What evidence is there that Democrats would've handled anything differently with Covid?

[ThatRobGuy]

There's a few different premises floating around in the social ether...

One I agree with, the other I reject...

The one I agree with: "Trump waited too late to act on the situation"

The one I disagree with: "This could've all been prevented if we only had a real leader in office instead of Trump" (the implication that if one of voices from the democratic party had been in the 'big chair', they would've acted sooner and things would've been prevented from getting as out of hand as they've become)

Given that Cuomo, DeBlasio, Gov. Edwards of Louisiana, and Pelosi (while now all critical of presidential inaction) also downplayed the virus through late-Feb/early-March - (and both Sanders and Biden rejected the first round of travel restrictions in late-Jan), is there any evidence to suggest that earlier action would've been taken if one of those folks were in the 'big chair' in January or February?

My personal viewpoint is that we would've dropped the ball no matter which party was in power...as the list of governors who actually took quick action is a rather short list that includes Newson, DeWine, and a select few others. And even the ones who acted the soonest (when given full authority to decide when to do it) opted to wait until early-March to issue the orders.

It would seem that nobody on either side was willing to pull the trigger on a shutdown order (which they knew could have other detrimental effects) prior to March - and understandably so as obviously doing so comes with complications. Even Fauci was saying in late-Feb...

...when other experts had suggested earlier social distancing requirements, but only by a week or two.

Are there any indicators to suggest that some of the popular voices in the democratic party would've been issuing stay-at-home orders on Feb 15th if they were in the hot seat? (apart from 'hindsight is 20/20' types of comments that they've provided)

 

[Gregory Thompson]

There's a few different premises floating around in the social ether...

One I agree with, the other I reject...

The one I agree with: "Trump waited too late to act on the situation"

The one I disagree with: "This could've all been prevented if we only had a real leader in office instead of Trump" (the implication that if one of voices from the democratic party had been in the 'big chair', they would've acted sooner and things would've been prevented from getting as out of hand as they've become)

Given that Cuomo, DeBlasio, Gov. Edwards of Louisiana, and Pelosi (while now all critical of presidential inaction) also downplayed the virus through late-Feb/early-March - (and both Sanders and Biden rejected the first round of travel restrictions in late-Jan), is there any evidence to suggest that earlier action would've been taken if one of those folks were in the 'big chair' in January or February?

My personal viewpoint is that we would've dropped the ball no matter which party was in power...as the list of governors who actually took quick action is a rather short list that includes Newson, DeWine, and a select few others. And even the ones who acted the soonest (when given full authority to decide when to do it) opted to wait until early-March to issue the orders.

It would seem that nobody on either side was willing to pull the trigger on a shutdown order (which they knew could have other detrimental effects) prior to March - and understandably so as obviously doing so comes with complications. Even Fauci was saying in late-Feb...

View attachment 277578

...when other experts had suggested earlier social distancing requirements, but only by a week or two.

Are there any indicators to suggest that some of the popular voices in the democratic party would've been issuing stay-at-home orders on Feb 15th if they were in the hot seat? (apart from 'hindsight is 20/20' types of comments that they've provided)

Actually, Trump is the only president to ever use conspiracy theory culture as a form of reasoning. The main failure of the current administration was the lack of immediate action due to the perception that it was fake news.

 

[Hank77]

My feeling isn't that a different political party would have done better. Just an individual person would have done better regardless of party. What I mean by that is a person who was paying closer attention to what was happening in other countries, thinking about all the people who had been coming in from those countries, and with a little critical thinking could logically conclude that we needed to step up testing and tracing.
Someone who wouldn't have waited for the CDC to come up with another test but would have accepted the formulas that were offered from South Korea and the one Germany posted online for all to use. Both of those formulas were known to work but we wasted 2-3 more wks.

They knew that there was community spread in Feb.
C.D.C. Confirms First Possible Community Transmission of Coronavirus in U.S.

 

[Silmarien]

I think it's ridiculous to suggest that Democrats would have acted sooner, since the delayed responses on this thing were international. When Italy started shutting things down in late February, the entire world watched in shock, not just the United States. The WHO waited weeks longer than they should have to declare the pandemic, so the ball was effectively dropped globally, not just here.

I do think the Democrats would have handled things better once everyone realized that there actually was a crisis, but that was late March. It would have already been too late.

 

[hislegacy]

FYI - after the President banned travel from China, Mrs. Pelosi's first actions were to introduce legislation to stop the President from enacting travel ban:

GOP leaders call on Pelosi to pull travel ban bill over coronavirus

GOP leaders call on Pelosi to pull travel ban bill over coronavirus

3/10/2020 House Republican leaders are calling on Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to pull a bill that would rescind President Trump’s controversial travel ban, arguing it could hinder the administration’s ability to limit the number of individuals entering the U.S. from countries that have faced widespread outbreaks of coronavirus.

Not only was she not doing anything about the virus - she was actively promoting legislation to stop actions that helped limit the virus.

 

[Yttrium]

I doubt a Democrat (or another Republican) would have handled things better, outside of attitude. Anybody would have underestimated the virus, but most wouldn't have been so publicly dismissive as "15 to 0".

This is a really sneaky and fast-spreading disease. It took a long time to figure out just how insidious it is, and we're still a long ways from fully figuring it out. I don't blame Trump for how fast it spread across the US over the first several months. However, I won't mind blaming Trump if he botches or actively sabotages the work to keep the hospitals from being overloaded.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

There's a few different premises floating around in the social ether...

One I agree with, the other I reject...

The one I agree with: "Trump waited too late to act on the situation"

The one I disagree with: "This could've all been prevented if we only had a real leader in office instead of Trump" (the implication that if one of voices from the democratic party had been in the 'big chair', they would've acted sooner and things would've been prevented from getting as out of hand as they've become)

Given that Cuomo, DeBlasio, Gov. Edwards of Louisiana, and Pelosi (while now all critical of presidential inaction) also downplayed the virus through late-Feb/early-March - (and both Sanders and Biden rejected the first round of travel restrictions in late-Jan), is there any evidence to suggest that earlier action would've been taken if one of those folks were in the 'big chair' in January or February?

My personal viewpoint is that we would've dropped the ball no matter which party was in power...as the list of governors who actually took quick action is a rather short list that includes Newson, DeWine, and a select few others. And even the ones who acted the soonest (when given full authority to decide when to do it) opted to wait until early-March to issue the orders.

It would seem that nobody on either side was willing to pull the trigger on a shutdown order (which they knew could have other detrimental effects) prior to March - and understandably so as obviously doing so comes with complications. Even Fauci was saying in late-Feb...

View attachment 277578

...when other experts had suggested earlier social distancing requirements, but only by a week or two.

Are there any indicators to suggest that some of the popular voices in the democratic party would've been issuing stay-at-home orders on Feb 15th if they were in the hot seat? (apart from 'hindsight is 20/20' types of comments that they've provided)

I’ve never seen it as a Republican vs Democrat thing. I think anyone — literally anyone — would have responded to the crisis with the type of sober resolve that is needed in a time of crisis, anyone other than Donald Trump.

His faults that make him wholly unsuitable to lead the country through this are just too many to list and we’ve been over all of them before.

I see no empathy. I see no connection to the reality of the crisis from the president. He never came out of politics mode and into leadership mode to guide the country to recovery and I don’t think I even see any desire to do so from him. He seems to think he can just encourage the states to open up and that will be enough for the economy to rebound in time and he can call it a victory.

It’s not a Republican or Democrat problem because both Republican and Democratic governors have shown leadership throughout this crisis. It’s a Donald Trump problem.

 

[timothyu]

The very fact that governments took their lead from the CDC and the WHO (not the band known only as WHO) shows the real powers that are running the show globally. Governments are subservient. It's funny how people talk of a one world government as if it is still a thing of the future because they are too blind to see what has been built slowly all around them.

So the question might be better asked if the globalists had not run the pandemic would things have been done differently? Consider that today it was announced that the billionaires who have been allowed to remain operational (think am*zon) have become 434 billion dollars richer during the pandemic while competative small businesses have been wiped off the face of the earth by lockdowns. Who benefits and who loses? Would a democrat have made any difference when they too work for the elite?

 

[ZNP]

There's a few different premises floating around in the social ether...

One I agree with, the other I reject...

The one I agree with: "Trump waited too late to act on the situation"

The one I disagree with: "This could've all been prevented if we only had a real leader in office instead of Trump"

1. The only thing that could have been different would have been how many people were dead at this point in the US. They had no control over it leaving China, no control over it spreading to 100+ countries.
2. No one knows that instituting a lockdown 2 weeks or a month earlier would have made a big difference in the long run. Yes there would be fewer deaths at this point, but if that were the case the howls and screams to reopen the country would have been that much louder and more fervent. So if we had had a lockdown Feb 15 and then reopened April 24, the death from a careless month from April 24-May24 would have been significantly worse than a careless month from Feb15 to March 15.

 

[variant]

I would have preferred almost any political figure besides Trump who has decided to make this very political, and mostly about him.

 

[Tanj]

There's a few different premises floating around in the social ether...

One I agree with, the other I reject...

The one I agree with: "Trump waited too late to act on the situation"

The one I disagree with: "This could've all been prevented if we only had a real leader in office instead of Trump" (the implication that if one of voices from the democratic party had been in the 'big chair', they would've acted sooner and things would've been prevented from getting as out of hand as they've become)

Given that Cuomo, DeBlasio, Gov. Edwards of Louisiana, and Pelosi (while now all critical of presidential inaction) also downplayed the virus through late-Feb/early-March - (and both Sanders and Biden rejected the first round of travel restrictions in late-Jan), is there any evidence to suggest that earlier action would've been taken if one of those folks were in the 'big chair' in January or February?

My personal viewpoint is that we would've dropped the ball no matter which party was in power...as the list of governors who actually took quick action is a rather short list that includes Newson, DeWine, and a select few others. And even the ones who acted the soonest (when given full authority to decide when to do it) opted to wait until early-March to issue the orders.

It would seem that nobody on either side was willing to pull the trigger on a shutdown order (which they knew could have other detrimental effects) prior to March - and understandably so as obviously doing so comes with complications. Even Fauci was saying in late-Feb...

View attachment 277578

...when other experts had suggested earlier social distancing requirements, but only by a week or two.

Are there any indicators to suggest that some of the popular voices in the democratic party would've been issuing stay-at-home orders on Feb 15th if they were in the hot seat? (apart from 'hindsight is 20/20' types of comments that they've provided)

Not that important right now Rob. The whole point of stay at home is the hold back the patient surge until you can put in place systemic, country level test/track/quarantine. Without that, any kind of lock down is simply delaying the inevitable. This isn't an issue of republican or democrat, although yes there's a whole bunch of blame you could throw at both sides, this is about the unique utter continuing lack of anything even remotely approaching leadership by the impotent buffoon you elected president.

As this opinion piece point out:
The one vital message of nearing 100,000 US deaths (opinion) - CNN

On this somber Memorial Day weekend, America is approaching the grim milestone of 100,000 Covid-19 deaths in a population of 330 million. Six Asia-Pacific nations -- Australia, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Taiwan and Vietnam -- have just over 1,200 coronavirus deaths in a combined population almost the same as the US, 328 million. On May 23, the Johns Hopkins coronavirus tracker shows that America recorded 1,208 new deaths, while the six Asia-Pacific countries recorded just 13 deaths: 12 in Japan, 1 in Australia, and 0 in the others.
...
The American political system has not been focused on how to end the epidemic. Our political debates from the first days of the epidemic have taken the bait of Donald Trump's nonsensical Twitter feed: chloroquine, Clorox, China pro and con, WHO pro and con, filling church pews by Easter, the liberation of states, the bailout of the post office, the loyalty of Fox News, and whether or not to wear a face mask at the Ford Motor plant. This is not the politics of problem solving; it is the politics of distraction.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Actually, Trump is the only president to ever use conspiracy theory culture as a form of reasoning. The main failure of the current administration was the lack of immediate action due to the perception that it was fake news.

So if Trump's motivation to not take action was conspiracy (which I wouldn't disagree with you on)

What was the motivation on the part of Cuomo and DeBlasio to down play it? What was the motivation of Pelosi to encourage her peeps to come out and attend a large gathering in Chinatown in her city in late February

What was the governor of Louisiana's motivation for moving forward with Mardi Gras celebrations and gatherings?

While none of it was conspiracy fear-mongering...it certainly doesn't sound like they were taking it very seriously either.

 

[mark46]

I think it's ridiculous to suggest that Democrats would have acted sooner, since the delayed responses on this thing were international. When Italy started shutting things down in late February, the entire world watched in shock, not just the United States. The WHO waited weeks longer than they should have to declare the pandemic, so the ball was effectively dropped globally, not just here.

I do think the Democrats would have handled things better once everyone realized that there actually was a crisis, but that was late March. It would have already been too late.

More nonsense.

The WHO warned everyone many times in January. The genome of the virus was distributed. In early January, there was no evidence of person to person spread (since that fact was being hidden by China). However, by the 3rd week, this was all clear.

Italy's response was an absolute disaster. Why should the US have been shocked when they acted in late February, when almost all the Asian countries had already strongly responded. The evidence was there for Japan to act. The evidence was there for South Korea to act. The evidence was there for Taiwan to act. The evidence was there for Hong Kong to act. The deaths in these countries have been minimal. This is also true for Australia and New Zealand. although I'm not sure when they acted.

So, would Democrats in power have proudly dismantled the organizations and fired the people who deal with epidemics. Probably not. Only Trump could say that they weren't needed, and could be hired when needed. Only an anti-science Trump could ignore all the January warnings, and then all the February warnings. And, just BTW, the travel bans were NOT the key containment actions needed, although they would aha helped if Trump had done ANYTHING to try to contain the virus. He chose to wait until Mid-March to initiate a partial m mitigation strategy without enough supplies, tests or personnel.
=====
Trump was told that the best one would get from the stay at home strategy was 100K -200K deaths, as long as the policy was followed. He promised that even the 60K later strategy would never be reached.
And now, ALL the Republican state have significantly opened. The activities of theie citizens is within 5% of what it was a year ago. They listen and follow the president. We don't know what a Democratic president would have done. We do know what trump has done.

 

[Silmarien]

The WHO warned everyone many times in January. The genome of the virus was distributed. In early January, there was no evidence of person to person spread (since that fact was being hidden by China). However, by the 3rd week, this was all clear.

I'm not talking about January. I'm talking about March. The WHO waited until March 11 to declare it a pandemic, well after it had already spread to multiple continents. If that had even come a week earlier, the crisis in Spain might have been less severe, since they might have freaked out earlier and cancelled parades.

Everyone (or at least everyone in the West) was slow to act when it came to really taking this seriously, not just the United States. That's not nonsense. It's fact.

Italy's response was an absolute disaster. Why should the US have been shocked when they acted in late February, when almost all the Asian countries had already strongly responded. The evidence was there for Japan to act. The evidence was there for South Korea to act. The evidence was there for Taiwan to act. The evidence was there for Hong Kong to act. The deaths in these countries have been minimal. This is also true for Australia and New Zealand. although I'm not sure when they acted.

Italy's response may or may not have been a complete disaster... I'm not going to judge. I do think that everyone in the West was shocked, though. That shutdown was basically unprecedented.

I do agree that South Korea acted well, though. I just don't see any of the measures that were taken in Asian countries going over well in any Western country.

So, would Democrats in power have proudly dismantled the organizations and fired the people who deal with epidemics. Probably not. Only Trump could say that they weren't needed, and could be hired when needed. Only an anti-science Trump could ignore all the January warnings, and then all the February warnings. And, just BTW, the travel bans were NOT the key containment actions needed, although they would aha helped if Trump had done ANYTHING to try to contain the virus. He chose to wait until Mid-March to initiate a partial m mitigation strategy without enough supplies, tests or personnel.

I'm a Democrat, not a Trump supporter. I'm not defending his actions, which I think were atrocious. I just don't buy into the narrative that if the Democrats had been in charge, we would have somehow taken fast, decisive action when literally no other country in the West did.

I doubly don't buy into it because I live in New York. I got to watch as the Democrats did nothing for two weeks, so I don't see any reason to believe that if they'd been in charge of the whole country, things would have magically gotten done sooner.

The situation would've been handled better, certainly, in the same way that it's been handled better in Democratic than Republican states, but before the end of March? I doubt it.

 

[Hank77]

1. The only thing that could have been different would have been how many people were dead at this point in the US. They had no control over it leaving China, no control over it spreading to 100+ countries.

True

2. No one knows that instituting a lockdown 2 weeks or a month earlier would have made a big difference in the long run. Yes there would be fewer deaths at this point, but if that were the case the howls and screams to reopen the country would have been that much louder and more fervent. So if we had had a lockdown Feb 15 and then reopened April 24, the death from a careless month from April 24-May24 would have been significantly worse than a careless month from Feb15 to March 15.

How about no nationwide lockdown at all?
If we had started testing, contact tracing, and isolating every time there was a case discovered from the very beginning we may have contained it to small areas where that area might have to lockdown for a very short time or maybe not at all. NYC still would have been a big problem but not as bad as it became.

 

[ZNP]

True

How about no nationwide lockdown at all?
If we had started testing, contact tracing, and isolating every time there was a case discovered from the very beginning we may have contained it to small areas where that area might have to lockdown for a very short time or maybe not at all. NYC still would have been a big problem but not as bad as it became.

Consider Taiwan, no one has done a better job. But now they have to literally quarantine every person coming into the country. The world's economy is still going to be markedly down. And until there is a cure that eradicates this they will have to continue. Perhaps they cushioned the economic blow and the health care blow, but in the end it isn't clear if it will make any difference at all.

 

[hedrick]

You can never know for sure. But it does appear that Trump failed to put a serious leader in charge in the early days. As a result, while the CDC and others were working, it was a typical bureaucratic mess. It’s not unreasonable to suspect that this is connected with his consistent minimization of the seriousness. I think most other leaders would have been more willing to accept scientific judgements. You’d hope that this would have resulted in a competent high level leader being put in charge in January or early February. They might or might not have put restrictions in place earlier, but at least they would have started working through the playbook and put together PPE and testing.

Better testing might have revealed that the virus was in wide circulation, so that we didn’t wait for deaths before we did anything. Because the CDC did their best to stop states from doing their own testing, this also resulted in states being too slow.

Another leader would also not be undermining state leadership now by encouraging protests and violations of restrictions. The president won’t always agree with every governor, but trying to undermine them is unacceptable. We’ve become so used to Trump that outrageous conduct no longer outrages us.

but you can never prove what would have happened.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I think the bigger differences would’ve been in the the swiftness and efficiency of the cabinet departments and their subordinate agencies, and how well they could have coordinated with each other, with the White House, and with the states. Trump is just a bad manager and his administration is well known for being a dysfunctional mess with a ton of turnover and a prioritization of loyalty over competence. Many departments are on their 2nd or 3rd (or more) secretary in < 4 years; and stories have come out about significant delays in action even after problems have been revealed.

As @GoldenBoy89 said, I see this as less of a D vs R thing than a Trump vs Anybody Else thing. There are plenty of Republicans whom I think would’ve done a perfectly decent job of handling this.

 

[Hank77]

I do agree that South Korea acted well, though. I just don't see any of the measures that were taken in Asian countries going over well in any Western country.

Opinion piece published April 28, 2020

More than 20,000 people have died from the coronavirus in each of these European countries: France, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. More than 17,000 have died in New York City.

Germany — which is home to more people than any one of those other European countries and 10 times as many as New York — only about 6,000 have died.

How could that be? There are multiple reasons, but the biggest is probably the country’s approach to testing.

As Katrin Bennhold of The Times has written:

By the time Germany recorded its first case of Covid-19 in February, laboratories across the country had built up a stock of test kits … Early and widespread testing has allowed the authorities to slow the spread of the pandemic by isolating known cases while they are infectious. It has also enabled lifesaving treatment to be administered in a more timely way.

 

[Silmarien]

Opinion piece published April 28, 2020

More than 20,000 people have died from the coronavirus in each of these European countries: France, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. More than 17,000 have died in New York City.

Germany — which is home to more people than any one of those other European countries and 10 times as many as New York — only about 6,000 have died.

How could that be? There are multiple reasons, but the biggest is probably the country’s approach to testing.

As Katrin Bennhold of The Times has written:

By the time Germany recorded its first case of Covid-19 in February, laboratories across the country had built up a stock of test kits … Early and widespread testing has allowed the authorities to slow the spread of the pandemic by isolating known cases while they are infectious. It has also enabled lifesaving treatment to be administered in a more timely way.

Yeah, I'm aware. I've been following the situation in Europe more closely than the situation in the United States, since that's where most of my media comes from. And I was still hoping to salvage my travel plans at the beginning of March.

Germany reacted pretty well, though as far as I'm aware, they don't have the sort of invasive technological surveillance measures that really kept things under control in parts of Asia.

The Democrats wouldn't have been able to react anywhere near as well as Germany, though, since Germany has the advantage of a functional healthcare system. I don't see how mass testing could've ever worked here, given the medical costs involved. If the Democrats had been in office and had managed to push through universal healthcare, maybe, but that seems like a pipe dream.