I was reading about SK's response and I was impressed by their agility and flexibility. Americans are capable if that, but people with that kind of drive don't usually seek out public employment. They'll stay private because of the money making potential and relative autonomy.

IOW, the US would have to privatize crisis response in order to match what SK did.

When Americans have exhausted the wrong ways, they will finally do the right thing. And that can happen quite quickly. And I'm optimistic that the scope of this pandemic will change thinking in America. The only thing is that really learn something here and prepare for the next pandemic and you'll be as agile and flexible as the South Koreans.

IOW, the US would have to privatize crisis response in order to match what SK did. — frank

I'm not so sure about that. Did you have to privatize the armed forces when you were caught with your pants down in Pearl Harbour and the Japanese took the Phillipines so quickly from you? People in the government can do a great job if only they are lead to do so and are given the resources.

This is why when Trump mentioned that they were considering quarantining New York, Cuomo said it would be a federal declaration of war, and he’s right. New York is out of the jurisdiction of the federal government, and as such, so is its response to the crisis. So if you want to look for people to blame, look no further than state and municipal governments. — NOS4A2

This is a strawman to the real point here- how much should the federal government do to help states? In general, why not have more money to help those more needy? I think the Civil War, the Great Depression, WWII, and the like has shown that when a crisis occurs, people would rather have help from a federal level than not. People who need help don't give a shit what level of government the money is coming from. Someone dying of a conditions from a natural disaster or a pandemic isn't going to be like "Oh no, don't help me, I'm a states righter, and I don't take no darn tootin' federal handouts!".

I'm not so sure about that. Did you have to privatize the armed forces when you were caught with your pants down in Pearl Harbour and the Japanese took the Phillipines so quickly from you? People in the government can do a great job if only they are lead to do so and are given the resources — ssu

It took the USA two years to ramp up to effectiveness for WW2. That's not very agile.

It took the USA two years to ramp up to effectiveness for WW2. That's not very agile. — frank

With less technology and the government wasn't fully committed to the war until December 1941.

Two years from Dec. 1941. That's when the US entered. At that time, US soldiers practiced with broomsticks because they had no rifles.

Two years from Dec. 1941. That's when the US entered. At that time, US soldiers practiced with broomsticks because they had no rifles. — frank

That's false.. there were battles in the Pacific in early 42.

Sure.

it would be just silly to disregard expert opinions and data altogether because of this. Just apply critical thinking. Trump's position changes with the direction of his farts. You can't rely on that for anything. — Baden

Critical thinking is generally suspended when one is required to appeal to authority. But since we're all limited in our expertise, we must defer in certain matters. How do we decide who to defer to? We are forced to assess credibility, which requires us not only to look to credentials, but to look at bias, ulterior motive, political agenda, prior acts of honesty or dishonesty, etc. So, based on this, I reject what they say for now on. Fool me once...

Two years from Dec. 1941. That's when the US entered. At that time, US soldiers practiced with broomsticks because they had no rifles. — frank

Starting from a far smaller military than Belgium, that's quite a thing to do. And once it started going there was no stopping. I guess that the Soviet Union could only produce a similar amount of tanks, but that was about it, all other vehicles the US assistance was important. And the Soviet economy had been in a war footing since, well, the birth of the Soviet Union.

That's false.. there were battles in the Pacific in early 42. — schopenhauer1

(There was also Operation Torch in Northern Africa. And in two years from Pearl Harbour the US was already fighting in mainland Italy.)

So there is a way, if there's the will. So I guess with some effort the US could have an even better system than now.

So there is a way, if there's the will. So I guess with some effort the US could have an even better system than now. — ssu

But wouldn't it require something like a depression to break the current power structure?

I've been looking into the mask thing. I think the motivations for the official slipperiness on it were probably something like the following:

1) A lack of masks
2) A lack of experience with masks in western countries leading to:
a) Incorrect usage
b) Resistance to compliance for cultural reasons
3) 1) and 2) leading to not enough people wearing them and wearing them properly to be effective enough to offset 4) =
4) A false sense of security that might detract from effecting other more reliable measures, such as proper social distancing/handwashing behaviours etc.
5) 3) and 4) making it more difficult for the government to know if any of this was working before it was too late.
6) A desire to keep masks for health workers who know how to use them and will use them when necessary.

Communities are better able to serve their members than some distant authority by sheer proximity alone. The American revolution was founded on such a premise.

The US, however, was ranked first in preparedness out of 195 countries. — NOS4A2

I guess this means that they're really bad at implementing their preparedness.

Since each state and local government are responsible for their emergency response, each local and state government have at least a large share of the blame in how they react to this crisis. — NOS4A2

Oh you sound like you're regurgitating Trump's nonsense. We're not giving any of the states any of the emergency supplies out of the federal stockpile, because this is federal supplies and none of the states have a right to any of it.

This is why when Trump mentioned that they were considering quarantining New York, Cuomo said it would be a federal declaration of war, and he’s right. New York is out of the jurisdiction of the federal government, and as such, so is its response to the crisis. So if you want to look for people to blame, look no further than state and municipal governments. — NOS4A2

Isn't that a great leader? All you States and municipalities fend for yourself, that's not my responsibility, I'm the leader of the nation, and this is not a national crisis, it's a local crisis. What a load of crap.

Much of your analysis relies upon the complexity involved in using a mask. Assuming Americans really can't figure out the chess puzzle that masks impose, surely the Dutch or the Swedes could figure them out because everyone knows they're smart.

But anyway, they're now advocating mask use and there's been no change in the West's know how. We should therefore expect people to be putting them on their nuts or however else they might misuse therm.

But wouldn't it require something like a depression to break the current power structure? — frank

Why would it? Besides, you alredy have that sharp dramatic downturn.

Prior to 9/11 in the US the security checks on domestic flights were nonexistent. It was a joke. I remember it well when I flew in the states. That changed. So if we are talking about a threat that may kill tens or hundreds of times more people, why think the power structure would have to change? What difficulty is there to understand that pandemics are a threat?

We should therefore expect people to be putting them on their nuts or however else they might misuse therm. — Hanover

Shouldn't be a problem for the at least 10% of Americans that mistakenly wear their underwear on their face.

Communities are better able to serve their members than some distant authority by sheer proximity alone. The American revolution was founded on such a premise. — NOS4A2

No rather, the American Revolution was mainly about representation in British Parliament. The interests of the states were not represented in Parliament in England, and therefore they were out of the decision-making process via Parliament's insistence on "virtual representation". Thus issues like the Royal Proclamation of 1763, Sugar and Stamp acts etc. disproportionately affected colonists without their consent. The British Parliament under the Prime Minister Grenville thought that the French-Indian war was on American soil, so they should have to pay the majority of the bill. The American colonists thought this was unfair, especially since they helped British standing army during that conflict. Anyways, we all know the story.

However, the federal government officials are elected democratically by the citizens of each state, and thus reflect the direct vote of the interests of the elected. With the federal government able to provide more money by pooling more resources from the various states, and with a crisis that is NATIONWIDE, why would you not invoke the full powers of the federal government? Who cares at what level the money is raised? The pool is much larger at a federal level than at a state level. Since the advent of technology, communication, and transportation, the concerns of localism has become much less over time since we are a globalized interdependent nation that depends much more on the different regions than in previous generations.

Sadly, most of what I've read on the situation in the UK today lends support to un's contentions, dramatic as they are. i.e. It's quite possible that Herd Immunity (which amounts to sacrificing the old and weak for the sake of the young and strong) was never really taken off the table, but is just being done more gradually.

with a crisis that is NATIONWIDE, why would you not invoke the full powers of the federal government? — schopenhauer1

Oh the idea is quite simple. In the interests of continually sucking on Trump's balls, devolution of blame must go to the states, despite them having generally done much more than the federal government in trying to ameliorate the effects of the virus. The utter incompetence of the federal government, no longer possible to deny without one coming off as a total miscreant, must instead be excused by shifting blame downwards. It's simply the new narrative that's at work right now, which NOS is dutifully relaying. The best example of this devolution of blame is the rewording of the National Strategic Stockpile website which overnight went from this:



To this:



After Jared Kushner - somehow in charge of the National response despite being a failure at any endeavour in life - fucked up his description of the stockpile on live TV. Anytime NOS says something stupid - which is all the time - you can be assured he is following a script, handed down from above that sits upon his open-mouthed face.

Yeah I'd have to agree with that assessment as far as I'm seeing.

However, the federal government officials are elected democratically by the citizens of each state, and thus reflect the direct vote of the interests of the elected. With the federal government able to provide more money by pooling more resources from the various states, and with a crisis that is NATIONWIDE, why would you not invoke the full powers of the federal government? Who cares at what level the money is raised?

Ask the EU how difficult a task that is. They are now balkanizing in contradiction to their open border agreements.

The US is invoking the full powers of the federal government—deploying FEMA, the military, the CDC, the FDA and signing the biggest bailout in history. They are pulling out all the stops, and far too much in my opinion.

The US is invoking the full powers of the federal government—deploying FEMA, the military, the CDC, the FDA and signing the biggest bailout in history. They are pulling out all the stops, and far too much in my opinion. — NOS4A2

It doesn't seem enough actually, and he's only sparingly done this. I've heard that he is distributing supplies to states based on how much they are sucking up to him. That is practically criminal to say the least. Too much in your opinion, doesn't mean shit when people are dying. If you think liberty is waiting by while people die, then that definition of liberty isn't worth it.

It doesn't seem enough actually, and he's only sparingly done this. I've heard that he is distributing supplies to states based on how much they are sucking up to him. That is practically criminal to say the least. Too much in your opinion, doesn't mean shit when people are dying. If you think liberty is waiting by while people die, than liberty isn't worth it.

And I suppose zero criticism for those who are in charge of, and have jurisdiction over, their own emergency responses.

If you think liberty has anything to do with "waiting by while people die" then you deserve your chains.

If you think liberty has anything to do with "waiting by while people die" then you deserve your chains. — NOS4A2

No NOS, that's what I'm saying YOUR belief in what this administration (and apparently the limits of federalism in a crisis) amounts to.

And I suppose zero criticism for those who are in charge of, and have jurisdiction over, their own emergency responses. — NOS4A2

The governors in most blue states actually seem to be doing the most they can.. can't say that much for the ones kissing up to Trump..

This is proof they didn't take it seriously. According to the report the USA had all the means to combat a pandemic most effectively and yet it (and the UK) turns out the worst of all Western countries so far.

Due to shortages we've been asked to donate all masks and gloves to hospitals. Shortages that are now exacerbated by predatory practices in the market by several players. It's turning ugly.

To be fair, I think you would have to compare the response to other countries (like France, Germany, Netherlands etc.) to see if the UK response would really stand out from other countries. I don't think it would. You can see from other examples that especially in January governments around Europe were totally dismissive about the epidemic, in February few measures were taken and in March the whole thing started in earnest. If the lockdown came for UK the 23rd of March, for Germany that general lockdown came just one day earlier (Bavaria issued it on the 20th of March). Here we had it few days earlier and some Eastern European countries opted for a lockdown also rather early, but I guess the time difference is in days, not weeks.

I can't comment much on the response by other European countries, however in the UK the government changed its response suddenly on the 23rd of March. This has been pointed out by commentators at the WHO and is a commonly held position by commentators now. Up to that point the policy was to allow the virus to spread and develop herd immunity, with a nod to slowing it a bit. Commentators have said that this change of course was due to the projected figures of deaths when the hospitals were overwhelmed being spelled out to the government. I heard someone saying that in London alone a million ventilators would have been needed in April where there were only 2 or 3 thousand ventilators in place.

This shocked the government into action, this is when Brexit fell of the table, which meant the influence of Cummings had been rejected and the UK finally got with the programme. Up until this point the virus was allowed to spread freely around London, Indeed I remarked on this on this thread at the time.

Until then grab some grace for what others are going through before fingers are pointed.

I hear you and Unenlightened, it is difficult to express compassion when you feel overwhelmed by events, I do feel it, but tend to focus on how events are unfolding.