It’s not an accusation, I’m just contrasting it to my own ethics, which are more deontological. I’m suggesting this is where we might differ.

The China response is well reported and recorded, filled with the typical communist censorship of its own people, the disappearing of critics, and the suppression evidence. The WHO, on the other hand, helped to spread this misinformation. It was late in declaring a public health emergency—after the virus had already spread to 18 countries—and spoke in glowing, servile terms about China’s response while doing so. It is so far up China’s ass that it embarrassingly dodged questions from Hong Kong reporters about excluding Taiwan.

It might not be the WHO itself that is to blame. It could very well be just the leadership. But one thing is for certain, our taxpayer dollars are funding this and this is not what we pay for. A holding on funds and an investigation is warranted. None of this would be necessary if the WHO didn’t launder China’s image at the expense of its own credibility.

It’s the art of the deal. “Never take anything off the table”. Trump likes to tout his power and authority for leverage and ambiguity in deal making. His actions prove otherwise in this instance. He has operated according to federalist principles: supporting the states in their efforts, providing funds and assets where needed.

Federalism does not serve us well in this pandemic. Consider the ventilator problem: if each state is on its own, this creates two problems: 1) the states compete with each other for a scarce resource, ensuring winners and losers, and driving up the price.2) each state has to manage for its own peak needs. Add together 50 peak requirements is bound to be considerably higher than the national peak, because the peaks will not be concurrent.

I think you’re probably right on that. A federalist government does not serve us well in this pandemic. All the more reason why we should not depend on the federal government and expect more from our state governments.

I think the difference in my “ideology” is that I’m not into applying utilitarian principles. But if I were to do so I would say your assumption that funding an ineffectual fire-Department to protect us from fire is also dangerous.

So, is Trump the helpless victim of China and the WHO here or is he the strong leader with total authority? It seems you're just going to keep playing whichever card suits your spin. I mean, I just don't know why you would think that's convincing.

I never said Trump was a victim. I never said he has total authority. I’m not sure why one would try to lie about that but I’m sure spin has something to do with it.

If the fire-Department was actively covering for the arsonist, then yes, withholding funding would be prudent as would an investigation. Yes, withholding funds would affect its ability to function in the short term.

I understand the push back, but it’s not about getting them to work harder. It’s about holding the leadership accountable for their dereliction of duty .

The investigation can help recognize structural and perhaps even political failures. I see no reason to continue funding until that process is complete. How does continuing to fund it resolve any of those issues?

How is de-funding them going to make them function any more properly in the short term? You're advocating market solutions to a non-market problem.

They are not being defunded. The US is withholding its funding pending an investigation.

Your mispelt entertained, bootlicker.

Lol quick to edit that one, weren’t you?

Oh look, an offended commie.

Yes. It’s in our best interest to have a properly functioning health authority, especially during a pandemic.

It’s the other way about. It appears Trump has become the scapegoat once again, as has been the case from everything to climate change to mistrust of the media. Yet the fact is that President Trump has utilized all power and assets of the federal government—too much in my opinion—to support the states during this emergency. FEMA, the military, the CDC, and even much of the private sector have been mobilized to tackle the crisis. The sheer amount of proclamations and executive orders for this purpose have been astounding.

So which actions exactly should he be responsible for?

Secondly, I think it’s time critics should say what they would have done differently. What would you have done differently?

I think the WHO needs to be accountable for its errors, namely spreading Chinese misinformation, declaring a pandemic too late, opposing travel restrictions, all of which arguably contributed to the spread of the virus across the globe. This is one instance where the WHO might have been useful. But it wasn’t.

I’m no statistician but I suspect deaths per million is a more adequate measure to determine who faired better or worse. In that respect, some countries, the Netherlands included, have done worse.

Horowitz has no power of subpoena, so based on what they told him, sure that is the case. Durham, who does have the power and who is by now deep into the investigation, disagreed. So once again you’re setting yourself up for failure.

From the December report that concluded the FBI was justified in its investigation. So it's neither news nor important.

It was just declassified. And it shows the FBI knew Steele was perhaps dealing in Russian disinformation, which I suspect you believed. So yes it is news, and yes it is important.

At this stage of the pandemic, it is not a simple choice between lives and livelihoods. There is the chaos resulting from what would happen with out lockdown measures. It would not only be a medical crisis and an economic one, but a food and disobedience crisis as well. This was already pointed out at the beginning of the thread, but ought to be considered here.

That’s a good point. The line-ups outside the barbershop alone will cause chaos.

I personally would deviate from your point because I do not believe in any notion of a greater good, but I certainly do agree we should all do our share during a time of pandemic for the obvious reasons. It’s just I disagree with the manner in which they are enforced or implemented.

I don’t believe the danger of a pandemic, no matter which virus, can be hyped up given the history.

Sweden just recorded it’s highest daily death count since the 6th of April after a slow weekend. This will surely ignite pressure for more draconian measures and put their choices under more scrutiny. I’m still hoping for them because I believe the lives vs. livelihoods approach is a false dichotomy, and that a sustainable balance would be preferable and more sustainable. But if I’m being honest it’s not looking good.

As countries open up I suspect the lives vs. livelihoods approach will loosen—governments cannot task itself with saving lives forever—and a better balance will be sought.

I think there is a political discussion to be had here. For example, the much touted healthcare systems of Europe, often held against the American system as far superior, are not fairing much better when put to the test in this crisis. The notion that we must risk our livelihoods and put ourselves on lockdown to keep them from collapsing is damning, in my opinion.

The principles underlying our systems of government are being put to the test, and I think the political implications are severe.

Again, a lazy stretch.

I don’t know if that’s the case or not without seeing the classified documents.

Yeah, it was awesome. It’s a lazy stretch to say it was a campaign ad. Government propaganda? Perhaps.

I was just relaying the article. Are there such powers? I don’t know.

More from the article:

The past few weeks have given Americans a crash course in the powers that federal, state and local governments wield during emergencies. We’ve seen businesses closed down, citizens quarantined and travel restricted. When President Trump declared emergencies on March 13 under both the Stafford Act and the National Emergencies Act, he boasted, “I have the right to do a lot of things that people don’t even know about.”

The president is right. Some of the most potent emergency powers at his disposal are likely ones we can’t know about, because they are not contained in any publicly available laws. Instead, they are set forth in classified documents known as “presidential emergency action documents.”

These documents consist of draft proclamations, executive orders and proposals for legislation that can be quickly deployed to assert broad presidential authority in a range of worst-case scenarios. They are one of the government’s best-kept secrets. No presidential emergency action document has ever been released or even leaked. And it appears that none has ever been invoked.

I’m pretty sure you’ve used that one before.

It is chilling to know that the president has powers not even congress knows about. Trump could be referring to those. Let’s hope we do not see them during this crisis.

Presidential emergency action documents emerged during the Eisenhower administration as a set of plans to provide for continuity of government after a Soviet nuclear attack. Over time, they were expanded to include proposed responses to other types of emergencies. As described in one declassified government memorandum, they are designed “to implement extraordinary presidential authority in response to extraordinary situations.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/opinion/trump-coronavirus-emergency-powers.html

That’s certainly debatable.

It’s the art of the deal. “Never take anything off the table”. Trump likes to tout his power and authority for leverage and ambiguity in deal making. His actions prove otherwise in this instance. He has operated according to federalist principles: supporting the states in their efforts, providing funds and assets where needed.

Steele Dossier Disinformation Update

New evidence that the FBI was duped by Russian intelligence.

Russia interfered in America’s 2016 election, as several government reports have established. The latest disturbing news is that Russia may have received an assist from no less than the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

That’s the takeaway of newly released portions of last year’s Department of Justice Inspector General report about the FBI’s investigation into Trump-Russia collusion. That report showed how the FBI abused its powers by misleading a secret court into granting surveillance warrants on the Trump campaign.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/steele-dossier-disinformation-update-11586897258


Footnotes in watchdog report indicate FBI knew of risk of Russian disinformation in Steele dossier

The FBI was warned sections of the controversial Steele dossier could have been part of a "Russian disinformation campaign to denigrate U.S. foreign relations," according to newly declassified footnotes from a government watchdog report.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/footnotes-in-watchdog-report-indicate-fbi-knew-of-risk-of-russian-disinformation-in-the-steele-dossier/

Not looking good for the FBI and Russian collusion conspiracy theorists.

Trump yesterday:

“Today I’m instructing my administration to stop funding of the WHO while a review is conducted to assess the WHO’s role in severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the Coronavirus”.

There should be an investigation. The failures are unforgivable.

Where I live proper masks are difficult to come by, but I think the efficacy of masks and even goggles is obvious at this point. But also, as the study suggests, we need innovation, therapeutics, and any way to help our flailing healthcare systems. I just worry the lockdown can only stifle such efforts.

According to this study, "the key metric for the success of social distancing is whether critical care capacities are exceeded", and in order to avoid this, "prolonged or intermittent social distancing may be necessary into 2022". Assuming their models are accurate, and assuming the economy will suffer under such conditions, without a vaccine or "herd immunity" the lockdown approach appears to be unsustainable.

Abstract
It is urgent to understand the future of severe acute respiratory syndrome–coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission. We used estimates of seasonality, immunity, and cross-immunity for betacoronaviruses OC43 and HKU1 from time series data from the USA to inform a model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. We projected that recurrent wintertime outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 will probably occur after the initial, most severe pandemic wave. Absent other interventions, a key metric for the success of social distancing is whether critical care capacities are exceeded. To avoid this, prolonged or intermittent social distancing may be necessary into 2022. Additional interventions, including expanded critical care capacity and an effective therapeutic, would improve the success of intermittent distancing and hasten the acquisition of herd immunity. Longitudinal serological studies are urgently needed to determine the extent and duration of immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Even in the event of apparent elimination, SARS-CoV-2 surveillance should be maintained since a resurgence in contagion could be possible as late as 2024.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/04/14/science.abb5793

As more info is revealed, it is becoming increasingly difficult to discount the idea that the pandemic is the result of a lab accident in Wuhan, and the subsequent CCP coverup. This could be China’s Chernobyl. There is more circumstantial evidence for this than there is for the conventional wisdom that it began in a wet market.

State Department cables warned of safety issues at Wuhan lab studying bat coronaviruses

In January 2018, the U.S. Embassy in Beijing took the unusual step of repeatedly sending U.S. science diplomats to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which had in 2015 become China’s first laboratory to achieve the highest level of international bioresearch safety (known as BSL-4). WIV issued a news release in English about the last of these visits, which occurred on March 27, 2018. The U.S. delegation was led by Jamison Fouss, the consul general in Wuhan, and Rick Switzer, the embassy’s counselor of environment, science, technology and health. Last week, WIV erased that statement from its website, though it remains archived on the Internet.

What the U.S. officials learned during their visits concerned them so much that they dispatched two diplomatic cables categorized as Sensitive But Unclassified back to Washington. The cables warned about safety and management weaknesses at the WIV lab and proposed more attention and help. The first cable, which I obtained, also warns that the lab’s work on bat coronaviruses and their potential human transmission represented a risk of a new SARS-like pandemic.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-department-cables-warned-safety-issues-wuhan-lab-studying-bat-coronaviruses/

I’m sorry to hear, friend. Times are bleak, many are in the same boat. I know that’s no consolation but you are not alone. Godspeed.

As we now know, the IHME model used by the US government to set policy was wildly inaccurate.

An international group of statisticians from CTDS, Northwestern University and the University of Texas have released a paper (pdf, 2.5MB) investigating the predictive performance of the model developed by Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). The IHME model is is used to predict ventilator use, hospital bed requirements and other resourcing for US states response to COVID-19.

The key findings are:

In excess of 70% of US states had actual death rates falling outside the 95% prediction interval for that state, (see Figure 1)

The ability of the model to make accurate predictions decreases with increasing amount of data. (figure 2)

Improved predictive modelling needed for adequate provision of ventilators, PPE, medical staff at a local level

https://www.sydney.edu.au/data-science/home.html

There is a horrific case in Quebec, Canada, where 31 care home residents have died, only 5 of which were attributed to covid-19. It is possible the rest died due to gross negligence. The stories coming out of there are horrific.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6810089/quebec-coroner-to-investigate-31-deaths-at-seniors-home-in-montreal/

I wasn’t dismissing the criticism. I was merely asking why the criticism is US-centric, why other governments, international institutions, and those we pay vast sums of cash to warn us of such threats, are given a pass.

A lot of criticism in this thread is aimed at the US, for whatever reason, even though everyone can clearly see the virus was brought to the continent by European and Chinese travellers. Despite the failed efforts of globalist institutions—the WHO, the UN, the EU (just add up the death rate there)—whom we can all blame, criticism begins and ends at the American border. Why is that? Is it the need of a whipping boy?

Or else what?

Liberal Democracies embody a system of trial-and-error, a la Popper. A country is almost forced to learn from the mistakes of its political experiments, allowing them to self-correct peacefully over time. Governments submit their policy to public scrutiny and are accountable for their actions. In that sense Democracy fosters the scientific tradition of critical discussion.

I meant there will be an accounting of their efforts, that the resignation of the chief scientist is a sign things weren’t handled well. I wasn’t saying member states will leave the block because the scientist did.