Are you more concerned about the actual virus?

[Elijah John]

1) Are you more concerned about the actual coronavirus itself?

2) Or about panic buying disrupting the supply chain of basic groceries and the effect on the economy.

3) Should the President consider imposing rationing of basic necessities so that everyone can get enough?

4) Should the President encourage papermills and other sources in the chain to ramp up production and delivery?

5) With all the emphasis on testing, testing and more testing, have the authorities neglected the basics of life?

For the first time (as I was typing this) I heard President Trump advise against the hoarding of groceries. I wish he'd do more of that.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 15 by Elijah John]

His credibility may be low with you, Adam Schiff, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, but not so with more than half of the American people.

Not true, polls indicate otherwise by at least 3 points

Even NY Gov Andrew Cuomo and California Gov Gavin Newsome had nice things to say about the President's responsiveness in this crisis.

That's because Trump DEMANDS appreciation. Governors must act nice-nice to get what they want. Why is it you don't see this or admit this. Though Trump demands respect, he continues to fumble earning respect. When the book is written about his role in stemming the pandemic, he is going to look very dismal in his lack of leadership -- "I'm not responsible" will be on his tombstone.

And don't forget, the President was called a "racist" for closing the border with China early on. Seems that was foresight instead of "bungling". Seems events have vindicated his so-called "xenophobia". Isn't it clear now that unfettered globalism and wide open borders can have dire consequences?

I suppose someone said that -- I didn't hear it though I thought closing the border was a good idea. However, that closure was incomplete! US nationals were left back in with hardly a temperature check and no followup.

Why don't Pelosi and Schiff join the President in actually trying to solve this problem, instead of distracting him with another investigation as they are proposing?

DISTRACTING? Trump feeds on distraction! He feeds off Pelosi and Schiff -- that is the political virus enabling Trump's success with the lesser intelligent Republicans.

What should have, or what should the President do differently to have prevented or alleviate the effects of this pandemic on the American people?

When he declared himself the "War President" he should have then ACTED like one: During any war has the president relied on the individual states to do this or that ? No! Martial law was instituted and all available resources were brought to bear on the enemy, by ALL the states! That's what happened in China, So. Korea, New Zealand and Hong Kong, and look at their "remarkable" results.

What do you think? What is Joe Biden proposing that would be any better?

What does it matter? Trump isn't asking any Democrat for advice -- he has trouble asking advice of members of his own party!

[mitty]

People who believe obvious lies are gullible. Trump has told over 10,000 lies in a couple years. Those who continue to believe him are gullible. The day this forum won't allow someone to tell the truth is the day I'm gone. Trump delayed two months, rejected tests, allowed thousands of Chinese to enter the country after we were warned.

But he'll still probably be voted back in by the 538 actual voters rather than Faith Spotted Eagle or Colin Powell or any of the other choices, when he brags about how he stopped the death toll hitting 100,000 even though the national debt will be over $25 trillion and the DEBT to GDP ratio will be headed toward 160% or more as predicted for 2024. https://www.usdebtclock.org/
https://www.usdebtclock.org/current-rates.html

[AgnosticBoy]

When he declared himself the "War President" he should have then ACTED like one: During any war has the president relied on the individual states to do this or that ? No! Martial law was instituted and all available resources were brought to bear on the enemy, by ALL the states! That's what happened in China, So. Korea, New Zealand and Hong Kong, and look at their "remarkable" results.

Actually, President Trump should not have declared 'martial law'. That has been declared on a national level only once in American history. In fact, Trump received push back when he suggested that the entire state of New York be quarantined. Such statements may simply panic the population.

China declared martial law at least for the Wuhan province but then again that's a communist government. But besides factoring in the forms of government, I also don't see any scientific basis for declaring martial law. This is because there are options that would do away with the virus without having to quarantine entire states.

For instance, why would you quarantine someone who is immune to the disease? Why would you quarantine someone who is a low risk for developing any severe symptoms from Covid-19? Why not just isolate the high risk population? The benefit of my thinking is that it preserves the economy. While quarantining an entire population can help to decrease the spread of infections (who knows for how long) but then it damages the economy. My plan is smarter in that it would help get rid of the virus while also preserving the economy.

What does it matter? Trump isn't asking any Democrat for advice -- he has trouble asking advice of members of his own party!

Well we do know Joe Biden was against travel restrictions since he attacked President Trump for it. So right from the start, Joe Biden and other Democrats would've gotten it wrong. It is unreasonable to expect a perfect response from any politician. And yes, Trump has made plenty of mistakes and so have governors who have OVERREACTED by shutting down their economies and schools.

[2Dbunk]

It should be remembered that the President has a balancing act here. Between sustaining the economy and people's jobs, and protecting the health of the American people. And part of the President's job (as was done with the Queen for the UK) is to strike an optimistic tone, which he is doing, while advancing sensible precautions, again, which he is doing.

His detractors seem to be forgetting that fact, ignoring it, or attributing the worst motives to the President's actions and statements.

Agreed that he has a balancing act on his hands: economic stability on one hand and physical health concerns on the other. Which would you rather err on: the tide dropping -- stranding all boats -- everyone suffering financial loss for x amount of time, but surviving to continue where we left off? Or people returning to normal activity without knowing where the invisible KILLER lurks, vulnerable to another wave similar to what occurred in Hong Kong (where citizens suffered renewed restrictions). Submitting to the latter will certainly cost more lives.

So, how much is a single life worth? Multiply that very high amount by the number of deaths cost by doing the latter, and the answer is rather obvious. BE POOR FOR AWHILE BUT STILL BE ALIVE!

x amount of time is indeterminate but for each day delayed "reopening" will probably save a life or two or more, as we lessen its spread and get closer to the cure.

And don't forget that while all this was creeping up on us, the Democrats were obsessed with impeachment, and in the process of impeaching the President. How was that not a national distraction, and a contributing factor to our present situation? No doubt the President has made some mistakes in handling this, but so have the Democrats. When the virus hit the US, Nancy Pelosi encouraged people specifically to go to restaurants in Chinatown in San Francisco, as did Mayor Marty Walsh in Boston. They were may well have put people at risk in doing so, but they were operating in good faith. Why not give the President the same benefit of the doubt?

It's hard to give a bully the benefit of the doubt (unless you fear being beat up, of course). Understand that he has been a bad boy and needed to be reprimanded. He brought his impeachment upon himself for his petulant if not criminal behavior. If he were my boy, he would have stood in the corner for many hours. So, HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT WASTEFUL DISTRACTION!

[AgnosticBoy]

Agreed that he has a balancing act on his hands: economic stability on one hand and physical health concerns on the other. Which would you rather err on: the tide dropping -- stranding all boats -- everyone suffering financial loss for x amount of time, but surviving to continue where we left off? Or people returning to normal activity without knowing where the invisible KILLER lurks, vulnerable to another wave similar to what occurred in Hong Kong (where citizens suffered renewed restrictions). Submitting to the latter will certainly cost more lives.

Your point here is a false dichotomy. You can balance keeping the economy open with reducing covid-19 deaths. Your view seems to be based on FEAR which is why I question atheists trust in science.

The SCIENCE shows that this virus is a killer to the older populations and those with underlying chronic diseases. The stats bear this out which is why you find the younger population, 45 y/o and younger, experiencing little to no symptoms and fatalities. If people really want to know the stats then lets look at a coronavirus hot spot like New York state, which accounts for about 50% of the covid-19 deaths in the US.

New York State has 106,813 confirmed covid-19 cases (source). Out of those cases, only 287 deaths come from the age range 0-44. That's only .2% of the cases (source). Furthermore, of the same age range, only 28 people died that had no underlying chronic diseases. So if we factor in those that died who were young and with NO underlying disease, that only accounts for .02% of the cases (ibid). Remember, my argument is to NOT isolate those who are young (44 y/o or younger) and those without underlying chronic disease.

So do we shut down the economy for a virus that only kills .02% of the people that have it? Should a virus be considered "a killer" to those 44 years and younger and w/out underlying chronic disease when only .02% will die?

Your claims are based in FEAR and not scientific facts. Your claims would lead to an OVERREACTION. The more people realize this, the more they will be questioning their governor's decision to imprison them and make them totally dependent on government.

So, how much is a single life worth? Multiply that very high amount by the number of deaths cost by doing the latter, and the answer is rather obvious. BE POOR FOR AWHILE BUT STILL BE ALIVE!

"High amount" of deaths? If you dive into the stats you'd notice that there is a HIGH risk population and a LOW risk population.

I respectfully request from here on that you stop making unsubstantiated claims.

[Zzyzx]

.

Your view seems to be based on FEAR which is why I question atheists trust in science.

Approaching an active electrical circuit that has 440 volts and 20 amps, a person could grab a conductor in each hand.

A totally ignorant person might grab both not knowing about electricity.

A very foolish person might grab both thinking they are immune from electrocution

Both are likely to be killed

A wise person avoids touching the conductors. No fear required -- just a bit of knowledge and judgment.

[AgnosticBoy]

.

Your view seems to be based on FEAR which is why I question atheists trust in science.

Approaching an active electrical circuit that has 440 volts and 20 amps, a person could grab a conductor in each hand.

A totally ignorant person might grab both not knowing about electricity.

A very foolish person might grab both thinking they are immune from electrocution

Both are likely to be killed

A wise person avoids touching the conductors. No fear required -- just a bit of knowledge and judgment.

In your scenario, that person is wise. But life is not about avoiding all things that cause harm. If it were so, then I would not go outside for FEAR that I would be bitten by a mosquito or an ant. But we know we can't put our lives on hold for such petty things, especially for a virus that might only give me a runny nose.

Would you shut down the economy over a runny nose, Zzyzx? If a person is old, I can understand. That's why I'd suggest that person keep himself isolated. But if you're 44 years old or younger, with no underlying chronic disease, and especially if you're one who has already recovered/immune from it, why be afraid?

[Zzyzx]

.

In your scenario, that person is wise. But life is not about avoiding all things that cause harm.

In life a person is well advised to listen to an electrician about what to avoid in the electrical box. Likewise, in life a person is well advised to listen to medical experts concerning health matters.

It is NOT wise to listen to economists or corporate CEOs about health matters.

Would you shut down the economy for a runny nose, Zzyzx?

Runny nose? Is that what is being discussed?

The present numbers for Covid-19 in the US according to CDC are 554,849 cases and 21,942 deaths as of 1600 April 13, 2020.

That is NOT a 'runny nose'

Why be more concerned about the economy than about health?

If you're old, I can understand. But if you're 44 years old or younger, with no underlying chronic disease, and especially if you're one who has already recovered/immune from it, why be afraid?

Afraid is not the issue – see the electrical circuit mentioned above.

Stupidity is an issue – as indicated by New Orleans and the Mardi Gras; Spring breakers, partygoers, etc.

Unfortunately, when the 'brave' and 'stupid' get sick they take up room in hospitals and require care by medical people (and probably infect others)

Those who wish to demonstrate their bravery are welcome to join the Navy and ask for assignment to an aircraft carrier or get a job caring for coronavirus patients

[AgnosticBoy]

In your scenario, that person is wise. But life is not about avoiding all things that cause harm.

In life a person is well advised to listen to an electrician about what to avoid in the electrical box. Likewise, in life a person is well advised to listen to medical experts concerning health matters.

It is NOT wise to listen to economists or corporate CEOs about health matters.

The situation that we're in is not just a "health" matter but also an economic matter since this situation effects BOTH. To focus on one and not the other would be terrible public policy so I would listen to both types of experts. It's like the difference between doing research on how to prevent covid-19 deaths vs. how to prevent covid-19 deaths WHILE keeping the economy open. Both research questions would inevitably lead to different focuses and conclusions. How would Dr. Fauci know if both can or can't be done if he's only focused on health? He should at least go down the latter path while being informed by economists.

Keep in mind, my plan implements both factors, health and economy. The reader should notice that neither you nor any other liberal has been able to refute it. I've relied on FACTS, while many others have relied on FEAR and partisan political rants.

Runny nose? Is that what is being discussed?

The present numbers for Covid-19 in the US according to CDC are 554,849 cases and 21,942 deaths as of 1600 April 13, 2020.

That is NOT a 'runny nose'

Why be more concerned about the economy than about health?

You're still not factoring in the stats I provided in my last post. The "runny nose" comment referred to the population that would experience mild symptoms - i.e. the low risk (young) population. Just ask yourself, out of those 22,000 or so deaths, how many of them were young people with no underlying chronic disease. Take a look post 32 where I break down the numbers.

You still have not refuted my plan. In fact, the stats confirm that my plan would NOT lead to high death tolls.

If you're old, I can understand. But if you're 44 years old or younger, with no underlying chronic disease, and especially if you're one who has already recovered/immune from it, why be afraid?

Afraid is not the issue – see the electrical circuit mentioned above.

Stupidity is an issue – as indicated by New Orleans and the Mardi Gras; Spring breakers, partygoers, etc.

Unfortunately, when the 'brave' and 'stupid' get sick they take up room in hospitals and require care by medical people (and probably infect others)

Those who wish to demonstrate their bravery are welcome to join the Navy and ask for assignment to an aircraft carrier or get a job caring for coronavirus patients

It is not stupid if they are in the population class that I tend to bring up, i.e. the ones who would very likely experience mild symptoms. It's only stupid to allow this same group to be exposed to the older population. The older population should be isolated.

You bring up hospitalizations. Let's refer back to the worst-of-the-worst, i.e. New York State. Those between 0-44 years-old only made up 4% (4660/106,813=.043) of hospitalizations (source)

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 36 by AgnosticBoy]

Let's consider the effects of applying your idea of restricting only 'high risk' people (over 45) and removing restrictions on low risk people (44 and under).

Those 45 and over are likely to include many or most:
Business owners and senior managers
Bankers, financiers, money managers
Doctors, senior nurses, hospital administrators
Senior military leaders
Politicians, senior bureaucrats
Teachers, principals, professors,

What will the 'low risk' people be doing with businesses, banks, hospitals, schools closed or operating without leadership? Having a party?