Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Smitzelplix]

That is a older poll. There have been like 3 since then which showed him with a increase in approval of his handling of the crisis. Most recently a Gallop Poll.

It says it's from March 24th, just a couple of days ago.

[Acidbaron]

Meanwhile......https://www.foxnews.com/world/world-...virus-pandemic

The head of the World Health Organization on Wednesday praised President Trump for his leadership in handling the novel coronavirus outbreak and said the president is "taking responsibility" for leading the United States' response to the global pandemic.

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said the United Nations health agency has repeatedly called for the heads of state to lead a "whole of government" response to COVID-19 and said Trump was leading by example.

WHO also said China did nothing wrong and handled the situation great, so meanwhile....

At the end of the day, if you believe political appointees are going to make the number of deaths more acceptable, go for it *shrug*

Just noticed you are linking Foxnews, a site know for spinning the narrative and telling half truths on a best day, as usual kitty your desperation is showing.

[Ghostpanther]

It says it's from March 24th, just a couple of days ago.

There is this one also, released Tuesday of this week. https://www.bing.com/search?form=MOZ...q=Gallop+polls

And yes, I corrected my original reply. From old to one.

And this is a better link. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gal...mp-coronavirus which references 2 different pollsters than Gallop.

[DisposableHero]

Well Italy did a very dramatic and complete lock down two weeks ago. The new case level off is indicative of that. If we don't do something similar, there is no reason to believe our cases will level off at the same point, we might get a lot worse then that. So far our curve looks worse then Italy's, but it is very hard to tell, because the curves don't record actual cases, they only record people who tested positive, so the data varies widely based on testing availability and guidance. This is probably why Italy appears to have an extremely high mortality rate (Nearly 10%!), while Germany has an extremely low rate (Around 0.5%). The rates are probably not that different, but Germany seems to have done much wider testing, and is recording mild and asymptomatic cases, whereas Italy was primarily testing people with serious health problems. I am sure there is some difference in mortality, but that comes down to Italy's health system getting overwhelmed, rather then a more severe strain of the virus.

And that is really what is at stake here. A huge number of Americans are going to get this virus. That is unavoidable. It isn't Trump's fault, it would have happened to any President. What we can change is how rapidly this spikes, which changes the quality and quantity of medical care available to severe cases. If we do a good job, we can have a mortality rate closer to Germany. If we botch this, we could have one worse then Italy.

I agree completely with what you've said here. The grim reality is though, if the actual mortality rate for good care is around 0.5% as seen in Germany, and the US has largely been in that state to date, it suggests that with 250 deaths today, and the virus taking upwards of 20 days from initial infection to kill someone, that 250 deaths means 50,000 infections, and it means there were 50,000 infections on March 6th, and that probably means the number of infections is in the millions as of today.

[Nellise]

The head of the World Health Organization on Wednesday praised President Trump for his leadership in handling the novel coronavirus outbreak and said the president is "taking responsibility" for leading the United States' response to the global pandemic.

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said the United Nations health agency has repeatedly called for the heads of state to lead a "whole of government" response to COVID-19 and said Trump was leading by example.

Smart people have realized the way to get Trump to listen to you is to kiss his ass. He'll change his mind instantly if you feed his ego enough.

[Thekri]

I agree completely with what you've said here. The grim reality is though, if the actual mortality rate for good care is around 0.5% as seen in Germany, and the US has largely been in that state to date, it suggests that with 250 deaths today, and the virus taking upwards of 20 days from initial infection to kill someone, that 250 deaths means 50,000 infections, and it means there were 50,000 infections on March 6th, and that probably means the number of infections is in the millions of today.

That is one interpretation, and it would be very good news if true, because it dramatically limits the potential damage this could cause. If the lethality rate is really around 0.5% it puts the upper limits of deaths in the US at ~1 million. If Italy is the accurate predictor of the upper limit, the maximum death rate is closer to 35 million. It also means we are closer to the peak then the data currently suggests.

However I certainly wouldn't count on that interpretation. The hypothesis partially explains what we are seeing, but not completely. If that was actually happening, we should see severe cases popping up almost randomly everywhere, with no clear traceability of infections (Because the disease could have routed through a dozen non-symptomatic carriers between each serious case). But this isn't really the case, as severe cases seem to be mostly clustered, and with clearly identifiable vectors for when they got infected.

So I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle. The total number of us cases is probably 2-4 times more then the current test positives, but probably not hundreds of times greater. The expected mortality rate is probably higher then 0.5%, but a lot lower then 10%. Either way, due to the way we are collecting data, we really can't be sure, and it certainly isn't worth risking billions of lives to find out. Because if it really is 0.5%, with already widespread infections, then reopening the economy actually makes a lot of sense, because we are pretty close to the peak already (We still wouldn't see the peak for several weeks, once the people that are currently infected start showing signs). But I don't think that is really true.

[Breccia]

Trump team failed to follow NSC’s pandemic playbook

Oh look, this is my "not surprised" face.

The Trump administration, state officials and even individual hospital workers are now racing against each other to get the necessary masks, gloves and other safety equipment to fight coronavirus — a scramble that hospitals and doctors say has come too late and left them at risk. But according to a previously unrevealed White House playbook, the government should’ve begun a federal-wide effort to procure that personal protective equipment at least two months ago.

“Is there sufficient personal protective equipment for healthcare workers who are providing medical care?” the playbook instructs its readers, as one early decision that officials should address when facing a potential pandemic. “If YES: What are the triggers to signal exhaustion of supplies? Are additional supplies available? If NO: Should the Strategic National Stockpile release PPE to states?”

The strategies are among hundreds of tactics and key policy decisions laid out in a 69-page National Security Council playbook on fighting pandemics, which POLITICO is detailing for the first time. Other recommendations include that the government move swiftly to fully detect potential outbreaks, secure supplemental funding and consider invoking the Defense Production Act — all steps in which the Trump administration lagged behind the timeline laid out in the playbook.

“Each section of this playbook includes specific questions that should be asked and decisions that should be made at multiple levels” within the national security apparatus, the playbook urges, repeatedly advising officials to question the numbers on viral spread, ensure appropriate diagnostic capacity and check on the U.S. stockpile of emergency resources.

At this point, Politico actually inserts the entire federal document. You can read it here.

The playbook also stresses the significant responsibility facing the White House to contain risks of potential pandemics, a stark contrast with the Trump administration’s delays in deploying an all-of-government response and President Donald Trump's recent signals that he might roll back public health recommendations.

“The U.S. government will use all powers at its disposal to prevent, slow or mitigate the spread of an emerging infectious disease threat,” according to the playbook’s built-in “assumptions” about fighting future threats. “The American public will look to the U.S. government for action when multi-state or other significant events occur.”

The guide further calls for a “unified message” on the federal response, in order to best manage the American public's questions and concerns. “Early coordination of risk communications through a single federal spokesperson is critical,” the playbook urges. However, the U.S. response to coronavirus has featured a rotating cast of spokespeople and conflicting messages; Trump already is discussing loosening government recommendations on coronavirus in order to “open” the economy by Easter, despite the objections of public health advisers.

The NSC devised the guide — officially called the Playbook for Early Response to High-Consequence Emerging Infectious Disease Threats and Biological Incidents, but known colloquially as “the pandemic playbook” — across 2016. The project was driven by career civil servants as well as political appointees, aware that global leaders had initially fumbled their response to the 2014-2015 spread of Ebola and wanting to be sure that the next response to an epidemic was better handled.

The Trump administration was briefed on the playbook’s existence in 2017, said four former officials, but two cautioned that it never went through a full, National Security Council-led interagency process to be approved as Trump administration strategy. Tom Bossert, who was then Trump’s homeland security adviser, expressed enthusiasm about its potential as part of the administration’s broader strategy to fight pandemics, two former officials said.

Bossert declined to comment on any particular document, but told POLITICO that “I engaged actively with my outgoing counterpart and took seriously their transition materials and recommendations on pandemic preparedness.”

The playbook was designed “so there wasn’t piecemeal thinking when trying to fight the next public health battle,” said one former official who contributed to the playbook, warning that “the fog of war” can lead to gaps in strategies.

“These are recommended discussions to be having on all levels, to ensure that there’s a structure to make decisions in real-time,” said a second former official.

An NSC official confirmed the existence of the playbook but dismissed its value. “We are aware of the document, although it’s quite dated and has been superseded by strategic and operational biodefense policies published since,” the official said. “The plan we are executing now is a better fit, more detailed, and applies the relevant lessons learned from the playbook and the most recent Ebola epidemic in the [Democratic Republic of the Congo] to COVID-19.”

A health department spokesperson also said that the NSC playbook was not part of the current coronavirus strategy. “The HHS COVID-19 response was informed by more recent plans such as the foundation of the National Biodefense Strategy (2018), Biological Incident Annex (2017),and panCAP (2018) among other key plans provided by the CDC, White House Task Force, FEMA, and other key federal departments and agencies,” the spokesperson said.

So let's sum up:
1) Icy Veins had a complete rundown of the boss.
2) The raid leader said "no, we're going to handle some of the steps differently"
3) The DPS start dying due to easily-avoidable mechanics, and the raid's numbers start dropping.
4) There's an enrage timer. Easter.

Are we tired of wiping yet?

[Smitzelplix]

There is this one also, released Tuesday of this week. https://www.bing.com/search?form=MOZ...q=Gallop+polls

And yes, I corrected my original reply. From old to one.

And this is a better link. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gal...mp-coronavirus which references 2 different pollsters than Gallop.

Your links aren't working. Anyway I prefer looking at sites that have multiple polls and then averages them instead of looking at each individual poll, for instance RCP has a collection of polls for Trump's approval in regards to the coronavirus.

- - - Updated - - -

Are we tired of wiping yet?

Luckily I have plenty of toilet paper.

[Orange Joe]

For those interested, here is another poll showing the approval rating of Trump's handing of the Coronavirus issue in the US......https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gal...mp-coronavirus


President Trump's approval numbers are as high as they've ever been throughout his presidency as he deals with the coronavirus outbreak, according to the latest Gallup poll.

The poll shows 60 percent of Americans approve of the president's handling of his actions to combat the virus. That includes 94 percent of Republicans and 60 percent of Independents, while just 27 percent of Democrats approve of the president's handling of the outbreak.

Meanwhile, his overall job approval is at 49 percent, which is tied for the highest he has ever been when polled by Gallup. Trump jumped 5 points in the tracking poll from earlier this month.

Gallup is the latest poll to favor the president amid the coronavirus outbreak. ABC News and CBS News had him at 53 percent job approval over his handling of the crisis, while Monmouth University had him at 50 percent.

Hey look. A new record for Trump to claim.


https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/26/week...ss-claims.html

The number shatters the Great Recession peak of 665,000 in March 2009 and the all-time mark of 695,000 in October 1982.

[Breccia]

Hey look. A new record for Trump to claim.

Obviously, there were fewer people in 1982. But even proportionately, this is higher. In 1982, the population was about 240 million. So even if we generously double the results from 1982, Trump just got triple that.

[Thekri]

Obviously, there were fewer people in 1982. But even proportionately, this is higher. In 1982, the population was about 240 million. So even if we generously double the results from 1982, Trump just got triple that.

Look, I am all for shitting on Trump. But it is more then a bit unfair to claim that "Trump" tripled that. A global pandemic tripled that. If Trump was doing what he should have done, the number would probably be higher, because more of the country would be shut down then it currently is.

The reason that blaming Trump for this is dangerous is because it encourages him to do exactly the wrong thing. If we blast him for the economic damage, he will attempt to fix it by rapidly reopening the economy, which he absolutely should not do. Now I get that he always claims everything good, so it is tempting to blame him for everything bad, but it really isn't true in this case, and drives him to do something extremely dangerous in a reaction to it.

Also, it feeds the narrative of "Democrats are just out to get Trump for everything", which encourages people to ignore the very legitimately terrible things he really does.

[Breccia]

Look, I am all for shitting on Trump. But it is more then a bit unfair to claim that "Trump" tripled that.

Well, it's a good thing I didn't say that, then, isn't it?

[Thekri]

Well, it's a good thing I didn't say that, then, isn't it?

Well you said "Trump got triple that", which is the same thing. Anyway, not trying to start a fight, just cautioning that blaming everything on the President dilutes the impact of blaming him for things that he is really doing terrible.

Trump is not responsible for this virus happening, nor is he responsible for the economic damage that it is currently doing. He is responsible for making it worse through terrible messaging, false assurances, and damaging our preparedness. Lets keep blaming him for those things.

[solinari6]

Trump is not responsible for this virus happening, nor is he responsible for the economic damage that it is currently doing. He is responsible for making it worse through terrible messaging, false assurances, and damaging our preparedness. Lets keep blaming him for those things.

Yeah, but if he is responsible for making it worse, then he IS responsible for the economic damage it is currently doing. Because that damage would be less if he hadn't made it worse.

[Thekri]

Yeah, but if he is responsible for making it worse, then he IS responsible for the economic damage it is currently doing. Because that damage would be less if he hadn't made it worse.

I don't think that is true of this particular metric though. If Trump was acting responsibly, the majority of the country would probably be locked down right now, and the unemployment numbers would actually be a lot worse. The death rate would be a lot lower, but the unemployment would be higher.

[Orange Joe]

Look, I am all for shitting on Trump. But it is more then a bit unfair to claim that "Trump" tripled that. A global pandemic tripled that. If Trump was doing what he should have done, the number would probably be higher, because more of the country would be shut down then it currently is.

The reason that blaming Trump for this is dangerous is because it encourages him to do exactly the wrong thing. If we blast him for the economic damage, he will attempt to fix it by rapidly reopening the economy, which he absolutely should not do. Now I get that he always claims everything good, so it is tempting to blame him for everything bad, but it really isn't true in this case, and drives him to do something extremely dangerous in a reaction to it.

Also, it feeds the narrative of "Democrats are just out to get Trump for everything", which encourages people to ignore the very legitimately terrible things he really does.

Not sure if you are including me in this or not, but to be fair I never said it was because of him. but if he can claim numbers in the + he had nothing to do with we can give him numbers in the - that has "nothing" to do with him.

[Lenonis]

I don't think that is true of this particular metric though. If Trump was acting responsibly, the majority of the country would probably be locked down right now, and the unemployment numbers would actually be a lot worse. The death rate would be a lot lower, but the unemployment would be higher.

I'm sorry but if Trump gets to take credit for the things he doesn't actually impact then he gets to take blame.

No reason to start being fair and reasonable when the opposition has no interest in doing so.

[Thekri]

Not sure if you are including me in this or not, but to be fair I never said it was because of him. but if he can claim numbers in the + he had nothing to do with we can give him numbers in the - that has "nothing" to do with him.

It really wasn't targeted at anybody. Just a general caution. I do get the concept, I am just concerned about doing it right now, because it is going to goad him to do something very stupid that is the opposite of what we need.

The important metric that needs to be controlled right now is how many lives are lost. We need to keep that number as low as possible. If we start hammering Trump on the economy, he is going to focus on that instead, because he is fundamentally a soulless individual who is going to focus on whatever is best for his political future. Trump already believes the economy is more important than lives, lets not encourage that by slamming him for unemployment numbers.

We know those numbers were going to be bad, we know why, and we just did the right thing by passing a bill to take care of those people as best we can.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sorry but if Trump gets to take credit for the things he doesn't actually impact then he gets to take blame.

No reason to start being fair and reasonable when the opposition has no interest in doing so.

Sure, when this is over, it is fair game. Trump is just so easy to manipulate, and so petty, that if he starts taking blame for this he is going to steer this car straight off a cliff.

[Paranoid Android]

Objecting to a provision in the Senate coronavirus bill providing unemployment benefits for people in financial trouble, Sen. Lindsey Graham says nurses are "going to make $24 an hour on unemployment" which he claims would incentivize "taking people out of the workforce."

His fellow South Carolina Senator, Tim Scott, basically made the same argument. The GOP is mad they have to give money to people in time of need they make up lies to help their arguments.

[Breccia]

So, remember how I said the US govt was buying a bunch of oil (when the price was low) to refill for the emergency? And honestly, didn't hate the idea all that much?

About that. The deal's off.

The bill has no funding for it. And Schumer said that was on purpose -- he called it a bailout. And he is correct.

Whether or not you agree with Schumer is up to you.

Vaguely Related: It's time for Guess the Speaker!

You’ve got to be realistic, and you’ve got to understand that you don’t make the timeline, the virus makes the timeline

I'm not even going to post the answer. Everyone here knows who that is.