htbrown wrote:
I am not an expert in the field. However, if I were placed in that unenviable position, I would:
1) Not have gutted our pandemic response team and cut funding for the CDC
2) Listen to what the experts say
3) Widen testing dramatically, the way they did in South Korea. In South Korea they were able to contain COVID by aggressive testing and appropriate handling of those infected. Contrast that to Italy where testing was curtailed for fear of its impact on tourism. Now the whole country is locked down.
4) Worry more about how this will affect most Americans and less about how it will affect the stock market and shale oil producers. I think it's noteworthy that the administration's point man for talking to the Speaker of the House about a coordinated response is the Treasury secretary. It tells you what this administrations priorities are.
But now I've veered into politics, about which I am also no expert, so I'll shut up.
I am not an expert in the field. However, if I we... (
show quote)
Great ideas htbrown. Here is what I know regarding your suggestions. Food for thought.
1) It’s thus true that the Trump administration axed the executive branch team responsible for coordinating a response to a pandemic and did not replace it, eliminating Rear Adm. Timothy Ziemer’s position and reassigning others, although John Bolton was the executive at the top of the National Security Council chain of command at the time and did the firing. It has been reported that President “Trump also cut funding for the CDC, forcing the CDC to cancel its efforts to help countries prevent infectious-disease threats from becoming epidemics in 39 of 49 countries in 2018 - not the USA budget. Should we taxpayers be paying for research and training, and supplies, and administration in other countries? I think not, so for me, this was a good decision and what he was elected to do - reduce the size and cost or our government.
In addition, the elimination of this executive team did not prevent us from mounting preparedness efforts for this threat, and the president appointed an executive team, composed of medical experts, to lead our efforts within two months of the outbreak in China.
2) The difficulty here is which "experts" to listen to and heed their advice and suggestions. With the "experts" advice and recommendations all over the map, which ones are correct? Most of they hype regarding who was/is correct, and whose recommendations should be implemented, seem to revolve around politics. We should not fault anyone for listening to the "experts" and making up their own minds regarding what actions to take and when.
3) Much of the issue with testing involves the lab capacity for conducting the tests. When you have limited resources, and many priorities, which priority do you choose? And then, how do you respond when the other priorities complain that they are being ignored? For example, flu testing versus COVID-19 testing? If all our resources were prioritized to addressing OCVID-19, and the numbers of deaths and infections due to flu continued to increase, would you be blamed for the flu deaths, especially those that ere children and babies? These are difficult decisions to make for any leader.
4) Consider what would happen to America and the world should our economy fail? I hear folks complain about the concerns over the stock market, but did you remember that the vast majority of Americans have their retirement savings in the stock market? What happens to their future life during retirement when they have nothing left because of the stock market crash? If our economy fails, how do we pay for anything related to COVID-19 response? Keeping the economy strong is a major responsibility of our government leaders. Each citizen, as well as the world, depends upon it.
Daryl