I can't disagree with any of that. I think this was his chance to change attitudes about him. For him to do exactly what you said, the buck stops here, we are shutting down totally for a short time, it's on me. This shows the country he cares more about them than his re-election, and more than likely works out well in controlling the virus. I think he would be leading right now by a large margin had he done this. However he didn't, he did exactly what his detractors thought he would do, he was more worried about it not landing on him than the actual outcome. This is exactly why it is landing on him and he's losing to a man with dementia.
Don't disagree. Now the policy I believe we should have implemented - We should have locked down the elderly and those who are immuno compromised. We should have warned people with diabetes and lung issues (cancer, emphysema, etc) and told them this virus might be a really big deal to them, but the information isn't final on it. Should have advised companies to allow people to work from home. Should have put in travel advisories and locked down international travel for the short term. Should have stated that "for the vast majority, this is a bad flu virus, but we're trying to protect the vulnerable population we have". Should have retasked factories to make masks. Ventilators. Should have temporarily curbed FDA approvals on test kits from international sources. We did none of that. We did a knee jerk reaction and drop a tactical nuke on the economy. Some states went this way, others that. Because people hate Trump, anyone and everyone who followed the bad leader was instantly branded accordingly (see the hate to DeSantis in this very thread). Its become a cult now, alright. But not one based in facts, just one based in fear.
Trump had the ability to affect all of the above. Now because of his bad leadership we got the worst of both worlds. The state we are in now could have been avoided with a coherent national policy, if you are going to let states wreck the economy anyway why not get a return on it. It's just common sense that letting states do everything different results in a net 0. Being very high risk myself, I am biased in saying there should have been a total shut down for a short period of time which could have extinguished it, but if not that at least go your route where we still have a booming economy. Now my older kid lost his job and I have to decide if I want one kid to have to do his first year of high school virtually. I don't want to deprive him of that experience, but I know he will get it and possibly pass it on me which is life threatening. Total cluster.
I'm just not sure a total shut down could have extinguished it. Places like NJ don't seem to support that statement.
I go to NJ a lot and you can't really distinguish NJ from NY, so I don't know that they really had a total shutdown unless the tunnel was closed etc. That said, I am not sure if it would have worked either, but it would have had a chance at least. The only thing I am 100% positive of is that the federal response was terrible.
New Jersey did not follow a lock-down model that was successful; nor did any state. Countries that were successful with their lock-downs such as South Korea and New Zealand followed much more stringent lock downs. This gets down to the 5 points of why a lock-down is necessary when facing a novel global pandemic that is highly infectious. 1) To prevent the overloading of hospital resources - where the number of COVID-19 patients is greater than capacity to treat them. 2) To provide time to obtain the necessary number of COVID-19 test kits and get a testing process in place to meet the necessary capacity for re-opening. 3) To get proper Contact Tracing in place for COVID-19 prior to re-opening. This includes getting the necessary systems in place and getting people hired for the positions. 4) To reduce the effective infection rate (R) to below 0.8 in a community before opening. 5) To reduce the total number of infections in the community to reduce the number of vector starting points when re-opening that must be traced and quarantined. Every U.S. state failed to get proper Contact Tracing or adequate Testing in place when phasing out of lock-downs. Many states rushed to get out of lock-downs . This led to the obvious expected result of wide-scale COVID re-emergence. The federal government should be providing leadership in a public health response during a global pandemic including outlining clear common U.S. criteria for locking down and phased exit that are used in every state. The Feds should have taken leadership in setting up contact tracing and universal testing. The federal government should also have created guidelines for non-essential travel restrictions or quarantines across state lines based on infection level which they would ask states to institute. A regional approach should have been driven by the Feds where areas of the country with low infection were more open and infected areas locked-down based on clear national guidelines.
NJ locked a lot of stuff down, as did NY. I'm not saying it was the right move, or enough, or anything like that. But short of locking everyone in their house and letting the virus burn through and burn out while not bringing out infected patients from their quarantined house, you're going to have an infection continue. And then, with asymptomatic patients, unless you lock down for 6 months, you're going to have people coming out once you open it up and the virus is still going to be around. This gets back to the "how much should have been done and at what cost to save how many?" subjectivity. What I think we can all agree on is that what we did was not the right choice. We'll disagree on whether it was too much or too little, and we can discuss that, but it is what it is at this point and we are committed to our path.
Florida Deaths Hit Record as Covid-19 Sweeps the Sun Belt https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...deaths-among-residents-increase-by-record-120 Florida reported records in both Covid-19 deaths and new hospitalizations Thursday, grim numbers that reflect a new surge in infections sweeping the U.S. from the Southeast to California. Florida had 120 deaths among residents, compared with 48 the previous day. Cumulatively, deaths among Florida residents climbed by 3.1% to 4,009, according to the report, which includes data through Wednesday. The seven-day average deaths was also at the highest on record. The report is the clearest sign yet that the wave of new Covid-19 infections that started among younger residents has expanded and begun to have dire clinical consequences. The experience in Florida is similar to Texas, where many hospitals are beyond capacity, and offers a warning to other states that are earlier in the latest Covid-19 cycle. While deaths typically lag infections by weeks, the report gave no indications that cases are abating. Governor Ron DeSantis has repeatedly ruled out a sweeping mask mandate or taking the state back into a lockdown to stem the virus, although local governments have acted on their own. (More at above url)
Looks like FL hit a new high today with 120 deaths, and TX went from a new high of 98 yesterday to another new high of 105 today. I'm afraid it might not be just a fluke data point now.
A lot of the theories people push on this site get thoroughly wrecked by the data within days but it takes some of them weeks to acknowledge the possibility ( if they accept it at all ). In virus time that's too long. One of the central differences between the Canadian approach and the US approach has been the acceptance of advice from the medical community. Canadians trust their medical community. Trudeau deferred to the medical experts right away. Trump still fights with the medical experts will not accept their advice. It's tragic but nobody really can influence many Americans on this it has to play out and learn on the fly.