Yeah, Fauci has really worn out his welcome, as has Trump, in my opinion. Both of them just seem to say whatever happens across their minds at that finite moment in time. Masks good or bad? Vaccine in October or next year? Schools should open or not? Bunch of grandstanding egocentric old farts, IMO. Not just those two, mind you. Our entire political and news-pandering leadership has failed. If you watch CNN or MSNBC, you get the narrative that you are the devil incarnate if you venture outside your home other than for sustenance. If you watch Fox News, everything is fine with the Chinese flu and only old/cancerous/diabetic people die or have lasting complications from this virus.

More than likely, neither Fauci nor Trump will be highly relevant in the continued fight against COVID-19 in 2021. Trump will likely be out of office and Fauci's flip-flopping and "cautious optimism" ad infinitum will be replaced by the scientists that are currently 100% hands-on in developing a vaccine. The only scenario Fauci has yet to use the phrase "cautiously optimistic" is with regard to whether the sun will rise tomorrow morning.

But...he’s an “expert”.

S. Korea

(07-25-2020 11:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  S. Korea

I wish we had news like South Korea.

113 new cases make a headline, and it's really only ~50 cases. 36 are workers returning from Iraq and 32 are crew members of a Russian freighter.

(07-25-2020 12:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I wish we had news like South Korea.

Do you wish we had the ability to trace the actions of everyone like S. Korea?

We can essentially ban (or otherwise discourage) cash and require people to have bank accounts... those without ID to vote can just buy from the black market. We can allow the government to track us by our phones without a warrant and have probably 10 times the public surveillance through cameras etc. We can also find some other way to create a vastly more compliant society, even against an over-bearing government.

Things like this have a price.

(07-25-2020 01:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 12:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I wish we had news like South Korea.

Do you wish we had the ability to trace the actions of everyone like S. Korea?

We can essentially ban (or otherwise discourage) cash and require people to have bank accounts... those without ID to vote can just buy from the black market. We can allow the government to track us by our phones without a warrant and have probably 10 times the public surveillance through cameras etc. We can also find some other way to create a vastly more compliant society, even against an over-bearing government.

Things like this have a price.

I think for Lad and other leftists, loss of freedom is a small price to pay to get rid of Trump.

(07-25-2020 03:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 01:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 12:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I wish we had news like South Korea.

Do you wish we had the ability to trace the actions of everyone like S. Korea?

We can essentially ban (or otherwise discourage) cash and require people to have bank accounts... those without ID to vote can just buy from the black market. We can allow the government to track us by our phones without a warrant and have probably 10 times the public surveillance through cameras etc. We can also find some other way to create a vastly more compliant society, even against an over-bearing government.

Things like this have a price.

I think for Lad and other leftists, loss of freedom is a small price to pay to get rid of Trump.

What does that even mean, especially in the context of managing COVID-19 cases??

To Ham’s comment, we have the resources to trace cases in a more significant manner if we want, and in ways that conform to our laws, if we want to. It would require significant manpower and mobilization, but we don’t have the political will to fund this using our federal resources.

We probably wouldn’t get S Korea’s numbers, but it would be better than the system we currently have. And I think that’s the most important issue, we clearly are still not throwing our entire weight behind this pandemic at the federal level.

Same comment regarding our testing infrastructure that appears to be failing regularly in multiple states on turnaround time.

(07-25-2020 04:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 03:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 01:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 12:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I wish we had news like South Korea.

Things like this have a price.

I think for Lad and other leftists, loss of freedom is a small price to pay to get rid of Trump.

What does that even mean, especially in the context of managing COVID-19 cases??

It is one simple sentence. But I simplified the exchange for you.

(07-25-2020 05:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 04:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 03:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 01:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 12:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I wish we had news like South Korea.

Things like this have a price.

I think for Lad and other leftists, loss of freedom is a small price to pay to get rid of Trump.

What does that even mean, especially in the context of managing COVID-19 cases??

It is one simple sentence. But I simplified the exchange for you.

In this instance, why would lower numbers due to better contact tracing (the referenced “lose of freedom”) result in Trump leaving office????

(07-25-2020 07:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 05:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 04:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 03:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 01:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Things like this have a price.

I think for Lad and other leftists, loss of freedom is a small price to pay to get rid of Trump.

What does that even mean, especially in the context of managing COVID-19 cases??

It is one simple sentence. But I simplified the exchange for you.

In this instance, why would lower numbers due to better contact tracing (the referenced “lose of freedom”) result in Trump leaving office????

Man, you are so far out in the weeds, I don’t think I can guide you back.

(07-24-2020 08:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We have lots of data on what happens with business when you lower taxes. You just choose to declare it wrong.

I don't recall have any detailed tax policy discussions on this board. What is my position again? I'm at best a novice in the area.

(07-24-2020 08:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We have the responses on various actions of foreign policy. Again, you just choose what you want to support.

Yes, we have different opinions. But we don't know the outcomes of both opinions so we don't have objective fact.

(07-24-2020 08:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As for Mexico, I presume we are talking about illegals. I oppose illegals. I do not oppose immigration. You guys think those are synonymous. They are not.

Thank you for clarifying my position for me.

(07-24-2020 08:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Even Fauci has changed his positions over time. The whole crisis is a learning experience.

Agreed.

(07-24-2020 08:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You sure seem to hold grudges.

You have proven to know me so well. I don't begrudge anyone here.

(07-25-2020 03:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think for Lad and other leftists, loss of freedom is a small price to pay to get rid of Trump.

To leftists, loss of freedom is a platform plank. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

(07-25-2020 11:26 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 08:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We have lots of data on what happens with business when you lower taxes. You just choose to declare it wrong.

I don't recall have any detailed tax policy discussions on this board. What is my position again? I'm at best a novice in the area.

There is only one way out of our fiscal mess--the same way Europe does it, a national consumption tax coupled with lower, flatter, and broader (fewer exclusions and deductions) income taxes. Bowles-Simpson recommended the income tax part. Domenici-Rivlin recommended all of it.

We can have universal health care and a universal basic income, if we have a national consumption tax. But we can't do it as a democrat income and wealth redistribution scheme. That's how you get Venezuela. People say Venezuela wasn't because of socialism, it was because of over dependence on oil. But the reason they became overly dependent on oil is because when the redistributive taxes kicked in, everybody else but oil left. Oil couldn't leave, obviously, but when fracking in the US drove the price down, the poor quality Venezuelan oil was at the bottom. Europe doesn't do it as a redistributive scheme. Their idea is everybody benefits and everybody pays. Their approach has some mild equalization impacts, but that is because it seeks to make poor people richer instead of making rich people poorer.

Quote:

(07-24-2020 08:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We have the responses on various actions of foreign policy. Again, you just choose what you want to support.

Yes, we have different opinions. But we don't know the outcomes of both opinions so we don't have objective fact.

My foreign policy is pretty simple. Treat your friends better than you treat your enemies, and never fight a war that you don't intend to win.

Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan should have convinced us that fighting wars we don't intend to win never works. If it's not worth fighting to win, it's not worth fighting, period. But Syria is even worse. It's a war we don't want anybody to win, because we don't like anybody who is fighting--Russia, Iran, Assad, ISIS (whatever is left of them). Except the Kurds. We should have taken care of the Kurds in about 2003. But we made a mess of that, just like we make a mess whenever we go meddling in what is none of our business.

Here's the really strange part of the Mideast. You know whose oil supply we are fighting to protect? China's. So why are we doing that?

And that kind of leads us to the friends/enemies issue to sort. We are in Cold War II, and this time the enemy is China. We need a strategy to defeat China. We won Cold War I without an actual war because Truman bribed up an alliance to contain the Soviets, and later Reagan put enough pressure on their economy to bring down the Soviet Union. I think we can reprise this approach to defeat China. Bribe up an alliance around the so-called first island chain--Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, Taiwan. Add India, Thailand, Vietnam, and we already have Australia, Japan, and South Korea. We can offer them virtually the same deal that we offered western Europe in 1945, 1) the industry that we pull out of China, less the essential stuff that we want to bring home, which can be split up to add about 10% to GDP for each of them, and 2) the US military to protect their sovereignty. China is not building a military to take on the US. China is building a military to intimidate their neighbors. It's like the bully who used to beat you up on your way to school and steal your lunch money, until one day your big brother showed up and whipped his ass, and then he didn't pick on you any more. China has bullied its neighbors into letting them have the Spratlys and the artificial islands where they are building bases. We need to be big brother (without the Orwellian implications) and stop the bully.

But we need to do it in a hurry. 1956 would have been too late to try to put NATO together. We need to stop China before they control the first island chain.

Quote:

(07-24-2020 08:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As for Mexico, I presume we are talking about illegals. I oppose illegals. I do not oppose immigration. You guys think those are synonymous. They are not.

Thank you for clarifying my position for me

OO is correct in that the left typically labels opposition to ILLEGAL immigration as opposition to ALL immigration, which further gets labeled as racism. I favor LEGAL immigration and oppose ILLEGAL immigration. What I really favor is a rational, merit-based immigration policy.

I sincerely believe that democrats see a steady flow of illegals as a steady flow of future democrat voters. And whether they are good for the country or not is irrelevant as long as they become democrat voters.

I'm speaking generically here. You may or may not hold those positions. But I'm pretty sure Pelosi and Schumer and Biden do. And I'm pretty sure theirs is the party you will be voting for.

Quote:

(07-24-2020 08:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Even Fauci has changed his positions over time. The whole crisis is a learning experience.

Agreed.

For a folk hero, Fauci has a pretty incredible record of being wrong about CV-19. In his defense, it is new and nobody really knew. But he is a bureaucrat, not a practicing physician, and most of his errors have been on the side of being a bureaucrat. He does not have an emergency response mindset. Apparently, neither does anybody else at CDC, FDA, or WHO.

Quote:

(07-24-2020 08:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You sure seem to hold grudges.

You have proven to know me so well. I don't begrudge anyone here.

This one is between you and OO. I do think everyone has gotten a bit more edgy around here in recent months.

(07-25-2020 11:26 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 08:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We have lots of data on what happens with business when you lower taxes. You just choose to declare it wrong.

I don't recall have any detailed tax policy discussions on this board. What is my position again? I'm at best a novice in the area.

You position is whatever the Democrats want to do, which is what you will cast your vote for. Usually, this is for raising taxes on higher income people, businesses, investment, and dying. Currently, it is all that plus regulations to make gasoline more expensive for all Americans. These will cost jobs

Prosperity comes from encouraging business activity, not discouraging it.

Quote:

(07-24-2020 08:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We have the responses on various actions of foreign policy. Again, you just choose what you want to support.

Yes, we have different opinions. But we don't know the outcomes of both opinions so we don't have objective fact.

We have this thing called history. Try it sometime. It is what tells us what works.

Teddy Roosevelt said “speak softly and carry a big stick”. The big stick is what was missing under Obama. Speak softly and hide under the bed doesn’t work.

(07-26-2020 02:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 11:26 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 08:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We have lots of data on what happens with business when you lower taxes. You just choose to declare it wrong.

I don't recall have any detailed tax policy discussions on this board. What is my position again? I'm at best a novice in the area.

There is only one way out of our fiscal mess--the same way Europe does it, a national consumption tax coupled with lower, flatter, and broader (fewer exclusions and deductions) income taxes. Bowles-Simpson recommended the income tax part. Domenici-Rivlin recommended all of it.

We can have universal health care and a universal basic income, if we have a national consumption tax. But we can't do it as a democrat income and wealth redistribution scheme. That's how you get Venezuela. People say Venezuela wasn't because of socialism, it was because of over dependence on oil. But the reason they became overly dependent on oil is because when the redistributive taxes kicked in, everybody else but oil left. Oil couldn't leave, obviously, but when fracking in the US drove the price down, the poor quality Venezuelan oil was at the bottom. Europe doesn't do it as a redistributive scheme. Their idea is everybody benefits and everybody pays. Their approach has some mild equalization impacts, but that is because it seeks to make poor people richer instead of making rich people poorer.

Quote:

(07-24-2020 08:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We have the responses on various actions of foreign policy. Again, you just choose what you want to support.

Yes, we have different opinions. But we don't know the outcomes of both opinions so we don't have objective fact.

My foreign policy is pretty simple. Treat your friends better than you treat your enemies, and never fight a war that you don't intend to win.

Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan should have convinced us that fighting wars we don't intend to win never works. If it's not worth fighting to win, it's not worth fighting, period. But Syria is even worse. It's a war we don't want anybody to win, because we don't like anybody who is fighting--Russia, Iran, Assad, ISIS (whatever is left of them). Except the Kurds. We should have taken care of the Kurds in about 2003. But we made a mess of that, just like we make a mess whenever we go meddling in what is none of our business.

Here's the really strange part of the Mideast. You know whose oil supply we are fighting to protect? China's. So why are we doing that?

And that kind of leads us to the friends/enemies issue to sort. We are in Cold War II, and this time the enemy is China. We need a strategy to defeat China. We won Cold War I without an actual war because Truman bribed up an alliance to contain the Soviets, and later Reagan put enough pressure on their economy to bring down the Soviet Union. I think we can reprise this approach to defeat China. Bribe up an alliance around the so-called first island chain--Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, Taiwan. Add India, Thailand, Vietnam, and we already have Australia, Japan, and South Korea. We can offer them virtually the same deal that we offered western Europe in 1945, 1) the industry that we pull out of China, less the essential stuff that we want to bring home, which can be split up to add about 10% to GDP for each of them, and 2) the US military to protect their sovereignty. China is not building a military to take on the US. China is building a military to intimidate their neighbors. It's like the bully who used to beat you up on your way to school and steal your lunch money, until one day your big brother showed up and whipped his ass, and then he didn't pick on you any more. China has bullied its neighbors into letting them have the Spratlys and the artificial islands where they are building bases. We need to be big brother (without the Orwellian implications) and stop the bully.

But we need to do it in a hurry. 1956 would have been too late to try to put NATO together. We need to stop China before they control the first island chain.

Quote:

(07-24-2020 08:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As for Mexico, I presume we are talking about illegals. I oppose illegals. I do not oppose immigration. You guys think those are synonymous. They are not.

Thank you for clarifying my position for me

OO is correct in that the left typically labels opposition to ILLEGAL immigration as opposition to ALL immigration, which further gets labeled as racism. I favor LEGAL immigration and oppose ILLEGAL immigration. What I really favor is a rational, merit-based immigration policy.

I sincerely believe that democrats see a steady flow of illegals as a steady flow of future democrat voters. And whether they are good for the country or not is irrelevant as long as they become democrat voters.

I'm speaking generically here. You may or may not hold those positions. But I'm pretty sure Pelosi and Schumer and Biden do. And I'm pretty sure theirs is the party you will be voting for.

Quote:

(07-24-2020 08:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Even Fauci has changed his positions over time. The whole crisis is a learning experience.

Agreed.

For a folk hero, Fauci has a pretty incredible record of being wrong about CV-19. In his defense, it is new and nobody really knew. But he is a bureaucrat, not a practicing physician, and most of his errors have been on the side of being a bureaucrat. He does not have an emergency response mindset. Apparently, neither does anybody else at CDC, FDA, or WHO.

Quote:

(07-24-2020 08:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You sure seem to hold grudges.

You have proven to know me so well. I don't begrudge anyone here.

This one is between you and OO. I do think everyone has gotten a bit more edgy around here in recent months.

With respect to bribing up an alliance only, wasn't that what TPP really was?

I know it was radioactive to both Rs and D's in 2016. Never really got the universal distain.

(07-26-2020 03:55 PM)ausowl Wrote:  I know it was radioactive to both Rs and D's in 2016. Never really got the universal distain.

TPP certainly could have been a basis for that. But it had a lot of extraneous baggage that had nothing to do with that. And it was the extraneous stuff that brought out the disdain.

It's back

(07-25-2020 04:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To Ham’s comment, we have the resources to trace cases in a more significant manner if we want, and in ways that conform to our laws, if we want to. It would require significant manpower and mobilization, but we don’t have the political will to fund this using our federal resources.

We probably wouldn’t get S Korea’s numbers, but it would be better than the system we currently have. And I think that’s the most important issue, we clearly are still not throwing our entire weight behind this pandemic at the federal level.

Same comment regarding our testing infrastructure that appears to be failing regularly in multiple states on turnaround time.

Sigh..... Of course the problem is Federal. That allows you to ignore the separation of powers within our government and focus on blaming Trump and ignore the many state failings (many of them run by democrats). California is pretty famous for disregarding Federal mandates and coming up with their own... Prop 65 and Auto Emissions are among the best known, but of course 'sanctuary cities' and a long list of other issues and options.... and while California is know, many others who swing both directions so as well. See Texas and Oklahoma with the 55MPH laws.

The states run their departments of health... They have the primary responsibility for their citizens. They choose their testing methodology, they decide how to report their numbers to the CDC. Nobody had a problem with these practices under Obama.... now all of a sudden, it's the cause of deaths. CDC practice/policy has always been to jumpstart such testing/help contribute to its creation, and then quickly turn it over to local DOH's.... all the while, allowing those state DOH's to do their own thing as well. iirc, the initial infections were reported in either Oregon or Washington, and they initially used a different test than the CDC was recommending to everyone else... and nobody had a problem with them doing so.

I KNOW we have the resources. I agree somewhat with your comment as a piece of writing, but I disagree wholly with it as a practical matter.

We lack the will to do this because we lack the votes to do it. The people do not support the government being able to track our every movement using city cameras, even during a pandemic. The people do not support people being 'strongly encouraged' into a virtual cashless system that would then allow tracking via our purchases. The people do not support the government being able to track our cell phones, even during a pandemic.

This is true of some on the right, but it is just as true for a whole lot of the left. When the left proposes it, the right screams, when the right proposes it, the left does.

(07-27-2020 09:34 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 04:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To Ham’s comment, we have the resources to trace cases in a more significant manner if we want, and in ways that conform to our laws, if we want to. It would require significant manpower and mobilization, but we don’t have the political will to fund this using our federal resources.

We probably wouldn’t get S Korea’s numbers, but it would be better than the system we currently have. And I think that’s the most important issue, we clearly are still not throwing our entire weight behind this pandemic at the federal level.

Same comment regarding our testing infrastructure that appears to be failing regularly in multiple states on turnaround time.

Sigh..... Of course the problem is Federal. That allows you to ignore the separation of powers within our government and focus on blaming Trump and ignore the many state failings (many of them run by democrats). California is pretty famous for disregarding Federal mandates and coming up with their own... Prop 65 and Auto Emissions are among the best known, but of course 'sanctuary cities' and a long list of other issues and options.... and while California is know, many others who swing both directions so as well. See Texas and Oklahoma with the 55MPH laws.

The states run their departments of health... They have the primary responsibility for their citizens. They choose their testing methodology, they decide how to report their numbers to the CDC. Nobody had a problem with these practices under Obama.... now all of a sudden, it's the cause of deaths.

I KNOW we have the resources. I agree somewhat with your comment as a piece of writing, but I disagree wholly with it as a practical matter.

We lack the will to do this because we lack the votes to do it. The people do not support the government being able to track our every movement using city cameras, even during a pandemic. The people do not support people being 'strongly encouraged' into a virtual cashless system that would then allow tracking via our purchases. The people do not support the government being able to track our cell phones, even during a pandemic.

This is true of some on the right, but it is just as true for a whole lot of the left. When the left proposes it, the right screams, when the right proposes it, the left does.

I'm focusing on the federal issue because I believe that the federal resources are best equipped to provide technical insight, guidance, direction, AND resources.

First, do we really think all 50 states have sufficiently staffed health departments, in both resources and technical capabilities, to operate without significant federal support and guidance?

Second, calling out a clear failure of the federal government does not mean that individual states, and their decisions are without blame. See Cuomo's decision to send sick back to elderly care centers. See Abbott's continual flip-flopping on his own guidelines.

Third, on a federal level, how did we respond to Ebola? Did the federal government push decisions down to the state level or did they drive the boat? Same for swine flu?

Fourth, I'm not sure how a data management decision (bolded) is exactly relevant to a discussion about the need to expand contract tasting or speed up testing turnaround.

Long story short - don't mistake a criticism of the federal response for a complete alleviation of the states' responses. But it seems pretty clear to me that this pandemic required a far more concerted and focused effort on a national scale. And I've been beating that drum for a while.

(07-27-2020 09:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm focusing on the federal issue because I believe that the federal resources are best equipped to provide technical insight, guidance, direction, AND resources.

First, do we really think all 50 states have sufficiently staffed health departments, in both resources and technical capabilities, to operate without significant federal support and guidance?

Second, calling out a clear failure of the federal government does not mean that individual states, and their decisions are without blame. See Cuomo's decision to send sick back to elderly care centers. See Abbott's continual flip-flopping on his own guidelines.

Third, on a federal level, how did we respond to Ebola? Did the federal government push decisions down to the state level or did they drive the boat? Same for swine flu?

Fourth, I'm not sure how a data management decision (bolded) is exactly relevant to a discussion about the need to expand contract tasting or speed up testing turnaround.

Long story short - don't mistake a criticism of the federal response for a complete alleviation of the states' responses. But it seems pretty clear to me that this pandemic required a far more concerted and focused effort on a national scale. And I've been beating that drum for a while.

Lad... You're ignoring the separation of Powers.

I'm going out of order here because you're missing the forest for the trees

4th.... Data management is in a paragraph where I discuss the powers of the state health departments, not the need to speed up testing etc... If the Federal Government had the power to do so, don't you think the CDC would require everyone to report their data the same way so that they had 'clean' data? In the simplest example, don't you think they'd want to know how many of today's reported positives were viral testing (active) and how many were antibody (legacy)? That's specifically what they're trying to report, and they have to do it noting that they can't make the states give them that data.

The best evidence of my contention that they don't have the powers that you think they should have is that in such obvious examples where it would be so easy... hey, states... give us the information in 'this' format... Viral positive tests, antibody positive tests and total positive tests... and some states simply say... nah... that they don't have, and never did have, and nobody thought this was a problem that needed to be addressed until 2020, the powers that you want them to have?

The President/Federal government has the ability to keep you from traveling between states... or to enter the country... Barring Federal Martial law, which you are essentially complaining about in Portland... He/they do not have the ability to keep you from going to a bar within your state.... They don't have the power to tell state health departments or governors what to do.

So to your first... This question could be asked of almost any issue. We have some states that can't count paper ballots so why don't we have a single, national standard for voting? How about the death penalty? This IS our chosen form of government. In a nation this large, I think having 50 state health departments looking for solutions and trying different things is better than having one, Federal health department doing so. MOST diseases end up impacting some regions more than others. What might have been better for Covid might have been vastly worse for West Nile, Zika, HIV etc etc

Second, I have no problem calling out federal failures... I just don't see 'failing to violate the Constitution' or to come up with 'answers' to new diseases faster than anyone else without any mis-steps as a Federal failure.

Third... How did we react to Ebola and Swine? Very much the same way. The difference was, Ebola has been around for some time... is easily tested for, comes from only a few nations and requires VERY close contact (not generally from surfaces or coughs) and people who get it become incapacitated and die pretty quickly, so the 'traceback' is short. With Swine, we did next to nothing about it Federally... though I would note that unlike NOVEL COVID-19, H1N1 had ALSO been around for 100 years. We DID have some existing Federal resources for that, just as we do for other diseaseases and as we will for COVID-19 next year than could be made available to the states. We didn't have that, which is why it was referred to as NOVEL, meaning NOT previously identified.

So I get that you think they should have done something, but most of what you seem to want them to do would be against the law. Just what do you think the CDC does and was doing at the time?

The President may decide whether or not to include someone like Fauci on his daily report to the public, but State Health Departments don't get their advice from those press conferences. They get them from policy updates and briefings sent directly to them by the CDC. Fauci and others within the CDC have not been mistake free... I strongly support states rights to reach different conclusions in such unknown times.

If you want to revamp the CDC pandemic response... fine... as has been common and consistent through all of my posts across a broad range of issues, I feel this is a lot of Monday Morning QB'ing by non-professionals.... and to think that the CDC doesn't already do this is silly.... and they of course know more about this than any of us... See all of the references to 'lessons learned' from the Ebola and Swine outbreaks in the CDC budgets between 2010 and 2020. These were the 'best practices' agreed to through multiple administrations... and enacted by mostly non-political people (scientists and policy makers within the CDC).