Trump says no to a second closure

[dogs4thewin]

Then stop telling us that herd immunity is the strategy go with.

It would work but there would be a LOT more deaths, but it would work.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

It would work but there would be a LOT more deaths, but it would work.

Almost double the number of people who died in the United States last year from every cause of death put together.

 

[dogs4thewin]

In order to achieve herd immunity you need to get to at least 70% of the population infected What is Herd Immunity and How Can We Achieve It With COVID-19? With 330,000,000 Americans and the low end of 231,000,000 Americans infected. At 1% mortality rate, 2,310,000 Americans will die in an attempt to achieve herd immunity. CDC reported 2,813,503 total deaths last year in the United States. FastStats That was from all causes of death. So essentially, @dogs4thewin, by advocating for herd immunity, you want twice as many deaths this year than last year.

I do not want twice as many death this year as last year.

 

[Desk trauma]

It would work but there would be a LOT more deaths, but it would work.

Hence why it's a bad idea.

What's so complicated about not supporting bad ideas?

 

[Desk trauma]

I do not want twice as many death this year as last year.

And here we have the moment of realization, I anxiously await whatever justification will see it dashed against the rocks as usual.

 

[Arcangl86]

He probably means a federal advised lock down. He did not impose a lock down on any of the states in the first place,even though he had the emergency powers to do so, he just advised the states and gave the governors space to handle things as they see fit.

Trump is not good a posturing his position, but he is good at making policies and decisions that work.

He does not have the emergency powers to impose a lock down, or lift one. And the US has one of the highest per capita rate for confirmed cases of COVID-19. Mind you, this is just confirmed cases, but only 4 countries have higher then the US. And it might be higher even if Testing was more plentiful. So I'm not sure why you think Trump made decisions that work.

 

[KCfromNC]

Trump has said that if there is a second wave we will not close down. Thoughts?

Donald says lots of things. At this point, if you keep listening to him you only have yourself to blame.

 

[KCfromNC]

What happens if for some reason there is not a second wave?

Then likely a small minority will be whining that they're being oppressed by the fact that an effective vaccine was developed much more quickly than expected.

 

[KCfromNC]

Someone who there are concerns literally is not medically or mentally fit to be president? People who vote for Biden are ( in all likeilyhood really voting for whomever the VP ends up being.

Should tell you how unfit the incumbent is if a candidate as bad as you're describing is still leading in national and state polling.

Assuming your assertions have any relationship to reality, of course.

 

[KCfromNC]

Where does that mean they HAVE to open up ( or for that matter that people must attend or even if they are "forced" to open up that they may not offer other options? For example, my church is currently offering in-person services, the service on the radio at the same time as the in-person serve, and the service online ( though that is now a week behind. For example, this Sunday they will post last Sunday's service/

I don't get this whole "it isn't forcing people to do anything" line. I mean, if people aren't anxious to go out and spread the disease why all the complaining about reopening. Seems a bit disingenuous to march on state capitols with guns to get states to reopen and then fall back on the "well, but no one has to go out and get people sick so I can get a haircut". I mean, if those groups were really in favor of people being responsible perhaps they could focus on things like making masks for people who don't have them or delivering food to vulnerable community members.

But this whole "people don't have to" defense seems like a cop out to get people to ignore when things get worse because they got their way. I'm not buying it.

 

[KCfromNC]

I do not want millions to die, but at the same time the vast majority of cases are not serious so we really do not know how many have had it. We also are testing more people some of whom would not have qualified earlier.

250+ million not dying from it doesn't change the fact that many millions would. I'm not sure of the point here, other than to try to rationalize away a huge number of people dying.

 

[KCfromNC]

Hence why it's a bad idea.

What's so complicated about not supporting bad ideas?

Well, on the one hand we have agreement that the death toll would be staggering.

But on the other, a few people with connections to Donald's administration made a few random web sites pushing people to irresponsibly reopen the economy.

Decisions, decisions.

 

[hedrick]

I doubt what happens in the fall will look like what just happened. Until there's a vaccine, we're not going to go back to normal, at least not in states like NY and NJ. Everything will be open, but we'll be using masks and there will be other changes. I'd guess international travel will have lots of protection.

Thus there's reasonable hope that we'll see localized resurgence, which we detect quickly and pounce on. At least that's what states are planning. If that works, we shouldn't need a national shutdown.

I'm sure Trump would like to take credit for the fact that there won't need to be a national shutdown again, but he won't deserve any credit for it.

 

[hedrick]

He does not have the emergency powers to impose a lock down, or lift one.

I think you're wrong. There are some pretty scary laws, some of them secret. I believe in an appropriate emergency he could indeed do a national shutdown. Whether he can lift a state one is less clear. I think he has enough emergency powers that he could preempt State authority. Since no one is willing to hold him accountable for anything, it's hard to say just how far he can push his powers.

It's interesting what emergency powers exist. The NJ governor has been putting out decrees right and left. I think he's done it wisely, and he's been working with legislative leaders, but it appears that in an emergency he has surprising powers.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think he just sealed his loss in November!

That would probably depend on who you ask...

For some who are still collecting their regular source of income, who work from home, or collect benefits, they're probably okay with it.

However, many folks (who will likely be just starting to recover financially after the first shut down), especially ones living in rural areas who weren't as heavily impacted by the first wave, aren't going to be eager to do that again.

 

[Johan_1988]

He does not have the emergency powers to impose a lock down, or lift one. And the US has one of the highest per capita rate for confirmed cases of COVID-19. Mind you, this is just confirmed cases, but only 4 countries have higher then the US. And it might be higher even if Testing was more plentiful. So I'm not sure why you think Trump made decisions that work.

Ok whether he could enforce a lock down is debatable,but could surely recommend it.
It is not fair to measure his performance on the amount of infections, because firstly the federal government is only a backup for local government. It was up to the Governors to make decisions on how to implement the lock down and prevention measures. Secondly Trump had to balance the economic cost to peoples lives. Joblessness an people losing their business an their whole life savings can cause other social ills like substance abuse and suicide ,even their whole way of life. Unemployment insurance can only go so far and cannot replace everything people lose.

Lastly infection's are inevitable. The lock down was only supposed to slow down the infection rate and not stop it all together so as to not overwhelm the countries medical system. That is a common misunderstanding. While we wait for a vaccine or an effective treatment ,herd immunity is our best bet and put in measures to mitigate the spread and protect the most vulnerable from getting infected.

 

[hedrick]

Ok whether he could enforce a lock down is debatable,but could surely recommend it.
It is not fair to measure his performance on the amount of infections, because firstly the federal government is only a backup for local government. It was up to the Governors to make decisions on how to implement the lock down and prevention measures. Secondly Trump had to balance the economic cost to peoples lives. Joblessness an people losing their business an their whole life savings can cause other social ills like substance abuse and suicide ,even their whole way of life. Unemployment insurance can only go so far and cannot replace everything people lose.

Lastly infection's are inevitable. The lock down was only supposed to slow down the infection rate and not stop it all together so as to not overwhelm the countries medical system. That is a common misunderstanding. While we wait for a vaccine or an effective treatment ,herd immunity is our best bet and put in measures to mitigate the spread and protect the most vulnerable from getting infected.

Herd immunity probably won’t happen before a vaccine. It would require most people to get the disease, with large numbers of deaths. Rather, we’ll try to suppress it when clusters start. Whack a mole. If there is a vaccine in early 2021, the approach will save lots of lives.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Donald Trump is a child who holds a man's job. That any right-thinking person could have voted for him in 2016 is baffling. That people would consider doing so again is stunning - it is unimaginable that any person who votes for Mr. Trump (in 2020) is not doing so as an act of pure spite. As of January 2017, I consider myself lucky to not be an American (although he can still do damage beyond American borders, not least here in Canada).

Having said this, it is astonishing that Joe Biden is the best the Democrats can come up with.

I think you sort of answered your own question...

13% of Trump's 2016 voters (7 million) were former Obama voters, and 1/10 Bernie primary supporters (another million) ended up going for Trump in 2016, and nearly 6 million voters ended up going for a 3rd party. (Giving "the other guys" some of the highest numbers they've seen since Ross Perot).

...all that's with a loudmouth (with no political experience) running for the GOP, and the DNC throwing hundreds of million's at the campaign to get Hillary elected.

Clearly the talking points that resonated with some of his base wouldn't necessarily be applicable to the 7 million that had voted for Obama (obviously the conspiracy theories were flowing, the anti-socialism rhetoric was flowing, and the scaremongering was running wild in 2008 and 2012)...or the 1 million who formerly supported Bernie (who's not coy about his economic preferences)

2016 should've been a good learning experience that you can't just throw any old establishment politician in the mix, and assume that name recognition (or even being part of a popular former president's administration) combined with "throwing money at the problem" will equate to a "slam dunk".

 

[Johan_1988]

Herd immunity probably won’t happen before a vaccine. It would require most people to get the disease, with large numbers of deaths. Rather, we’ll try to suppress it when clusters start. Whack a mole. If there is a vaccine in early 2021, the approach will save lots of lives.

Yes ,that is all true I agree it should be suppressed and no country for that matter may have herd immunity when a vaccine comes out ,but the more people have immunity the better. There must also be better mitigation measures than lock downs since it is a rather blunt instrument and also does a lot of damage to peoples lives and health.

 

[hedrick]

Yes ,that is all true I agree it should be suppressed and no country for that matter may have herd immunity when a vaccine comes out ,but the more people have immunity the better. There must also be better mitigation measures than lock downs since it is a rather blunt instrument and also does a lot of damage to peoples lives and health.

I don’t think we’ll see more broad shutdowns. But maybe localized prohibitions of large gatherings. Possibly closing schools, but that depends upon whether we can get a clearer picture of the role of children in spreading the virus. Unfortunately, church services are kind of worst case.