strong leader would be able to redirect it much more easily. However, we instead have a swarm of pearl-clutching monstrosities that have defenses they can deploy. Yes, it makes improvement slow, but it also (largely) protects us from terrible leadership.

ecf 5y ago

The main thing Covid has shown, imo, is that there exists a segment of the population that will do everything in their power to sabotage good-faith efforts of beating the virus in an effort to prove they’re right.

rubyist5eva 5y ago

> I think COVID showed how ineffective the federal government is in the face of a crisis. I've always said, the federal government is only good at killing people (referring to the military)...I'm starting to think it applies to a lot more than that.