All things CoronaVirus

[MDlaxfan76]

so now it's the trump admin that gets credit, and he was a deterrent in that process. that's an insane proposition....

Have you not followed our leader over the last four years?

You're acting like Trump is Mr. Consistent.

Yes, he signed off on Operation Warp Speed.

But he also, among other things, called the virus a hoax, made wearing not wearing a mask a political statement.... and once even suggested we inject disinfectants to kill the virus.


So yes, he absolutely CAN be working both to help, and hinder. MDlax is right.
[/quoteMy


You continue to find new ways to amaze on this thread. Thick-headed is an understatement. Not sure how your head doesn't hurt from banging against the wall so many times. He may be right in your little FLP world, but in reality much less so. Quit dying on the sword, you do realize that reality outside of this Lacrosse Forum is way different than you "see it" Then again, very easy to get caught up in this cesspool.



Joe

So, now a fan is FLP?
Or do you mean me??

wow, how far to the right does one need to be to call either of us FLP?

[MDlaxfan76]

to say that trump had nothing to do with vaccines and lay almost all distribution issues at his feet doesn't lend anyone as a neutral observer.

How do you think that Trump impacted vaccine development? Did he lean into that, perhaps use the Defense act to secure supply chains, increase production of key aspects required?...or was his enthusiasm only when coming down the stretch toward the election? Seems to me that he was telling America we wouldn't even need the vaccine, the virus would go away anyway...right?

My view is that he set the tone on every aspect of virus management, especially the notion that this was a state problem, the federal gov't wasn't actually responsible...and we're seeing this again in the vaccination delivery mess...

But perhaps you see that differently?
No argument that Trump alone doesn't deserve all blame for all snafus...

we stand alone as the one country globally that generously funded as many as 5 or 6 vaccines that may make the cut for the world with a directive to get at it asap.

you find it appalling that trump gets any credit for that and in reality did nothing, but should be drawn and quartered for distribution. some poetic license at the end there but thesis is that's not exactly non-partisan.

as far as distribution... my guess is we way underestimated healthcare worker intake. maybe we didn't take enough polls. wider populations and some learning curve i expect or hope kinks to be worked out.

Actually I'm fine with the Trump Administration AND Congress and the American taxpayer getting credit for funding vaccines, notwithstanding Pfizer's success without that funding. Regardless of whether Trump himself was a proponent of such, I'm fine with his Admin getting credit for the funding. I just think it's painfully obvious that he was most likely a deterrent in that process, not a proponent...certainly he was telling the American people that we wouldn't need the vaccines to work, right?

Yeah, I think the Admin simply didn't put the resources to work to ensure that distribution was thoroughly planned...not by a very long shot. Primarily because of an ideological bent that said it was the states' problem not the federal gov't's...I find hard to believe that the civil servants at FDA, CDC, etc felt that was right, but the political appointees didn't garner the resources to get it done...and yes, that flows back to the White House.

I, too, hope that we see this improve.

How do you read this latest snafu...government says we'll release all doses...then says they have no reserve after having said they did...then Pfizer says, hey, we DO have a reserve, just haven't been told where to send it...?

but from the bolded above there's also your quote below, which is why i originally commented:

"I meant to acknowledge that the vaccine development was a success...what I think is appalling is the notion that Trump had anything in reality to do with that. Heck, the first vaccine to get through FDA didn't take any federal money...this was a tremendous success for the scientists, for sure...and let's just say that Trump didn't somehow prevent that from happening...good on him. Give him 'credit'."

so now it's the trump admin that gets credit, and he was a deterrent in that process. that's an insane proposition, and certainly not one that's backed up by him having press conferences saying it's going away.
then all other manner of negative circumstances are attributed to press conferences and twitter feeds. and a subsequent "fubar"ed action.

do you understand how crazy that is?
- good stuff - he had nothing to do with bc he said things
- bad stuff - he's responsible bc he didn't do stuff and he said things

that's impossible to debate or take seriously because you set up your own field goals
depending on what quarter it is and what end zone you're defending.

what i don't understand is.. why don't you just say "i'm objectively biased so i won't ever look at this
in any other way, and i think i've got good reason to be flustered?" maybe you recently did earlier today.

on the distribution, i have thoughts i'll get to but some of which i touched on yesterday.

Nah, I think you're simply giving him an undeserved pass for expressing things that IMO were whackadoodle wrong and sure as heck seem more likely to indicate that he was not supportive or maybe simply not understanding what the vaccine work could mean...but sure, I don't doubt that he was persuaded at some point to stop negative talk about a vaccine and think more positively about it...does he get credit for that? ok, if you think that's worthy of credit...me, I don't.

I certainly don't understand what you think is "insane" about thinking that Trump was a deterrent, a friction, to the clear eyed recommendations of scientists and public health officials at pretty much every step of the way...why would we assume that on this one thing Trump was actually a proponent of their recommendations? When he was saying we wouldn't need the vaccine?...I just don't see why that's not the most logical assumption given all the evidence of how much of a nut job he actually is.

But hey, maybe I'm missing some blinding insight you have on this and I'm just being dense. Could be, won't be the first or last time I've been persuaded by your point of view on something.

you're not missing blinding insight because there isn't any. you're just making stuff up about the subject at hand (vaccines) and obfuscating about other parts of the response.

if words are so important to you, he was touting operation warp speed dozens and dozens of times. early and on from there. that's not debatable.
100x more than space force, even though they're both equally cool names.

actions are much more important than words imo, but in your book on this one even the text is written in a different language than you're reading.

and thus your "giving him a pass" b.s. is just that.

You are correct that Trump announced Operation Warp Speed on May 15...when did the scientists start??? Are you calling May 15 "early"?

And that was exactly one week after (May 8) he said that the virus would be going away without the vaccine...clearly some folks did some 'splaining to Donald over that week.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/president ... o-evidence

President Donald Trump said Friday that he believed the coronavirus pandemic would “go away without a vaccine,” contradicting countless warnings from the medical community and his own White House task force. “I feel about vaccines like I feel about tests,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Friday. “This is going to go away without a vaccine, it’s gonna go away, and we’re not going to see it again, hopefully, after a period of time.” Trump added that while the U.S. may see “some flare-ups” of the virus, and while the virus could remain throughout the year, he believed states should lift restrictions and let Americans go back to work.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert and member of the White House coronavirus task force, does not think COVID-19 will suddenly go away. “I don’t think there’s a chance that this virus is just going to disappear,” he said recently. “It’s going to be around, and if given the opportunity, it will resurge.” He said he was “almost certain it will come back because the virus is so transmissible and it’s globally spread.”

[wgdsr]

to say that trump had nothing to do with vaccines and lay almost all distribution issues at his feet doesn't lend anyone as a neutral observer.

How do you think that Trump impacted vaccine development? Did he lean into that, perhaps use the Defense act to secure supply chains, increase production of key aspects required?...or was his enthusiasm only when coming down the stretch toward the election? Seems to me that he was telling America we wouldn't even need the vaccine, the virus would go away anyway...right?

My view is that he set the tone on every aspect of virus management, especially the notion that this was a state problem, the federal gov't wasn't actually responsible...and we're seeing this again in the vaccination delivery mess...

But perhaps you see that differently?
No argument that Trump alone doesn't deserve all blame for all snafus...

we stand alone as the one country globally that generously funded as many as 5 or 6 vaccines that may make the cut for the world with a directive to get at it asap.

you find it appalling that trump gets any credit for that and in reality did nothing, but should be drawn and quartered for distribution. some poetic license at the end there but thesis is that's not exactly non-partisan.

as far as distribution... my guess is we way underestimated healthcare worker intake. maybe we didn't take enough polls. wider populations and some learning curve i expect or hope kinks to be worked out.

Actually I'm fine with the Trump Administration AND Congress and the American taxpayer getting credit for funding vaccines, notwithstanding Pfizer's success without that funding. Regardless of whether Trump himself was a proponent of such, I'm fine with his Admin getting credit for the funding. I just think it's painfully obvious that he was most likely a deterrent in that process, not a proponent...certainly he was telling the American people that we wouldn't need the vaccines to work, right?

Yeah, I think the Admin simply didn't put the resources to work to ensure that distribution was thoroughly planned...not by a very long shot. Primarily because of an ideological bent that said it was the states' problem not the federal gov't's...I find hard to believe that the civil servants at FDA, CDC, etc felt that was right, but the political appointees didn't garner the resources to get it done...and yes, that flows back to the White House.

I, too, hope that we see this improve.

How do you read this latest snafu...government says we'll release all doses...then says they have no reserve after having said they did...then Pfizer says, hey, we DO have a reserve, just haven't been told where to send it...?

but from the bolded above there's also your quote below, which is why i originally commented:

"I meant to acknowledge that the vaccine development was a success...what I think is appalling is the notion that Trump had anything in reality to do with that. Heck, the first vaccine to get through FDA didn't take any federal money...this was a tremendous success for the scientists, for sure...and let's just say that Trump didn't somehow prevent that from happening...good on him. Give him 'credit'."

so now it's the trump admin that gets credit, and he was a deterrent in that process. that's an insane proposition, and certainly not one that's backed up by him having press conferences saying it's going away.
then all other manner of negative circumstances are attributed to press conferences and twitter feeds. and a subsequent "fubar"ed action.

do you understand how crazy that is?
- good stuff - he had nothing to do with bc he said things
- bad stuff - he's responsible bc he didn't do stuff and he said things

that's impossible to debate or take seriously because you set up your own field goals
depending on what quarter it is and what end zone you're defending.

what i don't understand is.. why don't you just say "i'm objectively biased so i won't ever look at this
in any other way, and i think i've got good reason to be flustered?" maybe you recently did earlier today.

on the distribution, i have thoughts i'll get to but some of which i touched on yesterday.

Nah, I think you're simply giving him an undeserved pass for expressing things that IMO were whackadoodle wrong and sure as heck seem more likely to indicate that he was not supportive or maybe simply not understanding what the vaccine work could mean...but sure, I don't doubt that he was persuaded at some point to stop negative talk about a vaccine and think more positively about it...does he get credit for that? ok, if you think that's worthy of credit...me, I don't.

I certainly don't understand what you think is "insane" about thinking that Trump was a deterrent, a friction, to the clear eyed recommendations of scientists and public health officials at pretty much every step of the way...why would we assume that on this one thing Trump was actually a proponent of their recommendations? When he was saying we wouldn't need the vaccine?...I just don't see why that's not the most logical assumption given all the evidence of how much of a nut job he actually is.

But hey, maybe I'm missing some blinding insight you have on this and I'm just being dense. Could be, won't be the first or last time I've been persuaded by your point of view on something.

you're not missing blinding insight because there isn't any. you're just making stuff up about the subject at hand (vaccines) and obfuscating about other parts of the response.

if words are so important to you, he was touting operation warp speed dozens and dozens of times. early and on from there. that's not debatable.
100x more than space force, even though they're both equally cool names.

actions are much more important than words imo, but in your book on this one even the text is written in a different language than you're reading.

and thus your "giving him a pass" b.s. is just that.

You are correct that Trump announced Operation Warp Speed on May 15...when did the scientists start??? Are you calling May 15 "early"?

And that was exactly one week after (May 8) he said that the virus would be going away without the vaccine...clearly some folks did some 'splaining to Donald over that week.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/president ... o-evidence

President Donald Trump said Friday that he believed the coronavirus pandemic would “go away without a vaccine,” contradicting countless warnings from the medical community and his own White House task force. “I feel about vaccines like I feel about tests,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Friday. “This is going to go away without a vaccine, it’s gonna go away, and we’re not going to see it again, hopefully, after a period of time.” Trump added that while the U.S. may see “some flare-ups” of the virus, and while the virus could remain throughout the year, he believed states should lift restrictions and let Americans go back to work.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert and member of the White House coronavirus task force, does not think COVID-19 will suddenly go away. “I don’t think there’s a chance that this virus is just going to disappear,” he said recently. “It’s going to be around, and if given the opportunity, it will resurge.” He said he was “almost certain it will come back because the virus is so transmissible and it’s globally spread.”

and once again... you want words somewhere at a press conference to replace actual action, programs and efforts made.

that is your argument, not mine. nor one i was having when i commented on you saying initially he had nothing to do with the vaccines, and then subsequently that he was actually a detriment to vaccines. because of press conferences. the whole notion is absurd and makes this a silly conversation. respectfully.

the point man you quote above was telling people to be taking cruises in mid-march, and in april to jump on tinder if you're up for the risk. and he was our top health guy!!! while trump was a reality show personality and trust fund baby. do i blame fauci for that or give him no credit for anything? no, i don't.

regardless, none of that has any bearing on developing vaccines. like.... at all.

[Typical Lax Dad]

to say that trump had nothing to do with vaccines and lay almost all distribution issues at his feet doesn't lend anyone as a neutral observer.

How do you think that Trump impacted vaccine development? Did he lean into that, perhaps use the Defense act to secure supply chains, increase production of key aspects required?...or was his enthusiasm only when coming down the stretch toward the election? Seems to me that he was telling America we wouldn't even need the vaccine, the virus would go away anyway...right?

My view is that he set the tone on every aspect of virus management, especially the notion that this was a state problem, the federal gov't wasn't actually responsible...and we're seeing this again in the vaccination delivery mess...

But perhaps you see that differently?
No argument that Trump alone doesn't deserve all blame for all snafus...

we stand alone as the one country globally that generously funded as many as 5 or 6 vaccines that may make the cut for the world with a directive to get at it asap.

you find it appalling that trump gets any credit for that and in reality did nothing, but should be drawn and quartered for distribution. some poetic license at the end there but thesis is that's not exactly non-partisan.

as far as distribution... my guess is we way underestimated healthcare worker intake. maybe we didn't take enough polls. wider populations and some learning curve i expect or hope kinks to be worked out.

Actually I'm fine with the Trump Administration AND Congress and the American taxpayer getting credit for funding vaccines, notwithstanding Pfizer's success without that funding. Regardless of whether Trump himself was a proponent of such, I'm fine with his Admin getting credit for the funding. I just think it's painfully obvious that he was most likely a deterrent in that process, not a proponent...certainly he was telling the American people that we wouldn't need the vaccines to work, right?

Yeah, I think the Admin simply didn't put the resources to work to ensure that distribution was thoroughly planned...not by a very long shot. Primarily because of an ideological bent that said it was the states' problem not the federal gov't's...I find hard to believe that the civil servants at FDA, CDC, etc felt that was right, but the political appointees didn't garner the resources to get it done...and yes, that flows back to the White House.

I, too, hope that we see this improve.

How do you read this latest snafu...government says we'll release all doses...then says they have no reserve after having said they did...then Pfizer says, hey, we DO have a reserve, just haven't been told where to send it...?

but from the bolded above there's also your quote below, which is why i originally commented:

"I meant to acknowledge that the vaccine development was a success...what I think is appalling is the notion that Trump had anything in reality to do with that. Heck, the first vaccine to get through FDA didn't take any federal money...this was a tremendous success for the scientists, for sure...and let's just say that Trump didn't somehow prevent that from happening...good on him. Give him 'credit'."

so now it's the trump admin that gets credit, and he was a deterrent in that process. that's an insane proposition, and certainly not one that's backed up by him having press conferences saying it's going away.
then all other manner of negative circumstances are attributed to press conferences and twitter feeds. and a subsequent "fubar"ed action.

do you understand how crazy that is?
- good stuff - he had nothing to do with bc he said things
- bad stuff - he's responsible bc he didn't do stuff and he said things

that's impossible to debate or take seriously because you set up your own field goals
depending on what quarter it is and what end zone you're defending.

what i don't understand is.. why don't you just say "i'm objectively biased so i won't ever look at this
in any other way, and i think i've got good reason to be flustered?" maybe you recently did earlier today.

on the distribution, i have thoughts i'll get to but some of which i touched on yesterday.

Nah, I think you're simply giving him an undeserved pass for expressing things that IMO were whackadoodle wrong and sure as heck seem more likely to indicate that he was not supportive or maybe simply not understanding what the vaccine work could mean...but sure, I don't doubt that he was persuaded at some point to stop negative talk about a vaccine and think more positively about it...does he get credit for that? ok, if you think that's worthy of credit...me, I don't.

I certainly don't understand what you think is "insane" about thinking that Trump was a deterrent, a friction, to the clear eyed recommendations of scientists and public health officials at pretty much every step of the way...why would we assume that on this one thing Trump was actually a proponent of their recommendations? When he was saying we wouldn't need the vaccine?...I just don't see why that's not the most logical assumption given all the evidence of how much of a nut job he actually is.

But hey, maybe I'm missing some blinding insight you have on this and I'm just being dense. Could be, won't be the first or last time I've been persuaded by your point of view on something.

you're not missing blinding insight because there isn't any. you're just making stuff up about the subject at hand (vaccines) and obfuscating about other parts of the response.

if words are so important to you, he was touting operation warp speed dozens and dozens of times. early and on from there. that's not debatable.
100x more than space force, even though they're both equally cool names.

actions are much more important than words imo, but in your book on this one even the text is written in a different language than you're reading.

and thus your "giving him a pass" b.s. is just that.

You are correct that Trump announced Operation Warp Speed on May 15...when did the scientists start??? Are you calling May 15 "early"?

And that was exactly one week after (May 8) he said that the virus would be going away without the vaccine...clearly some folks did some 'splaining to Donald over that week.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/president ... o-evidence

President Donald Trump said Friday that he believed the coronavirus pandemic would “go away without a vaccine,” contradicting countless warnings from the medical community and his own White House task force. “I feel about vaccines like I feel about tests,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Friday. “This is going to go away without a vaccine, it’s gonna go away, and we’re not going to see it again, hopefully, after a period of time.” Trump added that while the U.S. may see “some flare-ups” of the virus, and while the virus could remain throughout the year, he believed states should lift restrictions and let Americans go back to work.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert and member of the White House coronavirus task force, does not think COVID-19 will suddenly go away. “I don’t think there’s a chance that this virus is just going to disappear,” he said recently. “It’s going to be around, and if given the opportunity, it will resurge.” He said he was “almost certain it will come back because the virus is so transmissible and it’s globally spread.”

and once again... you want words somewhere at a press conference to replace actual action, programs and efforts made.

that is your argument, not mine. nor one i was having when i commented on you saying initially he had nothing to do with the vaccines, and then subsequently that he was actually a detriment to vaccines. because of press conferences. the whole notion is absurd and makes this a silly conversation. respectfully.

the point man you quote above was telling people to be taking cruises in mid-march, and in april to jump on tinder if you're up for the risk. and he was our top health guy!!! while trump was a reality show personality and trust fund baby. do i blame fauci for that or give him no credit for anything? no, i don't.

regardless, none of that has any bearing on developing vaccines. like.... at all.

The cruise guys I know were never subject to the no sail order. They ceased operations in March the abundance of caution.

[MDlaxfan76]

to say that trump had nothing to do with vaccines and lay almost all distribution issues at his feet doesn't lend anyone as a neutral observer.

How do you think that Trump impacted vaccine development? Did he lean into that, perhaps use the Defense act to secure supply chains, increase production of key aspects required?...or was his enthusiasm only when coming down the stretch toward the election? Seems to me that he was telling America we wouldn't even need the vaccine, the virus would go away anyway...right?

My view is that he set the tone on every aspect of virus management, especially the notion that this was a state problem, the federal gov't wasn't actually responsible...and we're seeing this again in the vaccination delivery mess...

But perhaps you see that differently?
No argument that Trump alone doesn't deserve all blame for all snafus...

we stand alone as the one country globally that generously funded as many as 5 or 6 vaccines that may make the cut for the world with a directive to get at it asap.

you find it appalling that trump gets any credit for that and in reality did nothing, but should be drawn and quartered for distribution. some poetic license at the end there but thesis is that's not exactly non-partisan.

as far as distribution... my guess is we way underestimated healthcare worker intake. maybe we didn't take enough polls. wider populations and some learning curve i expect or hope kinks to be worked out.

Actually I'm fine with the Trump Administration AND Congress and the American taxpayer getting credit for funding vaccines, notwithstanding Pfizer's success without that funding. Regardless of whether Trump himself was a proponent of such, I'm fine with his Admin getting credit for the funding. I just think it's painfully obvious that he was most likely a deterrent in that process, not a proponent...certainly he was telling the American people that we wouldn't need the vaccines to work, right?

Yeah, I think the Admin simply didn't put the resources to work to ensure that distribution was thoroughly planned...not by a very long shot. Primarily because of an ideological bent that said it was the states' problem not the federal gov't's...I find hard to believe that the civil servants at FDA, CDC, etc felt that was right, but the political appointees didn't garner the resources to get it done...and yes, that flows back to the White House.

I, too, hope that we see this improve.

How do you read this latest snafu...government says we'll release all doses...then says they have no reserve after having said they did...then Pfizer says, hey, we DO have a reserve, just haven't been told where to send it...?

but from the bolded above there's also your quote below, which is why i originally commented:

"I meant to acknowledge that the vaccine development was a success...what I think is appalling is the notion that Trump had anything in reality to do with that. Heck, the first vaccine to get through FDA didn't take any federal money...this was a tremendous success for the scientists, for sure...and let's just say that Trump didn't somehow prevent that from happening...good on him. Give him 'credit'."

so now it's the trump admin that gets credit, and he was a deterrent in that process. that's an insane proposition, and certainly not one that's backed up by him having press conferences saying it's going away.
then all other manner of negative circumstances are attributed to press conferences and twitter feeds. and a subsequent "fubar"ed action.

do you understand how crazy that is?
- good stuff - he had nothing to do with bc he said things
- bad stuff - he's responsible bc he didn't do stuff and he said things

that's impossible to debate or take seriously because you set up your own field goals
depending on what quarter it is and what end zone you're defending.

what i don't understand is.. why don't you just say "i'm objectively biased so i won't ever look at this
in any other way, and i think i've got good reason to be flustered?" maybe you recently did earlier today.

on the distribution, i have thoughts i'll get to but some of which i touched on yesterday.

Nah, I think you're simply giving him an undeserved pass for expressing things that IMO were whackadoodle wrong and sure as heck seem more likely to indicate that he was not supportive or maybe simply not understanding what the vaccine work could mean...but sure, I don't doubt that he was persuaded at some point to stop negative talk about a vaccine and think more positively about it...does he get credit for that? ok, if you think that's worthy of credit...me, I don't.

I certainly don't understand what you think is "insane" about thinking that Trump was a deterrent, a friction, to the clear eyed recommendations of scientists and public health officials at pretty much every step of the way...why would we assume that on this one thing Trump was actually a proponent of their recommendations? When he was saying we wouldn't need the vaccine?...I just don't see why that's not the most logical assumption given all the evidence of how much of a nut job he actually is.

But hey, maybe I'm missing some blinding insight you have on this and I'm just being dense. Could be, won't be the first or last time I've been persuaded by your point of view on something.

you're not missing blinding insight because there isn't any. you're just making stuff up about the subject at hand (vaccines) and obfuscating about other parts of the response.

if words are so important to you, he was touting operation warp speed dozens and dozens of times. early and on from there. that's not debatable.
100x more than space force, even though they're both equally cool names.

actions are much more important than words imo, but in your book on this one even the text is written in a different language than you're reading.

and thus your "giving him a pass" b.s. is just that.

You are correct that Trump announced Operation Warp Speed on May 15...when did the scientists start??? Are you calling May 15 "early"?

And that was exactly one week after (May 8) he said that the virus would be going away without the vaccine...clearly some folks did some 'splaining to Donald over that week.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/president ... o-evidence

President Donald Trump said Friday that he believed the coronavirus pandemic would “go away without a vaccine,” contradicting countless warnings from the medical community and his own White House task force. “I feel about vaccines like I feel about tests,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Friday. “This is going to go away without a vaccine, it’s gonna go away, and we’re not going to see it again, hopefully, after a period of time.” Trump added that while the U.S. may see “some flare-ups” of the virus, and while the virus could remain throughout the year, he believed states should lift restrictions and let Americans go back to work.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert and member of the White House coronavirus task force, does not think COVID-19 will suddenly go away. “I don’t think there’s a chance that this virus is just going to disappear,” he said recently. “It’s going to be around, and if given the opportunity, it will resurge.” He said he was “almost certain it will come back because the virus is so transmissible and it’s globally spread.”

and once again... you want words somewhere at a press conference to replace actual action, programs and efforts made.

that is your argument, not mine. nor one i was having when i commented on you saying initially he had nothing to do with the vaccines, and then subsequently that he was actually a detriment to vaccines. because of press conferences. the whole notion is absurd and makes this a silly conversation. respectfully.

the point man you quote above was telling people to be taking cruises in mid-march, and in april to jump on tinder if you're up for the risk. and he was our top health guy!!! while trump was a reality show personality and trust fund baby. do i blame fauci for that or give him no credit for anything? no, i don't.

regardless, none of that has any bearing on developing vaccines. like.... at all.

Maybe I just don't like the wishy washy approach you advocate. I don't think Trump had a darn thing to do with the vaccine development, nothing more than acquiescing to the notion when they came up with the cool name...undoubtedly that appealed to him.

The scientists and the companies were cranking very hard on the vaccine development already by February/
March. Operation Warp Speed didn't get started until May 15...Am I willing to give credit to the Admin for the funding? sure. And Congress.

I don't recall Fauci saying such...but you could be correct.
Did a little google search, looks like on March 8 Fauci said ok to take a cruise if young and healthy, but not if older or any underlying health conditions. Mistake, but he was very right on the second half.

re tinder, in April he said a young person could hook up with asymptomatic person if you're willing to take the risk and realize you could then be asymptomatic spreader yourself. True. Should he have said young people shouldn't have sex? I dunno how realistic that would be...but perhaps he should have been more clear about the asymptomatic spread issue being very serious.

But 1:1 risk is very different from the risks of crowded venues...ala concerts, bars, raves...right?...tough call.

[kramerica.inc]

Where has the Federal government been these last two months? How is it possible that they did not have a plan for getting these vaccines distributed to Americans?

They chose States rights instead of Federalizing the response soup to nuts. We knew this months ago. This is what Republicans want and we have a Republican in the White House, so here we are. Is this a bad thing? Yes, if you want things to happen quickly. No, if you believe that every State should be treated differently.

Coordinating it all through each State slows everything down. Speaking as someone who has to deal with different rules/taxes, different systems (software, etc.) in all the States we sell our spirit in? I'd KILL to have one single Federal set of rules and standards. It's why the EU was formed. The downside is, each State/Country gives up some sovereignty in the name of efficiency. Pick your poison, I guess.

We CHOSE to do this. And unless they get their act together, and fast? The Feds are going to add six months to this pandemic because they didn't act unilaterally.

Is it worth it? Is State's rights worth it? I sure don't think it's worth it when we're in a pandemic..... we're at war. Full stop.

Things should be improving mightily this week.

[kramerica.inc]

to say that trump had nothing to do with vaccines and lay almost all distribution issues at his feet doesn't lend anyone as a neutral observer.

These accomplishments are remarkable, but they are not “miracles,” in the sense that they sprang fully formed from work that began in the spring. They relied on basic research done over decades in government, academic and company research labs. Even the financial model used to insulate vaccine makers from financial risk traced back to an agency that Congress created in late 2006 to incentivize companies to develop urgently needed medicines.

so we tied with russia and china. or beat them if objectively measured so far on at bats to get to quality.

everyone else a distant 4th.

I can’t believe Trump got that vaccine out so quickly. I can believe he lied about our reserves.

Good news is a-coming. 100 days 100M vaccines!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politi ... ays-459949

[kramerica.inc]

New variant in CA:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/ktla.com/n ... rside/amp/

[kramerica.inc]

CDC and media first tell us about the “law of big numbers” and how a small infection rate like the one Covid has can still be catastrophic.

We are vaccinating how many people in 100 days? And there is just a “small” adverse reaction rate...

https://www.fda.gov/media/144434/download

Guess we know why so many medical professionals are backing away slowly before more reliable information is available.

[CU88]

to say that trump had nothing to do with vaccines and lay almost all distribution issues at his feet doesn't lend anyone as a neutral observer.

How do you think that Trump impacted vaccine development? Did he lean into that, perhaps use the Defense act to secure supply chains, increase production of key aspects required?...or was his enthusiasm only when coming down the stretch toward the election? Seems to me that he was telling America we wouldn't even need the vaccine, the virus would go away anyway...right?

My view is that he set the tone on every aspect of virus management, especially the notion that this was a state problem, the federal gov't wasn't actually responsible...and we're seeing this again in the vaccination delivery mess...

But perhaps you see that differently?
No argument that Trump alone doesn't deserve all blame for all snafus...

we stand alone as the one country globally that generously funded as many as 5 or 6 vaccines that may make the cut for the world with a directive to get at it asap.

you find it appalling that trump gets any credit for that and in reality did nothing, but should be drawn and quartered for distribution. some poetic license at the end there but thesis is that's not exactly non-partisan.

as far as distribution... my guess is we way underestimated healthcare worker intake. maybe we didn't take enough polls. wider populations and some learning curve i expect or hope kinks to be worked out.

Actually I'm fine with the Trump Administration AND Congress and the American taxpayer getting credit for funding vaccines, notwithstanding Pfizer's success without that funding. Regardless of whether Trump himself was a proponent of such, I'm fine with his Admin getting credit for the funding. I just think it's painfully obvious that he was most likely a deterrent in that process, not a proponent...certainly he was telling the American people that we wouldn't need the vaccines to work, right?

Yeah, I think the Admin simply didn't put the resources to work to ensure that distribution was thoroughly planned...not by a very long shot. Primarily because of an ideological bent that said it was the states' problem not the federal gov't's...I find hard to believe that the civil servants at FDA, CDC, etc felt that was right, but the political appointees didn't garner the resources to get it done...and yes, that flows back to the White House.

I, too, hope that we see this improve.

How do you read this latest snafu...government says we'll release all doses...then says they have no reserve after having said they did...then Pfizer says, hey, we DO have a reserve, just haven't been told where to send it...?

but from the bolded above there's also your quote below, which is why i originally commented:

"I meant to acknowledge that the vaccine development was a success...what I think is appalling is the notion that Trump had anything in reality to do with that. Heck, the first vaccine to get through FDA didn't take any federal money...this was a tremendous success for the scientists, for sure...and let's just say that Trump didn't somehow prevent that from happening...good on him. Give him 'credit'."

so now it's the trump admin that gets credit, and he was a deterrent in that process. that's an insane proposition, and certainly not one that's backed up by him having press conferences saying it's going away.
then all other manner of negative circumstances are attributed to press conferences and twitter feeds. and a subsequent "fubar"ed action.

do you understand how crazy that is?
- good stuff - he had nothing to do with bc he said things
- bad stuff - he's responsible bc he didn't do stuff and he said things

that's impossible to debate or take seriously because you set up your own field goals
depending on what quarter it is and what end zone you're defending.

what i don't understand is.. why don't you just say "i'm objectively biased so i won't ever look at this
in any other way, and i think i've got good reason to be flustered?" maybe you recently did earlier today.

on the distribution, i have thoughts i'll get to but some of which i touched on yesterday.

Nah, I think you're simply giving him an undeserved pass for expressing things that IMO were whackadoodle wrong and sure as heck seem more likely to indicate that he was not supportive or maybe simply not understanding what the vaccine work could mean...but sure, I don't doubt that he was persuaded at some point to stop negative talk about a vaccine and think more positively about it...does he get credit for that? ok, if you think that's worthy of credit...me, I don't.

I certainly don't understand what you think is "insane" about thinking that Trump was a deterrent, a friction, to the clear eyed recommendations of scientists and public health officials at pretty much every step of the way...why would we assume that on this one thing Trump was actually a proponent of their recommendations? When he was saying we wouldn't need the vaccine?...I just don't see why that's not the most logical assumption given all the evidence of how much of a nut job he actually is.

But hey, maybe I'm missing some blinding insight you have on this and I'm just being dense. Could be, won't be the first or last time I've been persuaded by your point of view on something.

you're not missing blinding insight because there isn't any. you're just making stuff up about the subject at hand (vaccines) and obfuscating about other parts of the response.

if words are so important to you, he was touting operation warp speed dozens and dozens of times. early and on from there. that's not debatable.
100x more than space force, even though they're both equally cool names.

actions are much more important than words imo, but in your book on this one even the text is written in a different language than you're reading.

and thus your "giving him a pass" b.s. is just that.

You are correct that Trump announced Operation Warp Speed on May 15...when did the scientists start??? Are you calling May 15 "early"?

And that was exactly one week after (May 8) he said that the virus would be going away without the vaccine...clearly some folks did some 'splaining to Donald over that week.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/president ... o-evidence

President Donald Trump said Friday that he believed the coronavirus pandemic would “go away without a vaccine,” contradicting countless warnings from the medical community and his own White House task force. “I feel about vaccines like I feel about tests,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Friday. “This is going to go away without a vaccine, it’s gonna go away, and we’re not going to see it again, hopefully, after a period of time.” Trump added that while the U.S. may see “some flare-ups” of the virus, and while the virus could remain throughout the year, he believed states should lift restrictions and let Americans go back to work.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert and member of the White House coronavirus task force, does not think COVID-19 will suddenly go away. “I don’t think there’s a chance that this virus is just going to disappear,” he said recently. “It’s going to be around, and if given the opportunity, it will resurge.” He said he was “almost certain it will come back because the virus is so transmissible and it’s globally spread.”

and once again... you want words somewhere at a press conference to replace actual action, programs and efforts made.

that is your argument, not mine. nor one i was having when i commented on you saying initially he had nothing to do with the vaccines, and then subsequently that he was actually a detriment to vaccines. because of press conferences. the whole notion is absurd and makes this a silly conversation. respectfully.

the point man you quote above was telling people to be taking cruises in mid-march, and in april to jump on tinder if you're up for the risk. and he was our top health guy!!! while trump was a reality show personality and trust fund baby. do i blame fauci for that or give him no credit for anything? no, i don't.

regardless, none of that has any bearing on developing vaccines. like.... at all.

Maybe I just don't like the wishy washy approach you advocate. I don't think Trump had a darn thing to do with the vaccine development, nothing more than acquiescing to the notion when they came up with the cool name...undoubtedly that appealed to him.

The scientists and the companies were cranking very hard on the vaccine development already by February/
March. Operation Warp Speed didn't get started until May 15...Am I willing to give credit to the Admin for the funding? sure. And Congress.

I don't recall Fauci saying such...but you could be correct.
Did a little google search, looks like on March 8 Fauci said ok to take a cruise if young and healthy, but not if older or any underlying health conditions. Mistake, but he was very right on the second half.

re tinder, in April he said a young person could hook up with asymptomatic person if you're willing to take the risk and realize you could then be asymptomatic spreader yourself. True. Should he have said young people shouldn't have sex? I dunno how realistic that would be...but perhaps he should have been more clear about the asymptomatic spread issue being very serious.

But 1:1 risk is very different from the risks of crowded venues...ala concerts, bars, raves...right?...tough call.

You are having this discussion with people who don't understand how government and medical research work. Some how they believe that without their hero, IMPOTUS o d, not a single thing would have been done to overcome this pandemic.

[MDlaxfan76]

to say that trump had nothing to do with vaccines and lay almost all distribution issues at his feet doesn't lend anyone as a neutral observer.

How do you think that Trump impacted vaccine development? Did he lean into that, perhaps use the Defense act to secure supply chains, increase production of key aspects required?...or was his enthusiasm only when coming down the stretch toward the election? Seems to me that he was telling America we wouldn't even need the vaccine, the virus would go away anyway...right?

My view is that he set the tone on every aspect of virus management, especially the notion that this was a state problem, the federal gov't wasn't actually responsible...and we're seeing this again in the vaccination delivery mess...

But perhaps you see that differently?
No argument that Trump alone doesn't deserve all blame for all snafus...

we stand alone as the one country globally that generously funded as many as 5 or 6 vaccines that may make the cut for the world with a directive to get at it asap.

you find it appalling that trump gets any credit for that and in reality did nothing, but should be drawn and quartered for distribution. some poetic license at the end there but thesis is that's not exactly non-partisan.

as far as distribution... my guess is we way underestimated healthcare worker intake. maybe we didn't take enough polls. wider populations and some learning curve i expect or hope kinks to be worked out.

Actually I'm fine with the Trump Administration AND Congress and the American taxpayer getting credit for funding vaccines, notwithstanding Pfizer's success without that funding. Regardless of whether Trump himself was a proponent of such, I'm fine with his Admin getting credit for the funding. I just think it's painfully obvious that he was most likely a deterrent in that process, not a proponent...certainly he was telling the American people that we wouldn't need the vaccines to work, right?

Yeah, I think the Admin simply didn't put the resources to work to ensure that distribution was thoroughly planned...not by a very long shot. Primarily because of an ideological bent that said it was the states' problem not the federal gov't's...I find hard to believe that the civil servants at FDA, CDC, etc felt that was right, but the political appointees didn't garner the resources to get it done...and yes, that flows back to the White House.

I, too, hope that we see this improve.

How do you read this latest snafu...government says we'll release all doses...then says they have no reserve after having said they did...then Pfizer says, hey, we DO have a reserve, just haven't been told where to send it...?

but from the bolded above there's also your quote below, which is why i originally commented:

"I meant to acknowledge that the vaccine development was a success...what I think is appalling is the notion that Trump had anything in reality to do with that. Heck, the first vaccine to get through FDA didn't take any federal money...this was a tremendous success for the scientists, for sure...and let's just say that Trump didn't somehow prevent that from happening...good on him. Give him 'credit'."

so now it's the trump admin that gets credit, and he was a deterrent in that process. that's an insane proposition, and certainly not one that's backed up by him having press conferences saying it's going away.
then all other manner of negative circumstances are attributed to press conferences and twitter feeds. and a subsequent "fubar"ed action.

do you understand how crazy that is?
- good stuff - he had nothing to do with bc he said things
- bad stuff - he's responsible bc he didn't do stuff and he said things

that's impossible to debate or take seriously because you set up your own field goals
depending on what quarter it is and what end zone you're defending.

what i don't understand is.. why don't you just say "i'm objectively biased so i won't ever look at this
in any other way, and i think i've got good reason to be flustered?" maybe you recently did earlier today.

on the distribution, i have thoughts i'll get to but some of which i touched on yesterday.

Nah, I think you're simply giving him an undeserved pass for expressing things that IMO were whackadoodle wrong and sure as heck seem more likely to indicate that he was not supportive or maybe simply not understanding what the vaccine work could mean...but sure, I don't doubt that he was persuaded at some point to stop negative talk about a vaccine and think more positively about it...does he get credit for that? ok, if you think that's worthy of credit...me, I don't.

I certainly don't understand what you think is "insane" about thinking that Trump was a deterrent, a friction, to the clear eyed recommendations of scientists and public health officials at pretty much every step of the way...why would we assume that on this one thing Trump was actually a proponent of their recommendations? When he was saying we wouldn't need the vaccine?...I just don't see why that's not the most logical assumption given all the evidence of how much of a nut job he actually is.

But hey, maybe I'm missing some blinding insight you have on this and I'm just being dense. Could be, won't be the first or last time I've been persuaded by your point of view on something.

you're not missing blinding insight because there isn't any. you're just making stuff up about the subject at hand (vaccines) and obfuscating about other parts of the response.

if words are so important to you, he was touting operation warp speed dozens and dozens of times. early and on from there. that's not debatable.
100x more than space force, even though they're both equally cool names.

actions are much more important than words imo, but in your book on this one even the text is written in a different language than you're reading.

and thus your "giving him a pass" b.s. is just that.

You are correct that Trump announced Operation Warp Speed on May 15...when did the scientists start??? Are you calling May 15 "early"?

And that was exactly one week after (May 8) he said that the virus would be going away without the vaccine...clearly some folks did some 'splaining to Donald over that week.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/president ... o-evidence

President Donald Trump said Friday that he believed the coronavirus pandemic would “go away without a vaccine,” contradicting countless warnings from the medical community and his own White House task force. “I feel about vaccines like I feel about tests,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Friday. “This is going to go away without a vaccine, it’s gonna go away, and we’re not going to see it again, hopefully, after a period of time.” Trump added that while the U.S. may see “some flare-ups” of the virus, and while the virus could remain throughout the year, he believed states should lift restrictions and let Americans go back to work.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert and member of the White House coronavirus task force, does not think COVID-19 will suddenly go away. “I don’t think there’s a chance that this virus is just going to disappear,” he said recently. “It’s going to be around, and if given the opportunity, it will resurge.” He said he was “almost certain it will come back because the virus is so transmissible and it’s globally spread.”

and once again... you want words somewhere at a press conference to replace actual action, programs and efforts made.

that is your argument, not mine. nor one i was having when i commented on you saying initially he had nothing to do with the vaccines, and then subsequently that he was actually a detriment to vaccines. because of press conferences. the whole notion is absurd and makes this a silly conversation. respectfully.

the point man you quote above was telling people to be taking cruises in mid-march, and in april to jump on tinder if you're up for the risk. and he was our top health guy!!! while trump was a reality show personality and trust fund baby. do i blame fauci for that or give him no credit for anything? no, i don't.

regardless, none of that has any bearing on developing vaccines. like.... at all.

Maybe I just don't like the wishy washy approach you advocate. I don't think Trump had a darn thing to do with the vaccine development, nothing more than acquiescing to the notion when they came up with the cool name...undoubtedly that appealed to him.

The scientists and the companies were cranking very hard on the vaccine development already by February/
March. Operation Warp Speed didn't get started until May 15...Am I willing to give credit to the Admin for the funding? sure. And Congress.

I don't recall Fauci saying such...but you could be correct.
Did a little google search, looks like on March 8 Fauci said ok to take a cruise if young and healthy, but not if older or any underlying health conditions. Mistake, but he was very right on the second half.

re tinder, in April he said a young person could hook up with asymptomatic person if you're willing to take the risk and realize you could then be asymptomatic spreader yourself. True. Should he have said young people shouldn't have sex? I dunno how realistic that would be...but perhaps he should have been more clear about the asymptomatic spread issue being very serious.

But 1:1 risk is very different from the risks of crowded venues...ala concerts, bars, raves...right?...tough call.

You are having this discussion with people who don't understand how government and medical research work. Some how they believe that without their hero, IMPOTUS o d, not a single thing would have been done to overcome this pandemic.

I don't think that's true of wgdsr.
I think he's having a legitimate disagreement with me, though I don't think he respects me and my views as much as I do his...which is uncomfortable and I sometimes respond sharply back.

But I do think he's staked out a posture where it's simple to not hold anyone accountable at all, avoid tough judgments of anyone's performance. I disagree, though I also think nuance is important in any such judgments. I keep offering such middle ground on which we could agree, but he whacks away as if I'm "insane".

But I don't think he's a closet Trump cultist....

[MDlaxfan76]

Where has the Federal government been these last two months? How is it possible that they did not have a plan for getting these vaccines distributed to Americans?

They chose States rights instead of Federalizing the response soup to nuts. We knew this months ago. This is what Republicans want and we have a Republican in the White House, so here we are. Is this a bad thing? Yes, if you want things to happen quickly. No, if you believe that every State should be treated differently.

Coordinating it all through each State slows everything down. Speaking as someone who has to deal with different rules/taxes, different systems (software, etc.) in all the States we sell our spirit in? I'd KILL to have one single Federal set of rules and standards. It's why the EU was formed. The downside is, each State/Country gives up some sovereignty in the name of efficiency. Pick your poison, I guess.

We CHOSE to do this. And unless they get their act together, and fast? The Feds are going to add six months to this pandemic because they didn't act unilaterally.

Is it worth it? Is State's rights worth it? I sure don't think it's worth it when we're in a pandemic..... we're at war. Full stop.

Things should be improving mightily this week.

You do realize that you're the only poster saying so, unless you solely mean that a new crew will begin to get a handle on the turnaround of the FUBAR distribution.

But the pandemic is certainly going to get 'worse' before it gets better... "better" defined as reducing incidence, hospitalizations, deaths. That's a ways off.

[youthathletics]

Where has the Federal government been these last two months? How is it possible that they did not have a plan for getting these vaccines distributed to Americans?

They chose States rights instead of Federalizing the response soup to nuts. We knew this months ago. This is what Republicans want and we have a Republican in the White House, so here we are. Is this a bad thing? Yes, if you want things to happen quickly. No, if you believe that every State should be treated differently.

Coordinating it all through each State slows everything down. Speaking as someone who has to deal with different rules/taxes, different systems (software, etc.) in all the States we sell our spirit in? I'd KILL to have one single Federal set of rules and standards. It's why the EU was formed. The downside is, each State/Country gives up some sovereignty in the name of efficiency. Pick your poison, I guess.

We CHOSE to do this. And unless they get their act together, and fast? The Feds are going to add six months to this pandemic because they didn't act unilaterally.

Is it worth it? Is State's rights worth it? I sure don't think it's worth it when we're in a pandemic..... we're at war. Full stop.

Things should be improving mightily this week.

You do realize that you're the only poster saying so, unless you solely mean that a new crew will begin to get a handle on the turnaround of the FUBAR distribution.

But the pandemic is certainly going to get 'worse' before it gets better... "better" defined as reducing incidence, hospitalizations, deaths. That's a ways off.

Joe said 100mm doses in 100 days, Fauci agrees; let's hope so! The timing could not be more impeccable. Vaxx essentially ready early Dec, logistics sorted out by mid-late Jan...just in time for a new party to come in and save the world.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Where has the Federal government been these last two months? How is it possible that they did not have a plan for getting these vaccines distributed to Americans?

They chose States rights instead of Federalizing the response soup to nuts. We knew this months ago. This is what Republicans want and we have a Republican in the White House, so here we are. Is this a bad thing? Yes, if you want things to happen quickly. No, if you believe that every State should be treated differently.

Coordinating it all through each State slows everything down. Speaking as someone who has to deal with different rules/taxes, different systems (software, etc.) in all the States we sell our spirit in? I'd KILL to have one single Federal set of rules and standards. It's why the EU was formed. The downside is, each State/Country gives up some sovereignty in the name of efficiency. Pick your poison, I guess.

We CHOSE to do this. And unless they get their act together, and fast? The Feds are going to add six months to this pandemic because they didn't act unilaterally.

Is it worth it? Is State's rights worth it? I sure don't think it's worth it when we're in a pandemic..... we're at war. Full stop.

Things should be improving mightily this week.

You do realize that you're the only poster saying so, unless you solely mean that a new crew will begin to get a handle on the turnaround of the FUBAR distribution.

But the pandemic is certainly going to get 'worse' before it gets better... "better" defined as reducing incidence, hospitalizations, deaths. That's a ways off.

Joe said 100mm doses in 100 days, Fauci agrees; let's hope so! The timing could not be more impeccable. Vaxx essentially ready early Dec, logistics sorted out by mid-late Jan...just in time for a new party to come in and save the world.

Hope they don’t fall short. I also hope that they are not just lying.

[MDlaxfan76]

Where has the Federal government been these last two months? How is it possible that they did not have a plan for getting these vaccines distributed to Americans?

They chose States rights instead of Federalizing the response soup to nuts. We knew this months ago. This is what Republicans want and we have a Republican in the White House, so here we are. Is this a bad thing? Yes, if you want things to happen quickly. No, if you believe that every State should be treated differently.

Coordinating it all through each State slows everything down. Speaking as someone who has to deal with different rules/taxes, different systems (software, etc.) in all the States we sell our spirit in? I'd KILL to have one single Federal set of rules and standards. It's why the EU was formed. The downside is, each State/Country gives up some sovereignty in the name of efficiency. Pick your poison, I guess.

We CHOSE to do this. And unless they get their act together, and fast? The Feds are going to add six months to this pandemic because they didn't act unilaterally.

Is it worth it? Is State's rights worth it? I sure don't think it's worth it when we're in a pandemic..... we're at war. Full stop.

Things should be improving mightily this week.

You do realize that you're the only poster saying so, unless you solely mean that a new crew will begin to get a handle on the turnaround of the FUBAR distribution.

But the pandemic is certainly going to get 'worse' before it gets better... "better" defined as reducing incidence, hospitalizations, deaths. That's a ways off.

Joe said 100mm doses in 100 days, Fauci agrees; let's hope so! The timing could not be more impeccable. Vaxx essentially ready early Dec, logistics sorted out by mid-late Jan...just in time for a new party to come in and save the world.

Have the logistics been sorted out? I missed that one...apparently there's just over 30 million doses 'distributed' but less than 12 million administered...but they also can't say where or when distribution is coming next to those who've actually administered...

I think the 100 million in 100 days is likely to prove an overly ambitious goal (I suspect the logistics issues are more of a mess than we even know), but I agree with a comment someone, maybe wgdsr, made about it being good to have a goal.

[wgdsr]

this convo continues to run off the rails. tried numerous times to pull it back to my observation:

to say that trump had nothing to do with vaccines and lay almost all distribution issues at his feet doesn't lend anyone as a neutral observer.

that is a simple point. if a prez is to be given accountability pro or con for particular actions, then each action should also have it's own scoreboard.
or you're not looking at it objectively.

our disagreement mostly stems from the standpoint that it looks like in your assessment, a totality of actions tars everything, so no points are given anywhere in the other direction. and so we disagree. ftr, i didn't call you insane. i said that proposition was insane. nor do i think that's giving trump a pass on anything, or wishy washy. a pass on what? that we had good vaccine development?

nowhere in this discussion have i jumpstarted an assessment of anything other than the above. tried to bring it back to that simple point numerous times. where you get my posture on accountability for actions, yada... i have no earthly idea. that's an unrelated subject you want to conflate if you're trying to label my take on it. and unfortunately, this is not new ground for you.

you can hold anyone accountable that you want to. have tough judgments. that was neither my point nor the subject at hand.

[tech37]

this convo continues to run off the rails. tried numerous times to pull it back to my observation:

to say that trump had nothing to do with vaccines and lay almost all distribution issues at his feet doesn't lend anyone as a neutral observer.

that is a simple point. if a prez is to be given accountability pro or con for particular actions, then each action should also have it's own scoreboard.
or you're not looking at it objectively.

our disagreement mostly stems from the standpoint that it looks like in your assessment, a totality of actions tars everything, so no points are given anywhere in the other direction. and so we disagree. ftr, i didn't call you insane. i said that proposition was insane. nor do i think that's giving trump a pass on anything, or wishy washy. a pass on what? that we had good vaccine development?

nowhere in this discussion have i jumpstarted an assessment of anything other than the above. tried to bring it back to that simple point numerous times. where you get my posture on accountability for actions, yada... i have no earthly idea. that's an unrelated subject you want to conflate if you're trying to label my take on it. and unfortunately, this is not new ground for you.

you can hold anyone accountable that you want to. have tough judgments. that was neither my point nor the subject at hand.

+1

[MDlaxfan76]

this convo continues to run off the rails. tried numerous times to pull it back to my observation:

to say that trump had nothing to do with vaccines and lay almost all distribution issues at his feet doesn't lend anyone as a neutral observer.

that is a simple point. if a prez is to be given accountability pro or con for particular actions, then each action should also have it's own scoreboard.
or you're not looking at it objectively.

our disagreement mostly stems from the standpoint that it looks like in your assessment, a totality of actions tars everything, so no points are given anywhere in the other direction. and so we disagree. ftr, i didn't call you insane. i said that proposition was insane. nor do i think that's giving trump a pass on anything, or wishy washy. a pass on what? that we had good vaccine development?

nowhere in this discussion have i jumpstarted an assessment of anything other than the above. tried to bring it back to that simple point numerous times. where you get my posture on accountability for actions, yada... i have no earthly idea. that's an unrelated subject you want to conflate if you're trying to label my take on it. and unfortunately, this is not new ground for you.

you can hold anyone accountable that you want to. have tough judgments. that was neither my point nor the subject at hand.

As I said above to a poster who seemed to be implying that you're nothing more than another Trump apologist, I disagree, I think you're have a legit disagreement with me. A little incendiary and personal perhaps, but legit.

No, I don't think that I'm making a judgment that ignores or fails to award points on the scoreboard deserved. I have no issue with acknowledging my antipathy for Trump and my disdain for the corrupt and incompetent he attracted and rewarded around him, but I'm perfectly willing to give credit to decisions I think were good, ala Mnuchin's support for the first CARES Act. I'll pick at the lack of transparency and oversight, the bias toward the largest companies, but I'll also cut some slack based on rush...see, nuance.

I simply think Trump was late to the vaccine support and, from his public comments, My guess (yes guess) was that he was more likely a friction than a driver. But he did like the cool name.

Your only argument that I can perceive on this is your assumption that my view is biased by my antipathy, rather than actually dealing with the timetable on when the scientists and companies actually got to work full speed, and then months later when Trump said the vaccines wouldn't be needed, and then his conversion by the cool name shortly thereafter.

You do acknowledge that timetable right?

Again, if you think Trump deserves points for the conversion, fine by me. He could have actually denied the money, that's true.

[wgdsr]

mdlax... put any other prez in charge, have our exact same vaccine development (i'm assuming none of them would be in the lab making the cocktail), and my educated guess is you'd be all in.

what i think i know is 100s of companies and entities raced to get started on vaccines, and several months later in april we identified our top candidates, and funded them in may. who did 99% of that actual work? science and health guys.

that's about all i know. the rest is -- we make our assessments on what, 100 or 500 different aspects of our response? and while the head coach or qb shouldn't get some lion's share of blame or credit for wins and losses, that is the reality of the world we live in. on vaccines, there is nothing i've discovered that would lead anyone to believe that donald trump put up roadblocks to us advancing vaccine development. i'm open to other info.

i said the other day it's possible trump may have seen on tv that if we got a vaccine, we'd be good. then he could go about his day. it was a joke, but not terribly out of the question. now that would maybe be a scenario where he took a positive and tried to squeeze a negative out of it.

[MDlaxfan76]

mdlax... put any other prez in charge, have our exact same vaccine development (i'm assuming none of them would be in the lab making the cocktail), and my educated guess is you'd be all in.

what i think i know is 100s of companies and entities raced to get started on vaccines, and several months later in april we identified our top candidates, and funded them in may. who did 99% of that actual work? science and health guys.

that's about all i know. the rest is -- we make our assessments on what, 100 or 500 different aspects of our response? and while the head coach or qb shouldn't get some lion's share of blame or credit for wins and losses, that is the reality of the world we live in. on vaccines, there is nothing i've discovered that would lead anyone to believe that donald trump put up roadblocks to us advancing vaccine development. i'm open to other info.

i said the other day it's possible trump may have seen on tv that if we got a vaccine, we'd be good. then he could go about his day. it was a joke, but not terribly out of the question. now that would maybe be a scenario where he took a positive and tried to squeeze a negative out of it.

Your guess would be incorrect, though I do agree that if any prior prez had this on his watch I doubt he'd have told the American people on May 8 that the vaccines wouldn't be necessary because the virus was going away on its own...but if he had, then I'd think he was an idiot too. If he'd made the series of mistakes that Trump did, had spewed so much disinformation as Trump did, then I'd not give him the benefit of the doubt either...but I'd agree that it's unlikely any prior prez would have been such a mess.

Sure, my assumption, based on all evidence available, is that Trump never truly understood, or wanted to understand, any element of the virus response program. He wanted the spotlight, none of the work. So, he grabbed the mike and spouted off whatever came to him, ridiculous as it might have been, on subject after subject...and unfortunately his tendencies were to get almost everything wrong...not everything, not every day, but most of the time.

But hey, they didn't get absolutely everything wrong...and if that means that Trump gets some smattering of 'credit', fine with me. Let's just not call him the driver of that success...on that I know we agree.